We lost a fine gentleman Harry Browne 1933-2006

Sadly, Harry Browne, twice presidential candidate of the Libertarian Party, died Wednesday night, March 1st, 2006.

I can remember my initial impression of Harry Browne. I first met him, and his wife Pamela, at a reception at the 1996 Libertarian Party convention, before he won the nomination of the party. Tall and white-haired, Browne could have easily been a cold, aloof and imposing figure, but any fear of that was gone in a flash, replaced by my unspoken thought "pleasant gentleman". Our chat was made easy because both Harry and Pamela seemed honestly interested in meeting me and learning more about me. I was completely charmed by them.

Lest you believe I was bewitched by normal political charm... I later had occasions to spend more time with them, and my first impression was not even slightly wrong. Harry was, along with many other good attributes, a charming, gracious man, and always easily accessible.

I was the organizer for the Minnesota state conventions for several years, and had Browne as a speaker twice. In 1998, between campaigns, his theme was "It's a great time to be a Libertarian". After his keynote speech and question period, he spontaneously stayed on stage and held a fundraising drive for our state party. Pamela accompanied Harry on many of his campaign trips. When I checked the room list of speakers rooms, I noticed that Harry had reserved a smoking room, even though he was a non-smoker. While chatting with them, I asked him why. Very quickly, he responded that they liked to burn incense during lovemaking. Pamela blushed intensely. I know that the real reason was that he wanted guests of theirs to have the choice of whether or not to smoke.

In April of 2000, during the period leading up to the 2000 national convention, Harry was able, at the last minute, to attend our state convention, joining two other candidates for the nomination, Gary Nolan and Barry Hess. With a full program of 8 speakers already, I scheduled Browne to speak at the luncheon on day two. One of our members was to meet Harry at the airport arrival gate and drive him to the convention site at Mystic Lake, just in time to speak. I was waiting impatiently for the two of them to arrive. Many people had traveled to our convention just to hear Browne, and our schedule was packed, with no time to spare.

Just about the time I was beginning to tear hair, in walked our transportation man... without Harry Browne. They had completely missed each other in the airport. Amidst our confused madness, about 10 minutes into trying to rework the schedule, in walked Harry. He had grabbed a cab and gotten there on his own, and was ready to speak. Not even slightly shaken, he said he had a good chat with the Somali cab driver, then proceeded on to delight our luncheon audience.

A presidential campaign is a grueling affair, and extremely so for a candidate whose party has limited resources with which to help. Harry posted web notes during his campaigns (it would now be a blog) and I was astounded at the schedule and pace of his effort. His notes were always interesting, including self-criticism about how he wished he had responded to a particular question. I watched his campaigns carefully, and it was truly amazing how quickly he became able to succinctly and professionally answer questions, and to even control hostile interviews. He became the darling of radio talk shows with his witty, informed and always respectful discussion.

Harry Browne was a splendid representative of the Libertarian Party. He influenced many people, both outside and inside the party. It was a privilege to have known him, and his loss leaves a very large vacant space within the libertarian movement.

Libertarian Party Mourns the Loss of Beloved Candidate, Author, and Friend

Harry Browne, R.I.P.

Radio-Show Excerpts, Speeches, & Interviews by Harry Browne

Compassion by using Force?

(reprinted from 8/20/03)

I want to address an idea that is widespread in our nation.

The idea is -that it's an act of compassion to favor a
government program intended to help others.

For the most part, humans naturally care about others. Libertarians believe that to be true, or we would not be willing to trust others to do what they want. Americans in particular have demonstrated their charity magnanimously, through good times and tough times, by voluntarily contributing money and volunteer work.

I've written about how much more effective private charities are than government programs; there is quite literally no comparison. Government programs are unbelievably ineffective at getting help to those who need it. Such programs also harm private efforts, by taking resources better spent privately, and by luring those in need away from private charities that could more effectively help them.

Even more importantly, "giving" through government programs is not an act of compassion. It is an act of FORCE, and the unintended consequences of such acts will always result in harm done to others. Even if an act of force helps some, it's destructive results will harm others to a greater extent. Every government welfare program uses tax money. Taxes adversely impact every citizen. Make no mistake... each government welfare program raises taxes enough so that it's certain that it pushes some people over the edge from self-sufficiency into poverty. That is not compassionate ... it's a natural result of the use of force.

An act cannot be considered compassionate unless it is voluntary. If you're a Christian, consider your beliefs... voluntarism is basic to Christian religions. Christians believe in an omnipotent God who could have made acts of charity compulsory, but did not. If force were an appropriate way of solving a problem, wouldn't that be taught as part of Christianity? Force is neither effective nor is it compassionate, yet millions who claim to be religious support forced giving through government programs.

I am often disgusted by the sight and sound of activists pushing for a public program... disgusted because it is obvious what they are really doing. Typically, I see prosperous individuals vocally and pompously promoting a government program to help the "underprivileged". Such people must be bright enough to realize what they're actually pushing for. They must know that government programs don't work well... they must know that they're forcing their will on others, and they must know that the results will not be what they claim to be promoting.

I condemn such people for choosing to ignore the truth. It's not that they don't care, but that they choose to defile their genuine concern with uncaring means. Using the banner of caring compassion, they flaunt their pretense, and pat each other on the backs for their "good works". They praise each other publicly, honor each other, and righteously condemn those who "don't care enough" to support the same programs.

What such people are really doing is trying to absolve themselves of personal responsibility for helping others. By making a public spectacle of promoting institutional programs, they can tell themselves that they're helping, when in fact, most of them want nothing at all to do with the actual people in need... they don't want to deal with the needy on a personal basis.

They deceive, perhaps even themselves, claiming that they are doing more good by promoting programs that will act on a more massive scale than they could achieve on a personal level.

There is no act of compassion that begins to compare with one individual helping another. I believe we all know that.

When we help someone individually, we expect the one we're helping to put forth serious effort toward helping themselves. If they don't, we may justifiably withdraw our help, and perhaps give it instead to someone who will make more of it. To do otherwise is to sacrifice worthy recipients to the unworthy. Government programs don't distinguish, because they are based on need with no control over results.

When we choose to help someone individually, we are able to see and take satisfaction from the positive results of our help, and the recipient can appreciate that you care enough to personally help. That's a great result for both the giver and the recipient... it's life-affirming... it's win-win. Because government programs are force, and bureaucratic, both sides lose, and they are invisible to each other.

Recently, we've seen the inclusion of faith-based programs in government funding. Completely aside from the question of constitutionality, there are two problems with their inclusion:

Again, it's ludicrous for religious programs to ever seek tax money... to use force to achieve their goals.

It's not the basis of faith that makes such programs successful, it's the fact that they're private, usually local, and voluntary. Private organizations that have no religious basis are equally effective.

The idea of a government program that forces us to help others is similar to a war waged to produce peace. Force will always produce more destruction than assistance. If we really care for others, we must stop using force, and return to the only kind of acts that can be compassionate.

On the ragged edge

No, this ragged edge is not about government dragging us to the brink of total war, but it IS about politics. It is about what free people SHOULD be able to attend to, rather than having to concern ourselves with loss of liberty and hatred of our nation's foreign policy. This is about beauty and individual achievement, both delightful parts of the human existence that can easily become overwhelmed by the ugliness of politics. This is the stuff that gives me the fuel to continue the political battle that I so wish were unneccessary. This is what I would LOVE to write about instead.

Most of us have never pushed our abilities to their absolute limits and tried to publicly perform them at that level. Doing so requires far more than skill... it requires marvelous mental performance... an almost impossible combination of confidence and concentration, yet all that must be taken almost to a non-conscious level.

The greatest performances are those right on the ragged edge of loss of control, and it takes great courage to push right up to that edge. For an athletic performance, the slightest error can result in immediate injury. It should be no surprise that occasionally a performer will fail when the goal is coming as close to failure as possible.

For me, figure skating, particularly by women, has been the best example of such performance; it combines exceptional grace and coordination with great athletic ability. Watching a skater perform near her own limit, whatever that might be, is a thrill. Tuesday night, the Olympic short program performances were wonderful. Young American Emily Hughes had one of those performances... just as good as she could do, and she was proud. Whether she ends up medaling or not, she deserves to be very proud.

After several other fine skaters, the last performer of the evening appeared, Sasha Cohen, a cute little brunette waif. She was expected to do well, but, according to the commentators, she had long been expected to do well, but often hadn't... flashes of real brilliance, but inconsistent. I thought Sasha was Russian while she was skating, but I really didn't care what nation she represented.

Sasha had me enthralled and emotionally involved with her every move. She came out of every jump with a defiant look on her face that quietly said "I nailed that and there was no doubt in my mind that I would". It was the sort of performance that memories are made of. It was one of those fleeting moments of brilliance.

---

Since writing the previous paragraphs, the ladies have skated again, in the long program, and Sasha did not skate again with the same perfection. She fell once, and almost again.

Shizuka Arakawa of Japan won with a clean but conservative skate. Sasha won the silver medal and Irina Slutskaya of Russia, who also skated at less than her best, was the bronze medalist. Going into the long program, Sasha and Irina were in a virtual tie, with Shizuka in third.

Pushing performance to the ragged edge always carries a significant chance of failure, but it also produces great moments of beauty. I won't forget Sasha's short program... for me, it's far more important than the final results of the competition. It WAS the most memorable moment of the competition. For a mere three minutes, Sasha (and the other skaters) gave me respite from the ugliness of the world, and demonstrated just how magnificent individual human achievement can be... the absolute antithesis of politics.