Liberty Blog

I tried to blink away the sleep, which should have been easier given the FBI agents from the Philadelphia field office standing a few feet in front of me. 

The year was 2016, and I was working as a bottom-level defense contractor out of a facility on the East Coast, and we were being briefed on an array of threats foreign and domestic. Campaign season was in full swing, and we were told the presidency was either going to be hacked or stolen by a covert cabal. Terms that I dealt with on a daily basis - like “sensitive compartmented information facility” - were suddenly being thrown around by anyone and everyone. This election, we were told, would be the most important of our lives.

To that point in my life, I had always considered myself a supporter of the broadly-defined concept of “freedom.” Born in Willow Grove, Pennsylvania, I’d eventually experienced everything from the individualist, limited government society in small-town Montana to life in the aftermath of post-Soviet Eastern Europe. Having seen the degradation caused by collectivism and its authoritarian implementation, I wanted to make sure America never suffered the same fate. 

Since freedom can be lost so easily, I thought that winning control was the only thing that mattered. 

Years earlier, at a sprawling vegetable farm near the banks of the Delaware River, I’d attended my first presidential campaign rally. The aging Marshall Tucker Band played some hits. Speeches were made about how America deserved better. In those carefully staged moments, with their elevated emotions, it’s easy for people to believe that we can simply use executive and legislative action to reverse harmful trends. Pundits and podcasters told me that as long as the right candidate won, the country would get back on track. At the time, I believed them.

The 2016 election seemed like an ideal opportunity to expand freedom. While foreign trade and immigration were important to me, I didn’t want an interventionist foreign policy. At home, I was worried about the steady encroachment of constitutional rights. Freedom of speech was under attack, the criminal justice system seemed broken, and even people’s ability to defend themselves was being questioned. Free-spending government threatened our ability to use our own earnings in the ways we wanted. With problems these big, national elections seemed like the only chance to make a difference.

My mistake was to believe that the power of the federal government could be harnessed for “good.” In fact, the stakes are so high precisely because coercive force is how the government operates.

The giant pendulum swung that year, with Pennsylvania playing a key role. The Republican Party, claiming to have a popular mandate, was back in the driver’s seat. But rather than stabilize, the momentum began to swing the other way. The new ruling party began to wield Big Government to accomplish its own agenda- repeating the same usurpations as their predecessors. When voted out of power two years later, their lawmakers gave lip service to freedom and responsibility but only seemed to focus on consolidating their own fiefdoms.

With my company shifting my role to support for foreign militaries with a record of corruption and involvement in dirty wars, I found new work outside the defense industry. With a fresh start and newfound perspective, an unavoidable truth emerged:

Between infringements on fundamental rights, massive expenditures. and the increasing frequency of deadly force, neither party embraced freedom. 

The silver lining of a tumultuous 2020 has been the revelation of just how powerful governments at the local and regional level in Pennsylvania really are. Businesses were arbitrarily shuttered by executive decrees which forced many out of work. Special interest groups closed classrooms, setting students back while placing incredible burdens on parents. Protests against injustice were suppressed while private property was left defenseless. Behind the scenes, the political duopoly was ruthlessly pursuing control over elections. After their perceived interference in 2016, Pennsylvania Democrats moved to eliminate third parties on the ballot. Republicans were also intent on kicking their competition off the ballot. 

Many others like myself have come to recognize what the French economist Fredric Bastiat succinctly stated in 1850: “Since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force - for the same reason - cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.”

Everyone can make an impact for liberty right at home in Montgomery County.

For too long, Pennsylvanians have been presented with a false dichotomy. While both sides of the two party system claim to be building a better world, the methods they adopt only serve to restrict individual liberty. Disenchanted with that system, I found out there was another choice. There was a name for those core principles I believed: Libertarian. I hadn’t known there was a rich intellectual tradition for liberty, and a wide network of people working to advance it. My studies also showed me just how extensive the issues facing the state were. I knew I had to do something.

When I found the Montgomery County Libertarians, a new door was opened. Here were opportunities to advocate for freedom, support ballot access, and support Libertarian candidates. I found a bottom-up, grassroots organization where each individual’s actions can have a real world impact. The 2920 elections saw record turnouts for Libertarian candidates across the state. In a commonwealth where local decisions are intended to drive community measures, a Pennsylvanian liberty movement is growing. 

Walking away from the two party system isn’t always a straight path. But the destination - and the journey- are immensely rewarding.

Josh Marcinik is a relative newcomer to the Montgomery County Libertarians and welcomes to chance to advance individual freedoms at the local level. He currently works as a technology manager and educator in the Greater Philadelphia region. His areas of interests include defense, criminal justice, and urban planning.