Caryn Ann Harlos: ‘Find what you love, and let it kill you’

Caryn Ann Harlos, libertarian, libertarian national committee, libertarian party, interview, libertopia

Libertopia cartoons recently had the privilege to talk with the creative and talented Caryn Ann Harlos, the Region 1 Representative of the Libertarian National Committee (amongst many other things, which can be read about in more detail below). As well as a unique and influential voice within the libertarian community as a whole, Caryn has also been known to visit our growing community here at Libertopia on more than one occasion. She was also recently a guest on the Tom Woods Show (Ep. 844), in which she discussed where the Libertarian Party is today, and where it might be going in the future. So we hope you’ll enjoy this exclusive interview, and find out how people just like you are out there making a positive difference in a wide variety of ways!

Thanks for talking with us Caryn! To start with, could you tell us a little bit about your involvement as a libertarian?

I am the Region 1 Representative on the Libertarian National Committee representing Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming as well the Communications Director for the Libertarian Party of Colorado and Colorado State Coordinator for the Libertarian Party Radical Caucus. What motivates me? A deep and abiding conviction that this is the right solution for humanity that honours each person’s inherent rights and will lead to the greatest human potential and prosperity. I have come to earnestly believe that the initiation of force and abandonment of natural rights is inherently wrong and wish to see it eliminated as much as can be achieved. I most enjoy speaking with other people and seeing the light bulb go off as it did to me, and in assisting other libertarians in spreading the word.

Continue reading…

23 thoughts on “Caryn Ann Harlos: ‘Find what you love, and let it kill you’

  1. Carol Moore

    Harlos: “I was previously in a very bad and controlling marriage and involved in a pretty fundamentalistic Christian church that did not equip me to deal with getting out of such a situation. But when I started to break free of that, it really opened the flood-gate for libertarian and liberal ideas without me realizing that is what they were, and my views started changing out of that more rigid mindset and ideas. During that time I became much more “liberalized” in my faith and views and disillusioned with nationalism and the mixing of politics and religion..”

    All she has to do is cut promoting her anti-abortion and “get rid of the abortion plank” views and she will have transcended COMPLETELY the christian mindfuck that enslaved her for so long. And which she promoted at the time by guilt-tripping other women about their abortions… Time to get back to being pro-choice like she was when she had her two abortions, before she became “born again”…

  2. Andy

    “All she has to do is cut promoting her anti-abortion and ‘get rid of the abortion plank’ views and she will have transcended COMPLETELY the christian mindfuck that enslaved her for so long. And which she promoted at the time by guilt-tripping other women about their abortions… Time to get back to being pro-choice like she was when she had her two abortions, before she became “born again”…”

    The Libertarian Party and movement has always been split on the issue of abortion. Caryn does not have to change anything on this issue to be a libertarian.

    It is rather absurd to base whether or not one is a libertarian on an issue that is as hotly contested in libertarian circles as abortion is. Libertarians have been arguing about this issue for decades, and it is not likely to end anytime soon.

    I really don’t care that much where a candidate stands of abortion.

    Here’s what I could see happening with abortion in an anarcho-capitalist society. It would likely become obsolete through scientific innovation, and/or more money available for private charities. A stronger economy could also reduce the demand for abortion.

    If it were not made obsolete, in the absence of the guns of the state protecting abortionists, I could see a war break out between vigilante pro-lifers and abortion doctors. Vigilante pro-lifers could start engaging in violence against abortion doctors. The abortion doctors would have to hire bodyguards (since government police would not exist in an anarcho-capitalist society). If there were an anarcho-capitalist court that could bring the parties to trial, it would go to fully informed juries. One pro-choicer on a jury could vote to not convict an abortion doctor, and one pro-lifer on a jury could vote to not convict a pro-life vigilante. So the battle between abortionists and pro-life vigilantes would not likely be settled in courts with fully informed juries (as in juries who were informed about the right of jury nullification), so long as the public remains so divided on the issue.

    The most likely scenario is that medical science and/or private charity and/or a stronger economy would make abortion obsolete, or at least rare as compared to now.

  3. Carol Moore

    She may not have to change her view to be a “Libertarian” but if she wants to position herself as a “pure” “radical” “anarchist” “taxation is theft” libertarian she has to cut the “get rid of the abortion plank/keep govt out of the issue” crap or those who disagree will continue to mock her efforts.

    Also, if she’s a Christian anti-abortionist, why does she boast about promoting “sex positive” ideas? Doesn’t she know sex positive girls who have lots of sex get pregnant?

    And if she’s a Christian why does she declare that flashing her boobs at guys is an example of her “using what she’s got” to get what she wants? I know Jesus allegedly saved the alleged prostitute Mary Magdalene (or did he marry her and make her his heir?), but I don’t think Christians support using your boobs to succeed politically.
    See end of interview: https://soundcloud.com/kenny-the-wizard/wizardly-wisdom-reality-anxiety-ep-6-caryn-ann-harlos

    Not christian and not feminist and barely libertarian.

    I hope Ms. Harlos doesn’t adopt your wacked out allegedly “anarcho-capitalist” view of the issue as her preferred solution. But we’ll be paying attention. (And note the the Republican has pushed this issue for political reasons and you are just showing yourself a dupe of their propaganda. If they ever decided a pro-choice base was preferable, they’d totally drop the issue.)

    Otherwise, eventually NOT hearing Ms. Harlos opine on abortion or see her trying to get the plank removed would stop the constant comments on Ms. Harlos opportunism and the abortion issue. (Maybe by 2022?)

    However, if she wants to speed up that process she might make a clear statement that she no longer wants to get rid of the “keep the govt out of the abortion issue” from the LP plank. And that she does not want to bring in a lot of Christian anti-abortionists to the party (per her 4 plus hour podcast of LP outreach to Christian conservatives in August 2016). (Oh, and maybe that she doesn’t think shooting abortion doctors and bringing it to court is a great idea?) Otherwise pro-choicer women and their allies who want the state out of our bodies must assume the worst.

  4. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Hi Andy thanks your comments. I do think technology may make most of the issue obsolete, and I do not think violence would erupt- violence is costly and while you may think juries would be hopelessly deadlocked, enough people would not be that the violence would Darwin-award the violent out of existence.

    Technology and education is the answer here. Particularly technological innovations in birth control. Violence is never the answer from anyone. But I am also a personal pacifist.

  5. Andy

    Caryn, I was not implying that you would engage in “vigilante justice” against abortion doctors, not was i implying that a majorty of anti-abortion people would, but a small minority of people may do this in the abcense of state sanction of abortion, and if these cases ended up in a small government, or an anarcho-capitalist court, I could see lots of hung juries for both sides (as in including people who tried to prosecute abortion doctors).

  6. Caryn Ann Harlos

    Andy I wasn’t suggesting you were, just making my position clear.

    Not that the interview had anything to do with abortion oddly enough.

    Quite thrilled to be on Libertopia, the author is an excellent cartoonist – I encourage everyone to go check out his work.

  7. dL

    I could see a war break out between vigilante pro-lifers and abortion doctors.

    No, it wouldn’t. The “pro-life” position is unenforceable. Even a totalitarian enforcement would be ad hoc. Generally speaking, abortion prohibition is a mask for controlling the sexual behavior of young females. And that’s it. Without the arm of the state, there is not much hope for that. Any type of pro-life vigilanteism would relegated largely to isolated nut jobs. No doubt, those do exist. But that is why libertarianism retains the the strong right to self-defense. With a weapon, if necessary. Two bullets to the vigilante skull and send them home to Jesus.

    The Libertarian Party and movement has always been split on the issue of abortion. Caryn does not have to change anything on this issue to be a libertarian.

    It is rather absurd to base whether or not one is a libertarian on an issue that is as hotly contested in libertarian circles as abortion is.

    No, it is not, and no it has not been. There may be some who have a conscientious objection. But very few that go as far as government prohibition. Those that go that far are usually more accurately called conservatives. I consider plank 1.5 to be way too wishy-washy. Abortion on Demand. No apologies

  8. Andy

    “dL
    February 23, 2017 at 22:55
    ‘I could see a war break out between vigilante pro-lifers and abortion doctors.’
    No, it wouldn’t. The “pro-life” position is unenforceable.”

    How do you know this?

    “Even a totalitarian enforcement would be ad hoc. Generally speaking, abortion prohibition is a mask for controlling the sexual behavior of young females.”

    This line of thinking is not surprising coming from you, since you are obviously indoctrinated in leftist ideology and you see everything through leftist lenses and do not consider anything outside of leftist thinking.

    The issue from a pro-life perspective come down to does life begin at conception or not. If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. Murder is an act of aggression.

    Murder is illegal, and even in the absence of the state, murder would still be illegal, or a violation of the NAP.

    Is abortion murder? Some people would say yes, others say no, and there are others who may say that it is murder, but that since the fetus is in the womb, it does not matter if it is murder or not, because the woman can do whatever she wants to it.

    IF abortion is murder, then it is an act of aggression.

    The bottom line here is that there is not agreement in our society as to whether or not abortion is murder. Yes, abortion is currently interpreted is being legal, but this does not automatically mean that is not murder, or that the current policy is the correct policy.

    ” And that’s it. Without the arm of the state, there is not much hope for that.”

    The state sanctions abortion. The state has even banned protesting in front of public sidewalks that lead to abortion clinics in some states, which is a clear violation of the 1st amendment.

    ” Any type of pro-life vigilanteism would relegated largely to isolated nut jobs.”

    Maybe so, but this is your opinion. It may or may not happen, I was just bringing up the possibility of it happening in the absence of state sanction (and protection) of abortion.

    Others, who are passionate about this issue, and who are strongly anti-abortion, may think differently, which was the point I was making.

    “No doubt, those do exist. But that is why libertarianism retains the the strong right to self-defense.”

    Sure, but what about those who can’t defend themselves, like the unborn fetus?

    If say a 2 week, or 6 month old baby were being attacked by a maniac with a knife, would anyone object to somebody using force to stop the assailant? How about a 1 year or or a 2 year old or a 6 year or, or for that matter, how about a 12 year old, or an 80 year old?

    If a knife wielding assailant were attacking anyone but a fetus in a womb, I think that society would be unanimous in saying that it would be justified for another person to intervene to thwart the attack, and that they’d have the right to use force, including deadly force, if necessary.

    So if one views the fetus as a life, which a lot of people do, then logic would dictate that since it is moral to stop a knife wielding maniac murderer with force, that this would also extend to stopping an abortion doctor.

    I am not saying that I would be compelled to do this, but there are others out there who feel very strongly about abortion and who view is as murder, and some of them may feel compelled to take action, which would include engaging in acts of violence.

    The state currently sanctions abortion, but under the scenario I presented the state no longer exists.

    “With a weapon, if necessary. Two bullets to the vigilante skull and send them home to Jesus.”

    The same would go the other way.

  9. Andy

    Andy
    February 24, 2017 at 00:49
    “dL
    February 23, 2017 at 22:55
    ‘I could see a war break out between vigilante pro-lifers and abortion doctors.’
    No, it wouldn’t. The ‘pro-life’ position is unenforceable.”

    Are laws against murder unenforceable?

    Say a woman is on her way home from the hospital after giving birth, and a carjacker comes along and sticks a gun to the head of driver of the car, say her husband, while they are stopped at the stop sign. Say the carjacker shoots the newborn baby.

    Say a woman is walking out of a hospital with a newborn baby, and a maniac runs up to her, rips the baby out of her hand, and runs off, and then jumps in a car and takes the baby to a secluded location and tortures the baby to death.

    Would anyone say, “Well, we can’t do anything about it, because laws against murder are not enforceable?”

    Say a woman is giving birth, and five minutes after giving birth, a maniac bursts into the hospital room with a knife, and stabs the baby, and the baby dies.

    Is there some kind of magic that takes places where a law against murder is only enforceable after a body is outside of a womb?

    Could abortions take place even if they were classified as murder, and murder was illegal? Sure, there are murders right now that never get solved. There are all kinds of crimes that go unsolved. There are acts of theft, vandalism, rape, arson, etc…, that do not get solved, and some do not even get reported. This does not mean that these things are not crimes, nor does it mean that people always get away with them.

    So a hypothetical scenario where abortion is classified as murder, and some people “get away” with it is completely irrelevant to whether or not it is murder or should be classified and prosecuted as such.

    =====================================================================================

    Having said all of this, my point here was NOT so much to argue against abortion, but rather to point out that this issue has been debated in libertarian circles for decades, and is one of the most hotly contested issues within libertarian circles, maybe even the most hotly contested issue.

    So given that there is no general consensus or proof that any side is correct, I think that it is foolish to consider abortion to be some kind of definitional issue that should be used as a litmus test to determine whether or not one is a libertarian.

    I have said this here before, and I will say it again, and that is that I don’t think that everyone has to agree with me on every detail of everything for me to consider somebody to be a libertarian. I look at a range of issues. You can narrow things down the the NAP (or Non-Aggression Principle), but even when you do this, there is still room for debate as to what constitutes a violation of the NAP, and how to best handle this, especially under current conditions.

    All political parties and ideologies have internal debate.

    Caryn believes that life begins at conception, and that abortion is murder. Carol disagrees, or maybe to her it is not relevant as to whether or not life begins at conception, as maybe she thinks that rights do not begin until after the fetus exits the womb.

    Who is correct, and how to best handle the issue, is open to interpretation.

    I just found it to be rather ridiculous the way that Carol was hounding Caryn, and disregarding her position on the issue, and acting like Caryn’s stance disqualifies her from being a libertarian, when anyone who has followed this movement at all knows that this issue has been hotly debated for years, and that there has always been a contingent of pro-life libertarians.

    The Libertarian Party and movement draws people from across the political spectrum, and given that it is outside the mainstream, it draws a lot of people who are unconventional and passionate and who have unique perspectives and personalities.

    We all may have different standards for who is a “real libertarian” and who is not. I would call both Caryn and Carol libertarians, even though I may not agree with them on every detail of everything, and they obviously have disagreements with each other.

    Are there people out there who I do not consider to be “real libertarians”? Sure. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld are two examples.

    Some people have claimed that I’m not a “real libertarian” or “libertarian enough” because I don’t think that it is a viable, or libertarian, policy to have mass immigration and a democratic welfare state. I think that if you were transitioning from a statist society to an anarcho-capitalist society, the last step to take would be to relinquish government borders to private property borders (which would be a lot more complicated process than many realize, especially if done in as fair a manner as possible), and then migration/immigration polices would be set by property owners. I see calling for “open borders” without changing any other laws/policies that are currently in place, and under other current market conditions, to be suicidal, and anyone who advocates for this position is detached from reality.

    Do I consider my opponents on this issue (which is another issue that is pretty hotly contested within libertarian circles) to not be libertarians? No. I think that they are libertarians, or at least most of them are (there are a few fakes in there, but I think that most of them are well meaning people who I do consider to be libertarians, even though I think that arguing for mass immigration or “open borders” without regard to any other laws/policies and market conditions currently in place is foolish).

    The bottom line here is that we don’t all agree on every detail of everything. Get a room full of libertarians together and you are going to have some arguments/debates. We can either accept this and agree work together, or we can sit around arguing and never accomplish anything.

  10. Andy

    Here is another interesting thing to consider. How would cultural attitudes be different, if not for manipulation of public opinion by the government and government connected corporations and foundations?

    It has come out that the Central Intelligence Agency funded the radical feminist movement. Why? The ruling controllers wanted to destablize the family. The CIA actually funded Ms. Magazine.

    Here is a clip of the Aaron Russo interview that I posted on another thread where he talks about his conversation with a member of the Rockefeller family who told him about the real purpose of the feminist movement. Keep in mind that the Rockefellers are tied in with the Federal Reserve, the United Nations, the Council on Foreign Relations, etc…

    The Rockefeller Foundation And The C.I.A. Funded The Feminist’s & The Women’s Liberation Movement

  11. paulie Post author

    It’s pretty ridiculous to ignore all of Caryn Ann’s work in the party and movement and act as if it’s all about abortion, her past, her personal religious views, or her rather tame use of her natural assets to gain attention for her message. She does a hell of a lot, and most of it is not about any of that at all.

  12. Chip Killington

    Thank you Caryn for everything you do. I am a Libertarian activist from Scottsdale and this article has inspired me to do more and strive to be a better person.

  13. dL

    This line of thinking is not surprising coming from you, since you are obviously indoctrinated in leftist ideology and you see everything through leftist lenses and do not consider anything outside of leftist thinking.

    Well, anyone apparently not donning the KKK robes is thusly indoctrinated. lol

    Having said all of this, my point here was NOT so much to argue against abortion, but rather to point out that this issue has been debated in libertarian circles for decades

    No it hasn’t been…people like you, the HoppeBots, are a relatively recent pollution to the claim of libertarianism. You introduce the walls of east berlin and the abortion policy of ceausescu. The sovietization of american libertarianism.

    The issue from a pro-life perspective come down to does life begin at conception or not. If life begins at conception, then abortion is murder. Murder is an act of aggression.

    The “pro-life perspective” is ad hoc, cherry-picking….As I demonstrate in this old piece.

    https://rulingclass.wordpress.com/2012/02/22/abortion-on-demand-is-the-only-defensible-libertarian-position/

    I am not saying that I would be compelled to do this, but there are others out there who feel very strongly about abortion and who view is as murder, and some of them may feel compelled to take action, which would include engaging in acts of violence.

    That’s why I subscribe to uncompromising right to self-defense. Two bullets to the skull of the right-wing fundamentalist nut job vigilantes and send them home to jesus.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Quoth Andy:

    “Having said all of this, my point here was NOT so much to argue against abortion, but rather to point out that this issue has been debated in libertarian circles for decades”

    Quoth dL:

    “No it hasn’t been…people like you, the HoppeBots, are a relatively recent pollution to the claim of libertarianism.”

    In an odd reversal of the usual, Andy is 100% completely right and dL is absolutely, unquestionably and irrefutably wrong on that particular subject.

    Even without doing a whole survey of debate on abortion in the libertarian movement, it’s trivial to trace the debate in the party back at least as far as 1976, when Doris Gordon founded Libertarians For Life.

  15. dL

    it’s trivial to trace the debate in the party back at least as far as 1976

    Hmmm, I guess I stand corrected. But I also surmise I’m evidence of of what you previously wrote:

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/07/libertarians-for-life-leader-doris-gordon-dies/

    Most people who have joined the LP in the last 10 years or so probably never encountered Doris

    And I was certainly unaware that there was a segment within the LP that wanted to ban RU-486. Or was that merely a movement of one?

  16. Thomas L. Knapp

    “And I was certainly unaware that there was a segment within the LP that wanted to ban RU-486. Or was that merely a movement of one?”

    Doris was the only one I ever encountered who went that far. I debated it with her. My position was that banning RU-486 because it can be used for abortion is like banning guns because they can be used for murder, and that that’s clearly not in line with libertarian values. Her position was that RU-486 is only used for abortion and that the other listed uses for it were some kind of snow job to keep it legal.

    To the best of my knowledge, the ORGANIZED anti-abortion wing of the LP expired when she became inactive and then died, but at every national convention the LP comes within a percent or three of deleting its embarrassing, contentless, unprincipled, spineless piece of crap abortion plank, and I assume that at least some of the support for deleting it is from people who are pro-life rather than (or in addition to) not thinking the LP should have embarrassing, contentless, unprincipled, spineless piece of crap platform planks.

  17. paulie Post author

    A weakened plank is better than no plank. On a similar note, I share your disgust with the idiotic and unneeded last sentence of the free trade and migration plank (3.4) but even with that caveat it’s better than just deleting the plank completely.

  18. Lewis Liberman

    A little late to the party here – but thanks everyone for checking out the interview. A lot of great discussion! Thanks again to Caryn for the kind words, and for taking the time to do the interview! 🙂 If anyone is a libertarian artist, or has ideas on ways we can visually market our message more effectively to people, please let me know! Sometimes art or music is a powerful way to convey our ideas.
    Thanks!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *