(to table of contents of archives)

As Phil Jacobson explains elsewhere in this issue (see his article "The FNF Split" for more details), a conflict of visions within the Board of Directors of the Free Nation Foundation has resulted in a mutually agreeable split into two separate organizations, the Libertarian Nation Foundation and the Free Nation Foundation-Critical Institutions. I would like to offer my own perspective on the split.

The extent of the disagreement that had been growing among the Directors initially came as a surprise to me—partly because the viewpoints of the various sides were less different from my own than they were from each other, and partly because my professional relocation from the University of North Carolina to Auburn University in Alabama in 1998 has kept me 500 miles away from the day-to-day interaction among FNF Directors and thus to some extent "out of the loop."

Crucial to understanding the history of FNF is understanding the intentions and motivations of Rich Hammer, its founder and first president. I obviously cannot speak for Rich, but I shall describe his viewpoint to the best of my understanding, as I heard him articulate it to me and others over the past several years. Please bear in mind, however, that I am simply offering my own impressions, subject to correction.

Rich founded FNF with a certain vision in mind. His hope was to develop an organization that would emulate, say, the Cato Institute in terms of professionalism, quality, and respectability—not however with the goal of reforming the American polity, but rather to spearhead a movement that would provide credibility and scholarly credentials to, and ultimately help attract investment in, the project of creating a new libertarian nation elsewhere (most likely by leasing territory from a cash-hungry third-world nation). Seeing this "FNF Workplan" as a long-term goal, Rich was happy to bring in collaborators whose vision differed somewhat from his vision, since in the absence of a Cato-style endowment FNF would have to depend on the contributions of volunteers, and the opportunity to advance their visions via FNF was the only payment Rich could offer them in exchange for their help in advancing his own vision.

As the years passed, however, Rich became increasingly discouraged about the extent to which FNF continued to fall short of his vision, both in style and in goals; and in the end, Rich came to feel that the difference between his own agenda and that of others on the Board was too great to justify ongoing collaboration.

On this issue I found myself in the middle. On the one hand I was largely in sympathy—perhaps more than any other Director besides Rich—with the FNF Workplan; on the other hand, unlike Rich, I generally found the contributions of those who in retrospect might be called the "anti-Workplan faction" (for want of a better label) to be complementary to and helpful toward the FNF Workplan rather than a distraction from it. (See the debate in our last issue between Phil Jacobson and myself on the subject of the FNF Workplan) Certainly I—unlike both sides at present, apparently—never saw any conflict between the FNF Workplan and the FNF Statement of Principles, since the task of formulating, and trying to attract a libertarian consensus on, the critical institutions of a free nation was always an integral part of the Workplan.

In any case, the result of Rich’s discouragement was his decision to resign as president of FNF and withdraw from most of his FNF work, postponing the FNF Workplan until such time as he could devote more time to it, or raise more money for it. Since he had always been the prime mover of the organization, Rich expected FNF to lapse into quiescence in the wake of his resignation; but other Board members surprised Rich by undertaking to step in and continue the functions that Rich was relinquishing.

Concerning this series of events, two very different interpretations have arisen. To the anti-Workplan faction, this is the point at which Rich, by resigning as president and drastically reducing his FNF involvement, surrendered all moral claim to control FNF, yielding the reins to the other Directors. To Rich, by contrast, the other Directors’ agreement to take over all the functions that Rich was relinquishing represented a contract or promise, and when subsequent implementation faltered, it seemed to Rich that the anti-Workplan faction had defaulted on its promise and thus had surrendered all moral claim to control FNF.

Each side in this dispute appears to regard its own interpretation as obvious beyond doubt, and from this perspective the other side’s position is bound to appear disingenuous. Having moved to Alabama by this time, I was not present at the meetings where these decisions occurred, so my information about these events is second-hand; but on the basis of what I do know, I do not find either interpretation too implausible to be accepted by honest and well-meaning people; nevertheless, I find both interpretations too one-sided to be compelling, and thus am not convinced that either side then surrendered all moral claim to FNF.

In any case, Rich decided he wanted back the rights to the FNF name and website, appealing to his rightful ownership of FNF. The possibility of splitting FNF into two organizations emerged, but the question remained as to which side would retain rights to the FNF name and website. The anti-Workplan faction’s position was that since Rich in founding FNF had constituted it as a majority-rule corporation, he could not be the rightful owner of it. Rich’s position was that since he had been the creator and motive force behind FNF, he had a moral right to it regardless of the content of the by-laws. It was with reluctance that I took sides in this dispute, since I valued the contributions of both sides and regarded both sides as having some legitimate moral claim; but I was one of the Directors who voted with Rich on this matter. Let me explain my stand.

I am not convinced that Rich had a right to FNF, in the sense of a legitimately enforceable claim. But the realm of moral claims is not exhausted by rights alone. Whatever the legal structure of FNF may have been, Rich was unquestionably the prime mover of FNF for most of its existence; it was created and sustained by his blood, sweat, and tears; and so, even if the Board had the right to refuse his request, it would have been wrong to exercise that right. I won’t deny that other members of the Board had made contributions that earned them some moral claim also, but in my eyes their claim was simply not of the same magnitude as Rich’s; hence in case of conflict it was Rich’s claim that had to take precedence.

The FNF split was a disappointment to me; and it was particularly painful to have to take sides in a dispute among people whom I continue to regard both as cherished friends and as valuable intellectual allies. Nonetheless, I view the split as a crisis from which both groups can emerge strengthened; I support the missions of both the new organizations, and I am proud to serve on the Board of both the Libertarian Nation Foundation and the Free Nation Foundation-Critical Institutions. Let us continue to build the road to a free nation. D

Roderick T. Long is Assistant Professor of Philosophy at Auburn University, and is the author of the recently published monograph Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. He is currently working on a book manuscript titled Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action: Praxeological Investigations. The book defends the a priori approach to economic methodology associated with Ludwig von Mises; a preliminary draft is available at <www.mises.org/journals/scholar/long.pdf>. Roderick’s most recent publication, "The Benefits and Hazards of Dialectical Libertarianism," appeared in the Spring 2001 issue of the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. Roderick can be reached at longrob@auburn.edu, and his website is <www.geocities.com/BerserkRL>.
 

(to table of contents of archives) (to top of page)