Having returned from the recent ‘The Birth and Death of the Fed’ conference put on by the Mises Institute, certain questions about the current state of libertarianism in American politics have come to mind. Libertarianism in America is mostly associated with the what would be more or less understood as a Lockean Liberal, or Classical Liberal. This politic seeks to limit government intervention in economic AND social matters. One result of this politic is that libertarians often find themselves in difficult positions, many times siding with leftist Democrats in matters of gay-marriage and abortion while allying themselves with Republicans on free-market economics, although much ostensible adherence to free-market principles said by Republicans ends up being mainly lip-service. Indeed, during the Bush years libertarians often times came over to the Democrats in opposition to government moralizing and wiretaps. Many libertarians, including myself, were even captivated by then candidate Obama’s promises to turn back the Bush administration’s infringements on civil rights. Yet the reality has come and past and the alliances are coming to a close.
Republicans as well have many difficulties with libertarians because of their views on morality. Ayn Rand never gains traction with the right because of her rejection of religion and ‘family values,’ whatever that term might have meant in the 50′s. Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX), whom I met and talked with at the ‘End the Fed’ conference, is a libertarian that often times is marginalized by his own party for his libertarian views. So we libertarians have a difficulty with the two major parties in this nation.
Yet I think there is a further problem that libertarianism suffers from, nay encounters since the connotation of suffers invokes something negative, and that is the internal struggle of fundamental principles. One could make the plausible argument, and it has been made, that the logical entailment of a consistent libertarianism would have to be anarchy. Indeed, philosopher-economist Murray Rothbard‘s work, ‘The Ethics of Liberty‘ makes a compelling case for what he termed ‘anarcho-capitalism.’ Rothbard attacks libertarians for having to invoke some kind of ‘social contract’ that serves as a stopgap for a political inconsistency. While discourse within any movement is praiseworthy, too much discourse may lead to too much internal conflict of ideology. I do not see this difficulty present in the Democratic or Republican parties. Both do not have the sorts of internal disagreements, for the most part, regarding their core values and assumptions. The Democrats have internal disagreements on how much government spending should occur, whether or not the ‘stimulus’ was big enough, or that their social engineering is not occurring on a quick enough pace. Republican internal disagreements range from how much to disagree with President Obama, to how much torture is justified. Libertarians have the burden of having to argue these practical matters as well as the theory that goes behind the arguments, a la is it justified to take the fruits of labor of one individual and give it to another non-working individual, or whether or not the state should, making the massive assumption for a state, deprive a morally blameworthy individual of his ownership to his body. All these difficulties, in addition to the way our political system gives representation in government based upon majority rather than proportion, makes me think that libertarians will always be that shouted over voice.
However recent developments such as the growth of interest in libertarian literature, the Tea Party movement and the unexpected boom in Ron Paul followers gives me great hope. The movement is undoubtedly gaining ground, we do have the best argument; how does one argue against liberty?, and that indicates to me that there is chance of gaining actual power. People inherently want liberty and the Tea Party movement best exemplifies this phenomena. The danger that lies ahead for movements like the Tea Party is being identified as quacks by the overall left-leaning media or being courted by the GOP for votes.
Libertarians are at a crossroads. We must band together and put some theoretical quibbles off to the side for the time being and focus our efforts towards turning back the massive expansion of the Federal government and the massive new interference of the state in the bedroom.
I would like to thank the Mises Institute for awarding me the stipend that allowed me attend ‘The Birth and Death of the Fed.’ The experiences I had there and the friendships I made will undoubtedly last a lifetime.
Edgar,
You seem to equate libertarians with Objectivists, which is unfortunate because Ayn Rand, vehemently so, and most Objectivists today, albeit less vehemently, oppose the Libertarian Party in particular, and libertarianism in general. In Rand’s words, libertarians are “intellectual plagiarists”, nothing more and perhaps less. See, for example, Rand’s Q & A on libertarianism: http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians
Nevertheless, I take your point to be this: despite their theoretical differences, Objectivists and libertarians seem to desire the same result, so why can’t they coalesce under one political party?
Well, to understand Rand’s and many other Objectivists’ antipathy toward libertarianism, one must understand their view of Objectivism proper. Objectivism is a systematic philosophical school of thought, in the appropriate way dependent on a particular metaphysical, meta-ethical, and epistemological foundation. If the philosophical foundations are not in order, then on pain of contradiction any argument for capitalism and a minimalist state will be sabotaged.
Some Objectivists, however, do associate themselves with the Libertarian Party, e.g., Chris Sciabarra and David Kelley.
You may still think such distinctions are, for practical purposes, counterproductive, but I do sympathize with the spirit of Rand’s concern. (For the record, I happen to reject much of Objectivism.) In nuce, I think from unprincipled positions inconsistency follows, which should be avoided.
To be continued…
Right, Aaron.
My intention was not to say that Rand was a libertarian. In fact you clearly got my point
‘despite their theoretical differences, Objectivists and libertarians seem to desire the same result, so why can’t they coalesce under one political party?’
I think that by the time the two groups reach the point at which contradiction occurs because of philosophical foundational differences, they can resolve those differences with compromise or consensus. All contradictions lead to explosion but not all explosions are as equally damaging to their respective movements.
I don’t think that objectivist leftovers should hold the libertarian movement hostage with their quibbles. It keeps us from really taking off the ground.
I am of two minds about spanning the theoretical divides that separate proponents of a minimalist state.
First, I would like to see the purview of the government- federal, state, and local- shrink drastically. As a practical matter, you’re right in that this can only be accomplished via concerted collective action. Given the unlikelihood of assuaging the theoretical disagreements entirely (or to even a great extent), some measure of compromise seems to be necessary.
However, and second, as I said previously, I am partial to Rand’s worry that from unprincipled positions inconsistency will arise. Inconsistency will inevitably have negative practical consequences, as made evident by the Republican Party and their empty, free-market sloganeering. Add to this the nature of democratic processes, and politicians, libertarian or otherwise, will use the police power of the state to allocate unto themselves more political power.
A good argument could be made that one ought abstain from participating in the democratic process altogether, and instead foment anti-government (in the broadest sense of the term) sentiments via more private means of discourse and the dissemination of information. But this would take us too far afield from the conversation at hand.
In the end, and for the moment, I would like to see a more cohesive Libertarian Party develop so as to provide a politically viable option to the current two-party monopoly.
Interesting related article: http://radgeek.com/gt/2010/03/02/liberty-equality-solidarity-toward-a-dialectical-anarchism/
A wonderful quote from the article linked to above:
“Minarchism, by leaving the myth of legal authority unchallenged, concedes moral dignity to the statists that they have not earned. The point is to challenge not only the abuses of government authority, but the normal uses of that authority—to see the taxmen, policemen, hangmen, and Congressmen who invade your liberties not as unruly representatives of a State with authority over you, but a sanctimonious gang of robbers, swindlers, and usurpers bringing war upon you.”
Until now I have never heard of this Charles Johnson. Thanks for the quote, Mark.
P.S. I have always wondered why you are not a proponent of the Libertarian Party. If I recall correctly, you voted for Barack Obama?
I voted for Barack Obama out of sheer panic and unimaginable embarrassment at the vice presidential candidate of the other major party. A little superficial perhaps, but I feel more comfortable traveling abroad…haha. I’m half-joking.
As to my own political views, well, I’m always in flux and open to suggestion/influence, but the closest thing to my own view would be what Todd May and Saul Newman call “post-structuralist anarchism”. I generally part company with libertarians, when I hold that “liberty” is not possible in any meaningful sense in an absence of “equality” (I find Bakunin to be correct in this regard), which leads me down a different path.
Also, libertarians, generally speaking, see oppression solely in terms of some legal/juridical “state” (e.g. the Hobbesian model), and thus seek to limit this state as much as possible, whereas I–being concerned with the fullest account of liberty possible–am greatly concerned with all the different forms of oppression that can occur (most of which occurs at a level other than that of the relation between state and individual).
In other words, to speak in anecdotal terms, when I feel “oppressed” in life, it is rarely (if ever) “the state” that is the source of my sensation of oppression. Money and the stuff that comes with it only barely interests me in terms of keeping myself alive and sheltered and fed, beyond that I don’t give two shits. It’s my general observation that people who are so rankled by “the state” spend their time consumed with the “practicalities” of life (working, making money, buying stuff, paying taxes, etc), whereas I am totally unconcerned with them (assuming a certain minimal level where I am not starving, naked or homeless). Give me a bed under a roof, a good book, a pretty girl(s), and a little food, and I’m good to go, haha.
In fact, given the general shameful vulgarity of the American populace, there are times when I would prefer Enlightened despotism to representative democracy and think it would actually increase liberty…
That said, I sense that libertarianism is increasingly popular among the younger generation of americans, and hope that they can augment their classic libertarianism (which, insofar as it opposes the authority of the state is a potential welcome partner to my “against all authority”–to put it crudely–view) with the kinds of concerns that I point out. The fact that it is a force that threatens the status quo, is welcome, though I have concerns about fascist infiltration (note all the racist, sexist, masculinist etc fanatics at these “tea parties”).
I think part of the problem–at the theoretical level–is that libertarians often view the individual in the classically liberal way, as a kind of causa sui, an irreducible, indivisible posit from which all kinds of potentialities can spring forth miraculously (and from which society originally formed, a sort of nice little understanding arrived at by individuals emerging from the state of nature). Of course, I take the wholly opposite view, that individuation is a product of social forces. Society is the ontological a priori, not the individual. Now, my view may or may not be ontologically correct in some sense, but more importantly, I think adopting my view in the heuristic sense allows for greater realization in practice of the maximum amount of “liberty” that an individual can enjoy. I think the other theoretical perspective gets the individual caught up in systems of oppression that it is unable to recognize (and thus can’t fight).
But, as I said, I’m open to persuasion and influence (I did note that I read somewhere that the late Foucault was interested in researching the “Austrian school”)…
Mark,
Frankly I doubt that you have ever been to a Tea Party, I know you have never been to one of the Republican Liberty Caucus meetings to which you have been invited as I recall. Now I can’t speak for the Tea Party or the other groups, but I will take the liberty to tell you what I know about the Caucus, as I am their parliamentarian.
Women are absolutely equal in our organization, as are all cultures and colors. All hold various positions of responsiblity, all voices are heard, (including your’s if you would honor us with your presence). We are classical liberals in our civil views, and our support of religious liberty and personal liberty causes us a considerable amount of friction with the religious right, even though some of us, including myself are ultra-orthodox Christians.
I personally have called for an open season on racists in print in an open letter to Glorious Johnson, published in Folio Weekly. True Republicans are the reason for the end of slavery in this country, and for the establishment of civil rights for all people in this country, and have been consistantly opposed by the Democrats in its promulgation for the greater part of our country’s history.
We believe that decision making must happen from the ground up, not from the top down. We believe that there is no leadership branch of government, there is an executive branch that must take its instruction from the representative branch, who will take its orders from the voters. We believe that the tyranny of the majority must be restrained by written rules that are to be applied, not interpreted by the judicial branch.
We believe that every individual is sovereign, and of great intrinsic value, that every voice has a right to be heard, that every man and woman has a right to work out their philosophy and destiny with the least amount of interference possible from those who think they know better. We believe in liberty or death, and I assure you it is not just another slogan.
Lou,
You are correct that I have not taken advantage of your always gracious invitations–though not due to lack of interest or willingness.
I reiterate my comments above, as, based on your comments, it appears that there is a significant difference between our positions, though I am interested in seeing how your position plays out.
And I do think that it is possible (perhaps) through dialogical engagement to find some common ground between your exultation of liberty, and the different variation that I espouse.
Edgar,
Good read. I found this very interesting although I am unfortunately far too politically comatose to respond or critique what I see in any way, shape or form. In other words, it is a good thing I read this because I need all of the help I can get!