The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 13, 2006 | Murray N. Rothbard

[Marxbites]

I found this an interesting bit of history, hope you do too!

[ClearCase_guy]

Much of Libertarian philosophy is worthwhile. It's always an education to re-read Rothbard.

But the Libertarian Party contains some ideas which I cannot accept. Reminding me of the wisdom behind the philosophy just makes me sad that the Party is not something I can support.

[pissant]

Interesting, but similar to the Bull Moose party in effectiveness, if that.

[Mr. Jeeves]

Thus, the well-known theme of "separation of Church and State" was but one of many interrelated motifs that could be summed up as "separation of the economy from the State," "separation of speech and press from the State," "separation of land from the State," "separation of war and military affairs from the State," indeed, the separation of the State from virtually everything.

The State, in short, was to be kept extremely small, with a very low, nearly negligible budget. The classical liberals never developed a theory of taxation, but every increase in a tax and every new kind of tax was fought bitterly — in America twice becoming the spark that led or almost led to the Revolution (the stamp tax, the tea tax).

The concept is pure poetry. Great article, thanks for posting it.

[gjbevil]

We need to consider a Constitutional amendment allowing the states to secede from the Union. I know, many feel the state's still have that right notwithstanding the Civil War. But an amendment would seal the deal. Once the Feds have to face that possibility, there would be more accountability to the states.

[PreciousLiberty]

"But the Libertarian Party contains some ideas which I cannot accept."

Sad that whatever form of propaganda has so warped your mind...

Liberty should be our birthright, not a rapidly vanishing government-supplied commodity.

[Virginia Ridgerunner]

But the Libertarian Party contains some ideas which I cannot accept.

Me too, particularly those that include having hard core drugs be legalized and all prisoners convicted of drug offenses be released. I also don't like the party's peacenik leanings, amid the current terrorist threat and the growing threat from China. Otherwise, I'm all for Libertarianism... low taxes, limited government, and all.

[ClearCase_guy]

Sad that whatever form of propaganda has so warped your mind...

Terrorism -- Would the LP support a pre-emptive strike against Saddam?
Abortion -- Would the LP support government restrictions on abortion?
Immigration -- Would the LP support a national policy to end Illegal Immigration?

Those are my top 3 political issues, and I believe the Libertarian Party fails on every one of them. I also think that drug legalization is stupid, but that’s not such a big issue in terms of the big picture.

[rellimpank]

bttt--

[Hemingway's Ghost]

Bump for later read.

[Marxbites]

I know. However, you understandably come at the issue as I used to based on public education.

We learned about the robber barons and child labor, instead of the Rockefeller/Morgan takeover of our Govt; first via the ICC, then the FED & income taxes, then the FDR court's unconstitutional (sans amendment) rewrite of the Constitution giving congress unlimited spending authority it never before had.

Terrorism -- Would the LP support a pre-emptive strike against Saddam?

Probably not since it was the BP & Std Oil traitors of liberty that mucked it all up to begin with.

Abortion -- Would the LP support government restrictions on abortion?

Probably not, but they definitely would support the states deciding for themselves per the constitution.

Immigration -- Would the LP support a national policy to end Illegal Immigration?

Sure, if it's constitutional.

For you see, after growing up left in the 60's, veering to RWR w/his campaign speeches & a just learned Laffer Curve in econ 101, I have since studied the economics and history of America.

My conclusion is that both the socialist left welfare statists, and the corp subsidy elites and military statist right, are neither one the solution to returning us to the Constitution our Founders gave their all to bequeath us.

For all the good things done by W & Congress, the bad ones are nearly untenable.

[chesley]

They're lousy on immigration, too.

[ClearCase_guy]

I was a member of the Libertarian Party. My knowledge of their policies may be a little out-dated, but are not, I assure you, derived from Public Schooling on the subject.

Terrorism? How many Libertarians believe that the MidEast is a problem because big business ("BP & Std Oil traitors of liberty") mucked it all up? Most Libertarians are reluctant to blame for-profit corporations for the world's problems.

Abortion? How many Libertarians make a distinction on government regulation of abortion between National and State governments? Most Libertarians think that government oppression is government oppression. Conservatives tend to think that local control is better, but Libertarians think government tyranny, whether near or far, is wrong.

Immigration? How many Libertarians think that a national policy blocking free movement of free people is OK -- "if it's in the Constitution"? Most libertarians think that immigration is an issue of trespassing on private property owned by citizens. So long as you're not trespassing, "it's all good".

I don't want to sound like Tom Cruise, but: I don't think you understand the Libertarian party very well. I do.

[Lucky Dog]

The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained. By definition, a “social order” is what makes a “society.” In short, arguments of the proper type of government and proper “social order” are arguments about what should be the proper type of “society.”

Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups. Such a philosophy is, indeed, laudable, but fraught with potential pitfalls. Not the least of the many practical pitfalls is where to draw the limits when valid, individual rights come into conflict.

The classic case of conflict of individual liberties is the individual enjoyment of private property. If a neighbor’s enjoyment of his or her property involves an activity that impairs the enjoyment of my property, whose rights are to be paramount? For example, suppose my neighbor enjoys playing loud music, but I enjoy peace and quiet. Must my neighbor cease enjoying his or her right to do whatever he or she chooses on his or her own property so that I can enjoy whatever I choose on my own property? The foregoing is but one of many potential conflicts in individual liberties and rights that must be balanced.

Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles. The quarrel then becomes on what principles should this coercive power be founded and exactly how should that coercive force be wielded. With this concession, the pure libertarian is in the same “philosophical boat” with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

A pure libertarian could never philosophically support socialism, Marxism, monarchism, feudalism, fascism, or even unlimited democracy. Each of these systems of government (and, in some cases, economy) can allow, and have allowed in the past, the state to trample the liberty of individual. Therefore, the pure libertarian, it appears, can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution. Further, a pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice. Unfortunately, another of those pesky, practical, pitfalls appears, again.

Capitalism, unbridled, leads to monopolies which, in turn, strangle capitalism. In other words, this economic system, unregulated, contains the seeds of its own destruction. Consequently, even pure libertarians must concede that some form of coercive regulation has to be emplaced to prevent monopolies from developing and stifling the economic liberties of the individual. However, what type of regulation and how much is appropriate? Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government.

Inevitably, the argument returns to what should be the proper type of “society.” “Societies,” it seems, have some principles of their own that must be observed. For example, a society that discourages, or at least, fails to encourage its citizens to procreate is doomed to collapse from an eventual lack of population. Therefore, a government supporting a society must encourage, or, minimally, not discourage, the production of new potential citizens.

Yet, again, another conundrum arises for a pure libertarian. Gay marriage would seem to be an individual liberty choice on the face of the issue. However, the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially the “society” in which the libertarian would exist. Does the pure libertarian take the position of saying the government should not be involved in the issue and allow such advocacy to potentially weaken the “society” to the point of collapse, and with it, his or her liberties? Alternately, does the libertarian take the position that limits must be emplaced on individual liberty for the continued existence of a society of limited liberties?

Another problem of “societies” is that a certain percentage of the population must, of necessity, be “productive” or the entire population starves and the “society,” again, collapses. Whether and individual chooses to abuse his or her body with hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs appears, on the surface, to be purely and individual liberty choice. However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation. Consequently, a libertarian is, again, faced with the choice or risking loss of his own liberties due to the collapse of a “society” which would support a government protecting them. Alternately, the libertarian must support limiting the liberties of fellow citizens to engage in destructive behavior.

The modern Libertarian (note the capital letter) Party seems to have ill-defined concepts of how to balance individual liberty with the requirements of a stable “society” that remains capable of supporting and protecting those very liberties IMHO.

[rhombus]

Nice analysis of the hard choices that have to be made by any party and every individual. I expect the current Libertarian party like any other party has diversity of opinion on many of the issues you bring up. What they have lacked is some specific national issues upon which they can demonstrate some pragmatic approaches that spark enough interest on the part of the other two parties. Like any party, then need to first get their hands dirty by winning elections. And if elected, you know they'll have to really get their hands dirty by administering the very gorvernment they seek to restrain.

[Dead Corpse]

libertarianism= Good. Mostly old school Constitutionalists.

Libertarian Party= Over-run with near left-wing anti-war moonbats. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong and they no longer support Cindy Jihad.

[Dumb_Ox]

Rothbard's history lessons contain a great deal of wishful thinking, though his analysis can sometimes be brilliant.

Locke, for instance, didn't endorse religious toleration for either Catholics or Atheists. Hardly the man many libertarians would endorse today.

Likewise, many of the state laws grandfathered in after the creation of the Union would be anathema to libertarians. Read William Blackstone.

Finally, I must object to the depiction of America as an ideological nation with a set creed. If this is so, then I and many others are apostates.

[Lucky Dog]

What they have lacked is some specific national issues upon which they can demonstrate some pragmatic approaches that spark enough interest on the part of the other two parties.

I think if you check, you will find that the Libertarian Party has taken some positions on some specific national issues and those positions have been less than practical.

For example, the Libertarian Party has advocated legalization of currently illicit drugs. This position is essentially “encouraging” certain members of society to become, and remain, “non-productive.” To be sure, there are some rationales for their position based upon the requirements for practical enforcement, the corruption inevitably bred in some law enforcement circles by the lure of huge illegal sums, etc. However, such a position ignores the impact on society of “encouraging” non-productivity of citizens.

In the past the Libertarian Party has taken stands against nuclear weapons as a national defensive measure. Of course, such a position is attractive if one ignores that there are other nations in the world willing and able to attack and destroy the very society that the Libertarian Party depends on for its survival. The possibility of such attacks increase dramatically if these potential enemy nations have no reason to fear massive, nuclear retaliation. International relations have never been successfully built on positions of military weakness… regardless of how one might wish it to be so.

Until and unless, the Libertarian Party articulates a core philosophy that recognizes the practical requirements of maintaining a “healthy” society capable of surviving and prospering in the “real world,” they will remain a marginal political entity.

[rhombus]

Agreed the total legalization of all drugs is not pragmatic. However, I also believe that the "productive members of society" argument you use to counter drug use is also unpragmatic in extreme and has been demonstrated as such in history.

I'm not familiar with the libertarian nuclear platform. The way you have described it I assume it is the same old "don't make them mad" argument (walk softly and throw away your big stick). I'd agree such a policy ignores history and human nature. The libertarians need to distinguish themselves from the Democratic party on that one.

[DugwayDuke]

Here is the libertarian party platform on Immigration

The Issue: We welcome all refugees to our country and condemn the efforts of U.S. officials to create a new "Berlin Wall" which would keep them captive. We condemn the U.S. government's policy of barring those refugees from our country and preventing Americans from assisting their passage to help them escape tyranny or improve their economic prospects.

The Principle: We hold that human rights should not be denied or abridged on the basis of nationality. Undocumented non-citizens should not be denied the fundamental freedom to labor and to move about unmolested. Furthermore, immigration must not be restricted for reasons of race, religion, political creed, age or sexual preference. We oppose government welfare and resettlement payments to non-citizens just as we oppose government welfare payments to all other persons.

Solutions: We condemn massive roundups of Hispanic Americans and others by the federal government in its hunt for individuals not possessing required government documents. We strongly oppose all measures that punish employers who hire undocumented workers. Such measures repress free enterprise, harass workers, and systematically discourage employers from hiring Hispanics.

Transitional Action: We call for the elimination of all restrictions on immigration, the abolition of the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the Border Patrol, and a declaration of full amnesty for all people who have entered the country illegally.