Libertarianism III: It's All About Me and My Needs

In the last essay I argued that libertarians have the wrong approach to advancing their cause. I could have quoted libertarian godfather Murray Rothbard: "While Marxists devote about 90 percent of their energies to thinking about strategy and only 10 percent to their basic theories, for libertarians the reverse is true." Rothbard observed that the libertarian strategy amounts to an intellectually satisfying but strategically impotent method of talking at people. "Most classical liberal or laissez-faire activists have adopted, perhaps without much thoughtful consideration, a simple strategy that we may call 'educationism.' Roughly: We have arrived at the truth, but most people are still deluded believers in error; therefore, we must educate these people -- via lectures, discussions, books, pamphlets, newspapers, or whatever -- until they become converted to the correct point of view."

Libertarians not only suffer from a lack of strategy for winning, they have little to offer in the way of maintaining authority should they some day emerge victorious. This is important to consider because American liberty (and I am largely confining this to be an American question, though many of my comments apply to libertarians in other countries) has enemies both internal and external.

Start with external enemies -- the host of armed authoritarian states that would relish an opportunity to seize American wealth and liberty. There is no gentle way of saying this: libertarians sound like absolute fools when they talk about foreign policy. I have heard libertarian thinkers much smarter than me give brilliant, sophisticated, world-wise discourses on libertarian domestic policy, only to sound like naive sophomores when the talk turns to foreign affairs.

Libertarians like to pretend, for example, that the U.S. could have avoided World War II without consequence for liberty. At best they argue from historical accident rather than principal -- the claim that Hitler would have lost by virtue of his failure in Russia, for example, or that Britain could have survived without the American Lend-Lease program.

Likewise comes the libertarian claim that American adventures in the Cold War were misguided. In this they display an ugly penchant for concerning themselves with the liberties of white Americans, which explains the view of many that the U.S. Civil War represents the earliest great infringement on liberty (as if the liberty of slaves doesn't count in the balance).

These arguments against foreign intervention derive from the libertarian principle that coercion is wrong, which is really no fixed principle at all, because nearly all libertarians admit that a military financed through taxation is a necessity for the protection of liberty. Somewhere in their calculus, however, they conclude that this coercion shouldn't extend to financing the liberation of non-Americans. Perhaps this is principled, but it is certainly not the only viable alternative for a true lover of liberty. To tell people languishing in states like China and the former Soviet bloc that our commitment to liberty prevents us from opposing their masters is the height of churlishness and foolishness.

Perhaps the worst is the libertarian position on Israel, which amounts to a replay of Joe Kennedy's see-no-evil, hear-no-evil approach to Hitler in the 1930's. Sure, without American support every man, woman, and child among the Jews might have their throats slit by Muslim thugs, but it's not like they got that country fairly in the first place, and really, it's none of our business. That's not a caricature, by the way. At an event in Washington I heard a prominent libertarian argue that we shouldn't support Israel because what happens to them is their problem, not ours. And libertarians wonder why nobody takes their views on foreign policy seriously.

The libertarian response to this critique is to point out examples of failed U.S. intervention. Yes, the CIA sowed seeds of anti-Americanism in Iran by supporting the Shah. Admitted, we supported a tyrant in Haiti. True, we armed the mujahaddin in Afghanistan. But we also dealt the death blows to Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany, and accelerated the self-destruction of the Soviet Union while controlling its expansion. These are not trivial events in the history of liberty. Libertarian academics have developed a cottage industry, however, to produce counterfactual histories which amount to claiming that all of the good things would have happened anyway without American intervention, and probably would have happened faster.

Of course one can just as easily tell a story in which American isolationism leads to the emergence of totalitarian states that divide the rest of the world, restrict trade, and make all of us worse off. The point is that in the area of foreign policy libertarians are most likely to argue from principle, yet this is the area where consequentialism is most required. Nobody cares about principle if it leads to enslavement or death. When libertarians do argue from consequence, they have no experience or expertise to speak from, nor do they associate with people who do. Name the libertarian scholars with serious expertise in foreign or military affairs. Name the libertarian activists with considerable experience in foreign or military affairs. You get the point.

To be taken seriously as a philosophy of governance, libertarianism must grapple with foreign affairs, and with the possible reality that liberty depends on strong military power. Suggest this at a libertarian gathering, however, and you'll hear chuckles of derision. Perhaps they are right. The fact that they chuckle, however, but have yet to answer this question in a convincing manner, is evidence of the libertarian closemindedness on this issue.

But let's assume that most libertarians would support a military large enough to fend off foreign enemies. They would still have to confront the reality that they have no viable model of power maintenance against domestic enemies of liberty. To see what I mean, imagine that libertarians have nominated a slate of charismatic, well-funded, highly networked candidates (indulge me -- it's a Friday) who have won the Presidency and a solid majority of Congress. These revolutionaries proceed to create the libertarian wet dream -- drug legalization, plans for phasing out government schools and Social Security, isolationist foreign policy, no more ATF . . . and did I mention drug legalization?

In this fantasy the economy booms but foreign states are deterred by our minimal armed forces, people are happy, and sales of Atlas Shrugged go through the roof. It is the End of History.

Except, people get older. Memory fades. The Left remains committed to brainwashing children and co-opting public and private organizations. A child overdoses on heroin. Drugs are slowly re-criminalized. Some idiot old babyboomers (sorry for the triple redundancy) starve to death because they could never be bothered to save for old age. Others lose their savings when they invest them all in Bill Clinton Enterprises. Hello Social Security and financial regulation. The schools stay private because the Left realizes how much easier it is to peddle garbage by McDonaldizing it (i.e., by becoming the low-cost provider and pandering to human weakness).

So, in a generation or less, the revolution is slowly dismantled, and libertarians are blamed for the ills of society. They go back to holding their convention in a Motel Six in Las Vegas, and cheering when their candidate for Sonoma County Commissioner comes in a close third in a three-man race.

The Left doesn't face this problem. Deprived of principle, integrity, or honor, they are happy to snip the bottom rungs as they climb the ladder of power. You can already see this in Europe, where EU thugs are slowly transferring decision-making authority from quasi-democratic legislatures to unelected Brussels technocrats. We saw a hint of it in the U.S., when supposed children of the free-thinking sixties proved strikingly willing to use the power of the federal government to punish and stifle opposition.

But libertarians are all about individual liberty. Thus they face a quandary: How to maintain their state once it's built? This question should be especially pressing, insofar as their model implies that government tends to grow and become oppressive.

There appear to be two avenues open: the first is to adopt a variant of the Left's strategy, and eliminate unfavored options for future generations. Libertarians might, for example, replace the Constitution with a mirror document that does not contain any provision for amendment. This would leave the states open to adopt all manner of idiocy, however. Perhaps libertarians at the state level could adopt similarly permanent protections of individual rights as well. Thus libertarians could effectively ban most opposition parties, without suffering the guilt that Third World dictators endure when they do so more directly. I'm not sure if this would be acceptable in the libertarian paradigm. No matter, however, for the point is that they don't discuss it.

The second avenue for maintaining the libertarian state is culture. If children and new citizens are thoroughly educated in logic, economics, and other foundations of libertarian thinking, then perhaps they can be trusted to maintain liberty even in the face of very persuasive demagogues. But then certain topics become central: childrearing, childhood education, individual self-censorship and discipline, community norms, and reciprocal obligations. It would also require a consideration of the place religion plays in all of the aforementioned. Nearly all of these topics, however, are ignored by individualist libertarians, who furthermore routinely deride -- almost as a condition for membership -- those who call for their rigorous pursuit either as policy or personal practice.

Libertarians have less that's interesting to say about childhood education, for example, than does the Democratic Leadership Council. But childhood education is probably the linchpin of the libertarian society. How many libertarians, however, give much thought to where even their own children will go to school? Sure, they want safety and effectiveness, like any other parent, but how many give serious attention to finding or building schools that inculcate in children the ability to think critically, along with a sense of moral responsibility? Precious few.

If libertarians were serious about taking and maintaining power -- truly serious -- then they would drop the caterwauling over drug criminalization and focus every drop of energy on building schools. The latter is hard work, however, and forces consideration of messy things like moral instruction, and self-discipline, and what makes for good parenting. It's far easier to toke up in the discounted hotel room at the Libertarian Party Convention and rail against the DEA. Thus libertarianism remains less a force for change than a tool for self-expression.

This is in part a product of the natural individualistic nature of libertarianism. The solution isn't to eliminate -- or even drastically reduce -- the individualism that underlies libertarian philosophy, but it does require reconciliation with the social nature of human beings. It also requires acceptance of the fact that people are not only communal in nature, but spiritual. I will address this in my next essay.

"A libertarian is someone who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty."

That is incorrect. Your desciption is better fitted to an anarchist, not a libertarian. Libertarians believe in the justice system although certain acts that are now crimes would be legal in a libertarian country.

Also it should be made clear that "liberty" for a libertarian refers only to government coercion. What happens in civil society is not the issue.

What interests me the most about the article is the foreign policy aspect. Libertarian foreign policy (if there is one) fails because it rests on an unrealistic view of the world. I don't want the US to be the world's policeman. Yet we must be, first because no one else can do it and second because our national interest requires it.

I would bet everything I own( not too much right now 21 year old college student) that most libertarians aren't potheads and that most potheads aren't libertarians.

Me too - all these rascally totalitarians dont care for issues that focus on liberty - all they see is the smoke. Telling. Go WOD! Whoo hoo lets blow a few more billion, hell it grows on trees.

You're entitled to your opinion, however, according to the online Merriam Webster dictionary, the definition of "libertarian" is as follows:

>>> a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action <<<

I have nothing against an individual choosing to think any thought they like, or writing down impractical ideas for others to read, but as a law and order conservative, I'm against "absolute and unrestricted" action in our civilized and law abiding society. America has a free and open society, but that doesn't translate into an anything goes approach, which is exactly what libertarianism is all about.

Maybe but dictionary.com defines "libertarian' as

"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

So hey what do we do when dictionaries don't agree? Anyway I would say that a better way to determine what the word means is to ask libertarians, "What does a libertarian believe?"

It seems to me that you are attacking libertarians on the basis of dictionary definitions - a bad idea I think. I have no problem with attacking libertarians since I am also doing that but you should attack on the basis of what they actually believe.

From my experience the equating of "libertarian" with "libertine" is baseless and shameful. If anything libertarians tend to be rather uptight controlled intellectual chaps, not wild dopers - but maybe that's just me.

If anything libertarians tend to be rather uptight controlled intellectual chaps

If anything, my experience with Libertarians on FR is that they are uncontrolled hedonists with a leftist agenda.

not wild dopers - but maybe that's just me

IMO, by reading your responses, that's just you, and not the Libertarian, anarchist, and America hating thugs that pervade the majority of the Libertarian(i.e drugs, pornography "uber alles") threads posted by "Libertarians".

...as a law and order conservative, I'm against "absolute and unrestricted" action in our civilized and law abiding society. America has a free and open society, but that doesn't translate into an anything goes approach, which is exactly what libertarianism is all about.

There is less "order" and less freedom in America than at any other time in our history. We now have a president putting in place measures designed to remove more of our freedoms and trample on the Bill of Rights.

What do you think about the government owning the largest share of land in the country and grabbing as much more as it can? What do you think your president will do about this (Land Grab Act Comes Back) for example?

And what do you think your president will do about gun rights? I'll tell you. When he's done, there will be no gun rights. Just watch what he does about this (BATF Moves to Block Importation of 'Obsolete' US Military Guns) for example.

I am not a libertarian, but at least they are for liberty, and that is the thing this country was founded for. For the few of us who still believe it is, "give me liberty or give me death," the demise of this country is apparently at hand. Most people do not care for freedom, most people are terrified of liberty, of actually being responsible for their own lives. They want "security," a "big brother," a "safety net," and they don't care how many people have to subjugated or repressed to get it.

Hank

>>>"One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state."

That definition isn't any different then the one found in Merriam Webster. A good argument can be made, that maximizing individual rights is the same as upholding the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty.

>>>It seems to me that you are attacking libertarians on the basis of dictionary definitions...

Not at all. My past exchanges with libertarians here on FR, prove conclusively, that I have very real differences with libertarians that go far beyond mere dictionary definitions. But dictionaries do offer accepted standards and basic interpretations for words, that we all use in our daily communications. In this specific case, definitions are being used for reasons of political comparison. I view those ideas found in the libertarian philosophy, much different when compared to the political agenda of the conservative movement.

>>>If anything libertarians tend to be rather uptight controlled intellectual chaps, not wild dopers...

As applied to libertarians in general, I would have to disagree with you. I see nothing intellectual about supporting drug legalization, or spreading STD's through the legalization of prostitution. Those are just two differences conservatives have with libertarians.

I lean Libertarian, actually. (I was joking about the stoned remark) The Libertarian Party has no chance in hell as long as it emphasizes drugs and prostitution. As for making sure we have a free country, we to elect more conservative politicians than the RINOs we largely elect. Imagine the consequences if Gore was elected President. He would've never cut taxes, our second amendment would be in serious jeopardy, and there would be less private property rights. If Harry Browne was elected President, we would all pray facing Mecca and every church would be a mosque.

Hey Republicans! Here's a great idea. Let's keep attacking libertarians until the next election cycle. After all, they are far worse than democrats...right? And they deserve the hate. And the libertarians will have a real score to settle and purposely run candidates to suck votes away from mostly republican candidates. After all, far more libertarians are converted republicans than democrats. And then they'll spoil elections for republican candidates. You know....like what happened in Oregon's governers race. C'mon republicans....you show those rascally libertarians. Show everybody how smart you are. Just keep on dissing those libertarians!

Hey....stop that snickering you democrats! Don't forget...Nader and the greens are still out there.

>>>There is less "order" and less freedom in America than at any other time in our history.

I totally disagree with you.

I do not support land grabs by the federal government and neither does President Bush. I strongly support the 2nd Amendment right for Americans to keep and bear arms, and so does President Bush.

>>>I am not a libertarian, but at least they are for liberty, and that is the thing this country was founded for.

Its true. Many libertarians favor returning America to the days of 1790, when the vast majority of folks were uneducated, poor and didn't live past 40 years old. I don't support that type of life. While life may not be perfect in the 21st century, its far better then at any time in American history. Things may not be perfect in todays world, but when has life ever been perfect?

I'm a Republican who voted for a Libertarian for governor in Wisconsin because the standing Rep. Gov Scott McCallum was to busy smearing his opponent rather than enunciating conservative principles. I believe in a number of what could be considered Libertarian tenets, but some of their rhetoric is really wacky. I don't know how many anti-Lincoln articles I've read by persons who have identified themselves as Libertarians. I would dearly love to go back in time and see how these wonderful protectors of liberty would have felt to have been slaves. It's easy to proclaim states rights when you are not the one being chained, whipped, or sold down the river.

The fundamental problem, as this article so wisely pointed out, is that a minimalist state requires a maximalist culture. Small government can function in a culture where people live in fear of 'what the neighbors will say'. And in a society where social welfare systems were informal, family, friends, neighbors, church, falling afoul of group norms had real socioeconomic consequences. That means also religion and a decidedly anti-individualistic cultural uniformity.

Libertarian ideas on national defense tend to be flatly idiotic, a naive assumption that an isolationist America would be so loved by everyone that it would have no enemies. People who don't understand that to have something that someone else covets is to have an enemy are idiots. They babble about militias and guerrilla warfare, cheerfully assuming that 'freedom' will make amateurs a match for trained professionalism. They babble about Vietnam as if the Viet Cong were a libertarian militia, as if they did not pay a horrendous price in casualties in the face of American firepower. They understand nothing about suffering or sacrifice (and self-sacrifice is the antithesis of libertarianism) or duty. They don't understand that the values of a good soldier are antithetical to the anarchic individualism of libertarianism. They don't understand that a militia can only work in a culture so tight and cohesive that shirking means social suicide.

Libertarianism smells of the politics of the gated community. A world where the well off can live behind walls with private police, private courts, private sanitation, private schools, private everything and to hell with anyone else.

This entire essay employs what is known as the "strawman" technique. Define the problem in terms of your own construction and then refute it or fix it with your solution.

With the exception of the first paragraph there are no attributed quotes or sources for any of the writer's allegations.

Even the most biased media hack goes to some trouble provide credible quotes and sources to back up his/her position even if they have to lie. ( True story: AP recently retracted a string of published news items because the writer's sources couldn't be found or didn't exist. I will locate a link if you are interested.)

Here is one example:

I have heard libertarian thinkers much smarter than me give brilliant, sophisticated, world-wise discourses on libertarian domestic policy, only to sound like naive sophomores when the talk turns to foreign affairs.

What Libertarian thinkers? Where? When? This is nothing more than an unsubstantiated gratuitous allegation used to buttress a contention the Libertarians don't understand Foreign Policy.

Without attribution it is meaningless.

Any Conservatives or Republicans who rely on these tactics to persuade and inform are indistinguishable from their left wing liberal counterparts.

Best regards,

I guarantee you, the legalization of prostitution would see skyrocketing increases in STD's, from sea to shining sea.

True to form...argument based on emotion instead of reason.

Tell me...what are the per capita rates of STDs in Nevada, as compared to the rest of the country?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.