Trying to misunderstand libertarianism

Leftists at The League of Ordinary Gentlemen, like Elias Isquith, promote a deliberate misunderstanding of libertarianism because, I guess, it threatens their statist worldview. The typical strategy to marginalize libertarianism is to associate it with "hard rightwing" ideology. In the article linked to above, Isquith relies on Tim Carney, who likely misunderstands libertarianism out of ignorance. I know that at the League the subject of libertarianism has been discussed enough times that only someone determined to misunderstand it would write what Isquith wrote.

What Isquith and Carney are getting to is that libertarianism is like social conservatism, and that social conservatism and fiscal conservatism go hand in hand. Carney assumes that most libertarians think Jim DeMint is a libertarian. Because one Reason writer says that DeMint was a friend to libertarians in the Senate, somehow Carney and Isquith use this thin piece of evidence to make their case. Like most people who misunderstand libertariansim, whether purposefully or not, they miss one vital part of libertarianism in making their case. They show how DeMint holds social conservative values, yet he doesn't necessarily want government to enforce his values. Non-coercion is a libertarian principle, unless coercion is used by a limited government or private security organization to protect people from coercion. But adhering to a principle that is a libertarian principle doesn't necessarily make one a libertarian. It could, and DeMint would have to decide if he thinks he's a libertarian thinker -- I don't think he is, but then I don't know how deeply he adheres to the non-coercion principle.

I'm not even sure that calling a person a libertarian and putting them in a group called libertarians is actually correct. As Isquith points out in the comments section, those on the Left who claim some libertarian values are acutally modern liberals or progressives or whatever -- it depends on how the individuals, and those who critique his/her political thought,  characterize and label their political views. Labels are useful but most thinkers will agree that strict adherence to labels is too restrictive for most of them, especially libertarianism which actually grew out of liberalism as liberals in the early 20th century split between libertarians and modern liberals.

I don't mind anyone calling me a libertarian, but all it means is that I adhere to what are known as libertarian principles. I would also be fine if someone called me a classical liberal. When discussing libertarianism as Isquith and Carney are discussing it, only a few things matter -- does a person promote a limited government that protects basic rights, does a person adhere to non-interventionism in foreign affairs and does the person believe in economic liberty? I don't care if DeMint opposes abortion or gay marriage as long as he doesn't promote government enforcement of these values on the public. If DeMint is consistent with the non-coercion principle, then he would also be against the War on Drugs. I don't know where he stands on that. Again, though, this doesn't mean that a libertarian thinking person condones drug use, it's just that the person would not want government to interfere in peaceful behavior that doesn't violate the rights of others. I'm not sure that given the vote, if a real opportunity presented itself, though, that DeMint wouldn't vote to use corcion to advance an opposition to gay marriage, abortion and drug prohibition, just to name a few social conservative positions.

But to spin and flip the issue to associate social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, then to show a friendliness between libertarians and conservatives, then to make the giant leap to equate libertarianism with social conservativism, is either ignorant or an attempt to marginalize libertariansim.

The obscurantist strategy against libertarianism

At the level of pragmatism and government policy, all libertarian influence is welcomed if it's authentic and sincere, but just as classical liberalism devolved at the turn of the 20th century into a statist, modern liberalism, so is libertarianism today under assault from obscurantists on the Left and Right.

When the Tea Party emerged and gained political power before the 2010 elections, there was more talk regarding libertarian ideas than I've heard since I've paid close attention to politics. However, some on the Right who identified as leaning libertarian, or were called libertarian by media, were not really libertarian. At first this was likely media ignorance regarding libertarian philosophy, but after many conversations that clearly made distinctions between conservatives and libertarians, the media then purposefully associated libertarianism with conservativism, especially conservativism that appeared simplistically extreme. If someone pronounced government as gummint, all the better.

On the Left we have seen intellectuals self-identifying as Left-Libertarians and criticizing orthodox libertarianism for being rightwing and in cahoots with the worst players in the capitalist arena. As I've said, a lot of this is simply a misunderstanding of what constitutes libertarianism. In the many debates in which I've participated the one thing that's clear is that critics of libertarianism know very little about libertarian philosophy and have read none of the rich libertarian literature that's available to anyone who really wants to undertstand.

Most harsh critics who defend the State against what they see as kooky anarchists don't bother to understand libertarianism past the idea of free markets, so they stop there and tell everyone who will listen how a libertarian world throws vulnerable human beings helplessly to a capitalist jungle controlled by rich power-mongers bent on oppressing the hoi-polloi for the capitalists' selfish economic gains. When the Information Age allowed intelligent libertarian rebuttals, and when a growing number of young people started showing interest in Ron Paul, who at least champions some libertarian ideas, the intellectual, knowledgeable, statist Left and Right became worried because State power was seriously threatened in the 2010 elections. This was not a pure libertarian threat, because many Tea Party candidates who were elected to office are not real libertarians, but many appear to understand the basics of libertarian economic principles, at least.

The point is that just like the early 20th century reaction to what is now called classical liberalism, Left and Right statists who understand the potential threat to interventionist government, the cornerstone of a powerful State, are compelled to attack and marginalize the libertarian threat, so they obscure the issues. Factions on each side are attempting to co-opt libertarianism by taking a few principles then adding their justifications for an interventionist government -- yes, say the Right-Libertarian-leaners, we need more economic freedom and a "small" government, but we need to maintain our Global Police status in the world to fight terrorism, and we need tough laws to prevent moral decay at home. Yes, the Left-Libertarian-leaners say, we need to protect our civil liberties from an encroaching government, but we must dismantle and regulate heavily the capitalist market because it is a source of power and coercion itself. Some socialist-libertarians are calling for anti-statism, but it's vague how their anti-capitalism will avoid coercive control of the economy.

The Libertarian who proposes limited government, liberty in general and a free market is now seen as the odd duck, unrealistically calling for government to perform basic duties of rights protection, border protection and conflict resolution. Libertarianism is under attack from both the Right and Left. Orthodox libertarians are accused of caring only about economic liberty, but as I've written, the critics are either not reading libertarian literature, or they ignore what counters their critiques. Free people have the right to use libertarianism in that manner to define their world-views, so perhaps it's time to develope a label that clarifies the non-coercive, non-interventionist core principles that orthodox libertarians uphold. With both Progressives and Conservatives co-opting parts of libertarianism and identifying themselves as part-libertarian, it confuses the public and weakens the libertarian movement. If opposition to statism is to survive, certain principles can't be compromised within the intellectual/philosophical realm, even if pragmatic policy decisions compromise these core principles in an effort to make progress toward greater liberty. But if libertarians fall for the marginalization efforts, they'll be co-opted into one political party or the other, and the principles will drop by the wayside one after another, until libertarianism means nothing. The political realm is not kind to principles.

I hope Alexander McCobin is right

http://thedailybell.com/28125/Anthony-Wile-Alexander-McCobin-on-Ron-Paul-Objectivism-and-Co-founding-Students-for-Liberty

I think he is right. Students for Liberty is a real movement.

Libertarians don't need Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as leaders

Libertarianism, in large part, is about individualism, which is seen now as a sin against the community by many. Libertarians don't need groups and leaders, we need only to do our part to create change. Each person who values individual rights and the concept of non-coercion/intervention should actively work against our statist system in everyway possible. Sometimes this might include being a part of a group, but I don't see how grouping up helps much. Protesting in the streets is not likely to change anything. With modern technology we can make our ideas heard and understood by spreading them across cyber-space and talking one on one with as many interested people as possible. Then we can vote for libertarian leaning candidates, or the lesser of two evils until we can change the make-up of DC. We can demand limits on government power. There are myriad ways that libertarians can work locally and nationally and globally to keep the message of liberty alive.

Waiting on Ron Paul to signal his presidential preference is anti-libertarian, and voting for Johnson is just empty symbolism, especially since  Johnson doesn't understand and accept the main body of libertarian thought.

Libertarian influence

It's hard to tell how much influence libertarian ideas have had on the populace. Media might not reflect the change in attitudes regarding politicians, interventionist government and the concept of State, because media is lagging behind, still enmeshed in State power. One aspect of the libertarian political philosophy which I and others have emphasized for some time now is that politicians are not special, and just because someone makes enough promises, has a winning personality and gets elected to office doesn't mean that there's anything particularly special about the person which makes them an expert on economics, foreign affairs, finances, manufacturing, energy, etc.

Libertarians simply don't find any great value in government officials, per se  -- they are ordinary people like the rest of us, and many are not very competent. I'm sure there are very intelligent people working all throughout government, but government itself doesn't acquire any great powers that make it okay for officials to violate rights when there are laws preventing people outside of government from violating the rights of others. There's no special, mystical power that government possesses which allows it to establish a War on Drugs then interfere with a person's private choices as long as the person's choices don't violate the rights of others. Government possesses no special power which allows it to confiscate private property as it sees fit, just like I have no special power to confiscate my neighbor's property.

The American people have given government extra-Constitutional powers beyond what it should possess, and government has taken on powers that it shouldn't have that no one has taken back. There's evidence from polls regarding what the public thinks of government and Congress that Americans have had enough and are ready to push back. As the Information Age matures and people are receiving information 24/7, those who were awed by political figures before are beginning to understand that the officials are not special. In fact, many who make it through the political process possess character flaws which make them unfit for public service. We tend to forget that the government is our government, and the officials are public servants, and that we pay their salaries to do a job for us. We give government permission to use force, but only under special conditions -- we haven't changed the Constitution to allow government to coerce us in any way it chooses. If libertarianism has played a part in this awakening and change of attitude toward the role of government in our lives, then I'm happy, but there's a long way to go.