On the Meaning of Libertarianism

I don’t know why all this “meaning of libertarianism” stuff has been the talk of the town so much lately. In response to Laurence Vance and Thomas DiLorenzo in their critiques of David Boaz’s defining libertarianism as “the political philosophy that says limited government is the best kind of government,” I would say that under libertarianism the best kind of government is self-government. Duh.

When David Boaz writes “limited government,” I don’t think he means “limited self-government,” but a limited State. But I have pointed out recently that libertarianism has no role for the State. (And I see that Christopher Cantwell agrees, I hope more people will also.) Libertarianism includes self-ownership and non-aggression. Let me live my life and you go live yours, but leave me alone. Why is that so anguishing to so many people?

But the State inherently can’t do that. It can’t leave others alone, because the apparatus of the State is a territorial monopoly ruler whose agents are empowered in a contract-less involuntarily-agreed-to arrangement that is enforced through coercion and threats. Is that any kind of “live and let live” society? And how is that a “limited” apparatus?

So, “limited government” meaning “limited State”? Impossible, says Hans-Hermann Hoppe. So real honest-to-God libertarianism has no role whatsoever for the State, in my view.

Dump the State!

Share

11:57 am on April 9, 2014