A number of writers for LewRockwell.com are surprised at the phenomenon of warmongering “libertarians.” They shouldn’t be. The phenomenon was predictable as long ago as early 1999.
The first thing to do when you are taken aback by some new development is to check your fundamental principles. The first question, then, is, what is a libertarian? The Libertarian Party requires its members to sign a pledge, which states, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force to achieve social or political goals.” This pledge is one statement of the non-aggression principle. It is this principle which is the lodestone, the pole star, by which libertarian ethics, morality and policy all steer. If libertarianism had any commandments at all, it would have one: Thou shalt not commit aggression.
We may answer the question, what is a libertarian, with science fiction writer and long time libertarian L. Neil Smith, “A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians, whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim.”
Notice that last “…regardless of what they may claim.” If it doesn’t walk like a duck, it doesn’t matter if it quacks like a duck.
Implicit here is that one adopts a policy based on its ethical consistency with the non-aggression principle. The true libertarian does not support, say, Austrian economics because free markets are more efficient than central control (although they are) or because they result in more consumer goods than central control (although they do), but because Austrian economics results in less aggression against people than does central control.
Libertarianism is a moral principle. It is not a grab bag of policies adjustable to the popular fads of the moment.
I am going to assume, dear reader, that you understand that warmongering egregiously conflicts with this principle. If you don’t understand why this is so, the remedy is beyond the scope of this essay, but a good dictionary and a first grade reading primer would be a start. In ten or twenty years study, the errant reader, having built up an epistemological foundation, may proceed to the works of Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and others.
Thus the phrase “warmongering libertarian” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms, like “Justice Department” and “honest politician”. This explains my use of quotes above. Warmongering “libertarians” are not libertarians, pure and simple. They are LINOs, Libertarians In Name Only. They are velociraptors in sheep’s clothing.
But why should one not be surprised at this phenomenon, and why was it predictable three years ago?
In 1998, Liberty Magazine, a publication best known for contemplating its objective navel and articles like “The Use of Aristotelian Metaphysics in Frank O’Connor’s Laundry Lists,” surveyed its readers on questions relating to libertarianism and the libertarian movement. The survey followed a 1988 survey, giving a baseline for changing libertarian views. In February 1999, the results were published.
In general, the results in 1998 were more statist than 1988. Key to this essay is the results for the following question:
No person has the right to initiate physical force against another human being. 1988 1998 90% agree 50% agree
Unfortunately, there is no question along the lines, Do you consider yourself a libertarian? Had all of the respondents answered that question consistently with the one above, one would expect to see that 50% or fewer of the respondents did so. But the surveyors themselves found nothing amiss here. The remarks in the article announcing the results indicate surprise that some (any?) of the respondents are not atheists, that more of them are minarchists, that “fewer than half agreed … that foreign policy ought to be strictly isolationist.” But they found the results quoted above to be unremarkable.
It is difficult to conclude that half the readers of Liberty Magazine 1998 are liberals, conservatives or otherwise not libertarians. At the time of the survey Liberty Magazine specialized in the minutia of the Cult of Ayn Rand, other gossip mongering, and obscure questions like how many dollar signs can dance on the head of a pin, i.e. a randroid tabloid. Why a libertarian would pay money to receive a monthly dose of such occulta year in and year out is beyond me, never mind why anyone else would.
Furthermore, there is no way to tell if the readership of Liberty Magazine reflects the libertarian movement at large. It certainly does not reflect me. If the emergence of the warmongering “libertarian” is a surprise to the writers at LewRockwell.com, then Liberty Magazine probably does not reflect them either.
None the less, the results of the question above are disconcerting. Some “libertarians”, possibly half of them, do not hold with the non-aggression principle. And if not that, what do they hold with? Whatever it is, it is not libertarianism.
And furthermore that number appears to be growing. There have been a number of efforts to remove the requirement of the pledge from Libertarian Party membership. Even in the solidly paleolibertarian state party of Wyoming, the question has come up, although it was roundly defeated. Elsewhere, LP candidates like Murray Sabrin have implicitly rejected the non-aggression principle by calling for accepting government campaign funds, AKA “welfare for politicians”.
Let this stand as a warning to real libertarians everywhere. Remember that within the last century the word “liberal” meant someone who stood for free markets, free trade (meaning free trade, not international bureaucratically managed trade) and a republican form of government. Ludwig von Mises used the term in that sense to describe himself. Since then the statists have co-opted the term to the point that it stands for none of those things, and is a term of derision in the real world.
Will the word “libertarian” suffer the same fate? It seems to be headed that way.
April 20, 2002
Charles Curley [send him mail] deals with penguins, jackalopes and camarasaurus in his daily life.
