What the Right Is: Libertarianism

Chapter 1.2 of 'The Freedom Scale'

Why this book | Title Page | Table of Contents
Preface | Introduction
PART 1
Chapter 1 (1.1) (1.2) | Chapter 2 | Chapter 3
PART 2
Chapter 4 | Chapter 5 | Chapter 6
PART 3
Chapter 7 | Chapter 8 | Chapter 9 | Chapter 10 | Chapter 11 | Chapter 12 | Chapter 13 | Chapter 14
PART 4
Chapter 15 | Chapter 16 | Chapter 17 |
PART 5
Chapter 18 | Chapter 19 | Chapter 20 | Conclusion
Appendix | Works Cited

---

Chapter 1: What the Right Is

The real right…not all that made-up stuff

1.2

Libertarianism

• Movements of libertarianism

  • Anarchism

  • Minarchism

  • Objectivism

  • Austrian School

  • Public-Choice School

  • Chicago School

Libertarianism

Ask a libertarian where his political ideology comes from…

If he’s honest, he has to acknowledge that—for the most part—the answer is, The same place as a conservative’s.

Whatever their disagreements and divergences, conservatism and libertarianism share many of the same ideological roots. Both hearken back to many of the same classical-liberal thinkers. Both can trace their existence to the same revolutionary moments in history. Both draw their individualist, rights-based ethos from the same philosophical well. They read many of the same books, espouse many of the same principles, and oppose many of the same things.¹

None of that is to minimize their significant differences, however.

In many ways, libertarians are the keepers of the classical-liberal flame. Far fewer in number, but with a strong devotion to first principles, libertarians rarely sacrifice principle on the altar of pragmatism. This has led to limited electoral success, but has helped to keep the flame burning hot and bright.

Conservatives are greater in number, and have had more success on the political stage. Though such success comes with an ideological price, most are willing to pay it in order to remain politically relevant. (And for some, a more “moderate” approach is a feature not a flaw.) Some conservatives are also less consciously classically liberal and a bit more reflexive, or instinctive, in their political views.²

There are erudite people of every political stripe. Smaller movements often have tighter focus, however, and it has long seemed that a greater percentage of libertarians are highly conversant in core classical-liberal principles and have delved more deeply into the corpus of its philosophy. Like a sort of high priesthood, libertarians tend to prefer a stricter interpretation of those principles.

Movements of libertarianism

And yet, there is also great diversity among libertarians. 

Anarchism

At the most austere extreme, we find anarcho-libertarianism (voluntaryism, anarchocapitalism, self-government, etc.). Like many libertarians, libertarian anarchists begin with the nonaggression principle—the moral axiom that one individual (or group of individuals) should never initiate force against another. Since government always involves some initiation of force, they reason, its existence and use cannot be justified. 

Even basic taxation and an enforceable set of laws violate the basic ethos that all human interactions should be voluntary and free of force. Following in the footsteps of David Friedman, the peerlessly erudite Murray Rothbard, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and others, anarcho-libertarians have developed numerous concepts for building a successful society using only private and voluntary means. 

Though plenty of conservatives have read from among Rothbard’s and other anarcho-libertarians’ many powerful and compelling works—and though a species of philosophically conservative anarchism is technically possible—very few of today’s conservatives are anarchists. If they were, they’d probably identify as libertarians, as most anarchists do.

(Note that “anarchism” here refers to a serious school of political thought, not to indolent children concealing their faces with black bandanas and throwing bricks through windows, calling themselves “anarchists” because it sounds cool. Or because, in their petulant sense of entitlement, they feel as though “the system” should be torn down, since it failed to give them whatever it is they feel they were owed.)

Minarchism

Next to anarchism, we find minarchism, which calls for a government so small, it “barely escapes being no government at all.” (H.L. Mencken) Like a night-watchman—standing guard but barely noticed—such a government’s sole role is to protect individuals from “force, theft, fraud, and breach of contract.”

The essential justification for minarchism is similar to the arguments made by the natural lawyers and social-contract theorists of the 17th and 18th centuries: Man in a state of nature is free, but insecure—some will still use force against others, imperiling the individual’s enjoyment of his freedom. The minarchist position is that a scrupulously limited government will do a better job of maximizing the individual’s enjoyment of his rights than would be possible in a condition of pure anarchy.

A term of art like “minarchy” is more likely to be on the lips of libertarians than conservatives. But the concept itself is neither unknown, nor entirely unappealing, to many conservatives. In fact…

There is a quiet trend underway—one that I have been observing for the past two decades: