« Who Loses In Hard Times? Follow The Loonies | Main | Morning Funnies »

July 10, 2012


Those who think that libertarian does not necessarily mean anarchism and socialism are deluded. The word libertarian has a history that shows clearly, that anarchism is part and parcel of being libertarian and always was.

The first recorded use of the word libertarian was by William Godwin ― one of the first modern proponents of anarchism ― in 1789. After that things went rather quiet with regard to the word and it wasn't used again until the 1850s. What happened then shows the real roots of the word libertarian.

Joseph Déjacque was a 19th-century French anarchist socialist. In 1857 he launched a publication to promote his views under the name Le Libertaire, and libertaire came to mean anarchist socialist. Libertaire was rendered into English the only way it could be ― as libertarian. The two words are clearly cognates and at root mean the same thing. I can think of NO other way to render libertaire into English than as libertarian, and I'm confident that no one else can either.

As a consequence, anarchist socialists and communists here in North America adopted the word libertarian for themselves. So contrary to Russell's contention, libertarian was not a "good and honorable word" at all but an evil one meaning anarchist and socialist. To be libertarian is think the way Noam Chomsky does because that's the real meaning of the word.

I guess freedom of speech allows people to call themselves anything they like but “libertarian” can not be associated with socialist or communism, the words do not work together, it is a oxymoron. However people have allowed the word liberal to be something other than liberty, so is it people redefining to suit their agendas or does changing the meaning make it reality, I think not

Libertarianism is not anarchy. As a former state chairman, former candidate, and current district chairman and a campaign manager, I can tell you that for a fact.

Libertarianism is about individualism. How far that goes certain can vary.

Republicans claim to love individualism, however, many also like things like smoking bans, and other behaviors seen as "unhealthy" or "inappropriate", even when these activities are willfully-engaged in; taking place on private property.

And Democrats often try to claim individualism on the personal level -- let people live their own lives.

The reality is that neither Republicans nor Democrats are willing to leave people alone, whether it's their wallet or their personal behavior on private property.

The Republican Party spends like crazy and "doesn't raise taxes" but digs big holes instead. Look at the debt accumulated by Republicans under the Bush years. For 6 years, Republicans owned it all; House, Senate, and Presidency. We got deeper in debt, while government expanded further into health care and education.

Democrats, of course not to be outdone, did the same thing in the 2 years that followed Bush. They did it at break-neck speeds, as well. Which is what really woke the electorate up. It wasn't skin color or party label. It was the sudden jolt of reality.

Libertarians provide a clear alternative to these failed policies, that have led us to where we are.

No deficit spending. (And yes, that means that counties and cities are going to be told 'no' sometimes. Like a bratty child, you can't always get what you want, no matter how loud you cry about it).

No overregulation of business. Regulations are often written by the big businesses to kill off the smaller competition; primarily this hurts mom&pop businesses the worst.

A government that is local; accountable focused on core services. Personally, I look to local government to handle the "natural monopolies", because the free market can't handle those.

Level playing field; Libertarians are often brought to our side when unfairly persecuted by a bureaucracy, often set up by Republicans (can you say "EPA"?)

Libertarianism is about letting free people live their lives. It's not about "Promoting the economy," which is just fancy talk for giving one company benefits at the expense of everyone else.

It's about leaving the economy alone, for the most part; allowing the legal system to be used for adjudicating disagreements between parties, and prosecuting the use of force or fraud.

It's not anarchy. It's minarchy.

It's all about a government that governs least, governing best.

Does last line might sound familiar? It should...

The roots of the Paul-influenced strain of libertarianism do not lie with the left, but rather with the hard money, Mises/Hayek/Rothbard anarcho-capitalist strain of thought. These thinkers valued above all else individual rights to life, liberty, and property as the foundations of civilization. They viewed state coercion as the enemy of that civilization, and maintained that there was and is no such thing as a "collective" right...we get our rights as individuals from our Creator, not because of membership in any particular social class.

This is precisely the opposite of socialist/communist/collectivist thought.

In 1920, Ludwig von Mises wrote what scholars in this tradition consider the authoritative refutation of Soviet-style communist ecnomic theory, "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth." In it, he proves that no state-controlled economy can make rational decisions regarding production or resource allocation, showing that a free market is the only system which can perform such calculations with any degree of accuracy.

You can check it out for yourself here: http://mises.org/econcalc.asp

The comments to this entry are closed.

Photo For Facebook

  • Kentucky's #1 Conservative Blog
     photo blogfacebooklogo_zpsd77979be.jpg



Tip Jar

My Twitter Updates

  • What's New?

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Blog powered by Typepad