"Something's going on in America this election year: a renaissance of an ideal as old as the nation itself — that live-and-let-live, get-out-of-my-business, individualism vs. paternalism dogma that is the hallmark of libertarianism." [AP]
That phrase highlights the growing appeal of the libertarian movement in this country. Time and time again Libertarians and those with libertarian tendencies have beguiled voters to join the pop fad of this new "revolution". Drawing upon the nostalgic imagery of brave colonists rising up against an oppressive monarchy droves of frustrated citizens have enlisted in this new movement. But what truly are the roots of Libertarianism toward which so many are being seduced to run?
As is well known, anarchists use the terms “libertarian”, “libertarian socialist” and “libertarian communist” as equivalent to “anarchist” and, similarly, “libertarian socialism” or “libertarian communism” as an alternative for “anarchism.”
Unfortunately, in the United States the term “libertarian” has become, since the 1970s, associated with the right-wing, i.e., supporters of “free-market” capitalism. That defenders of the hierarchy associated with private property seek to associate the term “libertarian” for their authoritarian system is both unfortunate and somewhat unbelievable to any genuine libertarian. Equally unfortunately, thanks to the power of money and the relative small size of the anarchist movement in America, this appropriation of the term has become, to a large extent, the default meaning there.
As Murray Bookchin noted, “libertarian” was “a term created by nineteenth-century European anarchists, not by contemporary American right-wing proprietarians.” [The Ecology of Freedom, p. 57]
The 1920s saw communist-anarchist Bartolomeo Vanzetti argue that:
"After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference - the fundamental one - between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government." [Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti, The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti, p. 274] [Anarchist Writers]
So you like the idea of being a libertarian? You like the notion of little or no government? You jump in with both feet when libertarian candidates seek office?
Have you stopped to think who might be behind this movement? Perhaps you should.
It would be my guess that very few seductions begin with the line "How about I get you pregnant and then leave you to fend for yourself?" Something much more appealing usually precedes the abandonment of reason and politics is not much different.
Can't say I didn't try to warn you.
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.
Posted by: Bill Frampton | October 11, 2012 at 12:07 PM
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
Posted by: John | July 13, 2012 at 01:46 PM
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...
Posted by: Ken Moellman | July 10, 2012 at 02:11 PM
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
Posted by: Adam Love | July 10, 2012 at 09:29 AM