You Know You're Neolibertarian If ...
Charles Paul Freund | April 1, 2005, 12:20pm
The inaugural issue of The New Libertarian is now available for download. This is intended to be an online journal of "neolibertarianism," described by Jon Henke in terms of the following: 1) Pragmatic domestic libertarian; Hawk on defense; 2) Hobbesian libertarian; 3) Big-Tent libertarian.
There's more discussion here (link via Instapundit), along with links to a bloc of sites that regard themselves as part of a neolibertarian network. By the way, the motto of the new journal is "Free Markets, Free People."
thoreau | April 1, 2005, 7:18pm | #
I agree with Thoreau. I think the answer is to find an intelligent, charismatic libertarian candidate who can spend five minutes with a religious voter without kicking them in the groin... and then spend money on the campaign like a fleet of drunken sailors. Donde esta Thoreau?
Here are my thoughts on this matter:
1) I think that, at least in the political arena, libertarians should just agree to disagree on foreign policy. Why? Because serious political advances by libertarians, be it via the LP, small-l libertarians in the GOP or even maverick ACLU Democrats (hey, one can always dream), ballot measures, lobbying, or litigation (e.g. The Institute for Justice) will start at the local and state level.
We can argue all we want about the invasion of Iraq, but let's also take the time support a ballot measure to repeal a local tax. My vow is to soon start aiding such measures. And when I pass out leaflets I won't be asking whether my fellow volunteers will join me in condemning our foreign policy.
We can argue all we want about whether the revolt in Kyrgyzstan was inspired by events in Iraq or Ukraine, but take a break to attend a city council meeting the next time they try to use eminent domain.
We can cancel our subscription to any libertarian magazine that doesn't support our vision of foreign policy, but if we must do this let's at least send the subscription money to the Institute for Justice so they can get some bullshit regulation overturned.
In October or November of 2002, on the Sunday before the election, while I was in church somebody went to the church parking lot and passed out fliers indicating where candidates stood on abortion. That's all well and good for offices that have some authority related to abortion, but this flier even rated candidates for Water District based on abortion. I think that flier is a perfect analogy to those who would divide the already tiny libertarian movement over foreign policy.
2) If the editors of this new magazine end up widening the tent by bringing people who are libertarian on domestic issues but don't share the dominant/orthodox/pure/whatever libertarian view on foreign policy then I wish them the very best. But if they spend more of their time battling other pedigrees of libertarian then, well, I won't condemn them too loudly (no need to add more fuel to the fire of infighting), but I can't say they're doing anything too constructive.
I like
Reason because they run articles that a non-libertarian can appreciate. I find points in those articles that I can bring up with non-libertarians and make them think.
3) My notion of a big tent: At least on domestic policy, I'm perfectly happy to confer include in the libertarian camp anybody who wants genuinely smaller government, who embraces market economics as well as social tolerance and civil liberties (note that the "social tolerance" criterion probably excludes the hard core types on both sides of the "culture war"). One need not be a purist, just support less government rather than more.
I'd welcome in the big tent somebody who wants to remove restrictions on handguns but not automatic rifles, who wants to cut taxes and spending without completely abolishing taxes, who wants to liberalize drug laws without complete legalization, who wants to trim regulatory agencies but not abolish all of them, and so forth.
Stretch | April 1, 2005, 8:33pm | #
Random thoughts:
If the "neolibertarians" who would otherwise have nothing to do with libertarianism actually vote for an LP candidate (how unlibertarian!) that would be a significant step in the right direction, even if they're half-breeds so to speak.
I'm all for letting a unified position on foreign policy slip to the back. When every single election and appointed position, no matter how tiny and local, is framed in terms of Federal standards, the battle for decentralization is already lost.
Whatever ones personal feelings on religion, the argument should always be framed where it belongs, that one group of citizens cannot impose their own beliefs on another group through government. Far too often, especially since the election, I see modern liberals rallying against religion from pure distaste for religion. Take the Schaivo case. Yes, those petitioning for gov't involvement were largely religious, but they are still a minority compared to all of the religious people who didn't get involved and in some cases agreed with the decision of the courts. The problem isn't religion. It's that some people want to enforce their views on everybody, no matter where those views come from.
The fact is most people have no idea what a libertarian believes, and they certainly have no clue how much debate goes on internally within the libertarian community. Depending on the viewpoint, we're seen as far-right, far-left or (gasp!) both simultaneously. To that end, I would suggest that any new blog which will raise any awareness is a good thing, even if the beliefs of that blog aren't necessarily "pure". After all, I don't believe the DU is completely representative of the Democrat philosophy, and "neolibertarianism" isn't going to define its origins. I'd be much more concerned about those who just claim to be "libertarians" without a prefix. After all, words have been hijacked before...
If there's one thing that the mainstream needs to know about libertarianism, it's that it is a coherent and consistent political philosophy, as opposed to the hodge-podge of conflicting ideas that it is usually confused with. Ironically, it's much more consistent than either the Republicans or Democrats, and yet is seen as the opposite.
thoreau | April 2, 2005, 1:44am | #
As long as we're talking about different strains of libertarianism, here's a thought:
A lot of the differences between sects, at least on the subject of
domestic policy seem to involve 2 questions:
1) What should be done in some far off, distant day when the government has been shrunk significantly and the momentum exists to shrink it even more?
2) Given that the government should be smaller, what is the "proper" rationale for wanting it to be smaller? Which set of axioms are the "right" axioms to use when deducing that the government should be smaller? Even if 2 different sets of axioms lead to that same conclusion, which set of axioms is the moral set?
The first question is currently irrelevant. The taxes need to be cut right now, and we can worry later about how to fund core government functions when we're on the verge of eliminating the very last tax. People need the right to keep and bear concealed handguns to protect themselves from criminals right now; we can worry later about the right to keep and bear fighter jets. The drug war is completely insane and needs to be rolled back ASAP; we can worry later on about whether it should be legal to sell heroin in candy stores. Zoning laws are inflating housing costs right now; we can debate later on whether to repeal the law against building a nuclear wase dump next to an orphanage. And so forth.
The second question is not only irrelevant to the current situation, it's downright religious. When I've volunteered on campaigns, nobody has asked me which philosopher I subscribe to. It shouldn't matter whether one is inspired by Hobbes, Locke, Rand, Nozick, Jesus, or whoever. If somebody wants to shrink the state across the board (not just on selected matters, while expanding it in other dimensions) that's good enough for me.
If neo-libertarians differ from other libertarian sects on the 2 questions outlined above (at least in regard to domestic policy) then I welcome them to the big tent. OTOH, if they differ on other questions as well, maybe I'll have to reconsider that welcome mat.
James Anderson Merritt | April 2, 2005, 11:49am | #
Stretch says, "Considering that we will never see the large-scale government reduction/destruction that libertarianism calls for, the options for enacting change are very limited."
And yet, goverments continue to collapse, as they have throughout history. Governments are overthrown. Governments lose in war. History teaches us that, at some point -- simply because of the unpredictability of events and the randomness of human behavior -- our own government will be no more. Nobody thought that the Soviet Union would be a chapter in the history books by the mid 1990s. As with the USSR, the key questions we must ask about our own government are these: What will replace it? Who will be in control of the process?
If what you are saying is that our system cannot heal itself from within, then that bodes ill for its future survival. If you are saying that all governments will be "large-scale" from here on out, I think you are ignoring the lessons of history; likewise, if you think that our system will go on forever as it is now, without drastic change. If you're saying that you and I will never be able to influence that change for the better, perhaps you are right. But are we to simply go back to sleep and get up the next morning to trudge in the mines, all thoughts of a constitutionally limited republic gone from our minds like a pleasant fantasy that begins to fade as soon as one opens one's eyes and quits dreaming?
Perhaps it is impossible to bring big government to heel. That would be a shame, because such a failure would guarantee a much more wrenching transition later: collapse, revolution, what have you. I believe that it is, however, irresponsible to just abandon the goal. I don't think that we can ever make government smaller by participating in making it bigger, though, unless the point is to accelerate the collapse -- an approach that I remain open minded about but basically feel will do much more harm than good.
The US government is bloated. It needs to go on a diet and shed significant poundage, or the prognosis is not good. Somehow, I doubt that "pragmatic libertarians," who mostly go along with the idea of using government force, the way that co-dependent enablers go along with the idea of eating junk food, are going to make any significant difference in dealing with the bloat. If we can't get serious about reining in big government and cutting it back, maybe you are right: there's no hope. In that case, one might as well dream; and if there IS hope, I'll bet that only the people with clear dreams will make them real.
LisaMarie | April 2, 2005, 2:47pm | #
Just because people call themselves "neolibertarians" and decide to reinvent the libertarian message doesn't mean it's going to do one whit of good. I'm just not convinced that the libertarian party can change its image, embrace "pragmatism" or suddenly get on the right message and people will just come flocking to it. Party politics is a giant black hole down which libertarians pour their energy and effort. The LP isn't going to accomplish anything, ever, unless we start changing people's minds, one at a time. People are never going to be drawn to libertarianism no matter what message the LP sends because it is fundamentally at odds with what most people believe about government. Forget talking high-minded philosophy. The LP will never reach people as long as they think, among other things (and I have encountered all of these at one time or another):
1. The minimum wage produces prosperity
2. There are certain things the free market is simply incapable of providing enough of, including health care, education, and charity.
3. The government is the only institution that's ever made meaningful progress against poverty.
4. Government acts for the public good and is simply responding to what people want.
5. Every government program was started in response to an urgent social need that was not being met, and is thus necessary.
6. Free markets will naturally divide people into haves and have nots, but government can make society fair.
7. Laws against victimless crime send a message to people about what behaviors we as a society do and don't approve of.
8. Income redistribution makes a society richer and more just.
Changing one mind at a time is the really, really hard way, but in the end I think it's the only thing that will work.
Ken Shultz | April 2, 2005, 3:51pm | #
I think we are beginning to conflate two different discussions in this thread. One discussion is about whether or not the Libertarian Party should find ways to appeal to a bigger audience--very few of us seem to be against that. It's just a question of how best to do it. The other discussion is a question of Party platform. If the "NeoLibertarians" (despite protests to the contrary) believe that the Libertarian Party platform should allow for the United States to use its military for the sole purpose of democratizing dictatorships, then the change they're trying to make will alienate a lot of current Libertarians.
I don't think the Party can answer this foreign policy question the same way it answered the Abortion Issue. ...I don't want to debate the Abortion Issue here and now; I hope I can make my point sufficiently simply by pointing out that there are valid libertarian arguments on both sides. ...By accepting that there are valid arguments against banning abortion, no Libertarian pro-lifer need fear that someone will interpret his vote as support for forcing people to abort their fetuses. Rather, I suspect, most of the people who know anything about the Libertarian Party probably assume that such a voter will be entirely upset if the government forces people to have abortions.
...That isn't the case with foreign policy. If the Party officially supports military incursions for the sole purpose of spreading democracy, then I can't support the Party without supporting those incursions too. If the Party's platform contains a plank allowing for such occupations, then I certainly can't vote for the Party's candidate in protest. That is to say, there can be no "both...and" here. I can hold that Abortion laws should be crafted by the states rather than the federal government and yet maintain that the Abortion procedure itself is either right or wrong. I can hold that a right to life is just as or more important than a mother's right to pursue happiness and yet maintain that a fetus is not yet a holder of rights.
...However, I cannot support occupying a country that doesn't pose a threat and simultaneously oppose occupying the same nation. And, please note, this is not just a backward looking observation as it regards Iraq. What position should the Libertarian Party take in regards to an invasion of Zimbabwe? What about Myanmar? What about the Sudan? What about Cuba? What about Libya?
Let there be a debate about what we’re talking about when we talk about "self-defense." I have long argued that alliances are an extremely effective form of self-defense and that, because of this, many things that otherwise might not be justified are entirely justifiable in the service of an alliance. I have heard it argued, unpersuasively I should add, that occupying a foreign tyranny is a form of self-defense because of Reverse Domino Theory. Make that case if you please, but please, let the Party stick to the idea that the only justification for the use of military force is self-defense.
Ken Shultz | April 2, 2005, 4:25pm | #
"I'm just not convinced that the libertarian party can change its image, embrace "pragmatism" or suddenly get on the right message and people will just come flocking to it."
I suspect that the biggest reason for that is because we have single member districts, and, by the way, I like single member districts. This means that, unless something historic happens to one of the two big parties, if our agenda is ever to be picked up, it will be picked up by one of the major parties. This is what happened with the Communist Party's platform in the 1920's, which FDR picked up and implemented (at least that's what it said in the appendix to "Free to Choose.")
...If the Democrats or Republicans pick up our platform, the Libertarian Party can make profound, long term changes in American government.
"People are never going to be drawn to libertarianism no matter what message the LP sends because it is fundamentally at odds with what most people believe about government.
I refuse to believe that. In times of crisis, our Presidents sound like libertarians. In the speech Bush made to congress right after the 9/11 attacks, he sounded like a libertarian. When Reagan was running for office against Carter, especially in that speech with the Statue of Liberty in the background, he sounded like a libertarian. These were remarkably memorable speeches, and they both got people excited.
...I would argue that those speeches were exciting because they framed libertarian ideas in moral terms. I would argue that framing ideas in moral terms resonates with people more so than analysis. I would argue that libertarians have been much more adept at the analysis arguments and not so adept with the moral arguments. I would argue that we can improve that.
Of the following two arguments, which do you think would be more persuasive to a general audience?
Argument 1: The amount of money we spend per arrest in the War on Drugs isn't worth the bang we get for our buck.
Argument 2: Locking people in cages for doing something that only effects themselves is morally wrong.
Dan H. | April 2, 2005, 4:31pm | #
Hobbes was not a totalitarian. In [i]Leviathan[/i] he makes clear why a sovereign is needed, and his reasoning is not so different than Libertarian acceptance of a judiciary and military. Basically, it goes like this:
In a state of total anarchy, men are free to do whatever they want. But in such a state, there is no objectivity. Power confers to the most powerful gang. People are in a constant state of war with each other. This is the world in which all rights are 'natural' rights - a right being simply something that is within our abilityt to do. I have a natural right to swing my fist into your nose, because I can.
Recognizing that such a state means that no one gets what they want, Hobbes invokes the concept of 'political' rights, which are really just rights enshrined in contract. I agree to not punch you in the nose, if in turn you agree to not punch me in the nose. We each give up our natural right to punch each other because we recognize that
it is in our own self-interest to do so. That last bit is key to understanding why Hobbes is not a totalitarian. He invokes the state not to rule over the affairs of men, but to enforce a contractual system that maximizes freedom.
Once we have this contract, the next question is, "what is to stop some people from violating it, for their own advantage?" It's in this context that he invokes a sovereign - a state given power to adjudicate and enforce the social contract. Because it sits above the affairs of men, it is objective and impartial.
To Hobbes, the point of this whole construct is to maximize freedom and increase utility for citizens, not to have a state for its own sake.
thoreau | April 2, 2005, 4:54pm | #
Ken-
Well, with your particular example, some people would argue (wrongly, I know) that drug users are hurting others. And, to be honest, they have a point: A lot of drug abusers cause big problems for their families, even if they don't commit theft, assault, or other "real" crimes.
So if you argue that "Locking people in cages for doing something that only effects themselves is morally wrong", somebody will immediately fire back with a consequentialist argument. To refute them you'll have to get into the issue of what really constitutes harm to another person and whatnot.
A better consequentialist argument about drugs is that prohibition is clearly not working (lots of people are still using drugs) and that it's creating huge side effects (the violent and corrupt black market that everybody knows exists). Judge Jim Gray doesn't always come right out and say that we need immediate legalization, he just says that what's being done right now is clearly a failure and we need to move past prohibition. It's a much more difficult argument to refute.
On economic issues, I think moral arguments will meet a lukewarm reception. Sure, everybody believes that theft is wrong, but not everybody believes that taxation is theft. Everybody believes that you should be able to make your own choices as long as you aren't hurting anybody else, but not everybody believes that certain economic choices (e.g. accepting a low-paying job) are freely made, or that the other party to the transaction (e.g. the McDonald's manager) isn't hurting anybody else (he's giving that person a job, but it's a "bad job").
Now, consequentialist arguments will also encounter lots of resistance, but they don't necessarily offend people as much. If I say that minimum wage laws are wrong because they violate a boss's God-given (Rand-given? ;) right to pay a shitty wage, people will look at me like I'm some sort of barbarian. They'll be less likely to take my subsequent arguments seriously OTOH, if I say that I feel sorry for low wage workers but minimum wage laws do more harm than good, people will be more likely to consider me worthy of engaging in debate.
Gary Gunnels | April 2, 2005, 7:48pm | #
Jon Henke,
Rather, I think Hobbes had a clear-eyed view of the state of nature: absent a government, it will be a war of competing interests. Poor, nasty, brutish and short, as it were.
Again, you illustrate that you know very little about Hobbes. If you would care to read my comments instead of ignoring them that would be helpful.
BTW, if this is all that one takes from Hobbes, then that hardly counts as a "Hobbesian" position, since Locke and Smith both admitted that some measure of government was required, yet did not feel that the sort of tyrannical government Hobbes' proposes was necessary to get the job done. In other words, you are much more in line with either Locke or Smith, without even realizing it. Again, I urge to actually study the works of the man (Hobbes) before you start making pronouncements about his views or what a Hobbesian is!
Locke, on the other hand, pictured an idealized state of nature that has never existed. As a basis for a realistic philosophy, its non-existence is problematic.
Hobbes also pictured an idealized state of nature, as did all the contract theorists; big whoop. Anyone with a tidbit of knowledge about Locke realizes that Locke never disagreed with Hobbes' notion that human society requires some measure of government. Man, this is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Franklin Harris,
You're an asshole. You come on here and attack me with the most pathetic arguments from expertise and authority and then expect some sort of nice and tidy discussion with me. *LOL* This by itself gives me no reason to take you seriously. You're just another version of our local troll known as BillyRay.
As to your discussion of Naverson and Buchanan, it does not obviate the fact that they are not neo-Hobbesian in the sense that I have discussed. In other words, your statements are beside the point.
Perhaps in the future, instead of making cowardly and pathetic appeals to authority, you can engage folks in discussion. Otherwise you're just another BillyRay.
Obviously Narveson, and any libertarian, would reject Hobbes' view of the state.
And of course Hobbes' view of the state has been the heart of my commentary. So, like, DUH! Note that your cryptic appeals to authority didn't try to make any differentiation along these lines. So I, the reader, was left to assume that you were responding to my actual comments; if I had realized that were responding to some wholely different issue, perhaps our discussion would have been more fruitful. But you weren't really willing to give me that courtesy, were you?
Dan H.,
Hobbes was not a totalitarian.
How can a sovereign which has no check on its power not be totalitarian or at the very least authoritarian? Hobbes also recognizes no individual rights in his Leviathan state.
You are getting Hobbes' predicted outcomes confused with the means to those outcomes I am afraid. The outcomes may indeed be greater security, but the means to that end are totalitarian in approach.
Bill Woolsey | April 3, 2005, 5:10pm | #
The three major philosophical groundings that various libertarian thinkers have used are natural law/rights, consequentialism/utilitarianism, and contractarianism.
Some contractarians credit Hobbes with getting the contractarian approach started. "Hobbesian libertarian," then uses social contract reasoning to get at some kind of libertarian result. Buchanan comes up with limited government consitutionalism. Narveson comes up with an absolutist individual rights position.
Locke is generally considered a key figure in the natural law/rights tradition. Contractarian libertarians give the "social contract" a different and much more important role than Locke. So, the credit to Hobbes.
It is evident that calling these variants of libertarian perspective "Hobbesian libertarianism" causes confusion. It seems to me that "contractarianism" is a better term.
As for this new ezine, there is no real connection between incrementalism in domestic policy proposal, a rejection of isolationism, and a contractarian grounding of libertarianism. It is just these particular folks hold those three views.
Many natural rights libertarians reject isolationism. John Hospers, for example. As have consequentialist libertarians--like Milton Friedman.
And there is no reason why a contractarian might not be an isolationist.
As for emphasizing incremental reform in domestic policy, many libertarians take that approach. And there is no reason why a contractarian might not favor proposing immediate radical change.
For that matter, libertarians who favor something like isolationism might well take an incremental approach in foreign policy--focusing on opposition to really stupid interventions, like in Iraq, before cutting the Japanese loose.
To some degree, the "neos" are just creating a false alternative. Them or the "paleos", that is, Rothbard's old plumbline.
A much better approach is that there is a wide variety of libertarian approaches to domestic and foreign policy, as well as to strategy. The relevant question is what do they have in common?
Ken Shultz | April 3, 2005, 5:29pm | #
That they've somehow grafted Hobbes onto their supposedly libertarian argument isn't the only joke. Symbolically, these guys look to me like they're way off the reservation. Look at
the symbols they've chosen for their network. They both use the phrase "Don't Tread on Me" and use the Revolutionary War era rattlesnake. That symbol is near and dear to my heart; in fact, if I ever got a tattoo, I think it would sport that phrase and symbol.
...But why did the Revolutionaries use the rattlesnake as a symbol? Sure it was thought of as being a uniquely American animal, but that isn't all. The rattlesnake gives a big, loud, nasty, rattle of a warning before it strikes, and even then, a victim must provoke it further in order to be attacked. All that is to say, the rattlesnake only strikes in self-defense. Indeed, without the "Don't tread on me.", wouldn't the symbol seem incomplete?
...So it seems to me that using that symbol to justify unprovoked incursions by Ameican troops is a gross misappropriation, plain and simple.
If NeoLibertarians were devoted to self-defense, of course, this would make a great symbol for them; but that doesn't seem to be the case. Look at their definition on foreign policy:
"In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,"
"A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship."
"A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected."
http://www.qando.net/details.aspx?Entry=650
Doesn't it take special shoes to tip toe around like that?
Anyway, I don't think the old revolutionary rattlesnake really communicates what these guys are trying to say. I suggest they try
this symbol on for size. I might have suggested
this one, but for their purposes, I suspect it would require some modification.
Mona | April 3, 2005, 6:36pm | #
I support Mr. Henke and hope his neolibertarian coalition takes off. Much as I enjoy spirited debate, I prefer it to be civil, and I deeply dislike purge mentalities and anathemas. This board has become uncivil, especially with Mr. Gunnel's many contributions to it. It is also surpassingly common for those of us who broadly support Bush's war on terror, including the occupation and liberation of Iraq, to be decreed as heretics, and no true libertarians. Hence, I have largely ceased posting here, and disagree that this board is a "big tent" in tenor and tone.
Milton Friedman is, I would presume, accepted by most here as a "real" libertarian; Brian Doherty certainly seemed to concede that point when he interviewed him in a 1995
Reason piece entitled "Best of Both Worlds," which is included in the book,
Choice: the Best of Reason. Therein, Doherty inquires of Friedman: "Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on foreign policy issues?" Friedman replies:
"I don't believe that libertarianism dictates a foreign policy. " He then goes on to discuss his own personal position (he is anti-isolationist but calls himself an anti-interventionist, without defining those parameters), and his ambivalence over the Gulf War, but declares that "it was more nearly justified than other recent foreign interventions...."
Libertarians will have little to no influence on policy as long as they are primarily dedicated to squabbling among themselves and policing the ranks for purity as defined by self-appointed arbiters of same. So, I support Henke's fledgling efforts, and hope they continue to be refined as time goes by to turn into a libertarian movement that might actually see some success in the real world.
Ken Shultz | April 3, 2005, 7:35pm | #
Nice to see you again Mona. It struck me as I was reading what these NeoLibertarians believe that these guys might earn your blessing.
"It is also surpassingly common for those of us who broadly support Bush's war on terror, including the occupation and liberation of Iraq, to be decreed as heretics, and no true libertarians. Hence, I have largely ceased posting here, and disagree that this board is a "big tent" in tenor and tone."
...but not in substance. Neoconservative commenters post here frequently, and there are at least two regular Reason contributors who are clearly, at least, sympathetic to the War in Iraq if not full blown neoconservatives themselves.
At any rate, this is where I would suggest that libertarians who support the War in Iraq need your wisdom and wit on this board, but that's true of any side of any issue. The more intelligent commenters, the better.
...Proper tenor and tone is a difficult thing to deliver I suspect.
"Doherty inquires of Friedman: "Do you consider yourself in the libertarian mainstream on foreign policy issues?" Friedman replies: "I don't believe that libertarianism dictates a foreign policy."
I came to the Libertarian Party by way of the Reagan Revolution, that is to say, by way of Milton Friedman. I read "Free to Choose" when I was very young. Considering the ultimate effects it had on my political orientation, I think I would have to rank high on the list of books that influenced me most. Like Friedman, I'm both anti-interventionist and anti-isolationist, and if you had asked me in 1995 if I thought there was a libertarian foreign policy, I think I would have said no.
...But it isn't 1995 anymore. I think what NeoLibertarians, and those like them, are doing will ultimately lead to a platform fight. I don't want to restate everything I wrote on April 2 at 3:51, but supporting the War in Iraq, or supporting any such interventionist war, is in abject defiance of Article IV of the Libertarian Platform on Foregin Affairs, which reads in part:
"The principle of non-intervention should guide relationships between governments. The United States government should return to the historic libertarian tradition of avoiding entangling alliances, abstaining totally from foreign quarrels and imperialist adventures, and recognizing the right to unrestricted trade, travel, and immigration."
http://www.lp.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html
So we're talking about a fight as it regards the Party Platform, are we not? I would not say that this makes you or anyone that agrees with you a nonlibertarian, but if the NeoLibertarians define themselves against the Platform in an apparent attempt to influence people against the Party Platform, they shouldn't expect those of us who like the Platform as it is to sit on our hands and breathe through our noses.
As I argued in my comment above on April 2 at 3:51, I do not believe the Party is big enough for both pure interventionists and non-interventionists, so if there's going to be a Platform fight, let there be one with as many intelligent voices as possible.
I hope you participate.
P.S. The last election is the first I've been eligible to vote in, in which I didn't vote for the Republicans for President. The Democrats didn't offer an anti-Iraq vote in the last election, so I voted Libertarian to protest the Iraq War. I couldn't have done that if the Libertarian Party had nominated someone who was in favor of the Iraq War. Given a change in Party Platform, I don't think this patriotic American could have voted for President in the last general election in good conscience...
...Some may ask NeoLibertarians where their platform ideas differ with the Republicans, and, indeed, wonder why they just don't join the Republican Party. I might be among them. Please note that this is a point of interest, and not an attempt to poison the tone or question whether or not someone is a true libertarian.
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
