Indeed, one or the other seems to be most likely. Unfortunately, Rothbard was too eager for success in his lifetime for his own good. He played the game of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and got burnt for it. Even more unfortunate, his example of opportunism and impatience seem to breathe into the movement of modern libertarianism.
I agree with SEK3 entirely. We’re strict Rothbardians, even more Rothbardian than Rothbard!
While it’s true that many anarchists will never be our allies, quite a few of them are intelligent enough to figure out that their form of anarchism is compatible with ours. I have a much harder time believing that “conservatives” will support the abolition of government. As soon as you say “anarcho” they’ll think your the son of satan.
I think any irrational attachment to the “left” or “right” is harmful. Irrational meaning that their goals are opposed to ours and such an alliance will never be fruitful. Right now, however, I see more potential allies on the so-called “left” and much more infiltration from the right. The paleocons are watering libertarianism down. We shouldn’t want to “restore the republic” but to abolish the state.
One question: do any of you right leaners see the absurdity inherent absurdity in being an “anarchist” who wants to shut down the borders? This is what I mean by “irrational.”
I’ve held the view from a while now that the biggest infiltration of the libertarian movement that’s taking place comes from the paleoconservatives, who bring in nationalist and protectionist sentiments. And there is also a neoconservative infiltration that manifests itself most of all in many contemporary Objectivists, who seem to be venomous warmongers. In my experience, many self-proclaimed libertarians in America differ very little from conservatives - in a bad sense. Since the libertarian party’s PR campaign mostly consists of repeating conservative platitudes like “limited government”, “less taxes” and “personal responsibility” - it has mislead conservatives into thinking that they are libertarians, as if they are essentially the same thing.
I agree that there are more potential allies on “the left” right now for a number of reasons. For the past few decades it has been conservatives who have most often had the presidency (and I’d argue that some of the democrats count here), and this has spawned a “left-wing” opposition to the warfare state, executive powers and the surveillance apparatus. Furthermore, while their rationale for it is often warped, it is “the left” who more dominately opposes corporatism. It also true that “the left” is more likely to oppose victimless crimes in areas that are often looked down on culturally such as drugs and prostitution. This isn’t to say that libertarians should ally indiscriminately with “the left”, of course.
I think the difference is, that theory and practice are two different things.
While some might be able to post perfect libertarian theory on a forum, practicing it in real life is gradual.
Folks don’t get introduced, absorb all of the lit, comprehend it perfectly, burn their papers, start growing their own vegetables and cancel their bank accounts.
The theory on this forum is interesting, but it is still theory. What’s workable and achievable, what actually “advances the ball” towards true liberty so-to-speak, that’s gradualism. Even the agorists, don’t drop completely out of statist society.
I’ll take this occasion to use the semicolon in a new way!
Ignoring the fact that making money is a victimless crime that the left wants to punish; ignoring the fact more and more rightists are becoming anti-war and anti-Bush every day; and ignoring the fact that it’s rightists who are more likely to support cutting taxes, cutting price controls, and privatizing government functions; most modern leftists are, at their core, collectivists who view the state as the solution to all problems; while most modern rightists are, at their core, confused, inconsistent individualists who view the state and taxation as necessary evils.
Which part, the first or the second? Some days, I wonder about the second, but they’re certainly not as lost as leftists. I’ve seen so many more rightists become libertarians than leftists become libertarians (and I don’t mean faux-libertarians, either).
You did rather well - at reinforcing the false left-right paradime of contemporary politics.
Most rightists are not individualists, they are right-wing collectivists. The degree of “necessary evil” supported by most rightists is not particularly libertarian. They are all statists to the core. Most rightists are some combination of the following: corporatists, militarists, nationalists, theocrats, protectionists, monarchists, racists. All of which are collectivist ideologies in their own ways. Paleoconservatives are a bunch of nationalist, protectionistic and racist dufases who would expand the state in the name of protecting “national sovereignty” and “our culture”. Neoconservatives are a bunch of militaristic, corporatist pricks who would expand the state in the name of defeating “radical islam” and maintaining corporate dominance. Theoconservatives are a bunch of drones still living in the middle ages inside of the heads and would expand the state in the name of defeating the “secular left”.
Let’s face it: the contemporary right is incredibly statist. They are not libertarians. Libertarians need to stop idolizing the right before they become just like them: reactionary statists with different cultural preferances than “the left”.
However, it seems that the majority of ‘religious’ people are quite happy with the concept mass-murder of innocents. And so are the ‘individualists-objectivists’ at capmag.com
I emphasize the following from a LIBERTARIAN perspective: Contemporary conservatives do not support free markets. They do not support non-intervention abroad. They do not support philosophical individualism. They do not support private property rights. The idea that they have those traits is largely a myth that any libertarian with good sense should have rejected long ago. These are FALSE ADVERTISEMENTS, not accurate depictions of the objective content of what conservatives support. At best, conservatives support liberty for their prefered special interest groups while opposing liberty for everyone else - just like all other political factions. This is simply how politics works.
Common traits of a conservative may be: a hobbesian view of human nature, idolization of the police and military, a desire to outlaw culturally undesired behaviors, a desire to preserve political traditions, knee-jerk defenses of corporate power, a desire to use political means to achieve cultural uniformity, a desire to preserve political borders, support for a surveillance apparatus, the idea that the military must be kept big, a desire to invade disliked countries, support for political favors to various industries, a preferance for the use of monetary inflation and borrowing over taxation, support for the “right” of states to be authoritarian in defiance of the feds, political hegomonic trade agreements, and so on.
Libertarianism isn’t thinly defined by making a few tax cuts and fighting minimum wage increases. There is much more at stake.
Brother, the most vehement opposition “on principle” to the warfare state comes from Ron Paul. The most vehement opposition to executive overreach, comes from Ron Paul. Unless you can point out anyone on the left, who is more pro-liberty than Paul.
Now I have no doubt that Paul is more paleocon, minarchist than Ancap. But that’s makes my point perfectly. Your closest ally in government is in fact, RIGHT of center.
The left oppose corporatism, and endorse socialism. Socialists don’t oppose victimless crimes, they make everyone a victim with their bleeding heart ignorance.
You and others complain about nationalism and protectionism, but the nationalism by the more ideologically pure elements is in response to even more statist government. And the protectionism is backlash against the welfare state.
The libertarian paradigm in my opinion, can’t be implemented in chunks. You can’t open borders with a wildly out of control welfare state. Opening the borders might satisfy some element of libertarianism, but it won’t dissolve the welfare state. It will in fact make the effects of welfarism even worse.
Sorry, but at least the right has an intellectual head start on ideas like low taxes, sound money, smaller government. You’ve got a shot (albeit not a great one) of selling free markets to conservatives, you don’t have a shot in hell of selling it to a modern liberal.
By the way, I’ve never seen a single conservative converted to libertarianism, though I’ve seen many former democrats and socialists adopting the philosophy with many Libertarian Socialists conforming to voluntary Anarcho-Syndicalism and many teenage socialists mediating towards a mix of Mutualism and voluntary Communitarianism.