Liberty Alone

In the past, libertarians tended to defend actually existing capitalism because the most likely alternative model was much worse. Capitalists also were willing to talk about the value of free markets, even if they wanted protection - the reason being that they needed an apologetic that was not naked class privilege. With the collapse of orthodox socialism, however, the capitalists have dropped even their free market rhetoric, and we can start thinking about more free market alternatives. That is why people like Kevin Carson are so important. He reminds us that libertarianism is not the same as Tesco minus the State.

Sean Gabb on the Libertarian Alliance blog

libertarianism wants to advance principles of property but that it in no way wishes to defend, willy nilly, all property which now is called private.

Much of that property is stolen. Much is of dubious title. All of it is deeply intertwined with an immoral, coercive state system which has condoned, built on, and profited from slavery; has expanded through and exploited a brutal and aggressive imperial and colonial foreign policy, and continues to hold the people in a roughly serf-master relationship to political-economic power concentrations.

Karl Hess - Libertarian Forum Vol I. No. VI

These show why the Conservative Party is not the natural home of truly principled libertarians. The Conservative ideology is to entrench the current system of privilege and ownership.

The nature of property is a difficult problem, libertarians run the gamut from Locke to Proudhon, but they always accentuate that property should be justly acquired, not taken through force.

There is now a campaign website up to support Gavin Webb:
http://www.savethestokeone.com/

As far as I know, Gavin still has not been told what the exact charges against him are.

Frankly, this whole thing puts the party in a very bad light. The Liberals were often the home of libertarians, some more radical than Gavin. Perhaps they have largely been airbrushed out of history, but they were there and were important members of the Liberal coalition.

If libertarians and radical liberals are no longer welcome in the Liberal Democrats then perhaps the critics who claim we are neither liberal or democratic are right and we’re just yet another Tory party, dedicated to preserving or increasing state power over the individual.

A new favourite blog of mine - aimed at seeking common ground between US liberals and libertarians - rather like Rothbard’s alliance with the New Left.
Certainly there’s ground to start with - libertarians tend to be against ventures like the Iraq War, as do many on the left. Both are often concerned with freedom and many libertarians are also deeply concerned with social injustice and the suffering of the poor.

The quality of much of the writing is very high and very informative, largely due to the involvement of Kevin Carson whose critique of vulgar libertarianism is often very hard hitting and well aimed. He is definitely well placed to try and bring together libertarians and US-style liberals given his left-wing and libertarian radicalism which can appeal to many on both sides.

From a LibDem point of view, this is interesting because in many ways we are in the hinterland between libertarianism and US liberalism. Some of us are definitely libertarian, others very close to US liberalism, most are somewhere in between the two.

Its well worth a read. I find the attacks on corporatism (state intervention on behalf of corporations) particularly interesting. Its an area missed by many on the right, but is responsible for much of the actions of the New Deal (which just wrapped them up in left-leaning rhetoric).
I’m sure there’ll be something for everyone.

Update: Corrected the URL…

It seems that some disaffected libertarians are trying to start a Libertarian Party.

Its interesting that this is being started, especially given the Libertarian Alliance’s position of not starting a political party, a position which was also the position of the winning Chris R. Tame Memorial Prize essay.

One of the main reasons for this rejection is that it is bound to result in internal strife. Libertarians tend to be rather a fractious bunch, despite a common commitment to individualism and self-ownership, they differ a lot in opinions and tactics. Its not just between the anarchist and the minarchist, its between agorist, geolibertarian, Rothbardian, Friedmanite (that’s David Friedman not Milton), mutualist, natural rightists and utilitarians and many many more. The LA seems to attempt to be a home for all sorts of libertarian, a political party on the other hand will become the home of one particular view, or descend into eternal squabbling.

I, for one, am not contemplating jumping ship, even if the party had some success. I agree with the aim of reducing government, of holding abusers of power to account and restoring our civil rights, but the Liberal Democrats offer the latter two and the first is well within our scope (if its not focussed on today), and the LibDems offer a far better platform for these ideas.
The vision is then sullied by anti-EU jingoism and militarism. These both leave a nasty taste in my mouth. They are too pugilistic. The EU has many faults which we should be addressing, but I still find the EU-nihilist view too extreme for the moment (perhaps I’m too optimistic about the possibilities of reform), the militarism - well, I agree the government treats our troops abysmally, but to place them at the centre of policy seems a bit much and rather like national willy waving. (Of course, some minarchists would argue that legal system and military are the only purpose of the state and so they would naturally be at the centre of policy).

I think this new party, if it gets up and running seriously, will just be just like the libertarian wing of UKIP, some good ideas, but with a strong reactionary right wing element. I suspect it will also serve to drag down the name of libertarianism even further into the quagmire of right wing slurs from which it suffers.

I’ll watch with interest, but I don’t hold up much hope.

Ron Paul, radical, anti-war liberal (or in US parlance libertarian) libertarian has shocked the US political establishment by raising a record (for a Republican) $4 million in one day (the biggest amount raised in one day was Kerry with $5.7 million the day after he accepted the Democrat nomination).

What’s even more astonishing is he’s done so whilst being shunned by the Republican establishment and the mainstream media (until recently). What’s behind his success? I’m not sure, but I’d hazard a guess that he appeals to those fed up with the political establishment, those who want the government out of their lives. Those who want freedom from the high taxes and social conservatism of the current mainstream Republican and Democrat parties. Perhaps there’s a vestige of the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian traditions left in some parts of the country. Its not that long since Barry Goldwater was a candidate and a senator. A Republican who made a principled defense of gay rights and attacked the power of central government.

I am hoping that miracles do happen and he will win the Republican nomination. A more likely scenario is that he will prompt the US political establishment to rediscover the liberalism which the Democrats abandoned in the early 20th Centurty and which the Republicans discovered a part of in the 20th Century. I hope this at least happens. The Democrats especially have a great opportunity to stake out this ground again. Unfortunately they, like the Republicans are dominated by anti-liberals at the top.

You may ask isn’t it somehow wrong for a LibDem to support a Republican? Ordinariliy perhaps, certainly a Bush-like candidate is anathema, but so should Hillary Clinton with her big state, authoritarian, bullying positions. Liberals in the US are really stuck for options and Ron Paul gives a voice to them.

He embodies many of the core principles of liberalism, personal freedom, limited government, the state out of your pocket and your bedroom. I don’t agree with him on all policies, but he really is a liberal - he says most of these are up to the state, or even county or town governments.
He’s against (rightly in my view) the schemes for universal healthcare, but if New York wishes to socialise health care it will be able to. As liberals surely this is music to our ears? Real localism. Trying different solutions to see what works best and produces the desired outcomes.

He would also end the ‘War on Drugs’, ending the suffering of many many people. Again if Texas wanted to make drugs illegal it could, but Californians would be able to use medical marujana without fear of the DEA raiding them and putting terminally ill people in prison for smoking a bit of weed.

Religious tolerance and freedom would once again be the name of the game. He’d seek to ensure religion and state would be firmly seperated.

In my more hopeful (or delusional) moments, I hope he’d be another Jackson, to be followed by another Van Buren, this time without slavery to divide the party and let the anti-liberal Lincoln successor in.

Not much chance of that, the vested interests in politics are probably too great, the political classes know they’re onto a good thing and won’t give up control easily. It is refreshing however to see a radical liberal actually getting support and the arguments being heard. It offers a glimmer of hope for liberalism. Those who aren’t so radical, or are radical in a different direction to Ron Paul (most of us I should think) should be glad that he will hopefully offer hope for the more moderate liberal views as well.

Not only does is the right to bear arms (ie wands) hold in JK Rowling’s Harry Potter books (albeit only for those deemed competent - Hagrid is not so should not have his wand), but Marginal Revolution points out that compulsory education is not part of the Wizarding world, until Voldemort gets into power that is:

‘Attendance is now compulsory for every young witch and wizard,’ he replied. ‘That was announced yesterday. It’s a change because it was never obligatory before. Of course, nearly every witch and wizard in Britain has been educated at Hogwarts, but their parents had the right teach them at home or send them abroad if they preferred. This way, Voldemort will have the whole wizarding population under his eye from a young age.’

I’ve been told that the US republican party is the most libertarian party and the best bet for libertarians in the US.

This doesn’t fly well with me. As opposed as I am to the Democrat’s ‘liberalism’ and statism, I don’t see that republicans today are libertarian.

Some of the liberal agenda was pushed by Reagan and before him Barry Goldwater campaigned on a far more libertarian basis in 1964 (and in the 1980s broke ranks against the religious right on many issues).

Yet look at the republicans today. Dominated by war mongers, led by a man who wants to lock people up without trial and confiscate the property of political dissidents. The party contains people would would quite happily put people to death for being anti-war.
They are socially conservative and not even economically liberal. Bush has presided over the biggest increase in state spending ever.

True, there’s the Republican Liberty Caucus, but they are frankly marginalised by the religious right and the social conservatives and the pro-war lobby.

None of the front runners for the Republican nomination are particularly liberal. Guiliani has shown himself to be illiberal on many things such as pornography despite his social liberalism. He’s also authoritarian personally and not in the least bit economically liberal.
McCain has led the biggest assault on free speech with the McCain-Feingold campaign financing act. He’s a nationalist and “national greatness” conservative and vehemently pro-war. He took over from Goldwater promising you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference, but has been a meddling, authoritarian in public policy.
Thompson - Easily the most pro-Bush candidate. Hawkish on foreign policy and socially conservative.

There is of course Ron Paul who seems to be getting a lot of attention on the internet and now some attention in the mainstream media, but he doesn’t realistically stand much chance…

Not much choice really. They’re all as bad as each other.

Perhaps the GOP contains some libertarians, but its policies for the foreseeable future are going to be broadly illiberal and authoritarian.

As anyone who knows me probably knows, one of my biggest annoyances is the way the word liberalism has been perverted by socialists, statists and conservatives to mean the opposite of what it originally meant. I’ve just come across a perfect example which shows how little this modern, American ‘liberalism’ differs from conservatism:

To lay a ghost at the outset and to dismiss semantics, a liberal is here defined as one who believes in utilizing the full force of government for the advancement of social, political, and economic justice at the municipal, state, national, and international levels…. A liberal believes government is a proper tool to use in the development of a society which attempts to carry Christian principles of conduct into practical effect.

Senator Joseph S. Clark, Jr. - Atlantic, July 1953, p. 27

Okay, so ‘liberals’ differ from conservatives in many of their ends, a ‘liberal’ has a different conception of justice and to day these so-called liberals shirk away from religion more, but the essence is the same, the government must use force and coercion to impose what politicians think is best. The argument is then simply about what should be forced upon people rather than is this the legitimate purpose of government, what is its ends and wouldn’t leaving the individual free to run their own lives be better.

Sometimes I get asked why I’m not a Tory. Apparently this is because I’m broadly a libertarian (although I am really a radical liberal) and the Tory party is apparently the natural home for libertarians (I’ve never succeeded in working out why - it goes against all the history of the Tories until the anti-socialism of Thatcher adopted some libertarian positions).

Cicero explains one of the reasons I cannot be a Tory, ably assisted by Iain Dale.

I may disagree with many LibDems, I may disagree on party policy, but at the roots there is a core of liberalism in the LibDems, a core which I believe can be nurtured.
At the heart of the Tories is reactionary conservatism and defense of vested interests.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all Tories are bad, there are many liberal Tories, but they do not represent the fundamentals of the party. They, of course, will argue that I am as delusional as I think they are about the prospects for a liberal/libertarian Tory party when it comes to the LibDems ;)

Last nigh I went along to the launch drinks of Libertarian UK.
Libertarian UK was put together by Chris Mounsey who is better known as Devil’s Kitchen.

The aim is to provide a place for libertarians (aka liberals) to discuss policy and ideas with the aim of promoting libertarian, anti-authoritarian, liberty based ideas and promoting policies which may be accepted by a more mainstream audience.

The evening was great fun, although I felt a bit out of place being the only Liberal Democrat. For some reason, libertarianism is dominated by Tories and the LibDems have a very bad reputation as being socialists, high taxers and big state interventionists, although The Croydonian was very reasoned and defending those of us in the LibDems who are liberals and the LibDem record on civil liberties.

Libertarian UK is looking for people to write articles for the blog, so if you have any ideas I’m sure they’ll be welcomed. We could also show them that the LibDems aren’t just a bunch of leftist, tax and spend nannies.