What's a Real Libertarian?
Here is the introduction to the new edition of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.
There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, but Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged. The reason is that Murray Rothbard was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.
"Mr. Libertarian," Murray N. Rothbard was called, and "The State's Greatest Living Enemy." He remains so. Yes, he had many predecessors from whom he drew: the whole of the classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these pieces together into a unified system that seems implausible at first but inevitable once it has been defined and defended by Rothbard. The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership, strict property rights, free markets, anti-state in every conceivable respect) but the implications are earthshaking. Once you are exposed to the complete picture – and For a New Liberty has been the leading means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century – you cannot forget it. It becomes the indispensable lens through which we can see events in the real world with the greatest possible clarity.
This book more than any other explains why Rothbard seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his death) and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies on the left, right, and center. Quite simply, the science of liberty that he brought into clear relief is as thrilling in the hope it creates for a free world as it is unforgiving of error. Its logical and moral consistency, together with its empirical explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any intellectual vision that sets out to use the state to refashion the world according to some pre-programmed plan. And to the same extent it impresses the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.
Rothbard set out to write this book soon after he got a call from Tom Mandel, an editor at Macmillan who had seen an op-ed by Rothbard in the New York Times that appeared in the spring of 1971. It was the only commission Rothbard ever received from a commercial publishing house. Looking at the original manuscript, which is so consistent in its typeface and almost complete after its first draft, it does seem that it was a nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting, and energetic.
The historical context illustrates a point often overlooked: modern libertarianism was born not in reaction to socialism or leftism – though it is certainly anti-leftist (as the term is commonly understood) and antisocialist. Rather, libertarianism in the American historical context came into being in response to the statism of conservatism and its selective celebration of a conservative-style central planning. American conservatives may not adore the welfare state or excessive business regulation but they appreciate power exercised in the name of nationalism, warfarism, "pro-family" policies, and invasion of personal liberty and privacy. In the post-LBJ period of American history, it has been Republican presidents more than Democratic ones who have been responsible for the largest expansions of executive and judicial power. It was to defend a pure liberty against the compromises and corruptions of conservatism – beginning with Nixon but continuing with Reagan and the Bush presidencies – that inspired the birth of Rothbardian political economy.
It is also striking how Rothbard chose to pull no punches in his argument. Other intellectuals on the receiving end of such an invitation might have tended to water down the argument to make it more palatable. Why, for example, make a case for statelessness or anarchism when a case for limited government might bring more people into the movement? Why condemn U.S. imperialism when doing so can only limit the book's appeal to anti-Soviet conservatives who might otherwise appreciate the free-market bent? Why go into such depth about privatizing courts and roads and water when doing so might risk alienating people? Why enter into the sticky area of regulation of consumption and of personal morality – and do it with such disorienting consistency – when it would have surely drawn a larger audience to leave it out? And why go into such detail about monetary affairs and central banking and the like when a watered-down case for free enterprise would have pleased so many Chamber-of-Commerce conservatives?
But trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the audience was just not his way. He knew that he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to present the full package of libertarianism in all its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we read here: not just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.
Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, that is not what we get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as school vouchers or the privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead, he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write the Libertarian Manifesto have not stood the test of time, and yet this book remains in high demand.
Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism in the intervening years that have covered philosophy alone, politics alone, economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had mastery in all fields that permitted him to write an integrated manifesto – one that has never been displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own generation. In addition, some introductions of this sort are written to give the reader an easier passage into a difficult book, but that is not the case here. He never talks down to his readers but always with clarity. Rothbard speaks for himself. I'll spare the reader an enumeration of my favorite parts, or speculations on what passages Rothbard might have clarified if he had a chance to put out a new edition. The reader will discover on his or her own that every page exudes energy and passion, that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all those years ago.
The book is still regarded as "dangerous" precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way again. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classical statement that I predict will be read for generations to come.
This talk was delivered on September 15, 2012, at a seminar sponsored by the Columbia University Department of Italian in association with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., former editorial assistant to Ludwig von Mises and congressional chief of staff to Ron Paul, is founder and chairman of the Mises Institute, executor for the estate of Murray N. Rothbard and editor of LewRockwell.com.
Posted by dave jr on 12/03/12 09:22 PM
My oldest daughter is a Tom Petty fan (bless her soul), we were listening to his CD when she claimed this song is all about doing drugs. I said Petty is beyond that, this song is about living life. She looked at me perplexed, so I restarted the track. She listened and that was that. I figured, nuf said.
It's a good one, crank it up.
Click to view link
Posted by dave jr on 12/03/12 08:57 PM
I have not yet read any Rothbard or Mises (gasp), but I will. I just have two stubby flapping wings, and I like them.
Posted by rossbcan on 12/03/12 07:18 PM
"Rothbard was the single biggest influence on my decision to jump down the rabbit hole of philosophical anarchism."
Don't know you, but, I WILL BET that your predators pushed you to look for answers to the questions of "what is real", how to survive which, without exception, assuming realistic assumptions and logical consistency of your intellectual paradigm, inevitably leads to asking and answering THE "question of freedom".
It's not just Rothbard, the message of suppressed freedom and longing for it is everywhere / everywhen. It's a powder keg. Rothbard, among many others had the courage and intellectualy ability to light a very large match.
What if our caveman ancestors had run away from, as opposed to harnessing the flame? Embrace freedom and its corollary, the terror (for some) of personal responsibility.
Posted by NAPpy on 12/03/12 07:04 PM
Rothbard was the single biggest influence on my decision to jump down the rabbit hole of philosophical anarchism. Once I started questioning everything, it's only natural that I would disagree with Rothbard on specific issues. Nevertheless, he convinced me that the general conclusions are possible, even if individual justifications need more work.
Posted by rossbcan on 12/03/12 06:56 PM
LR: "And thus do we read here: not just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state."
Perhaps "no government" will be an easier sell if it is realized that "government" is just the name of a particular group that has forcefully siezed monopoly control and usurped "the law". We do require the function of "the law", what we "don't require" is those whom equate "the law" to their sorry, absolutely corrupt persons:
Click to view link
In case anyone is interested, there is no such thing as "undefended rights". It is a "right" because it can be / is successfully defended. THIS is where "property rights" and "right to life" historically came from. They were successfully defended by individuals in the past, people socially adapted to the reality of rights and respecting the rights of others (because: or else - they defend themselves).
Then, without going into reasons, people stopped defending their own rights. Organized predators have adapted to "easy prey" and become bold. Now, peace, order and civilization is toppling. All because we have "ignored the truth" which can easliy "set us free" and smite our collective predators / organized psychopaths:
Click to view link
Posted by Libertarian Jerry on 12/03/12 06:49 PM
As a life long libertarian,I would like to take a moment to congradulate Lew Rockwell for his lifetime efforts in the championing of Liberty. Despite the thundering hot air I've heard from both the Left and Right all my life,it is without a doubt a difficult,herculean effort to turn back the tide of collectivism that has swept over the world and drowned it in a tide of serfdom. But thanks to the work done by Click to view linkckwell on his Website plus the education process of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute,along with other credible venues such as the Daily Bell,I can see that the word about liberty has been given a chance to be heard,not just swept under the rug. Good work.
Posted by bionic mosquito on 12/03/12 02:59 PM
What's a Real Libertarian?
I don't imagine there is one answer, but if I am required to choose one it would be Rothbard.
I can accept that Rothbard's views on anarchy are not acceptable to all libertarians, as many libertarians hold on to the idea of a minarchist state. However, it seems to me that some bare minimum requirement is necessary to be seen as a 'real libertarian.'
First and foremost, if a government does anything more than protect the personal property of those within its jurisdiction, it is no longer a government but a well-funded and well-organized thief. If not for the absolute protection of private property, why would men voluntarily form together? They certainly do not form together to have their property extorted!
For those who advocate exceptions to this, no matter how seemingly trivial, the label libertarian cannot be applicable. No helping the poor, no foreign aid, no unemployment benefits, no price controls, no trade barriers, no funding basic science and research, no public education, no central banking, no overseas bases, no 'liberating' other people, no funding of highways and roads, no metropolitan water districts, no 'natural monopolies' (only enforceable by the state). None of it.
Second, the same rules must apply to all. A badge and a gun do not make one right in situations where others without such adornments are wrong. The badge and gun cannot absolve murder or theft. Any advocacy counter to this would render the libertarian label as meaningless.
Posted by Friend_of_John_Galt on 12/03/12 01:46 PM
It is interesting to contrast the differences between Ayn Rand's Objectivism and Rothbard's Libertarianism. Objectivism calls for use of limited government to maintain courts to adjudicate contractual disputes and to protect individual rights. "Pure" libertarianism suggests having, essentially, no government at all. This appears to ignore the very real external threats that might attempt to take control (with the use of force) to capture the economic benefits of a large population living on a continent with massive resources to exploit.
On the other hand, Rothbard is quite correct that the socialist left and the religious/social conservative right are both interested in imposing various forms of statism, with only the specific terms of the liberty-crushing regulation varying in emphasis, if not effect.
Posted by foldvary on 12/03/12 01:22 PM
Too bad that Rothbard did not understand the generation of land rent by territorial public goods.