Date: Sat, 20 Apr 2002 20:19:45 -0700
From: xntryk1@xntri-city.com ("Mark Laythorpe")
Subject: [libs4peace] Warmongering 'Libertarians'
To: liberty_outlook@egroups.com ("Liberty Outlook"), libs4peace@yahoogroups.com
Reply-To: xntryk1@xntri-city.com ("Mark Laythorpe")
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/curley4.html
April 20, 2002
Warmongering 'Libertarians'
by Charles Curley
A number of writers for LewRockwell.com are surprised at the phenomenon of
warmongering "libertarians." They shouldn't be. The phenomenon was
predictable as long ago as early 1999.
The first thing to do when you are taken aback by some new development is to
check your fundamental principles. The first question, then, is, what is a
libertarian? The Libertarian Party requires its members to sign a pledge,
which states, "I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the
initiation of force to achieve social or political goals." This pledge is
one statement of the non-aggression principle. It is this princile which is
the lodestone, the pole star, by which libertarian ethics, morality and
policy all steer. If libertarianism had any commandments at all, it would
have one: Thou shalt not commit aggression.
We may answer the question, what is a libertarian, with science fiction
writer and long time libertarian L. Neil Smith, "A libertarian is a person
who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate
force against another human being, or to advocate or delegate its
initiation. Those who act consistently with this principle are libertarians,
whether they realize it or not. Those who fail to act consistently with it
are not libertarians, regardless of what they may claim."
Notice that last "...regardless of what they may claim." If it doesn't walk
like a duck, it doesn't matter if it quacks like a duck.
Implicit here is that one adopts a policy based on its ethical consistency
with the non-aggression principle. The true libertarian does not support,
say, Austrian economics because free markets are more efficient than central
control (although they are) or because they result in more consumer goods
than central control (although they do), but because Austrian economics
results in less aggression against people than does central control.
Libertarianism is a moral principle. It is not a grab bag of policies
adjustable to the popular fads of the moment.
I am going to assume, dear reader, that you understand that warmongering
egregiously conflicts with this principle. If you don't understandwhy this
is so, the remedy is beyond the scope of this essay, but a good dictionary
and a first grade reading primer would be a start. In ten or twenty years
study, the errant reader, having built up an epistemological foundation, may
proceed to the works of Frank Chodorov, Murray Rothbard, Albert Jay Nock, H.
L. Mencken, and others.
Thus the phrase "warmongering libertarian" is an oxymoron, a contradiction
in terms, like "Justice Department" and "honest politician". This explains
my use of quotes above. Warmongering "libertarians" are not libertarians,
pure and simple. They are LINOs, Libertarians In Name Only. They are
velociraptors in sheep's clothing.
But why should one not be surprised at this phenomenon, and why was it
predictable three years ago?
In 1998, Liberty Magazine, a publication best known for contemplating its
objective navel and articles like "The Use of Aristotelian Metaphysics in
Frank O'Connor's Laundry Lists," surveyed its readers on questions relating
to libertarianism and the libertaian movement. The survey followed a 1988
survey, giving a baseline for changing libertarian views. In February 1999,
the results were published.
In general, the results in 1998 were more statist than 1988. Key to this
essay is the results for the following question:
No person has the right to initiate physical force against another human
being.
1988
1998
90% agree
50% agree
Unfortunately, there is no question along the lines, Do you consider
yourself a libertarian? Had all of the respondents answered that question
consistently with the one above, one would expect to see that 50% or fewer
of the respondents did so. But the surveyors themselves found nothing amiss
here. The remarks in the article announcing the results indicate surprise
that some (any?) of the respondents are not atheists, that more of them are
minarchists, that "fewer than half agreed ... that foreign policy ought to
be strictly isolationist." But they found the results quoted above to be
unremarkable.
It is difficult to conclude that half the readers of Liberty Magazine 1998
are liberals, conservatives or otherwise not libertarians. At the time of
the survey Liberty Magazine specialized in the minutia of the Cult of Ayn
Rand, other gossip mongering, and obscure questions like how many dollar
signs can dance on the head of a pin, i.e. a randroid tabloid. Why a
libertarian would pay money to receive a monthly dose of such occulta year
in and year out is beyond me, never mind why anyone else would.
Furthermore, there is no way to tell if the readershp of Liberty Magazine
reflects the libertarian movement at large. It certainly does not reflect
me. If the emergence of the warmongering "libertarian" is a surprise to the
writers at LewRockwell.com, then Liberty Magazine probably does not reflect
them either.
None the less, the results of the question above are disconcerting. Some
"libertarians", possibly half of them, do not hold with the non-aggression
principle. And if not that, what do they hold with? Whatever it is, it is
not libertarianism.
And furthermore that number appears to be growing. There have been a number
of efforts to remove the requirement of the pledge from Libertarian Party
membership. Even in the solidly paleolibertarian state party of Wyoming, the
question has come up, although it was roundly defeated. Elsewhere, LP
candidates like Murray Sabrin have implicitly rejected the non-aggression
principle by calling for accepting government campaign funds, AKA "welfare
for politicians".
Let this stand as a warning to real libertarians everywhere. Remember that
within the last century the word "liberal" meant someone who stood for free
markets, free trade (meaning free trade, not international bureaucratically
managed trade) and a republican form of government. Ludwig von Mises used
the term in that sense to describe himself. Since then the statists have
co-opted the term to the point that it stands for none of those things, and
is a term of derision in the real world.
Will the word "libertarian" suffer the same fate? It seems to be headed that
way.
Charles Curley deals with penguins, jackalopes and camarasaurus in his daily
life.
Copyright 2002 LewRockwell.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/liberty_outlook
NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107,
this material is distributed, without profit, for research or
educational purposes to those who have expressed a prior interest.
RKBA/GSL!>> Vote Libertarian and WIN a FREE country! <<RKBA/GSL!
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed,
or numbered. My life is my own."...........THE PRISONER
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Stock for $4
and no minimums.
FREE Money 2002.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/orkH0C/n97DAA/ySSFAA/nJ9qlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
If you continue to vote for the same policies, you will continue to get the same consequences because of those policies.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
libs4peace-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com