We think you're near Los Angeles

Currently in Los Angeles

Location: Los Angeles Current temperature: 64°F: Current condition: Clear See Extended Forecast

Calling all laissez-faire sovereign individual Libertarians


Adam Smith, author of The Wealth
of Nations
with its famous "invisible
hand" of capitalism that "naturally
guides a society through self-interest,"
often considered the Father of Modern
Economics. (Wikimedia Commons)

The satirically titled article Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians published on Wednesday immediately attracted the ire of contemporary socialism's apologists who stormed the "add a Comment" box on the article's page like they were storming the Bastille.

The article posited that in today's politico-philosophical world, anyone who embraced the oxymoron of "libertarian socialism" should have no problem with accepting the absurdity of "Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarianism."

The socialists (or "progressives," that being the modern, trendy camouflage word for "socialist") angrily pontificated that the libertarian label belonged exclusively to them, that the socialist usage could be traced back 150-200 years, that the libertarian label was stolen from the socialists in 1971 by the Libertarian Party (many non-libertarians harbor the illusion that the LP is somehow the beginning of modern libertarian's existence), and that "anarcho-capitalist" rather than "libertarian socialism" is the true oxymoron (because socialists make no distinction between "capitalism" which is accepted by libertarians as a synonym for voluntary free trade while "corporatism" is an invention of coercive government and is therefore rejected by libertarians, but that's another article).

Also, the author is "a laughingstock" and "stupid."

But it's almost as though the "libertarian belongs to the socialists" crowd all graduated from the same course in Selective History 101, blindly tracing their own lineage while ignoring all others.


Ludwig von Mises, Austrian School
economist and libertarian thinker,
author of Socialism, a refutation of
the economics of socialism, not a
likely candidate for a "libertarian
socialist." (Wikimedia Commons)

While historical narratives vary, any history of libertarianism can trace its seeds back at least to the Greek Epicureans and its roots to the humanist scholars of the Renaissance.

From there, modern libertarianism, first simply as "liberalism" and later as "classical liberal" thought, continued through the Reformation and the Enlightenment in the works of Hobbes and Locke and others, with writers like Adam Smith and John Stuart Mill greatly influencing the American founding fathers and their founding documents.

Then, as one aforementioned commentator hedged, "if Wikipedia can be trusted," the split between liberals and libertarians occurred: "But around the 1870s" liberals gradually moved toward a belief in "an increase in government power, taxes, and regulation" which libertarians felt was "very close to socialism and therefore do not agree with it "

Since then libertarians have become simply "libertarians" while "liberals" have become ever more socialist, which drove the simple observation made in the aforementioned article that in today's politico-philosophical world neither a term like "libertarian socialist" nor "progressive libertarian" sound "even remotely libertarian to American ears."


Friedrich von Hayek, from Wikipedia:
"was an Austrian and British economist
and philosopher known for his defense
of classical liberalism and free-market
capitalism against socialist and
collectivist thought." Another non-
"libertarian socialist" with liberal roots.
(Wikipedia/Creative Commons)

Yes, modern liberalism-progressivism-socialism share roots with modern libertarianism, but their branches don't share much of anything today.

Thus, as David Boaz wrote in his book, Libertarianism: A Primer, "if you don't label your own philosophy or movement, someone else will label it for you."

So libertarians labeled themselves "libertarian." Get over it, socialists.

But the question arises, where were all those laissez-faire capitalist libertarians, those live-and-let-live libertarians, those Zero Aggression Principle libertarians, those free minds and free markets libertarians while the socialist-progressives were pummeling a libertarian article?

Those libertarians can still go to Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians and post their own counter commentary.

But maybe today's libertarians are too ignorant of their own history, or too timid to stand up for their beliefs, or too lazy to defend their principles.

In which case we might as well all tuck our heads between our legs and kiss our libertarianism goodbye because the freedom movement doesn't have a prayer.

Don't miss a DALLAS LIBERTARIAN EXAMINER article: Click Subscribe and enter your email address or choose the RSS feed. Either way you’ll be alerted to the latest piece when it's published. And don't forget to click Email to send this article to a friend.

Get the latest libertarian news from the All Libertarian All The Time news source:
The Libertarian News Examiner.


 

Advertisement

, Dallas Libertarian Examiner

Garry Reed is a longtime freewheeling freelance libertarian opinionizer. The Fort Worth Star-Telegram, River Cities Reader and several assorted sordid websites are among his victims. The goal is Fun & Freedom. Rattle Reed at libergarryan@aol.com.

Comments

  • dann 2 years ago

    garry, had i known, beforehand, that you and your article were going to be pummeled i would have said that this Libertarian is also a person who has been shocked at the events that have taken place in the Libertarian Party within the last several years. i still hold to the platform that was published in 1996 [in fact i bought the last box of documents that the national headquarters had so that i could give them out to show people what libertarianism was REALLY about - well, used to be about.] i have been chastised for making the statement that there is no such thing as a 'hyphenated' libertarian - that is just someone of 'another party' with libertarian tendencies [in some areas]. and if that means that we won't have a lot of members, so be it! if we must compromise our beliefs in order to win votes then it's not worth it! to me, it's more inmportant to be true to one's beliefs than to be 'popular'.

  • dann 2 years ago

    p.s. i didn't consider your article to be 'satire'. that someone would take umbrage with it is preposterous! to me it was a profound statement that i was in agreement with. it was so 'right-on' that i didn't even consider that it could be 'debated', just like i don't think that the fact that our 'star', the sun, could be debated for a planet.

  • MamaLiberty 2 years ago

    Sorry, Garry. I was a "libertarian" very briefly in the 70s and 80s. I've been a sovereign individual since then, and always will be.

    When "libertarians" are content to let me live my life as I see fit, we'll get along just fine. So far, that's not part of their game plan. They really want to oppress me "less" than the current crop of tyrants.

    They mean to rule well, but they DO mean to rule.

  • Real Liberal 2 years ago

    Anyone who knows their facts knows that the first people to use the term "libertarian" were socialists. The terminology in America is jsut really wrong. "libertarians" in this country are really liberals, and the term liberal has been hijacked by statist socialists (redundant I know). Names are really irrelevant, but to be correct we are liberals. Let the socialists keep the name "libertarian", that still doesn't make their inept and oppressive philosophy any more correct.

    Socialism = Collectivism = Oppression

  • Kent McManigal - tinyurl.com/abqliberty 2 years ago

    MamaLiberty- soveriegn individual = libertarian = anarchist = "live your life as you see fit". All the terms are completely equivalent in this context. Now, the Libertarian Party has nothing to do with "libertarian" and they are the ones who wish to "rule well". They are the ones who are misusing the word.
    The false divisions based upon terminology are hurting the spread of the "freedom meme" more than helping it. I wish there were a way to take a word or a term and keep it from being coopted by people from the opposition, but there isn't. We have to work with what we have. That is why I will use any or all of those words and terms when I am talking about freedom and I will mean the same thing with each.

Add a new comment

Join the conversation! Log in here or create a new account if you've never registered before.

Got something to say?

Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!

Don't miss...