NOTE: This article departs from the usual fare found here in its longer length, in its use of the first person singular narrative, and in its content. At some point you just gotta define your positions, so here goes.
.jpg)
Note that subtitle: "A Freewheeling History of the Modern
American Libertarian Movement." This book captured
and confirmed virtually everything I had already learned
about capitalism and libertarianism and the modern
American understanding of both those terms since I
had already read something by or about nearly everyone
mentioned in it before it was published in 2007. This
book could be my philosophical autobiography. This, I
believe, is how most Americans understand the concept
of libertarianism. (Available from Reason Foundation,
ISIL/Laissez-Faire Books, and many other sources.)
I wrote a couple of articles accusing "libertarian socialists" of hijacking the "libertarian" name from the modern American freedom movement of the same name.
A couple of writers took me to task for my ignorance, pointing out that, according to some sources, the word "libertarian" predates America itself and that my claim that "we" stole it from "them" makes me "A Real 'Libertarian' Bozo."
Apparently what they mean by "we" and "them" is that "we" (the modern American freedom movement) are "Right Libertarians" and we stole the name from "them," the "Left Libertarians."
Truth be told, even though I'm a hardcore history buff I was nonetheless completely unaware that there was or is anything called "Left Libertarian" and "Right Libertarian." Once I discovered the basics of what I call libertarianism back in the late 1960s and early 1970s I simply quit thinking in terms of left vs. right. I think in terms of coercion vs. non-coercion. Since both concepts can come from anywhere on the political spectrum (the Nolan Chart recognizes more than just a left-right linear scale) why bother with those terms at all?
As a libertarian I believe just as strongly in civil liberties (a traditionally "left" concern) as I do in economic freedom (a traditionally "right" concern) so where is the left-right dichotomy in that?
To me the primary issues that matter in defining libertarianism are coercion vs. freedom, individualism vs. collectivism, and capitalism vs. corporatism.
My libertarianism is based on freedom, individualism and capitalism.
Apparently, different people who call themselves libertarians have wildly different definitions for those terms, so here are my definitions:
Coercion vs. freedom – By freedom I mean freedom from coercion. This is the "Non-Coercion Principle" of "maximizing freedom and minimizing coercion," of doing as one wishes without coercing, threatening coercion or defrauding anyone else. If so-called left and right libertarians can't agree on this simple definition there is nothing further to discuss.
Individualism vs. collectivism – There are only two basic philosophies for organizing society, individualism and collectivism. While there are a few small-scale historical examples of non-coercive collectivist societies, the vast majority have always been coercive to the extreme. The best examples come from both the socialist "right" (National Socialist German Workers Party) and the socialist "left" (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) where, once again, the designations left and right make little sense. But this is what I mean when I say that "libertarian socialist" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "coercive freedom."
Capitalism vs. corporatism – This seems to be the biggest disconnect, so I'll make it clear that I always mean Ayn Rand's definition when I use the term capitalism: "When I say 'capitalism,' I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism – with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." – from the Ayn Rand Lexicon." I've long been aware of the Marxist definition of capitalism. To my libertarian way of thinking, he is specifically talking about "corporatism" or "fascism" which I thoroughly reject.
I'm sure there are many other misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and disagreements that cannot be covered here.
However, the essence of my status as a Bozo Libertarian seems to be my supposed claim that the "Libertarian Right" stole the word "libertarian" from the "Libertarian Left." But if one reads my original article, "Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians," I never made such a claim because, as previously stated, I've never thought of libertarianism as being either left or right. That's because the Nolan Chart places both the political left and right in the "statist" category with libertarianism as a stand-alone freedom-individualist-capitalist philosophy.
So based on all of the preceding definitions, my specific accusation was that the "Libertarian Socialists" hijacked the libertarian name from the modern American freedom movement.
But since they, socialists or left libertarians or "Libertarian Socialists" or however they are designated, were already using the libertarian word, I was wrong that they stole it from the modern American libertarian movement and therefore I'll take my lumps for saying so.
But after quoting the libertarian socialists in my referenced article as describing themselves as being oriented towards "syndicalist, anarcho-communist and collectivist anarchist currents" I pointed out, "None of this sounds even remotely libertarian to American ears."
I think that's true, which therefore probably requires one more definition. Rather than left-right libertarians I see the split as old-new libertarians. What my detractors call "Left Libertarian" I see as Old World Old School Old Belief Collectivist Libertarianism, which in their own words is syndicalist, anarcho-communist and collectivist in thought, and what they call "Right Libertarian" I see as Modern American Individualist Libertarianism, which is neither left nor right, but which is manifestly non-coercive, individualist, and laissez-faire capitalist in thought.
Whenever I say "libertarian" I mean Modern American Individualist Libertarian. This is the libertarianism that is chronicled in Brian Doherty's book, "Radicals for Capitalism" (which uses "capitalism" in the Randian sense, not the Marxian sense) and has its roots firmly planted in Rand, Patterson, Lane, Rothbard, the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics, and many, many others.
This is the libertarianism that I "grew up" in, that virtually all of my readers are familiar with, that virtually all American libertarians are familiar with, that rejects both the left and right of American politics (since both are coercive) and that has attracted adherents from all over the political map, left, right and otherwise.
Almost all would agree that by my definitions the idea of "libertarian socialist" is idiotic beyond words.
But I suppose most people who use terms like "left and right libertarian" will continue to call themselves the "Libertarian Left" and will continue to call me both a right libertarian and a Bozo libertarian.
Since I have no control over what others think and say, I'll wear the Bozo nametag proudly.
Thanks for reading.
Garry Reed, BOZO Libertarian
(Boundless Options, Zero Oppression)
Reference articles:
Calling all Stalinist-Jeffersonian-Bozoian Libertarians – Garry Reed
Calling all laissez-faire sovereign individual Libertarians – Garry Reed
A Real "Libertarian" Bozo – Dan Clore
Right-wing doomed to revise history – Mike Boda
Get the latest libertarian news from the All Libertarian All The Time news source:
The Libertarian News Examiner.
Comments
When I first ran into the "left-libertarians" several years ago I didn't get it. I still don't. Either you are for minimizing coercion and maximizing freedom, or you're not.
Simple question: What is the Libertarian Socialist response to a person who chooses not to offer his goods or services to another person who claims great need for them?
My god. It frightens me that people in a position to pontificate their idiotic ideas about freedom, who are so quick to dismiss libertarian socialism as "oxymoronic," can't manage to take the time to learn a bit about the historical tradition of libertarian communism (anarchism). This is a philosophy that envisions a horizontally based federation of freely contracting groups, who operate on the principle of mutual aid rather than capitalist competition. There is no coercion and authoritative relationships are condemned. There is absolutely nothing oxymoronic about libertarian socialism. On the contrary, I would argue that libertarian capitalism is oxymoronic, as capitalism (yes, in the Randian sense) is inherently coercive, as those who have nothing to sell on the market but their labor are forced into economic arrangements that they do not desire. C'mon guys, let's try a little harder to not be stupid here.
Nobody wants to address the socialist elephant in the room: COERCION. From the Wikipedia article titled Libertarian socialism: "equality and freedom would be achieved through the abolition of authoritarian institutions that own and control productive means as private property." But a fundamental maxim of modern American libertarians is that without the right to own private property no other rights are possible, and without individual rights no freedom is possible. Non-coercion is the fundamental definition of the modern usage of the word libertarianism. So how are you going to "abolish" my private property without coercing me? You are socialists, but as long as you cling to coercion you are not libertarians. That's a primary reason why "libertarian socialism" is an oxymoron. So where do you get off calling anyone stupid?
I use the terms Libertarian Right and Libertarian Left according to the model at the Political Compass. (Links aren't allowed here.)
I find this model more useful than the Nolan Chart, as it allows one to distinguish between different forms of libertarianism, ranging from anarcho-communism in the lower left to anarcho-capitalism in the lower right corner, with the collectivist, mutualist, individualist, and agorist forms ranging between them.
I'm basically an anarcho-individualist like Benjamin Tucker or Robert Anton Wilson, and on their test I place just slightly to the left of center on the left/right axis and at the libertarian extreme of the libertarian/authoritarian axis.
Richard, two words "Free Association" if you wanna run off some where and try and use currency go for it! The current problem is that there isn't free association. Those wishing to live outside of market economies(in this case capitalism) are incapable of doing so. There is your coercion Kent! Capitalism not Communism(To be noted quite different from the state capitalism called communism by Russia et al)
Richard, two words "Free Association" if you wanna run off some where and try and use currency go for it! The current problem is that there isn't free association. Those wishing to live outside of market economies(in this case capitalism) are incapable of doing so. There is your coercion Kent! Capitalism not Communism(To be noted quite different from the state capitalism called communism by Russia et al)
Garry, great job - good choice of words and hard to confuse anyone unless they really really want to be confused. These "left" and "right" libertarians and the so-called "libertarian" socialists are nothing more than people who claim a dog has five legs because what the rest of us call a tail they call a leg.
Ben, if you want to form a communist enclave libertarians would support your right to do so- as long as you don't force anyone who would rather not, to participate.
Just because the free market is the only thing that works in the real world doesn't mean you are being coerced anymore than I am coercing you to function in a gravitational field.
"Just because the free market is the only thing that works in the real world doesn't mean you are being coerced anymore than I am coercing you to function in a gravitational field."
hahaha holy crap really? fail anthropology much? non market economies have existed as long as humans have thank you very much
@ Bernieri:
"But a fundamental maxim of modern American libertarians is that without the right to own private property no other rights are possible, and without individual rights no freedom is possible. Non-coercion is the fundamental definition of the modern usage of the word libertarianism. So how are you going to "abolish" my private property without coercing me?"
Try to take a step to the side, turn your head a few times left to right to left, then look at this "problem" from your newfound angle. On one hand, by claiming ownership of the commons, you're going to coerce others to not gain advantage of what it may provide. On another hand, you may find that freely giving up your property for collective use, the synergy from the additional hands, eyes, and brains handling the property, will increase the gain from the property for all. There is plenty of room for non-coercive collective ownership, if you dare to give it a try.
Other commenters already said a lot of things I would have, so I'll only say this. Garry is obviously unaware (purposefully or not) of the libertarian socialist tradition, which has predated the American capitalist form of this about one hundred years. Like it or not, they used the name first. It may not make sense in his ideology, and he's free to dispute it obviously, but there you are. The only definition of "socialism" most people seem to know (not just American "libertarians" but in general) is on the line of the USSR, which is the last thing libertarian socialists want (indeed thousands were killed, imprisoned, tortured and exiled by such regimes).
Fundamentally it seems capitalists refuse to acknowledge that economic power exists. If someone owns more property than they can possess themselves, that is power, and requires force to defend. The people dispossessed by such ownership are coerced. There is no way to get around it. The capitalist "freedom movement" also seems to have knowledge of history, except for their selective culling of it. Again, this is hardly unique to them. However, it belies the fact that modern capitalism was and always has been a state creation.
The mere existence of corporations is proof if any were necessary. I cannot and will not take seriously any capitalist who claims to support "free markets", "non-coercion" a "minimal government" (or none) etc. who does not absolutely oppse corporate personhood. There is no more blatant state protection of property, which allows multi-national corporations to roam around the globe using (literal) slaves, including political prisoners working in such "socialist" states as China. I know, that's not what you mean by "capitalism." News flash: what you mean by "capitalism" has never existed. There will never be such a thing, especially so long as corporations live on, legal fictions that they are. They will not allow it.
There's an awful lot of conflating of terms going in in this discussion... "socialism," "communism" and "collectivism" do not all mean the same thing. Nor are "capitalism" and "the free market" synonymous.
Garry (and those of you calling "libertarian socialism" an oxymoron): are you aware at all of the American individualist anarchist tradition? I think reading up on them a bit might help broaden your horizons, and give you a better insight into capitalist-libertarian history as well.
Firstly, I'd advise you to take a look at the so called "Boston Anarchists" Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren. Lysander Spooner is probably worth a look too, and may be a bit more up your alley, as he was more sympathetic to aspects of capitalism than the other two (and actually attempted to rival the US Postal Service with his own private mail company, which was shut down by the gov't). These guys are sort of the "missing link" (or more accurately, the "swept under the rug" and "only talked about in hushed tones" link) in the history of the the modern "right libertarian" movement (though I agree with you that the left-right dichotomy is more or less useless)... they were the backbone of Murray Rothbard's thought. As it so happens, they also considered themselves socialists.
You've laid out your dichotomies in this article. I think they're very useful. Well the American individualist anarchists also had their dichotomies. Like you, they saw individualism as opposed to collectivism, and like you, they sided with the individual over the collective. But they did not view socialism and collectivism as the same thing. They saw socialism as meaning the control of the means of production by the workers themselves (directly and non-coercively, not by the state), and saw this in opposition to capitalism, or control of the means of production by bosses (and they did not conflate this with free markets or free enterprise, which is a component of capitalism but can exist without capitalism). They believed in the right to property (though things get more complicated in terms of intellectual property and land ownership). They opposed both state socialism and anarchistic communism, although the second was merely a matter of preference, as in a truly free society, it would be each individual's choice as to whether to enter a communistic arrangement or not (see also: anarchism without adjectives). Their aim was to peacefully and gradually, through free organization, replace what they saw as the COERCIVE mechanisms of capitalism with non-coercive co-operative structures. But, as Pierre Joseph Prodhoun, the originator of this type of philosophy once wrote, "I never meant to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose."
My favorite contemporary individualist anarchist is Kevin Carson. His essay "The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand" is especially enlightening - in it he explains very clearly why capitalism has never been a "libertarian" ideology, but has rather always been backed by state violence and would be impossible without it.
Perhaps all of this sounds like radical, left-wing hogwash to you? Well I would at least advise you then to have a look at Karl Hess. Despite being an avowed capitalist, Hess was a hell of a lot more honest than most modern day Libertarians, and a fascinating guy to boot. Reading him would, I think, be a breath of fresh air. Do a search for him on Youtube - he has a very soothing voice haha
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!