I’ve been a bit remiss in addressing some comments on this blog about how libertarians are really just anarchists taking over the tea party and the conservative movement. My apologies, I’ve just been so busy, I haven’t had the chance. But tonight I’ll put in my two cents. I have to say, I disagree completely with that position.
First off, I agree with libertarians on a number of issues, and therefore, although I consider myself to be conservative, maybe you could call me a libertarian leaning conservative. The problem is that we’ve come so far from liberty as envisioned by our Founders, a truly libertarian political platform is not feasible at this time. We now have generations who have come to depend upon the nanny state, and it’s going to take a long time to get away from that.
Which is precisely why I welcome libertarian ideas. Even if you’re against, say, legalization of marijuana (which I tend to be), that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the arguments for legalization seriously. Why not have a debate? Contrary to what the progressives would have you believe, debate isn’t harmful. It’s helpful. But again, on most issues, I agree with libertarians. I believe in limited government, meaning a government that protects our property and persons from invasion and prosecutes those who violate our persons or property, whether it’s through violence, fraud or what have you.
While I disagree with this writer‘s classification of conservatives, (we don’t walk in lockstep, as the whole CPAC flap clearly demonstrates) I do agree that being a libertarian, at least from what I’ve observed here in the US, is not the same as being an anarchist.
Libertarians are not anarchists. While it is true that some individuals favor a political system of competing vigilante committees, and refer to this position as “anarcho-capitalism” (a view formerly held by libertarian economist Murray Rothbard), this is a confusing misnomer based on an apparent failure to clearly distinguish between the nature of market institutions (which do not involve the use of coercion at all, either initiatory or retaliatory) and the nature of coercive entities (criminal or legal). Actually, libertarianism rests on the concepts of individualism, self-ownership, private property, & voluntary (market) exchange. Classical anarchism not only opposed the political state, but also some voluntary organizations of which it disapproved. Most importantly, true anarchists opposed private property – without which no voluntary relationships are possible. Today’s libertarians are in the classical liberal tradition of Algernon Sidney, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Edmund Burke, Herbert Spencer, and Frederic Bastiat – not the anarchist tradition of Proudhon, Kropotkin, and Bakunin.
Limited government is not anarchy. Anarchy is no government at all! Was there anarchy in the United States before FDR implemented all of his socialist, big government programs? No. There was widespread poverty during the depression, but that was mainly due to government intervention and interference with the free market. Had we had libertarian leaders in the late 1920′s and the early 1930′s we probably wouldn’t have had a Great Depression because the market would have corrected itself. And maybe we wouldn’t have this massive entitlement crisis on our hands today.
Murray N. Rothbard addressed the libertarian/anarchist question in the 1950′s, but the article went unpublished until 2008. He came down as a nonarchist.
Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge “are you an anarchist?” is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the “middle of the road” and say, “Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road.”
We have nothing to fear from libertarian ideas. This “center right” republic of ours, which is perfectly willing to swing to the left in the face of crisis, could use an education in classical liberalism.
We live in a constitutional republic made up of fifty sovereign states. Or at least they used to be sovereign states. Now they’re just arms of the federal government, looking for handouts, for money that the federal government has taken from the states under the threat of fines and imprisonment. That is not what the Founders had in mind. I believe we need to transfer power away from the federal government and back to our states and localities. If libertarians agree, that’s fine with me.
Update: Welcome Instapundit readers! And many thanks to Professor Reynolds.
Update 2: Classical Values linked. I think the writer is, in a subtle way, accusing me of hating and wanting to punish pot smokers because I noted I tend to be against the legalization of marijuana. But, I also said I welcome the debate. Who knows, maybe I’d lose the debate. But that wasn’t really the point of this post.
Update 3: Mark in Spokane linked, with an interesting take on the subject. Be sure to check it out.
Update 4: Maggie’s Notebook linked – thanks!
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lee Davis, lonely conservative, Liz Buddie, Jeff, lonely conservative and others. lonely conservative said: #tcot: Libertarians Are Not Anarchists! http://bit.ly/h1xERh [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] And please, please, don’t tell me Dr. Woods is an anarchist. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] NO, THEY’RE NOT: Libertarians Are Not Anarchists. [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One difference between American conservatives and all the other ideologies – libertarian, progressive, marxist, what-have-you, is that conservatives believe man is imperfect and imperfectable. Hence, there is no perfect society and no point trying to carry any political or social philosophy to an extreme that always ends up being absurd or horrific.
Libertarian ideas have value taken in moderation. The pure ideology is unworkable if applied to real people in a non theoretical reality.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Great point.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Um, wrong, at least as applied to libertarians. We also believe that man is “imperfect and imperfectable”, but we recognize that a government cannot fix that. This is probably one of the main differences between conservatives and libertarians. This is why we don’t see the logical fallacy of “marijuana is bad for you” leading to “so we’ll throw you in jail if you even so much as possess the dried leaves of this plant that grows in the forest”. (Odd example given that it was the Progressives who worked to outlaw it in the first place)
Pure libertarian ideology is quite workable, but rarely tried. Our real belief, succinctly stated, is “there are no solutions, only tradeoffs”. If conservatives start seriously talking about tradeoffs, they end up like the Lonely Conservative here with libertarian leanings…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“…conservatives believe man is imperfect and imperfectable…”
The primary difference between conservatives and libertarians is that libertarians KNOW that ALL men are imperfect and imperfectable, including (especially?) politicians and anonymous bureaucrats. Most conservatives put way to much trust in their conservative politicians believing they’ll be different, then ignore that fact that they are just as corrupt, as well as power and money grabbing (can someone say Bush?) as every other politician.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Your right about conservatives – they are too trusting in that they tend to take people at their word. Yes – they actually believe that if you saw you will do something you will do so to the best of your ability and are surprised when you don’t.
Libertarians on the other hand as expressed basically don’t believe a person at his/her word. Which one would I want to be? My dad did not believe anyone till they proved themselves which made him very suspicious of everyone. I on the other hand will believe you till proved wrong then I am after your butt. Worked for me so far.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ahh yes, those diabolical libertarians, always plotting ways to take over and leave everyone alone.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
No offense, but I know of few, if any, libertarians who hold to the notion of human perfectibility, and a great many who reject it outright. If anything, most libertarians continue that assumption to political decision-makers. That is to say, most libertarians hold that the government is also unable to be perfected. Hence, libertarians tend to favor the dispersion of power from the state to allow checks and balances to control man’s imperfections when applied to politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“Anarchy means ‘without leaders,’ not ‘without order.’”
– V for Vendetta
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Sadly, political movements often end up with names that invoke by dictionary meaning classifications that are approximately the opposite of the philosophies of the movements.
So we have generally left-liberal-socialist-communists calling themselves “anarchists” on occasion. If a libertarian were to say “I’m a radical libertarian” or, a dictionary-faithful “I’m an anarchist”, he means a believer in a system of little or no government.
But the anarchist movement mainly describes specific groups of revolutionaries willing to violently oppose the current establishment. Typically, they opposed corporations and governments that stood in the way of a socialist or even specifically communist revolution. So they were really for more government, but temporarily attempting to destroy the old one or the private sector.
Libertarians are not “anarchists” because they allow for a limited government rather than no government, although of course they do. They are not “anarchists” because they are not violent pro-socialist revolutionaries who misnamed themselves “anarchists” because, I guess, “communist” was already taken.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
conservatives believe man is imperfect and imperfectable.
So do libertarians. Not only is there nothing in libertarianism that strives to create a New Libertarian Man, libertarianism is a response to the certain knowledge that man is imperfect. A large part of the libertarian sensibility is a distrust of giving state power to imperfect men.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
True this. Take it from a Christian libertarian.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
The thing is though, Libertarians (with a capital L anyway) are completely open borders. I don’t know how you can have a country without borders.
Ditto for their completely isolationist stance. “Hey invade us, blow up our buildings, hijack our planes, we don’t care, we won’t fight back.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Bad description of a (libertarian) isolationist, at least the ones I know.
No libertarian I know is opposed to defense against invasion, etc. It’s more against the idea that we should take on the mantle of being ‘the world’s policeman’, or that we should invade some other country in the cause of ‘what merely benefits us economically.’
while I don’t agree with her overall philosophy, Ayn Rand made a good point about this (paraphrased), ‘ no man (or country) has the right to initiate violence against another. the moral difference is clear-cut, it is the difference between murder and self defense.’
We support self defense (fighting invaders, etc.), we do not support murder (invading a country because they disagree with us on some issue).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I like to listen to John Stossel on Fox because he makes me think about things in ways that I probably never do. But I also realize that a lot of what he espouses is unworkable although logical. I believe that Libertaraians believe that if they mind their business that everyone else will mind their own as well. We ALL know that not to be true. I have also noticed that one of the first things that Libs give voice to when a platform is present is the legalization of marijuana. Why this is such a big issue with them is beyond me. As for trusting politicians, you are about to see the effect of the Tea Party on the scumbags that lie to get elected and then vote against their constituents. I think the days of people like Obama are going to be much tougher in the future and people like Gov. Christie are going to prosper.
LC, my captcha code was KKK. You’d better watch out!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And that’s a great thing, certainly something I support. On the other hand, there’s really no reason to believe that the voters are somehow perfect or immune to folly. Yes, this time, good sense prevailed. But, how many times has the public supported “soaking the rich” or “punishing the greedy” or any of a plethora of inanities to their own detriment? If 50%+1 wanted to deprive me of my rights and liberties, that doesn’t make it okay.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are three types of politics: the politics of social justice, the politics of public order/social virtue, and the politics of individual freedom. All of us value various aspects of all three to one extent or another, but we tend to value one above the others because any policy designed to promote one of these aims will inevitably come into conflict with the other two. We therefore have to choose. It is this choice that defines us politically.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Worthy, but late to the party-
the seminal work:
http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Peter_Sabatini__Libertarianism__Bogus_Anarchy.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
LC,
Could you please explain the worth of a $25 bn a year program (Federally) that makes it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer?
Don’t be fooled by the word “prohibited”. In the context it means “distributed by criminals”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I can’t get into now. I have to get to work.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Peter Jackson,
There is another unspoken force in politics:
It does not actually want to solve problem xxxx. It wants an outlet for feelings of moral superiority.
Here is another take on the same idea:
“Distrust anyone in whom the desire to punish is powerful” Friedrich Nietzsche
====================
Such folks are immune to reason. Why? Because what they do is not based on reason. It is based on a need for, as George Orwell put it: “two minutes of hate”. I acknowledge that it is a powerful force in human nature. So I propose hating the Andromeda Galaxy. They should be safe from our hate for at least another few decades. Maybe longer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Why end the Drug War?
It costs us as a nation $70 bn a year (Fed, State, local), kills 2,000 innocents a year in the crossfire, And ruins the lives of the 750,000 a year arrested for infractions.
All to make it easier for kids to get an illegal drug than a legal beer.
OK. Like liberals most favoring the program think that the $70 bn a year has no consequences. Fine. What about the 2,000 innocents a year killed. Do they have no value either?
===
And then there is the little matter of the Drug Gangs repeating their Mexican war in the US. Coming soon to a city near you.
“The Latin American drug cartels have stretched their tentacles much deeper into our lives than most people believe. It’s possible they are calling the shots at all levels of government.” – William Colby, former CIA Director, 1995
===
I explain here why stopping the flow of drugs is impossible.
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2011/01/logistics-of-impossible.html
So how much do you want to spend in an attempt to do the impossible? We could get similar results by spending a small fraction of the money on perpetual motion machines. And at a much lower social cost.
===
So will ending Prohibition solve our drug problem? Of course not. It will solve the problem of crime associated with our current drug distribution model.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Some call me Tim,
Libertarians forget the great American experiment with isolationism in the 1930s. Some how our willingness to defend our own shores (a gun behind every blade of grass) did not keep us out of the biggest war the world has seen so far. And by getting in late (the Austrian Corporal could have been stopped in 1935 at a cost of a few thousand lives) the cost got rather large.
Post 1945 American policy has been to police the world to prevent another occurrence. Is it expensive? Sure. Think of it as an insurance policy against another 1940 -’45.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Although humans are not perfectible, the catch is that they are improvable. Think slavery, women’s rights, and civil rights. Therefore, Peter Jackson’s point is worth repeating:
“There are three types of politics: the politics of social justice, the politics of public order/social virtue, and the politics of individual freedom. All of us value various aspects of all three to one extent or another, but we tend to value one above the others because any policy designed to promote one of these aims will inevitably come into conflict with the other two. We therefore have to choose. It is this choice that defines us politically.”
As I see it, our history has its rhythms and cycles where one of these will rise because of perceived need. It’s a question of being granted the wisdom to see which one is needed most, at any given time, while never completely discarding the other two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Libertarians are the Steve Urkels of the political world. Their response to the disasters which occur when their ideas are implemented is “Ooopppsss. Did I do that? ”
They aren’t trying to be anarchists, they just can’t help it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Name one single example.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I think that if you are a learned and honest conservative, you will acknowledge the states have never been sovereign, first being subject to royal authority, then to their promises to each other in the Articles, and then simultaneously to the Constitution and the national government which was created by it, and to the people of the states who endorsed that Constitution.
They have never been sovereign, mere rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding the facts.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You are correct about the states and their sovereignty but if you use the metaphor that libertarians use about humans, that they are imperfect and can never be perfect, then you see that states are very much like humans. Yes they have given up and had enormous power taken away from them but the spirit within SOME states is that they must fight the federal gov. over every inch of ground to at least keep what they have. Obama care could just be the catalyst that was needed to get the state’s right issue front and center once again.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As a long time Libertarian, here’s why I think it is in the interests of people who consider themselves conservatives to consider the libertarian position. It’s this simple: If you want to have your freedom, you’ve got to give everyone else theirs, even if it means they make choices you wouldn’t make.
If you won’t grant your neighbor his freedom, don’t be surprised when he won’t grant you yours.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Good point but you must back it up with some conservative examples of how cons want to take away your rights but keep theirs. On something like abortion there is one complication and that is the determination on when life is established. After that point it isn’t up to the individual whether or not it is your right or my right but the fetus’ right. There are other issues that require your rights to be modified to accommodate my rights like on the highway or on an airplane. Every right that we have or assume that we have is probably infringing on someone else’s right in some way. My take on libs is that they don’t have a lot of gray in their coloring book. It’s either black or white.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The libertarian ideal of mankind, government and governance is not doable and would lead to anarchy if taken to its natural conclusion. Its as simple as that. Libertarians do not preach anarchy but their views if allowed to mature would lead to open rebellion and anarchy.
As John up their so aptly states the core of the libertarian mindset:
If you want to have your freedom, you’ve got to give everyone else theirs, even if it means they make choices you wouldn’t make.
This pretty much sums up the libertarian slant of anything goes. If a libertarian wants to do something and their is no victim it should be allowed…that is their version of freedom and it is what implies Anarchy as the penultimate result of such orthodoxy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How is that anarchy? Most consensual crimes that we spend so much money and effort on now used to be legal, with few consequences (think drugs, prostitution, and gambling). Any consequences that existed were far lesser than what we’re dealing with now.
Again, there are often no solutions, just trade-offs. Our nation is supposed to approach the trade-off tending toward liberty as being most worthwhile.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thanks for the link! Much appreciated!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
[...] The Lonely Conservative says Libertarians are not Anarchists! [...]
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It’s interesting that you post a Rothbard quote from the 50′s, even though by the time he developed the ideas he would later be respected for, he would have disavowed the entire statement. Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist and you have selectively quoted him in a way that makes him seem agreeable to you. It is hard to imagine that you are not aware of this.
Although essentially your premise is correct, Libertarian is an umbrella term and has historically included anarchists as well as small government advocates and minarchists. The fact that the Libertarian party of the US does not openly talk about the justification of the state is primarily because of the 1974 Dallas Accord which told people to stop having meaningful philosophical discussion in exchange for a realistic foothold in American politics.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
As James Riley notes, you have to read your Rothbard quote in context. Rothbard was an anarcho-capitalist. Every American would do well to read his book “For a New Liberty.” Available online free.
The great conservative Joseph Sobran considered himself an anarchist too. Yes, a conservative. He summed it up beautifully when he said, “It’s entirely possible that states — organized force — will always rule this world, and that we will have at best a choice among evils … But to say a thing is inevitable, or less onerous than something else, is not to say it is good.”
Libertarians and the War on Drugs … Besides all the utilitarian reasons given in various comments above, it comes down to natural rights. There is no such thing as the right to put a gun to someone’s head and/or throw him in a cage for ingesting or smoking something. If someone has not broken your leg or picked your pocket, it is immoral to use or threaten the use of violence against him. As a Christian, I believe it to be a sin to use violence against someone for say, smoking a joint, regardless of how I feel about the act of smoking it. The War on Drugs is just another attempt to immanentize the eschaton.
The libertarian plumb-line is the non-aggression axiom. Christians know this as the Golden Rule.
Thanks for starting a much needed conversation!
http://the-classic-liberal.com/what-is-anarchy/
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The Libertarian International Organization is encharged with Libertarian definitions. It treats anarchism, limited government and the rest as potentially Libertarian applications. Politically, Libertarianism is about voluntary solutions, and they’re treated as potentially Libertarian if voluntary.
For information on world Libertarian action check out: http://www.Libertarian-International.org
Like or Dislike:
0 
0