One of the more pretentious political self-descriptions is Libertarian. People think it puts them above the fray. It sounds fashionable, and to the uninitiated, faintly dangerous. Actually, its just one more bullshit political philosophy. George Carlin[1]
Libertarianism is, at its simplest, the antonym of authoritarianism.[2] The term has been around since the beginning of the 19th century, first appearing in Joseph Dejacque's letter to Proudhon titled "On the Human Being, Male and Female"[3] and was primarily used for self-identification with anarcho-communism and labor movements. Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken were some of the first prominent figures in the United States that used the term libertarianism[4]. However Murray Rothbard was the person most responsible for popularizing libertarianism as term to describe a political and social philosophy that advocates laissez-faire capitalism as a panacea for virtually everything[5]. Non-libertarians view this as synonymous with oligarchic plutocracy after the fashion of the American Gilded Age, while the reality-based community tends to realize that one cannot just yank economic theories out of the air and magically expect them to work.
This anti-government phenomenon is found primarily throughout most Western countries, particularly in the United States, Canada, and Western Europe. In reference to the latter, the term "liberal" is generally used to define the American and Canadian meaning of neoclassical libertarianism, while the word "libertarian" itself generally refers to the general support of individual freedoms, regardless of economic policy. Historically, the term has been associated with libertarian socialism and even sometimes anarchism in its more extreme case, but this article mainly covers the libertarianism in the United States, or what's also called "right-libertarianism" (as in "right-wing", not being right).
The US political party most aligned with libertarianism is the Libertarian Party, "America's Third Largest Party,"[6] whose candidate obtained 4.5 million, or 3.27 percent, of the vote in the 2016 presidential election.[7] This total was greater than their 1 million vote (0.99%) of the popular vote in the 2012 presidential election.[8] and 0.32% of the popular vote[9] in the 2004 presidential election (though, if any amount of fairness is to be given to them, first-past-the-post election methods are mathematically predetermined to trend towards a two-party system).[10]
There is also an "Objectivist Party," formed as a spin-off from the Libertarian Party by those who thought that the party's 2008 presidential candidate, Bob Barr, was too left-wing,[11] and a Boston Tea Party (no connection other than ideological to that other tea party) formed as a spin-off by those who thought the Libertarian Party had become too right-wing on foreign policy and civil liberties after the LP deleted much of its platform in 2006. Even so, that, again, due to the arbitrary definition of the word itself, makes little sense, as the general notion of libertarianism specifically emphasized on social liberties, with economics having little to do with the definition itself. The term "liberal", however, has come to primarily be associated with the left, due to the moderate left's support of social liberties, which played into the term "libertarian" becoming popularized in the United States in order to differentiate between the two. Even so, it is to be said that the definitions of "left" and "right" are incredibly arbitrary, seeing as, fundamentally, capitalism, despite its many flaws, is, both historically and definitively, more compatible with social progressivism than modern iterations of socialist thought, referring specifically to command-style economics.
Basically everyone agrees with libertarians on something, but they tend to get freaked out just as quickly by the ideologys other stances.
The dominant form of libertarianism (as found in the US) is an ideology based largely on Austrian School economics and Chicago School, or neoclassical, economics. The Austrian School relies on normative axioms, rather than hard empirical analysis, primarily concerned with what is ideal as opposed to "what is". That said, the branch of libertarianism that has had the most success in influencing public policy is primarily informed by the Chicago School.
Proponents of modern libertarianism frequently cite the "Non-Aggression Principle" (NAP) as the moral basis of their ideology. The NAP states that everyone is free to do whatever they want with their lives and property, so long as it does not directly interfere with the freedom of others to do the same. Under this rule, you may only use "force" in response to prior inappropriate force against the life and/or property of yourself or others. Compare and contrast with John Stuart Mill's "The Harm Principle." The critical difference between the two is that libertarians completely oppose the preemptive use of force. By contrast, Mill and other classical liberals believe that the preemptive use of force to prevent likely future harm can be justified, so long as it is for the greater good. Despite this, Mill believed that it should be seen as a last resort. Morally, modern libertarianism, specifically "classical liberals" of the Chicago School, have primarily been influenced by the concept of Utilitarianism on an ethical level, which combines both individualist and some aspects of collectivist thought.
Under any logical scrutiny it becomes evident that the precise definition of aggression is highly subjective and supposes a strict libertarian definition of property.[15] The NAP can therefore be used in almost any way its user intends, by changing the definition of aggression to suit their particular opinion/agenda. For example, throwing someone in prison for massive tax evasion is seen as an act of aggression by the state, whereas selling someone cigarettes knowing they will kill that person is not seen as aggression.
Libertarians secretly worry that ultimately someone will figure out that the whole of their political philosophy boils down to "get off my property". News flash: This is not really a big secret to the rest of us.
Many libertarians, who do not identify as either classically liberal or more left-wing branches, believe that government is the largest threat to the freedom of an individual. For this reason, they are closely associated with opposition to gun control, government surveillance, entitlements, and prohibitory drug policy.
The primary functions of government that most (emphasis: most) libertarians believe should be permissible elements of the state are:
This brand of the ideology, often referred to as "minarchism", is as close to pure anarchy one could get while still getting away with calling themselves "libertarian". This governmental structure is often referred to as a "Night-Watchman State". However, instead of dedicating their lives to defending the lands of Westeros from the Wildlings, these folk focus on dedicating their lives to defending the lands of Western Civilization from anyone whom they deem a "statist", whatever that means.
But it doesn't end there. If one moves down the spectrum towards the extremes, more and more things normally handled by the police and criminal courts are instead handled by civil courts, and eventually even the civil courts are privatized.[17] This is a very ironic philosophy, and, in a sense, makes so-called "libertarians" who believe in this ideology look extremely incoherent for various reasons, other than the fact that "anarchism" is literally the root word of anarcho-capitalism, there are some differences between the latter model and mainstream libertarianism, including minarchism, which is commonly seen as being a halfway point of sorts.
Libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism are often erroneously associated with one-another due to a vast misunderstanding of both philosophies. First of all, it is important to understand the difference between both economic structures. To start, "libertarian" is more of a political label than a specific ideology. In fact, libertarianism is a term that encompasses a very wide range of political ideologies that advocate limited government, on a variety of scales and across the political spectrum. Anarcho-capitalists, which is a specific thought school encompassed within the "anarchist" belief system. By definition, anarcho-capitalism is "right wing" anarchism, although this really only exists on paper. If one takes a closer look at anarcho-capitalism, they will realize that it is basically a sham. Anarcho-capitalists will virulently argue against their corporatist agenda, but if one takes a closer look at the system they will realize that it is nothing more than crony capitalism, if it can even be considered capitalism at all. Over time, trusts and monopolies would continue to merge, with a single major corporate powerhouse running the economy, making the laws, enforcing the laws, and levying taxes to help support its upkeep. There is really nothing libertarian about this, as libertarianism opposes big government and a regulated economy. Anarcho-capitalism is basically just a gateway to a political brand of corporatism where worldwide business conglomerates become a stand-in for the state. Anarcho-capitalism is a clever way to label an ideology catered to line the pockets of robber barons, industrialists, and business executives in order to abolish total protectionism as a means to instill their own personal interests upon those of lower economic status. The whole idea and result of the concept is that, by abolishing the state, that enables the opportunity to establish a new state disguised as a private corporation. Libertarians, on the other hand, are generally for the free market, speaking of those on the more moderate to right wings. Competition and consumer choice are key elements of the free market, as well as an emphasis on small business and firms owned on a more local level.
Most libertarians, even those on the hard left, oppose most forms of taxation (as taxes are "theft of property by force"), and any function of government outside of a general wish list, although, hereby proving that it is not a singularly consistent ideology relating pure policy, there are often-times layers of hypocrisy, as they have a number of things they like over others. Additionally, they are against the use of taxes to deal with externalities, commons, or free rider problems. Their most common remedy for these problems involve the use of civil suits to deal with (negative) externalities, and, in the case of minarchists, the privatization of commons, which allows for civil suits to handle harms to this private property. Of course, these answers are, many times, woefully inadequate in practice.[18]
Libertarians advocate extensive individual rights - an ideological stance that has always been consistent to their core beliefs. Libertarians advocate a society where "anything that's peaceful and voluntary" is allowed so long as it does not infringe on anyone else's life, liberty, or property, or engender force or fraud. However, the exact nature of a right as "positive" or "negative" differs among libertarians, as some may believe that paying taxes for certain social programs is a necessary evil for the sake of national utility (sometimes a view espoused by both classical liberals and left libertarians), while many others on the right believe that the government has no right to take a person's hard earned money to contribute to programs like healthcare, which, while, in its own way, a fair argument from an individual liberty standpoint, is not necessarily for the "greater good", which has always been a principle of libertarian ethical philosophy. It is to be said, that many libertarians are opportunists who hate taxes, often seeing themselves as special and hip for lambasting taxes to the rest of society, when, in reality, everyone, except for maybe masochists hate taxes. That being said, most standard libertarians, left-libertarians, and classical liberals seem to agree that the state and taxes are unfortunate necessities.
All libertarians have an intertwined ethical and moral philosophy that derives from Millian Utilitarianism, in that one should be able to do as they please so long as they don't hurt others or the equally important collective. If one wants to pursue faux pleasure, particularly in the hedonistic sense, they should have a right to live their own life as they please, even if those choices have negative, even harmful, consequences. The idea is that those choices are life's natural learning experiences as a means to do something in a different way in the future. Unfortunately, and while a libertarian state (which are ironically funny words to use together) would (hopefully) never endorse such, actions that can harm the body physically and mentally would be allowed under a free society. For example, one might say smoking in public is a personal liberty that affects nobody, whereas another would say it forces second-hand smoke upon those around them, interfering with their own right to not inhale smoke (note that most libertarians who are fed their talking points from think tanks fall into the former category thanks to second-hand smoke denialism). This is where a divide would rise between classical liberals who believe in a minimal state and minarchists, who believe in a microstate. A classical liberal would most likely appeal to the utilitarian idea that the good of a few people is better for overall utility as opposed to the individual person's desire to smoke a cigarette at that exact location at that exact moment. It inconveniences the non-smokers more than it does the smoker. Mill's liberalism proposed that everyone is entitled to his or her own self-interest (yes, women too) up until he or she impede upon another person's right to exercise their own personal self-interest. The self-interest of classical liberalism, which is also economically applied to policy in Chicago School neoclassicism, differs from the self-interested notions espoused by many run-of-the-mill (No, not John Stuart Mill) conservatives and wingnut libertarians, who seem to misinterpret basic economic and social egoism with egotism. Many minarchists, and even certain Republicans who have never expressed a belief in any libertarian policy or platform in their entire political career have this weird fetish with the novel Atlas Shrugged, by Russian author and self-proclaimed "philosopher" Ayn Rand. To be fair, her anti-communist opinions and literal hatred of even the mixed economy of the free world's democratic system are semi-understandable, in view of her homeland's descent into tyranny under Lenin and Stalin, but she was hardly reasonable. Later on, she garnered a cult of personality that would constantly rave about her half-baked ideology, known as "Objectivism", which itself seems to be based on half-baked interpretations of Aristotle's (somewhat pro-government and ironically somewhat altruistic) philosophies and bad Friedrich Nietzsche readings.
Atlas isn't a terrible book per se, and Rand's ideas sound like gimmicky Evil fun, but then, once finishing it, it becomes clear that, after about a day or so of pondering its content, a logical person will come to realize that the Hobbit has a plot far more grounded in reality. Although, it is to be said that the Dwarves and that Dragon are goldbugs.
Objectivism and Utilitarianism are two completely contrasting philosophies, although both are often applied to modern libertarianism, and the pro-market factions differ in how their views on the topic are expressed. Classical liberals and moderate libertarians are generally more influenced by utilitarianism and other enlightenment philosophers, while objectivism is at the heart of many minarchism circles and paleolibertarianism, and it has since found its way into mainstream conservatism for some reason. Some Republicans, including the more religious folk, seem to have some fetish for Rand, seeming to, on their own, have half-baked interpretations of an already half-baked philosophy, also seeming not to take into account that Rand was an atheist and that objectivism is not all that compatible with Jesus Christ's teachings.
Most libertarians, with only a handful of exceptions, are generally opposed to expansionism and preemptive military aggression, with most being rather skeptical of globalism. This libertarian belief against the prior use of force also extends into foreign policy. This is sometimes referred to as a "non-interventionist" foreign policy. That does not automatically make them pacifists, necessarily. Some camps strongly promote the concept of self-defense, and usually accept national defense as one of the few legitimate functions of government, although they tend to agree that the size of the standing military needs to be drastically reduced.
Libertarianism, as a term, has become a sort of buzz-word used to describe anyone who wants to lower taxes and dislikes government oversight, both on the right and left. Many right-wingers often refer to themselves as libertarians, specifically because they have some obsessive vendetta against the federal government, and, in some cases, the establishments of their own party. Even so, this is pretty much "faux-libertarianism", as they, being conservatives, are generally opposed on a political level to social liberty, which is the original foundation of the movement. As a result, many people confuse libertarians and these Republicans, many of them being paleoconservatives and members of the Tea Party. The difference between the two are simple: libertarians want a limited government, while conservative Republicans want the decentralization of executive power. That being said, these Republicans tend to be "anti-federalist", in favor of states rights. Libertarians, on the other hand, simply want smaller government in all respects, both on a federal level and at a state level. To them, letting the states dictate tax policy, choose to exercise large government oversight, dictating social liberty, and having central executive power on its own is the exact same thing as the federal government having that kind of power.
Some more conservative-leaning libertarians, also known as paleolibertarians, often express a mixture of those opinions. Despite (or maybe because of) their extreme reverence for the United States Constitution (particularly an originalist reading of the Bill of Rights), these paleolibertarians are rarely elected to office. Cynics have suggested that refusal to provide adequate pork for their district hurts their chances in congressional elections. Other cynics point out that if they don't win an election in the first place, how can their "porcine provision" skills be tested? Libertarianism seems to function as more of a platform as opposed to an actual cohesive political movement these days, particularly because there is no specific set belief system to unite all libertarians, even within the Libertarian Party. Often times libertarians have proven that they have better chance of being elected when they run as Republican, as were the cases with Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Barry Goldwater, Emperor Trajan, Mike Lee, and another guy who's name our editor has forgotten. In his defense, it looks he just had an Aleppo moment.
The narrow usage of "libertarian" as a label is also a cause, as some who take moderate libertarian positions are frequently called a "free-market liberal/Democrat" or a "pro-____ rights conservative/Republican" - or even derisive epithets like "libt kiddies." Often-times, Republicans and reactionary populists appropriate the term for their own usage. So many wingnuts like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck have literally turned many rational people off from the idea of libertarianism, leading many who are not as politically knowledgeable that they are all crazy wingnuts. While this can be the case many times, as some conservatives hate the Republican establishment so much that they want to rebrand themselves as something else, libertarianism has nothing to do with conservatism at all, and it has never been. It just so happens that right-wing fiscal policy is more in line with that of libertarianism. Other than that, libertarians are basically just your average Democrat, but less, as they would put it, "statist".
Libertarianism is such a broad, yet, at the same time, almost stupidly simple concept to understand. Like anarchism and authoritarianism, it only describes a general opinion on how the government should be run on an institutional level. It is very similar to Atheism in that way. Atheism is not a religion. Very similarly, libertarianism is not one set ideological alignment. When one thinks of an atheist, a certain image may come to mind. One such applicable one would be the "common neckbeard", clearly representing the loudest atheist community. A respected scientist like Richard Dawkins may also very well come to mind. That being said, Atheists come in many different forms, with drastically different social and political beliefs, such as these types of folks: Alt-Right Loony Tunes, right-wing shitposters, conspiracy theorists, edgy middle schoolers, antifeminists, science nerds, secular humanists, your amiable next-door neighbor, smug comedians, philosophers, intellectuals, progressivists, someone's drunk uncle, and radical progressive types. Atheism, to reiterate, is not a religious ideology like some would have you believe. The only thing that unites Atheists is a common lack of belief in a deity of any kind. There is nothing more to it.
Libertarians come in many shapes and sizes too, and from different ideological backgrounds. There are conservative libertarians, fiscal right-wingers, more conspiracists, classical liberals, leftists, angry middle-aged white men, college kids who just want to smoke weed, registered Republicans, registered Democrats, registered Libertarians, social democrats, Christians, Atheists, progressives, non-progressives, objectivists, utilitarians, and even Marxists. The one thing that unites libertarianism is the common belief in the illegitimacy of the state, but a grounded realization that government is still a necessity as it relates to upholding the social order, all of such being centered around the idea that each and every human being is equal and has the right to pursue a means to exercise personal freedom.
Ayn Rand, Rand Paul and Paul Ryan walk into a bar. The bartender serves them tainted alcohol because there are no regulations. They die.
Many libertarians found the political philosophy through one of a small number of influential fiction books. The works of novelist Ayn Rand (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged) and Robert Heinlein (The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress) are often cited. For example, many libertarians in the United States might quote Rand's Atlas Shrugged when they speak of government:
The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.
Not that confusing, right?
Other libertarians may point to such works of non-fiction as Libertarianism in One Lesson by David Bergland, which posit a clear set of axioms and then delineate how society might follow them and how it would be best for everyone.
Many are the ideological descendants of "classical liberals" (by definition, they could arguably be considered more liberal than the American left) though many "classical liberals" who do not identify as libertarians per se were decidedly more moderate than the current U.S. libertarian movement in that they were willing to accept more government regulations and taxes.[21] In light of this, modern libertarianism can be better described as a radical offshoot of classical liberalism. Classical liberals tend to be more intellectual than libertarians, and often align themselves more with the two major parties for practical reasons. They tend to be centre-left to centre-right, and instead of adhering to the "philosophies" of Ayn Rand, they are more attracted to Utilitarianism, particularly the teachings suggested by John Stuart Mill, a liberal, an abolitionist, a feminist, and atheist who supported gay rights...over a century before the Civil Rights movement even began. They believe that all men and women are essentially good, and that the collective and the individual are both equally important. Taxes are important, and the greater good trumps individual happiness, since happiness can be collective. For instance, a classical liberal would most likely dislike something like Obamacare due to its statist implications, but they would be gladly willing to sacrifice a portion of their wealth to ensure that those who cannot afford healthcare could live a happy and healthy life that they are entitled to. After all, are we not all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
Internet libertarians have been compared to teenagers through the use of the argumentum ad cellarium fallacy. As an anonymous commenter on Charlie Stross's Bitcoin rant put it, their concerns precisely mirror those of privileged teenagers:[22]
And if you grow up in your parent's [sic] basement, then you are shaped by an environment where the fundamental constraints on what you want to do are shaped neither by scarcity nor malignance, but by genuine good intent. Your relatives probably don't want you to spend all day smoking pot and playing video games; in some cases they will over-estimate just how much of a bad thing that is. And even if they are right, it's not like anyone facing such hectoring is going to admit it.
Pretty much every libertarian position can be understood in that frame of restrictive but benevolent authority being the root of all 'real' problems. It's a rare parent who literally tortures their kids, so torture is, at best, not a 'real' issue, not a priority. But many make them do stuff for their health, so mandatory health insurance is a big deal. Pretty much no parents kill their child with drones, many read their diaries. And so on.
So to libertarians, Bitcoin is like wages from a fast food job as opposed to an allowance; lets you buy what you want without someone else having a veto. Only money that doesn't judge you can be considered entirely yours...
As described below in the section "Alleged racism", libertarianism, in practice, does not denote an anti-government philosophy as much as a co-optation of left-wing anti-authoritarianism as a means of justifying (or simply denying) the social and economic hierarchies under capitalism under the guise of freedom.
Murray Rothbard famously bragged that the movement stole the word "libertarian" from anarcho-socialists, something left-libertarians like Noam Chomsky have confirmed.
This is evidenced by the fact some of the most rabid sexists, racists and other bigots claim to be libertarians. This can range from anti-feminism and sexism under the guise of economic analysis (women choose lower-paying jobs!), justifying racist and ableist discrimination or, most commonly, classism and poor-shaming.
While a preference for maximum personal freedom is pretty much universal throughout most of the political spectrum (though less so on the fringes), libertarianism presents several difficulties:
Simply put, in the real world, they're actually property privileges, not property rights.
Systems that attempt to boil themselves down to "a few simple rules" are seldom actually simple; for example, ancient Judaism's Deuteronomic reforms started out as just about half of the modern book of Deuteronomy, but eventually grew to encompass the whole Torah, large swaths of the rest of the Jewish Bible,[34] and ultimately to the vast body of commentary known as the Talmud. Esperanto, though defined in only sixteen grammatical rules, is actually quite a complex language, since its rules are defined in direct relation to established rules in Indo-European linguistics. Even some sports particularly golf have a strong element of common law in their rule systems.
There is essentially no guarantee that a society built on a libertarian legal structure would remain that way without redeveloping some sort of common law structure, or even a statutory structure that codifies all precedents. Given that most societies governed by rule of law already have this, it's hard to see what would be accomplished other than a massive reinvention of the wheel.[35]
The United States, for instance, is technically almost a truly libertarian country, even today, since the only laws it has are to "adjudicate between free men." Starting with a base, at least at the federal level (after the collapse of the Articles of Confederation) of a fairly simple Constitution, and some Roman and English common law, the country's government has evolved as a balance between virtually total liberty, and adjudicating the inevitable conflicts that arise between free men (or, in the case of drug laws, sodomy laws, etc., between the government and one somewhat unfree man). This adjudication has taken the form both of legislation to deal with issues that arose, and judicial analysis of the application of such legislation. Of course, 240 years offers a lot of opportunity for "free men" to need adjudication, so now, to self-styled "libertarians," the results look needlessly complicated. Such is life in the real world.
Typically libertarians argue that people should be free to do whatever they like as long as it doesn't hurt others. While this idea may seem very simple at first glance, the problem is that what "hurts" people and what doesn't is very nuanced. For instance, it is common for libertarians to oppose laws which reduce air pollution even though the latter can have a severe impact on the health of others, even if it is assumed that global warming is a gummint conspiracy to justify raising our taxes; more so than many direct acts of violence. It is also common for them to oppose laws mandating car drivers to wear seatbelts, even though seeing a person die as the result of not wearing one can have a major psychological effect on onlookers. Similarly, they may oppose anti-smoking campaigns as an unwarranted intrusion on personal liberty, while ignoring the financial burden imposed by smoking-related illnesses on both private insurance and taxpayer-funded health care. [36]
While libertarians all generally agree on the premise of the Non-Aggression Axiom, there are internal rifts and disagreement over what extent the Non-Aggression Axiom applies to. On the one hand, there are the Libertarian Party types (colloquially called "minarchists") who take a position of advocating minimal government, and on the other there are the market anarchists who believe that all the services the government provides are unjust monopolies, which the free market can handle better if let go of by the state. Market anarchists can be split into two groups, "anarcho-mutualists" who believe in a free market but not in capitalism or class, and anarcho-capitalists who believe in completely unregulated capitalism.
There is usually little room in between these two, but even then, there are still different branches within these umbrella terms. On the Minarchist side of the libertarian ideology, there are paleolibertarians, who advocate a strong return to the Constitution and are somewhat conservative in their arguments to preserve moral law, much like the Old Right paleoconservatives. Ron Paul, who is often viewed as a libertarian, would more fit the paleoconservative/libertarian framework. Additionally, there exist the geo-libertarians (who advocate simply a tax on all land),[37] neo-libertarians (often regarded not in any sense as libertarians, as their political views conflict with the very principles of the Non-Aggression Axiom - they defend a mixture of traditional libertarian ideas with views more commonly grounded in neoconservatism, such as American exceptionalism and military interventionism and action to promote America's superiority in the international community), and other branches with their own nuances. On the anarchist side of the spectrum, things tend to be more homogeneous, with the major disagreements usually only amounting to how to achieve a libertarian society and solutions to ethical dilemmas.
This ideological division occurs not only externally in political theory, but philosophically as well. On the one side, there are the deontological natural rights theorists (Murray Rothbard being the most prominent advocate), and on the other are the utilitarian libertarians (David D. Friedman is often the most associated with this view). A few minority nihilists and radical subjectivists exist within these circles, but these views are often seen to be in conflict with the general premises laid out by the Non-Aggression Axiom.
The word "libertarianism" was used before the current usage came about to refer to anarchists, who are against hierarchies brought about by stratified classes and a state controlled by the wealthy elites, and thus oppose capitalism. Many call themselves 'libertarian socialists' a philosophy championed by Noam Chomsky. The use of "libertarianism" to describe anarchy dates back to the late 1850s, with Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social being the name of a journal published by anarchist Joseph Dejacque. The term 'libertarian communism' originated in the 1880s, when the French anarchist congress adopted it. As late as 1954, a largely anarcho-syndicalist movement named The Libertarian League was set up in the US.
The current Libertarian Party in the US only came into being in early 1970s, well over 100 years after anarchists had begun using the term to describe themselves. In the US, to quote Murray Bookchin:
As late as the 1990s, the Libertarian Labor Review newspaper promoted anarcho-syndicalism while still using the libertarian label. Samuel Edward Konkin III labeled his underground-economy based "agorism" as left-libertarianism, while claiming influence from right-libertarians like Rothbard. The term may also accurately describe Karl Hess, the former Goldwater Republican and Cold Warrior who aligned himself with Murray Rothbard for a few years, then swung to the hard left during the late 1960s and 1970s and joined the New Left.[38]
There are a number of areas where the more "rational" libertarians and liberals have overlapping concerns, notably, opposition to corporate welfare and the military-industrial complex, and valuing personal liberty and freedom of speech.
There is a good deal of overlap between these groups, but the hardliners tend to lavish hate on each other:
Deontological anarchists that adhere to the teachings of Murray Rothbard. Most anarcho-capitalists adhere to the Austrian School, though David D. Friedman opts for the utilitarian Chicago School, despite not being an anarcho-capitalist himself. A few others follow the pure pacifism of Robert LeFevre. Modern examples include Adam Kokesh, who claims the only real anarchists are anarcho-capitalists, and Walter Block of the LvMI.
Samuel Edward Konkin III's philosophy of agorism was described by Konkin himself as a particularly concentrated strain of Rothbardianism, but Konkin and adherents consider(ed) themselves part of the libertarian left. This may be fair, since Konkin coinages like Kochtopus have entered the general leftist lexicon. The main problem with anarcho-capitalism is that it advocates for getting rid of the government entirely, which could, hypothetically, lead to corporations and trusts becoming so large that they would ultimately become stand-ins for the state, therefore bringing everything back to square one. While their support of the free market is compatible with many other libertarian circles, this particular possibility puts anarcho-capitalism at odds with most other groups from an ideological perspective, as libertarianism is, at its core, anti-state. Additionally, actual libertarians believe in some degree of government, whereas ancaps do not believe in government at all.
Also known as Novacrats, these folks are the more utilitarian of the bunch and usually associated more with the Chicago school than the Austrian school. The term "Beltway" is used as a pejorative by the hardline anarchists, minarchists, and deontological types to paint them as sell-outs because they've gotten some traction in DC. Prominent Beltway types include Thomas Sowell, Nick Gillespie and the late Milton Friedman.
There exists a very disproportionate amount of libertarians in anti-feminist communities and vice versa. While there are certainly many libertarian feminists (like Cathy Reisenwitz and Sharon Presley), they're outnumbered many, many times to one by their opponents.
One of the possible reasons for this is the libertarian belief that the gender pay gap is a myth and that gender discrimination is impossible because capitalism is perfect. Another would be the kind of faux anti-authoritarianism many libertarians espouse, namely that using state intervention to lessen the impact of gendered hierarchies that arise under capitalism (affirmative action, fighting the pink tax, woman-specific welfare measures, etc.) is the devil but using military force to kill anti-capitalists or to steal indigenous land is totally justified. Moreover, libertarianism's recruiting base (young privileged white dudes on the internet) is typically chock-full of limerent, sexually frustrated losers that made up most of Gamergate's membership.
Paul Elam and Christopher Cantwell are stereotypical examples of this in action. Their anti-feminist views are justified using libertarian arguments. The fact libertarianism seems to constantly espouse every single anti-feminist issue under the sun (mansplaining the pink tax, denying the gender pay gap, spouting reactionary talking points about rape culture, etc.) indicates the cross-poolination is pretty thorough.
Usually conspiracy nuts, survivalists, sovereign citizen types, or gold bugs who think the gummint is out to get them. There are white supremacists who want to bring back "states' rights" to resurrect segregation, and dominionists who want to resurrect official state religions. Also includes fans of the seasteading, micronation, and vonu movements, "life extension," Galambosianism, Liberty Dollars, and pretty much anything from the Loompanics book catalog. May suffer from an excess of colloidal silver in the bloodstream. Alex Jones is the epitome of the crank magnet libertarian.
There are those who take up the mantle of libertarianism because it aligns with their opposition to some federal law they don't like. On the more benign end, this includes activists for sex workers and cannabis legalization, who typically overlap with the below-mentioned civil libertarians, while on the crankier end, one may find polygamists, woo-meisters, pedophiles, and peddlers of some form of illegal quackery, who can more often be found with the crank magnets. Another example of this would be college kids who claim to be libertarian just because they want weed to be legal.
A term coined by Lew Rockwell. Their policies are mostly the same as the "Taft Republicans" of the Old Right. They are advocates of the Austrian school, originalism, states' rights, and strict Constitutionalism, and are generally socially conservative despite opposing the drug war and "bedroom laws." Ron Paul falls into this camp. Many conspiracy nuts are also paleolibertarians, such as the almighty Alex Jones mentioned above, Texe Marrs, and Mark Dice.
Largely the venerable predecessors of the modern libertarian movement, who were an influence on Rothbard but rejected anarchism, influenced Rand but rejected orthodox Objectivism, etc. Minarchists today are not all necessarily influenced by Rand, but they tend to believe in the concept of a "Night-watchman State", which is defined as a radically minimalistic government that only exists to provide three basic public services: law enforcement, a legal system, and a small standing army to exist for defense purposes only. While many of today's minarchists tend to favor capitalism, the system is also applicable to socialist thought. Karl Marx could also accurately be described as a minarchist, as he believed that the government should only exist for minimal protection and the distribution of the wealth.
Usually generic deontological minarchist libertarians, the only difference being that they identify themselves with the tenets of Objectivism. Rand herself hated the Libertarian Party and denounced them as poseurs.[39] Alan Greenspan is probably the most famous Randroid, and we all know what happened there. Paul Ryan is also technically a Randroid, but he is extremely inconsistent. Despite his claims to be influenced by Rand, she would have probably laughed at him. He is literally an embodiment of Republican statism.
Generally Silicon Valley inhabitants who attempt to apply hacker culture to politics. Lots of overlap with techno-utopian movements like transhumanism and Singularitarianism. Also overlaps with the seasteading, life extension, and digital-currency crank magnets. See also Eric S. Raymond, Bitcoin, and Anonymous. Ironically, technological leaps have made surveillance of citizens easier than ever before in human history.
Their true ideological motivations are unknown, but they use the language of the "free market" to shill for corporations that don't want to deal with regulations or taxes. They can usually be found at some DC think tank cranking out bogus research while being bankrolled by Koch Industries or Exxon. Steve Milloy is a prime example.
People who say they are libertarians, but dutifully pull the lever for most anyone with an "R" after their name (not, however, for Ron Paul) every election. In between elections they shill for military interventionism, and attack liberals but never conservatives for being enemies of liberty. And a lot of Al Gore bashing. Their idea of a "libertarian Republican" is Rudy Giuliani. Their only real claim to being libertarians is their irreverent attitude, but this really just boils down to being a jerk for the sake of it. Glenn Reynolds and Matt Drudge have made a lucrative career pushing their buttons.
Those whose main attraction to libertarianism is civil liberties of the ACLU sort, anti-war issues, gay rights, marijuana, privacy, police abuses, women's lib, conscription, and so forth. They may view liberals as unreliable on these issues, or they may hold conservative economic views, and prefer to align with libertarians. The Cato Institute used to emphasize outreach to them in its early years via Inquiry magazine and The Libertarian Review. Today, Radley Balko, Conor Friedersdorf, and Carol Moore might be prominent examples, as was (until his recent death) American Indian Movement activist Russell Means. In Europe, these types are typically associated with pirate politics, though a few mainstream libertarians like Johan Norberg could be included. Along with classical liberals, they are arguably the most reasonable out of the bunch. Civil libertarians do not always have to be classical liberals or minarchists, as social democrats like Bernie Sanders (who is not a socialist) can be described as such.
Those for whom the Libertarian Party and the libertarian movement are one and the same thing. Ideologically suspect to the more hard-core, they differ from Beltway libertarians primarily in that they prefer to throw all their effort into building the Libertarian Party instead of trying to get cred inside the Beltway. They typically want to trim and gut the party platform to attract more people, and/or disseminate an oversimplified version of the libertarian message in the name of "effective communication." Fond of using the World's Smallest Political Quiz and other materials from the Advocates for Self-Government. See Michael Cloud, Carla Howell, former Alaska state representative Dick Randolph, 1980 LP presidential nominee Ed Clark, and 2013 Virginia gubernatorial candidate Robert Sarvis.
Usually refers to fans of Ron Paul, who express their rabid support for him through the Internet. More recently, it has come to refer to irritating "Internet libertarians" in general who find a home for themselves on certain Internet sites, especially YouTube, and proceed to "upvote" everything that agrees with their worldview while "downvoting" anyone who disagrees with it en masse. Any site with an upvote/downvote system (i.e. Urban Dictionary, ABC News hell, it's easier to list sites they haven't taken over at this point) is up for grabs for these people, and there tends to be heavy overlap with the crank magnets, Austrian schoolers, and, oddly, the online MRA movement. When not shilling for Ron Paul, being conspiracy nuts, or just being unbelievably self-righteous in general their favorite pastimes usually include rambling about Barack Obama, excessive quote mining of Paul Krugman (and it's always Krugman), and using snarl words such as "fascist," "sheeple," "statist," etc.
Refers to conservatives, neocons, Christian rightists, etc., who have no clue what libertarianism is, but simply identify as "libertarian" because it "sounds more hip," or to avoid association with the Republican Party. Many of these fake libertarians think that anti-federalism and libertarianism are the same thing (e.g. a Christian fundamentalist "libertarian" who complains about the Nanny state and cries for smaller federal government so that Alabama can criminalize homosexuality, pornography, and abortion on the state level). Another example would be right-wing talk radio host Neal Boortz who identifies as a libertarian, but supported the federal government spying on anti-Iraq war protesters.
Some self-proclaimed libertarians seem to espouse some racist views, and that often gives them a bad reputation. [40] Murray Rothbard,[41] although of Jewish origin himself, has been suggested to have possibly sympathized with white nationalists, paleoconservatives, and anti-state right-wing populists, many of whom claimed to be "libertarian". However, paleoconservatism is not a libertarian philosophy at all, and Rothbard was not a libertarian, but an anarcho-capitalist who really did nothing to advance the libertarian movement that was influenced by folks like Friedman.[42].
By pure definition, libertarianism is the least compatible political ideology in the history of free society with fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, given that totalitarians teach that individuals only have worth if they serve the State, while libertarianism is opposed to the state. However, there have been those who seem to espouse both. Certain segments of the alt-right identify as libertarian yet also express sympathy for Nazism or neo-Nazism; the website "The Right Stuff" (which prominently features pictures of Hitler and broadcasts a radio show called The Daily Shoah, whose guests have included Christopher Cantwell) is one notable example. Another would be the Holocaust Denier and goat blood drinking pagan extraordinaire Augustus Sol Invictus, who actually ran on a libertarian ticket in Florida for the Senate. That being said, they are incredibly inconsistent in their beliefs
Quite a few libertarians hold to a paranoid or conspiracist worldview, which in some cases may include Holocaust denial. This, as well as the relationship between libertarianism and the gun culture, may partly explain the appeal of Nazi or Nazi-like ideas to some self-proclaimed libertarians.
Much like Marxism (which holds that a "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a necessary transitional stage between the capitalist status quo and true, stateless communism), it is also possible that some people might see libertarianism as the desired end state but believe that fascism (and the genocide of "undesirables") is necessary as a transitional stage. That being said, most libertarians simply believe in an immediate substitution of the state, and it is extremely easy to identify the wingnut factions of the movement. In other words, it is no different than every other political ideology. Situation normal.
The following institutions and groups are closely or loosely associated with modern libertarianism:
Excerpt from:
Libertarianism - RationalWiki
