Libertarian perspectives on political alliances

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on Libertarianism

Schools of thought Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Geolibertarianism Green libertarianism Individualist anarchism Left-libertarianism Libertarian socialism Libertarian feminism Free-market anarchism Market socialism Minarchism Mutualism Neolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism Progressive libertarianism Propertarianism Right-libertarianism Rights libertarianism Voluntaryism Origins Objectivism Austrian School Chicago School Classical liberalism Individualist anarchism Ideas Civil liberties Counter-economics Decriminalization Economic freedom Free markets Free trade Free will Freedom of contract Homestead principle Humanism Individualism Laissez-faire Liberty Natural rights Night watchman state Non-aggression Non-interventionism Private property Self-government Self-ownership Subjectivism Tax resistance Topics History Movement Controversies within libertarianism Parties Theories of law Views of rights Criticism of libertarianism Related Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian transhumanism Philosophy Portal Politics Portal  v • d • e

Libertarian perspectives on political alliances vary greatly, with controversies among libertarians as to which alliances are acceptable or useful to the movement.

Most libertarians are political allies with liberals on social issues like the role of religion (which they wish to minimize, especially in government) and nontraditional lifestyles (which they generally defend).

Others, including Murray Rothbard's followers like Lew Rockwell, call themselves paleolibertarians, and consider the religious, isolationist paleoconservatives to be their natural allies, despite a sharp disagreement on trade issues. Paleolibertarians accuse other libertarians (whom they call neo and "left" libertarians, but who call themselves either classical liberals or simply libertarians) of surrendering libertarian values to the political left in order to gain traction in Washington, DC, and of undermining morality by opposing or denying religion.^[1] Charlie Reese of LewRockwell.com said that "a society without an underlying private morality will degenerate into a corrupt jungle... I would rather live in a neighborhood of Islamic fundamentalists than in a neighborhood of atheists and agnostics... if we become an immoral people, we will eventually lose both our prosperity and our liberty."^[2]

Friedrich Hayek's arguments in Why I am not a Conservative preempted the paleolibertarian movement. He argued that, while libertarians (whom he called "liberals") could ally with conservatives in the short term, any fusion of the two movements would undermine their ability to defend liberty. Hayek's essay argues that alliances with conservatives are at best a necessary evil in the fight against socialism, noting that there are deep incompatibilities because "the admiration of the conservatives for free growth generally applies only to the past. They typically lack the courage to welcome the same undesigned change from which new tools of human endeavors will emerge."^[3] Still, Hayek's Road to Serfdom is used by conservatives to support their economic arguments.^[4]

Another dimension of the controversy over libertarians' political alliances concerns Objectivists. Libertarians are often influenced by Ayn Rand's writings and have a similar agenda to that of Objectivists, but factions of the two groups are often in conflict. See Libertarianism and Objectivism

[edit] Notes