Paleolibertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Part of the series on

Libertarianism
Schools of thought
Origins
Ideas
Topics
Related

Portal:Philosophy Philosophy Portal
Portal:Politics Politics Portal
 v • d • e 

Paleolibertarianism is a school of thought within American libertarianism founded by Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard, and closely associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. It is based on a combination of radical libertarianism in politics and cultural conservatism in social thought. Austrian economics, anti-federalism[1], Misesian libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism heavily influenced the movement's attitudes toward ideas on trade, commerce and statecraft.

Contents

[edit] Principles

In January, 1990 Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. published "The Case for Paleo-libertarianism" in Liberty magazine. In it he wrote that the “conservative crack-up presents an historic opportunity for the libertarian movement” to unite with conservatives but only if “libertarianism is deloused” of those who believe in “freedom from cultural norms, religion, bourgeois morality, and social authority.” Citing drug use by libertarians and the nomination of a prostitute as the California Libertarian Party candidate for lieutenant governor, Rockwell asserted that “the only way to several libertarianism’s link with libertinism is with a cleansing debate.” Assailing alleged “hatred of western culture,” he asserted that “pornographic photography, ‘free’-thinking, chaotic painting, atonal music, deconstructionist literature, Bauhaus architecture, and modernist films have nothing in common with the libertarian political agenda - no matter how much individual libertarians may revel in them” and stated “we obey, and we ought to obey, traditions of manners and taste.” After explaining why cultural conservatives could make a better argument for liberty to the middle classes, Rockwell predicted “in the new movement, libertarians who personify the present corruption will sink to their natural level, as will the Libertarian Party, which has been their diabolic pulpit.”[2]

In later years Lew Rockwell characterized paleolibertarian thought by saying:

Paleolibertarianism holds with Lord Acton that liberty is the highest political end of man, and that all forms of government intervention — economic, cultural, social, international — amount to an attack on prosperity, morals, and bourgeois civilization itself, and thus must be opposed at all levels and without compromise. It is 'paleo' because of its genesis in the work of Murray N. Rothbard and his predecessors, including Ludwig von Mises, Albert Jay Nock, Garet Garrett, and the entire interwar Old Right that opposed the New Deal and favored the Old Republic of property rights, freedom of association, and radical political decentralization. Just as important, paleolibertarianism predates the politicization of libertarianism that began in the 1980s, when large institutions moved to Washington and began to use the language of liberty as part of a grab bag of 'policy options.' Instead of principle, the neo-libertarians give us political alliances; instead of intellectually robust ideas, they give us marketable platitudes. What's more, paleolibertarianism distinguishes itself from left-libertarianism because it has made its peace with religion as the bedrock of liberty, property, and the natural order.[3][verification needed]

In a 2007 interview Rockwell revealed he no longer considered himself a “paleolibertarian” and was “happy with the term libertarian.” Regarding “paleolibertarian” he asserted:

This term was designed to address a very serious problem that libertarians in Washington had come to see themselves as a pleading pressure group hoping to find "market-based" solutions to public policy problems but within public policy, and thus do they support school vouchers, limited wars, managed trade, forced savings as an alternative to social security, and the like. Unfortunately, the term paleolibertarian became confused because of its association with paleoconservative, so it came to mean some sort of socially conservative libertarian, which wasn't the point at all – though the attempted definition of libertarian as necessarily socially leftist is a problem too.[4]

Paleolibertarianism is commonly distinguished by:[original research?]

  • Political alliances with paleoconservatism. The two groups are closely related, although they sometimes quarrel over the virtues of free trade, and other issues. For example, paleolibertarians tend to praise Patrick Buchanan for his stances on foreign policy, yet accuse him of protectionism. Conversely, paleoconservative Sam Francis argued that big business should serve the interest of middle America.[citation needed] Both sides prefer to attack their mutual opponents than each other, however.
  • Disaffiliation from the post-Cold War-era alliance between libertarians and the New Left. This trend has been checked by the influence of Murray Rothbard. Also, in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks and the War on Terror, the paleolibertarians' antipathy with the conservative movement, other than distinctly paleoconservative types, rose tremendously.
  • Sharp opposition to neoconservatism and interventionist foreign policy.
  • Radical decentralization in politics; most paleolibertarians subscribe to some form of anarcho-capitalism and do not associate with any political party.
  • No universal consensus exists with paleolibertarians on the debate of what, if any, role the government should play on the issue of regulating immigration and the borders. While practically all paleolibertarians subscribe to a philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, they differ with what a society with a state (i.e., a state that controls and "owns" property and has a welfare system) should do. However, paleolibertarians are slightly more inclined than not to support some kind of border enforcement and immigration regulation. (See notes for further elaboration.[5]) This is in contrast to the generally held view by libertarians who subscribe to open borders and unregulated immigration.
  • Commitment to a natural law approach to libertarian theory, and intense opposition towards utilitarian approaches.
  • Appreciation for classical American anti-federalism, sometimes criticizing Abraham Lincoln[6] for leading America toward a centralized, managerial state.
  • Appreciation for traditional values and customs, along with churches and voluntary associations, as an alternative to state-backed social engineering and managerial public policy. The paleos express frustration over other libertarians who stress what they see as positive rights (such as gay rights, abortion rights, and sexual freedom) rather than fight state coercion on life, liberty and property.

Justin Raimondo's 1993 book Reclaiming the American Right[7] links paleolibertarianism with the anti-interventionist American old right. In Democracy: The God That Failed[8] by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Hoppe argues that "conservatives today must be antistatist libertarians and, equally important, [that] libertarians must be conservatives". He argues that to obtain social conservatism one must embrace radical paleolibertarianism. (See selected article "The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe.)

Prominent paleolibertarians include Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ron Paul, Thomas DiLorenzo, Joseph Sobran and Thomas Woods. Closely affiliated institutions include the Ludwig von Mises Institute, the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the Property and Freedom Society.

[edit] Divergence from paleoconservatism

[edit] Voluntary armies

Thomas Fleming claims Lew Rockwell became “dangerously muddled” after Murray Rothbard’s death. He says some paleolibertarians went off the deep end:

They hate not just war but the military itself. They reject not only imperialism but also patriotism; they are not merely opposed to nationalism but reject the concept of the nation.[1]

Fleming debated paleolibertarian Thomas Woods over whether laissez-faire meshed with Roman Catholic orthodoxy.[2] He claims the “last straw” was a 2003 article by Jeffrey Tucker of the Mises Institute, whom he said defends “desertion as a legitimate career move for a disgruntled soldier.” Tucker had argued that the concept of a “voluntary military” was a myth because the penalty for desertion is death. He said that soldiers “die for exercising their God-given right to walk away.”[3] In the article, Tucker also wrote:

[One] wonders how much the ranks of the militarily employed would shrink in absence of anti-desertion enforcement. If modern presidents had to recruit the way barons and lords recruited, and if they constantly faced the prospect of mass desertions, they might be more careful about getting involved in unnecessary, unjust, unwinnable wars, or going to war at all. Peace would take on new value out of necessity. When going to war, they might be more careful to curb their war aims, and match war strategies with those more limited aims.[4]

[edit] Buchanan and markets

Murray Rothbard declared in 1992 that “with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy.”[9] Three years later, he said Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power.[5] Rothbard’s paleolibertarian heirs frequently say the commentator promotes mercantilist economic views, even as they praise his anti-interventionism.

For example, Buchanan said in 1998:

As you may have heard in my last campaign, I am called by many names. 'Protectionist' is one of the nicer ones; but it is inexact. I am an economic nationalist. To me, the country comes before the economy; and the economy exists for the people. I believe in free markets, but I do not worship them. In the proper hierarchy of things, it is the market that must be harnessed to work for man - and not the other way around.[6]

Rockwell says that “paleoism” is not dead, but that Buchanan is not the right person to lead a middle class revolt. Rockwell writes:

The libertarian faction of the [paleo] movement saw that far too many compromises were being made to accommodate Buchanan's increasingly idiosyncratic and statist political views. His anti-free market, pro-trade union bias was now out of the bag; indeed, it became a central theme of his campaign. The idea behind the paleo turn was to decry ideological sellout, not follow some ambitious politician down the same road![7]

[edit] Selected articles

[edit] Critical views

[edit] Notes

  1. ^ Though they refer to the principle as federalism, believing the historical Federalist Party to be misnamed, thinking of them as "Nationalists" or "Centralizers" and the historical Anti-Federalists as being the actual federalists.
  2. ^ Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. "The Case for Paleo-libertarianism" in Liberty magazine, January, 1990, 34-38.
  3. ^ Lew Rockwell as quoted by Karen De Coster. Also see Blog entry
  4. ^ Do You Consider Yourself a Libertarian?, Kenny Johnsson interviews Lew Rockwell for The Liberal Post, as posted on LewRockwell.Com, May 25, 2007.
  5. ^ The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. 13 Num. 2, examines the case of restricted and unrestricted immigration. Also see "On Free Immigration and Forced Integration" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, "A Simple Libertarian Argument Against Unrestricted Immigration and Open Borders" by N. Stephan Kinsella (follow-up), "More on the Libertarian Immigration Debate" by Brad Edmonds, "Wrong, Pat, wrong" by Karen De Coster, and "The Trouble With 'Cracking Down on Immigration'" by Anthony Gregory
  6. ^ See the "King Lincoln" Archives at LewRockwell.com
  7. ^ Raimondo, Justin (1993). Reclaiming the American Right. Center for Libertarian Studies. ISBN 1-8839-5900-4. OCLC 30055223. 
  8. ^ Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, Transaction Publishers, 2001, ISBN 0-7658-0088-8, 189.
  9. ^ Gottfried, Paul; Thomas Fleming (1988). The Conservative Movement. Twayne Publishers, pp. 161. ISBN 0-8057-9723-8. OCLC 16804886. 

[edit] External links

[edit] See also