Neolibertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It has been suggested that Libertarian Republican be merged into this article or section. (Discuss)

Part of the series on

Libertarianism

Origins

Topics

Related

Philosophy Portal
Politics Portal
v • d • e

Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of libertarian and neoconservative thought that embraces incrementalism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest and national defense.

1 Definition
2 Evolution of the term
- 2.1 Similar terms
3 History of neolibertarianism
- 3.1 Historical roots
- 3.2 Conservatism and neolibertarianism
4 Criticism
5 Prominent neolibertarians
6 See also
7 External resources
8 References

[edit] Definition

Neolibertarianism is a post-9/11 ideological offshoot of libertarianism that incorporates neoconservative ideas on foreign policy, including the use of preventive military force. It also holds that nearly all other issues should remain in the jurisdiction of local political entities: state/provincial and municipal governments, communities, and individuals. Neolibertarians are sometimes described as "pro-capitalist conservatives" or "libertarians who support the War on Terror." Some libertarian celebrities that fit into this neolibertarian category include talk radio personalities Larry Elder, Neal Boortz, and comedian Dennis Miller.

Neolibertarians generally believe that the drawing of an arbitrary boundary such as a border does not exclude those outside of it from the inalienable human right of liberty. They believe that if Liberty is a self-evident, inalienable right, then it can be legitimately imposed by force upon those who live beyond the jurisdiction of a particular national government.

[edit] Evolution of the term

The term neolibertarian is undergoing a shift in meaning post-9/11 and post-Iraq War. Originally it indicated a libertarian who embraced the alliance with the New Left, now called left-libertarianism or left-rothbardianism,^{[citation needed]} whereas now it is often used to describe a libertarian who favors an interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to a non-interventionist course of action. In this sense the term is related to neoconservative.

[edit] Similar terms

The creation of the term republitarian is usually attributed to Larry Elder, an American political pundit, radio talk show host, and author who defines "republitarian" as "a member of the Republican Party who holds libertarian ideals." ^[1] Another example would be Neal Boortz, who describes himself as a neolibertarian. Another similar term is liberventionist, the term used by non-interventionist libertarians to describe interventionist libertarians.

Presently, republitarians are represented in the Republican party by the Republican Liberty Caucus, joining such codified groups within the GOP such as the Log Cabin Republicans and the College Republicans.

[edit] History of neolibertarianism

The first neolibertarians to use the term did so in response to the Iraq war. Jonathan Henke began popularizing the term "Neolibertarian" on the weblog he created, QandO ^[2], along with Dale Franks and Bruce McQuain. Distancing themselves from the generally anti-war response of the Libertarian Party (LP) and the mainstream libertarian movement, Henke and his fellow neolibertarians set out their reasons for supporting a vigorous war on terror and an effort to secure the freedom of Iraqis. Incrementalism in general is a common hallmark of neolibertarians, who tend to avoid over-association with the LP itself. The most obvious neolibertarian instance of taking a practical course to serve a moral goal is the Iraq war, though this is a common approach to many political issues.

Some neolibertarians consider themselves extremely idealistic - holding deep convictions about the inalienability of liberty across borders. This branch generally believes that no country has a right to vote or mandate against liberty in the public sector, and that those who believe that the right to liberty ends at borders are no better than those who believe that only some WITHIN a country have a right to it; they believe that convictions about the importance of liberty holds no value unless it is applied to every human being on earth, regardless of race, gender, ethnicity, or nationality.

Some neolibertarians see themselves as pragmatic and calculated compared to idealistic, ivory-tower paleolibertarians. Others would cast themselves in the role of committed to pragmatism only in service of idealism and would say their foreign principles are more idealistic than the paleolibertarian-favored isolationism. Since anti-war libertarians see themselves as the idealists and because neolibertarians embrace pragmatism in method if not in goal, the vision of neolibertarians as pragmatic tends to be over-emphasized.

To describe neolibertarians, Dale Franks says this: ^[3]

When given a set of policy choices,

The choice that maximizes personal liberty is the best choice.
The policy choice that offers the least amount of necessary government intervention or regulation is the best choice.
The policy choice that provides rational, market-based incentives is the best choice.

In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,

A policy of diplomacy that promotes consensual government and human rights and opposes dictatorship.
A policy of using US military force solely at the discretion of the US, but only in circumstances where American interests are directly affected.

Putting a different spin on it, the website "Neo-Libertarian" says that neo-libertarianism: ^[4]

...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom.

Moreover, it's a commitment to the universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's natural rights, drawing an invisible line on a map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door.

Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of political economy. Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim.

[edit] Historical roots

Historically, the neolibertarian/paleolibertarian debate was more a question of incrementalism vs. a no-compromise, strict adherence to a principled position in matters of government interference, and the paleolibertarians' rejection of the Vietnam era alliance with the New Left in favor of an alliance with paleoconservatives. As the definition of the terms and the debate has shifted, today the divide is far more between neolibertarians and much of the rest of the libertarian movement. The most crucial and watershed issue in this divide has been the Iraq War. anarcho-capitalists, paleolibertarians, minarchists, and "mainstream" Libertarian Party types generally came out very strongly against the Iraq war specifically and war in general, consistent with libertarians' historical support of either a non-interventionist or isolationist foreign policy (on both principled and practical grounds), while some Libertarian Party members, neolibertarians, and libertarian Republicans generally were in favor of the war. The debate ignited has been one of the most bitter in the 40-plus year history of the modern libertarian movement.

[edit] Conservatism and neolibertarianism

Neolibertarianism derives a great deal from neoconservatism, a brand of conservatism favoring intervention in foreign affairs. Neolibertarianism also overlaps to a lesser extent with paleoconservatism and other brands of conservatism, although it does not historically originate from them. As with other forms of libertarianism, neolibertarianism shares with conservatives generally an aversion to federal social programs and interference in markets, and differs with conservatives generally with regard to a number of personal and social freedoms.

[edit] Criticism

A common critique of neolibertarians is that their core beliefs contain in themselves an inconsistency -- how can a government powerful and interventionist enough to fix problems abroad be trusted not to try to "solve" problems at home? Historically, there are no known examples of a State with "big" government abroad and limited government domestically. Critics often quote Randolph Bourne: "War is the health of the State." Neolibertarians typically respond to this criticism by saying that they only support military engagements that remove impediments to capitalism and consensual government, and only in the most extreme situations.

Neolibertarians also argue that a policy of either neutrality or isolationism is, in some cases, antithetical to both American interests, and counterproductive to ensuring the spread of both consensual governance and free-market capitalism. In short, neolibertarians believe that war, irrespective of the powers it bestows upon the state, is, when faced with an existential threat, preferable to national extinction, and that a dogmatic anti-war policy is not only ineffective, but actively immoral, in that it denies that a responsibility exists to fight for personal liberty and consensual government.

Noninterventionist libertarians respond that a principle of self-defense and overwhelming military superiority adequately addresses legitimate threats against national security. Further, they argue that liberty is more likely to spread around the world through peace and commerce than through external military force.

This is an area where neolibertarians and neoconservatives slightly differ. Where neoconservatives strongly support the building of democratic governments in the wake of militarily defeated governments, neolibertarians are equally concerned with letting individual liberty, including free-market capitalism, operate after any military victory. If capitalism is allowed to operate, they argue, the former subjects of militarily defeated governments will naturally arrange governments (whatever the form) which are, if only out of political expediency, more friendly to their subjects' newfound economic freedoms--and personal liberties--and therefore much less likely to jeopardize the benefits which neolibertarians believe capitalism and consensual government offers.

Moreover, neolibertarians argue that consensual government alone is not, in and of itself, a solution to extremism. Neolibertarians argue that it is not enough that a government be democratic, but that it also must be classically liberal. As Dale Franks notes:

[Democracy] is a wonderful method for ascertaining what the people want, and selecting leaders to carry out the people's will. It is not, however, in and of itself, a particularly good way of ensuring that what people want is the right thing.

Neolibertarians, therefore, advocate a more holistic solution than neoconservatives, in that it incorporates both personal and economic liberty as an antidote to Totalitarianism. Neolibertarians believe that political and economic liberty are naturally complementary and mutually reinforcing, and that a concentration on political liberalization alone is not a complete answer to reforming totalitarian states.

Libertarian pundit Anthony Gregory criticizes neolibertarians who "still believe that the government, which supposedly can’t do anything right, can still wage war correctly."^[5]