Frank Meyer's "fusionism"

Just Don’t Call it Fusionism - Ben Lewis, Austro-Libertarian Magazine:

August 15, 2019 - "Frank Meyer ... a prominent figure in postwar American conservatism, is best known for his attempted 'fusion' of traditionalist conservatism and libertarianism. Even today, Meyer’s name is nearly synonymous with 'fusionism.' But ... the term most commonly associated with Meyer was not his creation, but rather came as something of a pejorative from his colleague and critic, L. Brent Bozell.... Meyer ... disavowed the fusionist label, saying that he was not attempting to fuse two disparate elements together, but was simply attempting to show that 'although they are sometimes presented as mutually incompatible, [they] can in reality be united within a single broad conservative political theory, since they have their roots in a common tradition and are arrayed against a common enemy'....

"[F]ollowing World War II, conservatism was as much a gathering place of opposition to contemporary political and social trends as it was a coherent movement. Two strains of this opposition, however, quickly took form: libertarianism and traditionalism. The libertarians deplored the growth of the state and the collectivization of individuals that was so common in Progressive, socialist and totalitarian societies. The traditionalists, no less concerned about the growth of the state, lamented more the obliteration of traditional society and its methods of communicating enduring values. As these two lines of thought developed, their differences of emphasis led to a tension over which was the true conservatism and the true enemy of liberalism....

"It was this tension to which Meyer devoted much of his writing.... Can the traditionalist emphasis on the attributes of a healthy society – virtue, duty and a rootedness in tradition – be combined with political philosophy that emphasizes the freedom of the individual? For Meyer, the question was not can these emphases be combined, but how they can. His answer began with understanding the proper relationship of the individual to society.

"Meyer believed that 'society is not a real entity'....  What this statement means is not that society as a framework of interrelating individuals, associations, and institutions does not exist, but that it does not exist as an actual entity that can be considered in the same manner as an individual.... 'Society and the state were made for individual men,' he wrote, 'not men for them'....  To Meyer, society is comprised of and made for individuals. It owes its existence to them, and they are its end. All social activity is oriented, fundamentally, towards the individual. Echoing Ludwig von Mises, he concluded, 'Truth has meaning only for persons; beauty illumines the consciousness only of persons; virtue can be pursued only by persons'....

"Meyer was no less concerned about the development of personal and social virtue than were the traditionalists, but he believed that ... virtuous actions could not be truly virtuous if they were not freely chosen.... 'Men cannot be forced to be … virtuous. To a certain extent, it is true, they can be forced to act as though they were virtuous. But virtue is the fruit of well-used freedom. And no act to the degree that it is coerced can partake of virtue – or vice'....

"Meyer’s position on coercion and virtue appears mostly correct, although with some clarification. As Meyer said, it seems that all coercion can do is cause people to act virtuously, not to actually be virtuous.... But the mere appearance of virtue is not the aim of the good society, rather it is actual virtue instilled in the thoughts and voluntary behavior of men.... Whatever the case, even those who have historically accepted a role for the state in the enforcement of virtue must by now admit the truth of Meyer’s statement that, 'If the state is endowed with the power to enforce virtue, the men who hold that power will enforce their own concepts as virtuous'....

"[Murray] Rothbard placed Meyer squarely in the libertarian camp, pointing out that Meyer’s case for the necessity of voluntary choice in the pursuit of virtue not only didn’t clash with the libertarian prohibition of the initiation of force, but was perfectly compatible with it. To Rothbard, Meyer’s appreciation for community and tradition, for the necessary traits of a virtuous society, were not deviations from libertarianism, but were healthy components of the holistic worldview of a thinker who took both political theory and culture seriously.

"Meyer could, perhaps, have made his arguments more appealing to traditionalists by expounding how the moral order could enforce standards of virtue.... Even so, his case against the state performing this task [was] well-argued. In a modern political society, rife with centralization, there is nothing more dangerous to virtue than for its proper defenders to relinquish their duties to the state."

Read more: https://www.austrolibertarian.com/articles/just-dont-call-it-fusionism
'via Blog this'

Immigration and individualism

by George J. Dance

Immigration is one area in which libertarians have a hard time communicating meaningfully with otherwise libertarianish conservatives and centrists. One reason is that  we look at the topic from two different perspectives (or two different "paradigms" as Thomas Kuhn called them), a difference which, if noted at all, is not discussed.

Libertarians are methodological individualists. They look at social interactions in terms of the individual actors involved, and how their actions harm or benefit other individuals. They would look at why a person comes to this country - to make a better life for himself and his family - which means to work and profit from it. They ask if his coming here and working betters or worsens other individuals' lives.

If an immigrant does and achieves what he wants - if he contributes and earns a good living - then he is purely a benefit. Maybe he gets a job that a native-born Canadian could have held, but he does not stop the latter from working. Maybe the immigrant collects too much tax money, which counts as a harm to some taxpayers, but that makes him no different from the Canadian-born guy - that is how the Canadian tax system is designed, to subsidize some at the expense of others - and if we tolerate the one being subsidized, we  should tolerate the other.

The anti-immigration guy, on the other hand, looks at the problem collectively. He is not looking at Manuel or Mohammed coming here and working, but at "Mexicans" or "Moslems" as a group. He worries about the society's racial and cultural composition - which the libertarian, even if he understands the concern, does not see as something to be addressed by the criminal law.

But the idea of cultural composition is very hard for a libertarian to understand by itself. Libertarians do not deny (as anti-libertarian turncoat Murray Rothbard once claimed we did) that there are no group differences. Given their individualist perspective, though, they believe those differences to be insignificant, vastly overshadowed by differences among individuals within a group. The idea of groups is based on the abstract idea of "group identities," which the libertarian's observations lead him to reject: Group identities are simply averages, which say nothing about any actual group members.

When I look at immigration, I do not see an undifferentiated mass of Mexicans or Central Americans; I see Manuel and Manuel, guys whom I worked with at different companies for years. I do not see a homogeneous crowd of Moslems; I see Mohammed and Mohammed, Pakistani and Syrian-born neighbors in my apartment building. And so on: I think of these people and I ask myself: should what those men have done, and are continuing to do, be outlawed? And I have to say no.

In contrast, the anti-immigration guy sees only masses and crowds. He notices more colored faces in the city, for example, or he reads about their numbers and connects that with other numbers (like the fall in Canadian birth rates) to come up with trends that worry him. He focus is on the total social impact, which he thinks only the government has the power to do something about.

The individualist libertarian sees none of that. Like groups, social trends for him are only generalizations about what really goes on in a societry: real people trying to get on with their lives. And he believes that the latter (provided that those people are peaceful) is not something that the government should be trying to "do something" about.

Until we recognize those two different perspectives, and devise a language that reconciles them, there will be no real dialogue, no mutual understanding, and no possibility of agreement between individualist libertarians and their adversaries on this issue.

TIME on post-millennials: "they're libertarians"

Millennials and the iGen Are Not as Progressive as You Think | Time.com - Jean M. Twenge:

August 22, 2017 - "Twenge is a Professor of Psychology at San Diego State University and the author of iGen: Why Today’s Super-Connected Kids are Growing up Less Rebellious, More Tolerant, Less Happy — and Completely Unprepared for Adulthood.

"Today’s young Americans, who include both Millennials (born 1980–‘94) and iGen (1995–2012), represent the future of the political landscape: 18- to 29-year-olds are now an equal or a larger percentage of voters than those over 65. Given that, it’s crucial to understand why nearly two out of five iGen’ers and young Millennials voted for not just a Republican candidate but a candidate affiliated with a white nationalism many thought had died out long before iGen was born.

"First, young voters — especially iGen — are more conservative than is often assumed. In my analyses of the nationally representative yearly survey Monitoring the Future, the percentage of high school seniors who identified as conservative rose from 23% in 2000 to 29% in 2015, creating a group more conservative than the Reagan-era GenX teens of the 1980s.... Nor is iGen the post-racial, post-prejudice group some have assumed. Although iGen and the Millennials stand apart from older generations in their support for LGBT issues, at the moment they are not much more supportive of gender or racial equality than Boomers and GenX’ers are....

"iGen’s other social and political beliefs also defy expectations. Compared to previous generations when they were young in these national surveys, iGen is more likely to support abortion rights, same-sex marriage and legalizing marijuana and less likely to support the death penalty — usually considered liberal beliefs. But they are also less likely to support gun control, national health care and government environmental regulation....

"How can iGen hold these seemingly contradictory beliefs? In short, because they’re libertarians (or at least more libertarian than their elders). iGen was raised in a highly individualistic culture favoring the self over the group; phrases such as 'do what’s right for you' and 'believe in yourself and anything is possible' echoed through their childhood. Libertarianism is as close to cultural individualism as can be found in the political arena, favoring individual rights and fighting against government regulation. Liberals tend to be individualistic about equal rights issues (say, same-sex marriage) but collectivistic about social programs (government-sponsored health care). Conservatives are individualistic about social programs (thinking people should help themselves) but collectivistic about equal rights issues (thinking traditional roles are more productive). But libertarians are individualistic about both....

"Individualism has also led iGen and Millennials to favor one thing above all else in politicians: Authenticity. Individualism promotes 'come as you are' and 'just be yourself,' and iGen’ers want their candidates to be — or at least seem — unwavering in their personal beliefs.... Donald Trump fit this as well: For all his prevaricating, many said they voted for him because he says exactly what he thinks.

"Individualism has brought both equality and reactions against it, both support for individual rights and a dislike of group solutions. With 54% of young voters identifying as political independents, conventional politicians face an uphill battle trying to attract them. Yet the candidate who does — likely authentic, casual and libertarian in her positions — will hold the key to the next political era."

Read more: http://time.com/4909722/trump-millennials-igen-republicans-voters/

'via Blog this'

Ron Paul: Oppose right and left authoritarianism

Ron Paul: We Must Oppose Fascism Of the Right and Left | News and views from a different angle - Market Slant:

August 22, 2017 - "Following the recent clashes between the alt-right and the group antifa, some libertarians have debated which group they should support. The answer is simple: neither. The alt-right and its leftist opponents are two sides of the same authoritarian coin.

"The alt-right elevates racial identity over individual identity. The obsession with race leads them to support massive government interference in the economy in order to benefit members of the favored race. They also favor massive welfare and entitlement spending, as long as it functions as a racial spoils system.... No one who sincerely supports individual liberty, property rights, or the right to life can have any sympathy for this type of racial collectivism.

"Antifa, like all Marxists, elevates class identity over individual identity. Antifa supporters believe government must run the economy because otherwise workers will be exploited by greedy capitalists. This faith in central planning ignores economic reality, as well as the reality that in a free market employers and workers voluntarily work together for their mutual benefit. It is only when government intervenes in the economy that crony capitalists have the opportunity to exploit workers, consumers, and taxpayers....

"Ironically, the failure of the Keynesian model of economic authoritarianism, promoted by establishment economists like Paul Krugman, is responsible for the rise of the alt-right and antifa.... [M]any Americans continue to struggle with unemployment and a Federal Reserve-caused eroding standard of living. History shows that economic hardship causes many to follow demagogues offering easy solutions and convenient scapegoats....

"As the Keynesian-Krugman empire of big government and fiat currency collapses, more people will be attracted to authoritarianism, leading to an increase in violence. The only way to ensure the current system is not replaced with something even worse is for those of us who know the truth to work harder to spread the ideas of liberty.

"While we should be willing to form coalitions with individuals of good will across the political spectrum, we must never align with anyone promoting violence as a solution to social and economic problems. We must also oppose any attempts to use the violence committed by extremists as a justification for expanding the police state or infringing on free speech....

"Libertarians have several advantages in the ideological battle... First, we do not need to resort to scapegoating and demagoguing, as we have the truth about the welfare-warfare state and the Federal Reserve on our side. We also offer a realistic way to restore prosperity. But our greatest advantage is that, while authoritarianism divides people by race, class, religion, or other differences, the cause of liberty unites all who seek peace and prosperity."

Read more: https://www.marketslant.com/article/ron-paul-we-must-oppose-fascism-right-and-left
'via Blog this'

Copyright © 2017 by Ron Paul Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is gladly granted, provided full credit and a live link are given.

Pope misunderstands libertarians and dangers

Pope Francis's attack on "libertarian individualism" not about libertarians - Father Robert A. Sirico:

May 5, 2017 - "In a recent message by Pope Francis to the Pontifical Academy of Social Science he outlines some moral concerns about a phenomenon he sees as invading (his term) 'high levels of culture and education in both universities and in schools,' namely 'libertarian individualism'....

"When the pope speaks of libertarian individualism, he has in mind something which he says 'exalts the selfish ideal,' whereby … it is 'only the individual who decides what is good and what is bad.' [The] result is a belief in 'self-causation,' which I take to mean the denial of any givenness in human nature in favor of a radical autonomy in which morality is ... simply a matter of whatever I will it to be.

"All of this, the pope contends (and I agree), 'denies the common good.' One could add that it also denies the entire tradition of natural law via an exaltation of subjectivity and the detachment of conscience from the truths knowable via faith and reason.... He also seems to be critiquing any ethical system that sees freedom, in the sense of absence of constraint, as its own end and finality. For Catholics and other Christians, liberty is more than just negative freedom or the capacity to will X rather than Y....

"All this is standard Catholic teaching. The question that remains is whether the pope is offering a fair or accurate definition of 'libertarianism'

"Consider, for example, that there are many schools of libertarianism.... As interesting as it might be to examine the differences between these positions, I think it is more productive to outline some concepts to which I suspect all serious believers could subscribe....

"Human beings are not simply individuals, even if we colloquially employ this word to describe people. Certainly, human beings enjoy ... legitimate liberty.... Even the Vatican II’s Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes speaks of private property as conferring 'on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom'.

"The social reality of persons to persons is what constitutes a human community. This is a bond - one which certainly comes with some constraints, but one which can’t be reduced to constraints.... Power is a form of constraint external to the person ... forced upon a person without regard to that person’s free will, such as an act of violence to conform another’s behavior. Authority, on the other hand, is a form of constraint interior to the person, some overarching code that the person himself believes in....

"From this standpoint, we start to see that many of the debates engaged in by people of all political persuasions - including self-described libertarians - concern when a bond has become an illegitimate constraint; or where a constraint, however necessary, is mistaken for a bond; or when societies are relying too heavily on constraints to do the work of what is normally undertaken by bonds. These are the questions which are, and should be, engaged in by societies that seek to take liberty, justice, and the common good seriously....

"The irony, however, is that we live in a time when a concern for liberty ... far from invading our cultures, is under siege ... threatened by the type of populism that has done so much damage in Pope Francis’s Latin America (and is presently destroying Venezuela) [and] strangled by the bureaucracies which rule European social democracies. Then there is the jihadism that is destroying the freedom of many, and literally killing thousands of Christians every year.

"So while the pope’s warnings against the radical individualism against which the Catholic Church has always cautioned are important, let’s hope that his words don’t distract attention from some of the profound violations of freedom occurring across the world."

Read more: https://cruxnow.com/commentary/2017/05/05/pope-franciss-attack-libertarian-individualism-not-libertarians/

'via Blog this'

Pope warns of "invasion" of the libertarians

A Response to Pope Francis' Attack on "Invading" Libertarians - The Dollar Vigilante - Jeff Berwick:

May 1, 2017 -"Pope Francis came out last week with a scathing assault on libertarians. 'I cannot fail to speak of the grave risks associated with the invasion of the positions of libertarian individualism at high strata of culture and in school and university education,' the Pope said in an message sent to members of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences meeting in the Vatican....

"That’s news to me. I know libertarianism is getting fairly popular … but 99% of schools I’ve seen are dominated by liberals, leftists and Marxists. The same goes for 'culture' where Hollywood is infested with the same type of communist mindset. I just returned from UC Berkeley where I was pepper sprayed and tear gassed by the communist students who were fighting against free speech, as just one example!...

"Pope Francis ...  went on to say, 'A common characteristic of this fallacious paradigm is that it minimizes the common good,' and continued to call it a 'selfish ideal.'

"Libertarianism doesn’t 'minimize the common good.' How can you minimize the common good by not stealing from or killing your neighbors?

"Someone else had a catchy little thing about that. I think it was Jesus who said, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' They call it the Golden Rule. And that is essentially the same motto of the libertarians/anarchists and their non-aggression principle (NAP) worded another way....

"The Pope  ... has called countless times over the years for global communism which countries like Venezuela and Cuba are currently enjoying. Libertarians are against theft. It’s actually one of the commandments…. Meanwhile, the Pope is calling for a global system of theft via communism… just like Jesus would have done, right?

"Surely we all remember ... where Jesus said, 'And send forth armed men to extort and rob all in order to give unto those who are in need after the King and his bureaucracy taketh their share'....

"What might be the funniest thing about the Pope attacking libertarians is the fact that he lives one of the most libertarian lives on Earth. He has his own private tax free compound where he hordes tonnes of guns and gold. He is living the libertarian dream ... while he admonishes people to give to the poor from his golden throne."

Read more: https://dollarvigilante.com/blog/2017/05/01/a-response-to-pope-francis-attack-on-invading-libertarians.html
'via Blog this'

Friedrich Hayek and the 'collective brain'

Friedrich Hayek and the collective brain - CapX - Matt Ridley:

March 23, 2017 - "It is possible to go through an entire education to PhD level ... without any of your teachers or professors breathing the words 'Friedrich Hayek'.... If Hayek is mentioned at all in academia, it is usually as an alias for Voldemort. To admire Hayek is to advocate selfishness and individualism. This could not be more wrong. What Hayek argued is that human collaboration is necessary for society to work; that the great feature of the market is that it enables us to work for each other, not just for ourselves; and that authoritarian, top-down rule is not the source of order or progress, but a hindrance....

"Hayek’s point in his famous essay of 1945, 'The Uses of Knowledge in Society', is that central planning cannot work because it is trying to substitute an individual all-knowing intelligence for a distributed and fragmented system of localised but connected knowledge, much of which is tacit.... In Hayek’s words, 'how valuable an asset in all walks of life is knowledge of people, of local conditions, and of special circumstances ... the method by which such knowledge can be made as widely available as possible is precisely the problem to which we have to find an answer.' His answer, of course, was the price mechanism....

"Trade creates a collective problem-solving brain as big as the trade network itself. It draws upon dispersed and fragmented knowledge to create things that nobody can even comprehend, wholes that are more complex than the sum of their individual mental parts. No other animal does this....

"As Hayek put it, 'That the division of labor has reached the extent which makes modern civilization possible we owe to the fact that it did not have to be consciously created but that man tumbled on a method by which the division of labor could be extended far beyond the limits within which it could have been planned.'

"The invention of exchange had the same impact on human culture as sex had on biological evolution – it made it cumulative. So human technological advancement depended not on individual intelligence but on collective idea sharing....

"Which is, of course, why the internet is such an exciting development. For the first time, humanity has not just some big collective brains (called trade networks), but one truly vast one in which almost everybody can share and in which distance is no obstacle....

"Truly something very weird has happened to the world when, for advocating this bottom-up, egalitarian, collectivist idea, for advocating freedom for people to exchange ideas and serve their fellow human beings thus encouraging social change, Hayek is condemned by left-leaning commentators as a right-wing zealot....

"Hayek taught us to distrust the idea of putting people in charge of other people. Given that government has been the means by which people have committed unspeakable horrors again and again and again, from Nero and Attila to Hitler and Mao, why are people so forgiving of the state and so mistrustful of the market?"

Read more: https://capx.co/iAFWu
'via Blog this'

Alt.right or SJW? No.

No One Wins in the Alt-Right vs. SJW Conflict - Being Libertarian - Remso W. Martinez:

January 29, 2017 - "We often fall into the trap of binary thinking which forces us to make a decision as to who we side with, buying into something wholesale for the sake of avoiding being excluded. Trump or Clinton? Nationalist or Globalist (two very undefined terms even the people throwing them around can’t properly define)? Social Justice Warriors or Alt-Right? This rationalization takes away individualism from people and stirs up antipathy with communities that otherwise could have a proper discussion.

"The Alt-Right is an ill-tempered movement of people that feel victimized, ignored, abused, and are fighting for attention. Their tactics include shaming, bullying, and ruthlessness that they justify with a sense of moral righteousness.

"Social Justice Warriors are an ill-tempered movement of people that feel victimized, ignored, abused, and are fighting for attention. Their tactics include shaming, bullying, and ruthlessness that they justify with a sense of moral righteousness.

"Do you see a difference in either description? If you did, go back and read it over and over again. There is no moral relativist claim to make though; both side’s arguments aren’t null. Just because I criticize one more than the other doesn’t mean the other is less problematic or occupies the moral high ground....

"Everyone spends so much time combating each other, no one spends time on anything substantial. Milo Yiannopoulis is popular because he brings up controversy, and sometimes controversy is necessary to bring attention to things no one talks about, but there is a fine line between trying to be a reformer and being a jerk just for the sake of it. Yeah, Milo never punched anyone, but his behavior has caused more polarization than anything.

"The Alt-Right and the SJW’s want you to pick sides, and I for one pick neither because both are full of crap. They both want you to conform to their thoughts and feelings and if you don’t they will slander, attack, and villainize you for the crime of being an individual. This isn’t a binary option; you can be a reformer without being a fire thrower or internet troll.

"Violence breeds violence, agitation brings out the worst in everyone, and in this cultural conflict there is no winner as long as everyone just wants to roll over each other."

Read more: https://beinglibertarian.com/no-one-wins-alt-right-vs-sjw-conflict/
'via Blog this'

Ayn Rand and altruism

What Rand Meant by Altruism | Foundation for Economic Education - Gary M. Galles:

January 31, 2017 - "February 2 is best known as Groundhog Day. But it also marks the birth of one of the most praised and criticized thinkers of the past century – Ayn Rand. Rand sold more than 30 million books. Atlas Shrugged has been ranked behind only the Bible as an influence on readers’ lives. She has also been stridently attacked for issues such as her militant atheism. But perhaps least understood has been her full-bore rejection of altruism....

"Altruism has commonly been held up as the standard for moral behavior. But Rand rejected it, asserting it was 'incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights,' and therefore "the basic evil behind today’s ugliest phenomena.'

"That head-on collision arises from French philosopher Auguste Comte, coiner of the term altruism. The altruists.org website says he believed 'the only moral acts were those intended to promote the happiness of others.' Comte’s Catechisme Positiviste asserts that altruism 'gives a direct sanction exclusively to our instincts of benevolence,' and, therefore, 'cannot tolerate the notion of rights, for such a notion rests on individualism.'

"In Comte’s view, any act performed for any reason beyond solely that of advancing someone else’s well-being is not morally justified. That implies taking a tax deduction for a charitable act strips it of its morality.... Something as seemingly innocuous as feeling good about doing good also fails Comte’s joyless standards. Even 'love your neighbor as yourself' fails his unlimited duty of altruism....

Rand’s 'virtue of selfishness' was a response to Comte’s demand for complete selflessness. Not only is a requirement for everyone to completely disregard themselves an unattainable ideal, it is self-contradictory. You cannot possibly sacrifice yourself fully for me, while I am also sacrificing myself fully for you. And if no one has any intrinsic value, why would the results, even if possible, be meritorious? With Comte as a starting point, more attention to people’s own well-being – more selfishness, in Rand’s terminology – is the only way to move toward recognizing value in each individual and significance in each life.

"Comte’s conception of altruism is also inconsistent with liberty, which was Ayn Rand’s focus. The duty to put others first at all times and in all circumstances denies self-ownership and the power to choose that derives from it. Everyone else maintains never-ending presumptive claims on every individual, overriding any rights they may have. In contrast, benevolence involves voluntary choices to benefit others of one’s own choosing, in ways and to the extent individuals choose for themselves.... The key distinction is between benevolence’s individual discretion, which recognizes our rights over ourselves and our resources, and altruism’s unconditional requirement to always sacrifice for others.

"An omnipresent duty of self-sacrifice also makes people vulnerable to manipulation by those who disguise power over others as 'really' a means to attain some noble goal. The desire to sacrifice for the good of others can be transformed into the requirement to sacrifice to the desires of leaders."

Read more: https://fee.org/articles/no-ayn-rand-did-not-want-us-to-be-selfish/?utm_medium=push&utm_source=push_notification
'via Blog this'

Existentialism & libertarianism (video)

Free Market Existentialism? | Bleeding Heart Libertarians - Davis S. 'Amato:

October 21, 2015 - "William Irwin’s latest book, The Free Market Existentialist, is a novel attempt to ground libertarian political theory in existentialism.... Irwin more than accomplishes his goal of establishing for free market existentialism a place in the 'marketplace of ideas.' He develops, in clear, absorbing prose, a compelling, if controversial, vision of libertarianism based on a wholesale 'rejection of objective values,' just the kind of values (for instance, natural rights) that commonly provide the foundation for libertarian arguments.

"Irwin’s attempt ... spotlights and challenges the Marxist political commitments of Jean-Paul Sartre, 'the person most identified with existentialism.' Irwin argues that Marxism is actually inconsistent with Sartre’s view of freedom, which posits the individual as a dynamic and responsible agent who creates value and meaning for himself. Sartre thus sees human freedom not as an aspect of human nature, the existence of which he emphatically denies, but as an implication of authorship and accountability. Because the individual is the ultimate source of his own values, forever remaking his reality in accordance with those values, he is, Sartre says, 'condemned to be free'....

"And individualism, Irwin argues, is 'the main link between existentialism and libertarianism.' Both stress the primacy and responsibility of the individual, the importance of autonomy and choice to living a meaningful, fulfilling life....

"Irwin is a master of rendering abstruse philosophical ideas clear and understandable to the layperson. He shows that 'a world without morality' is not necessarily the grim dystopia that we might imagine, that it is better to discard the fallacy of objective morality than to remain in a state of self-delusion.... Irwin’s libertarianism rests on the idea that we should refrain from theft and assault not because of some moral duty, but because prudence recommends that we refrain. Guided selfishly by our long-term interests, we recognize the benefits of living with others in a free society; we therefore agree to forswear certain behaviors in which we are otherwise perfectly free to engage."

Read more: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2015/10/free-market-existentialism/
'via Blog this'

Laura Ingalls Wilder as 'libertarian matriarch'

The Legacy of Laura Ingalls Wilder, One of America’s First Libertarians | TIME - David Boaz:

May 9, 2015 - "Laura Ingalls Wilder is a bestselling author again, 83 years after she began publishing her Little House on the Prairie books and 58 years after her death at age 90. Pioneer Girl: The Annotated Autobiography is a 472-page edition of Wilder’s original memoir, for which she couldn’t find a publisher in 1930....

"Wilder was born just after the Civil War in the Big Woods region of Wisconsin. Life was hard on the frontier, and with her parents and then her husband she moved to Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, South Dakota, Florida, and eventually Mansfield, Missouri. She also became, unexpectedly, a sort of libertarian matriarch.

"Laura’s only child was Rose Wilder Lane. Lane was born in DeSmet, South Dakota, and grew up on her parents’ Rocky Ridge Farm in Missouri. After high school she drifted to San Francisco, married briefly, and began a career as a writer.... [B]y the 1930s ... she was a staunch libertarian. In 1935 she wrote in the Saturday Evening Post:

I am now a fundamentalist American; give me time and I will tell you why individualism, laissez faire and the slightly restrained anarchy of capitalism offer the best opportunities for the development of the human spirit. Also I will tell you why the relative freedom of human spirit is better — and more productive, even in material ways — than the communist, Fascist, or any other rigidity organized for material ends.

"Those ideas can be found in the Little House books, which Lane is said to have helped edit or ghostwrite. In Little House on the Prairie, young Laura hears the Declaration of Independence read and thinks, 'Americans won’t obey any king on earth. Americans are free. That means they have to obey their own consciences. … When I am a little older, Pa and Ma will stop telling me what to do, and there isn’t anyone else who has a right to give me orders. I will have to make myself be good'....

"Lane wrote two novels of her own about her family’s homestead, Let the Hurricane Roar (later retitled Young Pioneers) and Free Land, which made her a bestselling, well-paid writer. But her interests turned more to politics, and she became a vociferous adversary of President Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, which she saw as 'creeping socialism'....

"In the dark year of 1943, during World War II, Lane and two other remarkable women published books that could be said to have given birth to the modern Libertarian movement. Lane published a passionate historical book called The Discovery of Freedom....

"Also in 1943 Lane met Roger MacBride, the 14-year-old son of her editor at Reader’s Digest. MacBride was fascinated by her ideas, visited her frequently at her Connecticut home, and came to think of himself as her ''dopted grandson.'

"[MacBride] was made a Republican elector in Virginia in 1972.... He cast his electoral vote for the new Libertarian Party ticket of philosopher John Hospers and journalist Tonie Nathan, the first woman to receive an electoral vote. He became the 1976 Libertarian presidential candidate and put the party on the map with ballot status in 32 states, a widely distributed campaign book, and a distant third-place finish....

"As Lane’s heir, he published another of Wilder’s manuscripts, The First Four Years, arranged for the popular 1970s television series, and wrote eight novels of his own about Rose’s early life, continuing in the vein of Little House."

Read more: http://time.com/3848967/laura-ingalls-wilder-is-back/
'via Blog this'

Britain's rising libertarian generation

Rise of the New Libertarians: Meet Britain's Next Political Generation - Shane Croucher, International Business Times:

October 10, 2014 -  "In the ruins of Westminster party politics, between the crumbling pillars of broken promises and the shattered glass of optimism, you'll find Britain's young people building something new.

"They don't need or want the British state and its creaking machinery. Like feats of Victorian engineering, these tired institutions are impressive, interesting, and have their place in history. But they're not practical anymore, these dusty relics from the Age of Statism.

"This is Generation Y. The under 30s who are the most liberal generation in British history, not just on social issues such as decriminalising marijuana and gay marriage, but on economic ones too....

"Adolescents of austerity, who understand they can't rely, as their parents and grandparents did, on the one-size-fits-all state as a provider. This generation knows what it wants: the grand prize of individual liberty and personal responsibility....

"Young libertarians are also looking to Ukip's newest hero, the Tory turncoat Douglas Carswell. A free market-loving, privatisation-touting, tax-cutting libertarian rascal, Carswell just won a by-election in Clacton - increasing his majority - after his defection from the Conservatives to become to become Ukip's first elected MP....

"Generation Y marks a noticeable shift in opinion when compared to other generations. They're not that proud of the welfare state. They're less trusting of the traditional big public institutions. They're much more socially liberal, cosmopolitan, and internationalist.

"They believe more in markets, lower tax and less regulation. They want to make their own decisions, not have the state – an overbearing parent, of sorts – make them on their behalf....

"Years of austerity and public spending cuts have changed Generation Y, but not in the way some expected. Rather than fuelling anger among young people that the state is being chipped away, many are absorbing the message of individualism, of DIY solutions to personal, community and societal problems.

"They simply don't need the state anymore. You're more likely to find them working in social enterprises and charities than in the hallowed Westminster halls of Whitehall."

Read more: http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/rise-new-libertarians-meet-britains-next-political-generation-1469233
'via Blog this'

What’s a Libertarian? Defining our terms

APOV: What’s a Libertarian? Defining our terms - The Daily News Online: Commentary And Letters - David A. Olsen, chairman, Genessee County Libertarian Party:

October 11, 2014 - "Over the past two years, I’ve been asked 'What’s a Libertarian and why should I vote for one?' If you asked 10 Libertarians, you will get different answers. Our core value is individualism — free thinking. We are guaranteed specific individual rights through the Constitution of the United States; Libertarians advocate the protection of all those rights.

"I’m also asked what our position on different issues that come along is. To answer that question, first consider a few basic questions. Ask yourself how, in general, you view other people. Consider those people you encounter every day. Are they generally good, decent, honest folks, who would share what they have with someone in need and help another who was in danger? Or, are they bad, scheming, selfish, and look the other way and not want to be involved in helping others in need? Next, ask yourself who should make decisions about people’s welfare? Are the people you know capable of making good decisions, or should they be prevented from doing so to protect themselves?...

"There will always be grey areas. Free thinkers will disagree on finer points, naturally. However, the Libertarian’s position on any topic can typically be found by determining what solution would put the most faith in people and require the least government involvement.

"With individual freedom, of course comes responsibility. Unfortunately, Americans have become dependent on the state. The expectation is that government will solve issues. It’s easy to understand why. Government takes a chunk of everyone’s earnings right off the top through income tax. Add property tax, sales tax, license fees, tolls, etc. and it averages out to almost 50 percent of everyone’s income. I use as a reference taxfoundation.org. You will work for over five months before your pay is yours. Why are people still hungry, homeless, uneducated, with inadequate health care?"

Read more: http://www.thedailynewsonline.com/blogs/commentary_and_letters/article_c80fc164-5107-11e4-a806-338356f0c103.html

'via Blog this'

Murray: The problem is progressives, not liberals

Charles Murray: The Trouble Isn't Liberals. It's Progressives. - Wall Street Journal:

June 30, 2014 - "A few weeks ago, I was thrown into a situation where I shared drinks and dinner with two men who have held high positions in Democratic administrations. Both men are lifelong liberals. There's nothing 'moderate' about their liberalism. But as the pleasant evening wore on (we knew that there was no point in trying to change anyone's opinion on anything), I was struck by how little their politics have to do with other elements of the left.

"Their liberalism has nothing in common with the political mind-set that wants right-of-center speakers kept off college campuses, rationalizes the forced resignation of a CEO who opposes gay marriage, or thinks George F. Will should be fired for writing a column disagreeable to that mind-set. It has nothing to do with executive orders unilaterally disregarding large chunks of legislation signed into law or with using the IRS as a political weapon. My companions are on a different political plane from those on the left with that outlook — the progressive mind-set....

"[T]he progressive movement at the turn of the 20th century had roots in German philosophy (Hegel and Nietzsche were big favorites) and German public administration (Woodrow Wilson's open reverence for Bismarck was typical among progressives). To simplify, progressive intellectuals were passionate advocates of rule by disinterested experts led by a strong unifying leader. They were in favor of using the state to mold social institutions in the interests of the collective. They thought that individualism and the Constitution were both outmoded....

"It is that core philosophy extolling the urge to mold society that still animates progressives today — a mind-set that produces the shutdown of debate and growing intolerance that we are witnessing in today's America. Such thinking on the left also is behind the rationales for indulging President Obama in his anti-Constitutional use of executive power. If you want substantiation for what I'm saying, read Jonah Goldberg's 2008 book Liberal Fascism, an erudite and closely argued exposition of American progressivism and its subsequent effects on liberalism. The title is all too accurate."

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/articles/charles-murray-the-trouble-isnt-liberals-its-progressives-1404170419
'via Blog this'

The first libertarians: the Levellers

England’s Levellers: The World’s First Libertarian Movement - Epoch Times - Roberta A. Modugno, Ludwig von Mises Institute:

March 27, 2014 - "The first-ever libertarians were the Levellers, an English political movement active in the seventeenth century. The Levellers contributed to the elaboration of the methodological and political paradigm of individualism, and they are at the origin of the radical strand of classical liberalism....

"Rothbard notes that '[i]n a series of notable debates within the Republican Army — notably between the Cromwellians and the Levellers — the Levellers led by John Lilburne, Richard Overton and William Walwyn, worked out a remarkably consistent libertarian doctrine, upholding the rights of self-ownership, private property, religious freedom for the individual, and minimal government interference in society. The rights of each individual to his person and property, furthermore, were natural, that is, they were derived from the nature of man'....

"Lilburne defended natural law as 'Nature and reason' and 'the grounds of all just laws' and that 'therefore against this Law, prescriptions, statutes, nor customs may not prevail. And if any be brought in against it, they be no prescriptions, statutes nor customs, but things void, and against justice'.

"Overton advocated religious tolerance, even for the much-reviled English Catholics, and also denounced the practice of impressing men into the army and navy as a form of enslavement.

"Moreover, the Levellers advocated property rights and the freedom to contract and trade, as against monopolies and privileges guaranteed by the state. They celebrated the benefits of economic freedom to society and opposed the government taxes, customs, excises, and regulations that inhibited competition." 

Read more: http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/586090-englands-levellers-the-worlds-first-libertarian-movement/

TIME: libertarians "capable of throwing any election in their direction"

Who’s A Real Libertarian Now? | TIME.com - Nick Gillespie:

October 29, 2013 - "The American Values Survey is based on responses gathered in late September and early October from a representative group of about 2,300 adults. The researchers used answers to questions about national security, economics, and 'personal liberty' to create a 'Libertarian Orientation Scale.' By such measures, 7 percent of Americans are 'consistent libertarians' and another 15 percent 'lean libertarian,' meaning they oppose increased government spending on things such as military operations and domestic surveillance, raising the minimum wage, and environmental regulations.

"Such fiscal conservativism is matched by social liberalism, with libertarians in favor of legalizing marijuana, protecting abortion rights, allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending drugs, and keeping the Internet unregulated. Libertarians are much more likely than most Americans to be male, white, and under 50 years old. They are also far less likely than most Americans to be religious and to think that religion has a place in politics. This puts them at odds with 'other key Republican base groups' such as the Tea Party movement....

As befits people who put a high value on individualism, libertarians don’t fit easily into existing political categories even as they are far more likely to pay close attention to politics than the average American (56 percent of libertarians versus just 38 percent) and to always vote in primary elections.... "That means that the 22 percent of Americans who are consistent libertarians or lean libertarian are fully capable of throwing any election in their direction. That makes them the true wild cards of American politics."

Read more: http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/29/whos-a-real-libertarian-now/
'via Blog this'

Free State Project gaining in New Hampshire

Libertarian movement gaining steam in New Hampshire | Fox News - Joseph Weber:

May 25, 2013 - "Libertarians eager to move beyond mere ideological victories are making progress in a long-term effort to migrate to one state to concentrate efforts and reshape communities based on their ideals of less government and individualism.

"The grand social experiment can be traced to a 2001 essay by a Yale doctoral student who lamented about Libertarians’ failure to get candidates elected and argued the best way to make a real impact is for 20,000 activists to move to a relatively small state with low taxes and job opportunities, then making inroads in government, communities and courts.

"New Hampshire won in a 2003 online vote. And 10 years later, more than 1,200 activists have already moved there, with roughly 13,000 others pledging to follow after the 20,000 sign up for the so-called Free State Project.

"Though their numbers remain relatively small, and achieving full strength appears at least several years away, Libertarians now living in New Hampshire say they have already had several successes, including at least a dozen members winning seats in the 424-member state legislature."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/05/25/libertarian-movement-in-new-hampshire-10-years-later-successes-more-challenges/
'via Blog this'

Obama thinks Ayn Rand is for teens (for predictably childish reasons)

Obama Thinks Ayn Rand is For Teens (For Predictably Childish Reasons) - Hit & Run : Reason.com - Brian Doherty:

October 25, 2012 - "President Obama is asked ... by Rolling Stone: what does he think of Ayn Rand? After saying that 'sure' he's read her, his answer:

"Ayn Rand is one of those things that a lot of us, when we were 17 or 18 and feeling misunderstood, we'd pick up. Then, as we get older, we realize that a world in which we're only thinking about ourselves and not thinking about anybody else, in which we're considering the entire project of developing ourselves as more important than our relationships to other people and making sure that everybody else has opportunity – that that's a pretty narrow vision. It's not one that, I think, describes what's best in America. Unfortunately, it does seem as if sometimes that vision of a "you're on your own" society has consumed a big chunk of the Republican Party...

"Reducing Rand's message of liberty and achievement to one of a narrow 'you're on your own' individualism shouldn't be a surprise coming from the president, though it's still sad that the leader of the nation that attracted Rand to escape the Soviet Union at some risk would say such a thing.

"There is nothing 'narrow' about Rand's vision except in that it created moral boundaries in which most of the functions of Obama's government would be seen as illegitimate, because they use threats and violence against non-aggressors to achieve social goals. As Rand summed up her own philosophy once, it really amounts to: 'Gentlemen, leave your guns outside!' That alas is something Barack 'drones away' Obama will never do."

Read more: http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/25/obama-thinks-ayn-rand-is-for-teens-for-p
'via Blog this'

Ayn Rand Institute Questions Whether Obama Has Read Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand Institute Questions Whether Obama Has Read Ayn Ran =- Lucia Greaves, Huffington Post::

October 26, 2012 - "After President Barack Obama said in an interview with Rolling Stone that Ayn Rand's books are largely for teenagers who are 'feeling misunderstood,' the Ayn Rand Institute is questioning whether the president has done his reading.

"'President Obama claims he has read Ayn Rand, but you wouldn’t know it from his recent comments," said Don Watkins, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute and co-author of Free Market Revolution: How Ayn Rand's Ideas Can End Big Government. 'To be an individualist, Obama suggests, is to be concerned with yourself with no regard for other people -- indeed, at the expense of other people. That is a total distortion of Rand's individualism'....

"'The President is pulling the same old trick that collectivists have been pulling for the last hundred fifty years. Rather than openly defend the proposition that you have a duty to serve society, he misrepresents and smears individualism....

"'Rand's argument is that other people are a tremendous value to an individualist: as teachers, friends, trading partners, lovers. But the key to successful human relationships, she argues, is that there should be no sacrifice of anyone to anyone.... Unlike the President, Rand doesn’t confuse ‘caring for others’ with having the government forcibly redistribute your wealth to others. She recognizes that our main obligation to other people is to respect their freedom.'"

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/26/ayn-rand-institute-obama_n_2024497.html
'via Blog this'