Reason just did a small blog on this question. I thought I would repost their source-text for everyone:
1. Cato-influenced (for lack of a better word). There is an orthodox reading of what “being libertarian” means, defined by the troika of free markets, non-interventionism, and civil liberties. It is based on individual rights but does not insist on anarchism. A ruling principle is that libertarians should not endorse state interventions. I read Palmer’s book as belonging to this tradition, broadly speaking.
2. Rothbardian anarchism. Free-market protection agencies will replace government-as-we-know-it. War is evil and the problems of anarchy pale in comparison. David Friedman offered a more utilitarian-sounding version of this approach, shorn of Misesian influence.
3. Mises Institute nationalism. Gold standard, a priori reasoning, monetary apocalypse, and suspicious of immigration because maybe private landowners would not have let those people into their living rooms.
4. Jeff Friedman and Critical Review: Everything is up for grabs, let’s be consequentialists and focus on the welfare state because that’s where the action is. Marx is dead. The case for some version of libertarianism ultimately rests upon voter ignorance and, dare I say it, voter irrationality.
5. “Hayek libertarianism.” All or most of the great libertarian thinkers are ultimately compatible with each other and we have a big tent of all sorts of classical liberal ideas. Hayek and Friedman are the chosen “public faces” of this approach. “There’s a classical liberal tradition and classical liberal values and we can be fuzzy on a lot of other things.”
I might add a few more:
Left-libertarian – sceptical of capitalism and corporatism, and possibly even private property.
Ron Paul bots - these guys are “libertarians” in that in their support of Ron Paul – probably because he was against the war – has blossomed into a general hate of the federal reserve. These are big on the constitution and “patriotism” and can be seen yelling at rallies or harrasing border guards.
Fake libertarians - Guys like Larry Elder and Ronald Regan. Anyone who calls themself a “republitarian.” Conservatives who happen to be a little more “free market” than your standard compassionate religious nut.
Libertarians who don’t know it or won’t admit it - People from the left and right who don’t to be associated with libertarians because of one of these groups, but hold a lot of libertarian beliefs.
Objectivists - Generally pro-war, radically atheist. Argues for “objective” standards of value (rather than subjective as in the Austrian school). Big on selfishness and a sceptical of utilitarianism.
Penn and Teller libertarians - Slightly left-ish, cynical and embracing libertarianism at least, in part, for it’s hedonistic/rebellious appeal. This is who conservatives think of when they realise we don’t like the war on drugs.
I’m somewhere in-between Mises Nationalism and Rothbard myself – but also having some left-ish views regarding immigration. But, then again, throughout my own libertarian journey, I felt allied with many of these camps.
What kind of libertarian are you? What kind of libertarians have I missed?
You may also be interested in:
In the Senate–NOW–the legislators are voting on E-Verify? Call your Senator and–DEMAND–E-Verify NOW–as a permanent tool! 202-224-3121
This is the right time to release a bombardment of general public voices on any Senator or Congressman around the country. Do not relieve the harsh pressure on either party to–MANDATE PERMANENTLY E-VERIFY? Our voices, faxes, emails and phone calls are burning up the wavelengths, demanding E-Verify? Not on a voluntary basis–BUT FOREVER. Not just for new employees, but for everyone who gets a paycheck, old and new? This symbolizes to me that the–AMERICAN WORKER–is being recognized? That our public servants in Washington have been hesitant to cut funding, or even reduce the power of E-Verification system that identifies and removes illegal labor from the workplace. This law must be enforced with heavy handed sentences of all employers who ignore the easy computer check?
All inconsistencies can be rectified at the Social Security office, not a place were illegal immigrant labor will dare to venture?
Removing illegal aliens from the country by orderly ATTRITION-would save our nation plenty–plus give jobs back–rid us of more criminals–stop chain migration and the immediate beginning of OVERPOPULATION.
Perhaps after all the ACLU, US Chamber of Commerce, Council of Foreign Relations, special interest lobby are not going to win this time? Thank heavens we have a few relentless patriotic AMERICANS, such Senator Sessions who have been determined to undermine the open border, free trader zealots, who want uncompromising illegal cheap labor? In the incumbent elections we should make an example of all politicians, who defy the publics demands. Letting up now will just give them enough leeway, to use E-Verify in the future as bargain chip, in the ongoing discussion for AMNESTY. We have the immense power and we must use it? For more details go to NUMBERSUSA, CAPSWEB & AMERICAN PATROL. Not liberal newspaper lies, but facts. YOU DECIDE IF YOU WANT AN OVERPOPULATED FUTURE?
Well, I don’t fall into any of those groups. I probably fall closer to the contemporary French philosophers who fall in either the radical left-wing post-Marxist camp (e.g. Alain Badiou and others who participated in May ’68) and the left-wing anarchists (who probably were also in May ’68).
Of those, I guess I’m closest to cato-influenced.
Paulbot? Ron has brought more people into this L shaped tent than anyone else, why write him off with a name like Paulbot for his supporters
Who else radically altered the political landscape in this country, let alone the libertarian plaform? Ron brought it out, center stage and now you have thousands upon thousands of activists contacting their reps about passing certain legislation and bills.
I’m proudly a Paul Bot, but I’m really just a Patriot.
I have another category you can add to the list
Bitter bLoggers: the “I was into this way before you” and “I dont like that someone has come along and made this message so popular that I don’t think it’s cool anymore” types as appearing in all his glory above
We don’t need wallflowers, we need help
go be useful
This is the kind of worthless hot air and navel contemplation that makes libertarianism more like an all night dormitory bulls**t session than a political movement and ideology.
Rather than further refine the types of libertarians there are it would be more productive to reach out to those who are libertarian and don’t realize it or just don’t want to partipate in wacky crap like this.
Paulbot – You really reaching on your generalisations about my own views there. I happily supported Ron Paul and still support him. My point is that there are a segment of people in the “libertarian” camp who came in through Ron Paul and they live or die by Ron Paul. It’s not meant to be a serious classification – just a self-reflective (and slightly humorous) way to look at this libertarian movement.
Becky – It’s good to take a laughing look at one’s self occasionally. Obviously you should try it out.
Look Colin,
You aren’t helping, what you did was negatively “generalize” a giant portion of the Libertarian cause. Why don’t you focus on something that will help this grow instead of label people, rudely and without humor I might add. No chuckles, no smirks, just dirty looks. This is why I hate blogs, anybody thinks they can/should add their point of view despite how dumb, unfunny, underwhelming and divisive it might be.
If you truly care about growing the Libertarian party then you wouldn’t be trying to rip it apart by making fun of the most active, biggest and most determined group. If you really support Ron Paul, then you would have thought twice before you discredited all of his supporters. I think you “like” Ron Paul, but you hate his supporters, so do me a favor, shut your trap and publish something that has value rather than a high school popular / not popular list. Grow up and help or just stop writing in general. Your role is better served as a follower and not a voice, you don’t have the fortitude, level of class or humility to be someone that speaks on our behalf.
If you want to be funny, maybe you should try targeting people that aren’t on your side, that is if you really concerned with helping. And get a comedy book, one rude half line isn’t funny, it’s a poor attempt and should have been kept to yourself or your very short email list
Wow. Some people take themselves a bit too seriously. This post wasn’t an attack on anyone. Good grief.
Paulbot- maybe you should take your own advice and help out your cause other than by attacking other libertarians. You attacked the author of this article far more aggregiously than anything mentioned in the article. You are actually not following your own advice. So perhaps you should keep your own thoughts to yourself. I’m just sayin’ it’s a bit ironic, that’s all.
But, thanks for the laugh.
Paulbot – It is hardly negative to note that there is a segment of “libertarians” who have “joined the cause” (if you will) because of Ron Paul and are some of the most vocal and active people. Saying this is not such an egregious crime as you seem to think it is.
Your post is wildly and recklessly written. I have not:
- negatively “generalized” a giant portion of the Libertarian cause
- tried to “rip apart” the libertarian party
- made fun of the most active, biggest and most determined group
- discredited all of Ron Paul’s supporters
- shown “hate” for Ron Paul’s supporters
Hopefully you can chill out for a second and see that your accusations here have zero to do with anything I have written in the two sentences I devoted to “Ron Paul bots.”
If you truly care about growing the Libertarian party then you wouldn’t be trying to rip it apart by making fun of the most active, biggest and most determined group.
Wait, Ron Paul supporters are the “most active” group in the Libertarian Party? That’s just wrong. Ron Paul supporters aren’t terribly interested in growing the Libertarian Party. Ron Paul is a Republican Congressman and he ran for the Republican nomination. People who voted for Ron Paul may be interested in increasing the small-L libertarians, but not the big-L Libertarian Party. On that issue, I whole-heartedly agree: working within one of the two major parties will accomplish more than working with the Libertarian Party.
I voted for Ron Paul in the primary. He was a better candidate than anybody seeking the Libertarian Party nomination, and I was disappointed that I couldn’t vote for him in the general election. I ended up voting for Bob Barr.
See above for why I think large segments of hardcore libertarian ideas are lunacy: because all the village lunatics adhere to them. Ron Paul is a decent enough guy, but when he says crazy things from time to time, the termites come out of their nest.
Colin, ignore the bots; reason and logical thinking are not their M.O.
I’m probably a “fake libertarian.” I think conservatism and libertarianism walk the same path on many issues, but on some they don’t. And where they don’t, I choose the conservative path.
There, that should stir up the nest a little.
Darius, there are loony people in any movement or group of people. It’s a statistical fact that the larger a movement gets, the more likely it will be to hold wacky people.
(this is not to say that RonPaulbot is loony – he’s obviously just angry [perhaps even blindly so] and passionate. But broadly speaking, if people took your view on something like Christianity – measure it by the actions of it’s followers – then no one would put their faith in Christ.)
True.
The Libertarian problem is that they have no actual shot at power or influence, and therefore they have their full share of crazies and radicals but few moderates and pragmatics.
Libertarians will accomplish more by working within one of the major parties than by trying to buck the system. In America, our political parties are loose enough that we can do that. But only to a degree–if you don’t show enough allegiance to the party, they will shut you out. So you can push for change, but when the party nominates someone you don’t like, you’d better get on board and support that candidate. Loyalty counts for something.
What Jasen said.
What I find curious is that more than half of the people I work with have strong libertarian leanings. The idea that libertarians and libertarian ideas have no influence strikes me as wrong, because my personal experience shows that libertarian sympathies are prevalent today.
Libertarian sympathies/ideas may seem prevalent, but I think that differs from the reality of follow-through. Let’s look at the basis behind most Republican platforms:
- “Freedom”
- “Small government”
- “Less taxes”
- “Less intrusion in our lives”
It’s how such things are actually followed through that differs, methinks. I think you are right that the thinking involved in most libertarian philosophy and core stances are anti-accepted-norm for political thought, hence why they yield no actual power. It is my firm belief that “moderates” and “pragmatics” are exactly what has driven the current Conservative party towards a more large-goverment, fascist leaning neo-conservative way of thinking.
I think at their core, most people have libertarian sympathies and vote accordingly…unfortunately, whom they vote for usually speaks in libertarian terms, but immediately rests firmly on their moderate laurels. (I’m talking to YOU, John McCain. And YOU, George Bush.) No one votes for libertarian, as they yield no power. Big-name candidate speaks in terms that perks ears of those with those sympathies, that person gets votes, those sympathies die on the table. Rinse, repeat.
I agree that most people have libertarian sympathies. However, I think the desire for “free stuff” (for lack of a better term) makes state encroachment such a powerful force. I attempted to say that here.
A person could be 99% libertarian, but the 1% of positivism he is advocating for will probably come to pass sooner than the 99% of “leave me alone” that he sort of passively believes in.
Let me also add some agreement with Ornot. I think the “pragmatic” conservative (or the “party first” conservative) has been one of the greatest forces for the advancement of the state in the modern era. I mean Obama versus McCain? Bush versus Gore/Kerry? Dole/Bush versus Clinton? What kind of choices are these? And this is replicated in races all over the country.
As much as people mocked Ron Paul, or didn’t like SOME of his positions, and despite that he had no more of a chance of winning than McCain – the ideological swing that putting someone like that up means has lasting effects. Again Ron Paul didn’t even win the election, and yet look at what has happened: Federal Reserve is actually under a credible threat, Glenn Beck has swung, Mises institute guys are all over the media, etc… This can all be traced back to the fact that a guy like RP simply got into the debates (even though when he was there he was mocked or ignored). If either party would sacrifice one election for ideals – the result would be incredible.
“However, I think the desire for “free stuff” (for lack of a better term) makes state encroachment such a powerful force.”
That’s why a political party fighting for limited government has such a disadvantage. “Let me get you all the stuff you can’t afford” sounds a whole lot better than “Let me give you back the responsibility of providing for yourself.”
Lots of people hold to some libertarian ideas, but most of the time it is not because they are coming at issues from a libertarian perspective, they are just agree on the parts of libertarianism that their overall liberal or conservative philosophy agrees with.
In Texas there’s plenty of pro-gun, pro- tax cut people, but that’s because they’re conservatives, not libertarians. They are hardly every the same people that are advocating drug decriminalization and against warrantless wiretapping, etc.
Perhaps the true test of libertarianism is not if you want the government to leave you alone, but if you want the government to leave other people alone.
This is the money quote right here.