Libertarianism is not Conservative

In recent years the success of the Ron Paul campaign for presidency and the Campaign For Liberty has brought more interest for libertarianism. Much of the libertarianism is based on a more conservative value of constitutionalism. Much libertarian tradition can find much of it’s roots in the writings of the Austrian Economist Murray Rothbard. This is not a tradition that looks at the constitution for it’s guidance. You will see many libertarians in this camp agreeing with many conclusions of the conservative constitutionalist libertarians, but often the rationalization and chain of thought that leads to such conclusions are quite different. Where some more contemporary conservative libertarians may see a constitution as a measure of belief for many libertarians will look at something much more concise, this is the non-aggression axiom Rothbard expands upon in his writing. The non-aggression axiom is laid out and expanded upon in Rothbard’s classic libertarian masterpiece “For a New Liberty, A Libertarian Manifesto.” Rothbard States:

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “nonagression axiom/” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else. Aggression is therefore synonymous with invasion.

– Murray Rothbard

From this perspective Rothbard looks at the state as a root problem of society. The best way to get into the mindset he presents is to hold all individuals to an equal standard based on the axiom. This would see the actions of the state as crimes. There is a rejection of the concept of society as a valid individual. There is no room to sacrifice the liberty and right of an individual for the perceived higher “good” of society in the utilitarian manner many utilitarian philosophies tend to use as justification for such actions that would oppose the non-aggression axiom. All individuals held to that equal standard will have drastic implications on the state and one’s stance on many issues.  Often the conservative mind takes a utilitarian stance that justifies state actions by considering society or culture as an individual being worthy of it’s own individual rights. There are only individuals and to aggressor on an individual for the good of society will automatically eliminate the basic philosophy of individual freedom and the rights of the individual.  There is no natural right to initiate force on another as many utilitarian conservative arguments assume.

The best way to see the state is to view the state as a criminal organization. This brings the constitutionalist often in conflict with a libertarian stance. The left libertarian sees the crime of the state. The state commits mass murder and calls it war. The state commits robbery and extortion and calls it taxation. The left-libertarian seeks to abolish these crimes by holding all to the same standard which is the non-aggression axiom. The state subjects the people to abstract laws that criminalizes perfectly innocent rational behaviors. They place the individuals in a position where perfectly rational and harmless acts are treated as a crime. The state then commits it’s own crimes to keep the order it seeks to keep in regards to these abstract crimes it has invented.  The state commits mass murder it calls it war. The state commits theft it calls this taxation. The state kidnaps people it calls this detention or deportation.

Over the years the conclusions this perspective leads to has been seen as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. Many libertarians have been categorized as close to conservative, however many within the Rothbardian tradition might object to being called conservative at all. Many might see themselves as purely liberal, not just liberal socially but liberal in every sense or even classify themselves as classically liberal. They may see themselves as pro-choice in everything. Not just pro-choice sexually or socially but fiscally and every other way conceivable.

With many hearing only the now acceptable conservative concepts of libertarianism and the Libertarian party many are missing vast portions of libertarian philosophy. Some minarchist leaning libertarians tend to see the only good being in the police and military. This concept seems to completely fly in the face of the beliefs of many libertarians. It is the police and military which empower the state and without those two criminal aggressive forces nothing the state claims would have any authority or coercive means of enforcing. The GOP is doing a good job of trying to reach the sensibilities of the libertarian leaning individuals with empty rhetoric. Most do not start with the philosophy of non-aggression many start with other views which leads to reading and education which evolve to a more firm anti-state stance.  There seems to be a natural evolution for many from one main stream slight libertarian leaning stance to more minarchist views to a final point where realization occurs as if a veil has been lifted revealing the truth that is anarchy.

Libertarianism is built on a constant philosophy that opposes the state. Conservatism is the effort to conserve, to keep traditions of the past. I would say libertarians could be more conservative or liberal at times depending on the individual, but the libertarian philosophies focused on the elimination of the state directly oppose the conservative views of state control of people, borders and military actions.

Click to take the world's smallest political quiz.

Many may come to similar conclusions of what needs to be done politically in a few areas, but the philosophy behind those conclusions are rarely compatible. The last few days people have been pointing to the recent polls showing libertarianism being viewed more favorably by democrats than by republicans.  I do not find this shocking. I find that as a libertarian I often am more at odds with the conservatives than the liberals. If one looks at Rothbard’s non-aggression axiom you do not see a conservative foundation of philosophy but something I would classify as extreme liberalism. This concept of the elimination of force goes against every nation that has ever existed. It goes against the very concept of government as we know it. How is that conserving anything to even be considered conservative.

As an anti-statist I feel often insulted that so many conservatives consider themselves even remotely close to my belief in opposition to government. They defend the very institutions that wield the aggression that the state requires to sustain it’s coercive nature. Defending the power of the state is not opposing the state, but it is simply a form of nationalism.

It almost seems that there has been renewed interest in libertarianism over the last year as a reaction to the conservative republicans loosing to the democrats.  It seems like it is more of an anti-democrat and anti-liberal movement. The problem is that many expect the libertarian to suddenly agree to the statism of the right in an effort to stop statism on the left.  If my concern was stopping liberal democrats I would most likely just be conservative not a libertarian.  Some have forgotten that we libertarians came into the Obama administration after eight years of opposing their disastrous conservative rule.  Let me remind you all that since Reagan we have had 20 years of republicans in the white house and only 8 of democrats until the election of Obama.  I am more inclined to look at the republicans critically than the democrats because of these realities.  There remains the fact that the democrats seem more likely to look at the foundation of all government, the military & aggressive forces such as the police critically and oppose it.  Who are the statists? Who defends the militarized foundation of the state?