-
A Holocaust Denier Walks Into a Bar
May 10, 2013 | 219 comments
-
What’s in a Name?
May 6, 2013 | 25 comments
-
Benediction
March 20, 2013 | 12 comments
-
The Great Consolidator: Dec. 2009
February 15, 2013 | 0 comments
-
Punking the President
January 14, 2013 | 15 comments
Buy the Book
The “L” Word
What is libertarianism, and who, exactly, counts as a libertarian?
(This review appears in the December/January issue of The American Spectator.)
The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism, edited by Ronald Hamowy (Sage, 664 pages, $125).
WHAT IS LIBERTARIANISM, and who, exactly, counts as a libertarian? For years, anarcho-capitalists, minarchists, teenyarchists, Randroids, and assorted laissez-faire true believers have fought pitched battles over these vexing questions of ideology and identity. Now they have a whole foot-breaking reference book to help remind them of those old, tender memories.
The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism (The Encyclopedia hereafter) doesn’t seek to give definitive answers where none exist. In fact, there isn’t a single entry marked “Libertarianism” to consult. Readers will just have to make do with entries on the “Liberal Critique of Libertarianism”; “Liberalism, Classical”; “Liberalism, German”; “Liberty, Presumption of”; “Liberty in the Ancient World”; and “Locke, John”; as well as the General Introduction.
At first pass, that seems a glaring omission. It’s hard to imagine encyclopedias of conservatism, fascism, feminism, or Buddhism that didn’t contain entries on… conservatism, fascism, feminism, or Buddhism. Especially as The Encyclopedia has entries on three of those four topics—four entries total when you add in “Conservative Critique of Libertarianism.” Why not just come out and say what libertarianism is, gentlemen?
The General Introduction asks, “In what does libertarianism consist?” and answers, “This question is much more difficult and profound than one might at first suppose.” Difficult, maybe, but profound seems a bit of a pat on the back. Writing for the editors, Manchester Metropolitan University’s Stephen Davies lays out five different ways that one could analyze the “major ideologies of modernity” and dances around a concrete definition of libertarianism. My guess is, a workable consensus definition couldn’t be found. What’s that old Jewish saying? Four libertarians, five opinions.
However, the Introduction does tell us that libertarianism is big—huge! It is “a major feature of intellectual and political life… at one and the same time a movement in politics, a recognized philosophy, and a set of distinctive policy prescriptions” whose adherents “play a prominent role in intellectual and political arguments in several countries.” Rarely a winning role, however. In Washington, D.C., recently, you could be near certain that any policy wonk charging valiantly but futilely against the massive government bailout was either a cranky conservative or an understandably angry libertarian.
Despite its recent emergence as a popular term, libertarianism is no Milton-come-lately ideology either, argues Professor Davies: “Contemporary libertarianism is only the latest manifestation of an intellectual, cultural, and political phenomenon that is as old as modernity, if not older.… [It] is only the most recent chapter in a long story that, in the Anglo-Saxon world, traces itself back to classical liberalism.” Before there was the American Constitution, there was An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, or The Bling of Nations, as kids tend to shorten it these days (see “Smith, Adam”).
Of course, not all libertarians will agree about that. Some radical libertarians see many of the towering figures of classical liberalism as tainted or not hard-core enough. The entry on the economist and agitator Murray Rothbard—by freewheeling libertarian historian Brian Doherty—correctly notes that Rothbard believed “even such free-market icons as Adam Smith represented regressions from largely forgotten previous advances in economic thinking.”
We could dismiss the radicals as freedom’s bitter enders but this reviewer happens to think they’re on to something when they posit a gulf between classical liberals and modern libertarians. For its special Millennium issue in 1999, a writer for the classical liberal British newsweekly the Economist pretended to review The Wealth of Nations as if it were the year 1776 and this were the hot “new book… winning praise from every quarter.”
Despite all of Smith’s “strictures about the dangers of governments acting in league with producers,” the Economist reminded, “he proposes an enormous extension of the role of the state,” including “universal education, at public expense,” something like antitrust law, and “roads, canals, bridges and other works necessary for universal opulence but too costly to be undertaken at private expense.” The reviewer predicted that “Mr. Smith’s book” may be remembered, in the long run, “for laying the intellectual foundations of, for want of a better term, big government.”
ONE MIGHT APOLOGIZE for the digression at this point, and normally I would. Except, except. This is exactly the sort of rabbit-trailing The Encyclopedia encourages. The volume can be used as a straight reference, but it’s at least as valuable as an intellectual curiosity. It’s a product of the Cato Institute, that Beltway beachhead for sober free market thinking. However, it is intended to be broadly representative of libertarian thought and history. It usually succeeds at hitting that target.
Most major libertarian figures are included here, if grudgingly. During the recent Republican primaries, cosmopolitan Catoistas were known for their hostility to former Libertarian Party nominee and antiwar candidate Ron Paul, because of his more populist positions on immigration and social issues. Paul’s entry in The Encyclopedia by Cato executive vice president David Boaz is all of seven column inches (a typical page has 18 column inches), but it’s here—along with 546 pages full of entries on everything from the common law to the revolution in France to Puritanism to the accomplishments of Swedish economist Knut Wicksell.
This book will appeal to libertarians of all stripes, of course, and intellectual history buffs, as well as to anyone who has ever wondered, “I wonder what libertarians would think about X,” or even “Why would libertarians think that?” Though if you have, my friends, let me just warn you: it’s a slippery slope.
(This review appears in the December/January issue of The American Spectator.)
About the Author
Jeremy Lott is editor of RealClearPolicy.com, RealClearBooks.com and RealClearReligion.org and associate editor of RealClearScience.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (31) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Jeremy Lott
More Articles From Buy the Book
http://spectator.org/archives/2008/12/18/the-l-word
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
Former IRS Commissioner Refused to Say That Targeting Conservative Groups is Wrong
Benjamin Brophy | 2:27PM
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Alan Brooks| 12.10.08 @ 3:26PM
there is nothing conservative or radical conservative about libertarians--they are just radicals.
Mike | 12.18.08 @ 9:46AM
Perhaps the reason why the encyclopedia did not offer a definition of Libertarianism is because, in the end, everyone, to some degree, holds politically inconsistent positions. To wit, Adam Smith, who in recognizing the need for government "to execute other works necessary for universal opulence but too costly to be undertaken at private expense” arguably laid the groundwork for big government.
Appleby| 12.18.08 @ 10:57AM
Libertarianism basically is that the government should exist to provide for the common defence and protect the borders. Period. Anything else, the people who want it should provide it, on as local a level as possible up to and including the individual him/herself.
Libertarianism can only be practiced on a fairly small scale by educated, responsible people, so it is not practiced often. One example that is frequently cited is the Town Meetings of New England. Another I would like to cite is the growing trend for gated communities that build and hire their own schools, shops, restaurants, security forces and utilities. Persons wishing to move into these communities see right up front what they will be assessed for these services and what they will be getting, they buy into it all (or not), and they get a seat at the table to decide what has to be changed, what can be changed, and what needs to be scrapped altogether.
Human nature being what it is, Libertarianism is susceptible to cabals, cliques and kleptocrats if not ruthlessly pruned at frequent intervals; and it is also susceptible to that class of persons who cling to the notion that whatever rules are in place do not apply to THEM if they can find some way to call them 'discriminatory' or 'racist/sexist/homophobic' or anti-family/anti-child. This includes the class of person who sees a No Children/No Pets regulation and upon signing the contract and moving in, immediately buys a large dog and gets pregnant.
In other words, libertarianism works only in books, on lifeboats or among people stranded somewhere for a length of time not to exceed six months. After that, human nature takes over and anarchy/totalitarianism/starvation and death take over.
Thomas| 12.18.08 @ 12:59PM
A categorical definition of Libertarianism is nigh on impossible to formulate. The reason is simple. There are too many people and groups that identify themselves as Libertarians who have very divergent views and desires to allow for a conclusive definition of a Libertarian to exist.
Ideally, Libertarianism would produce a society where there would be no external coercion of the individual to conform to any standards, in fact no articulated standards would exist. But, because of the evolved nature of the individual, all would exist in existential harmony without the need for direction. Government would become unnecessary, as every individual would know, instinctively, how to behave.
Given the basic nature of humankind, however, pure Libertarianism is a pipe dream.
Eric Dondero | 12.18.08 @ 6:19PM
As a 25 year + Libertarian political activist, I can tell you that the definition of the word is quite simple. It's...
"Fiscally Conservative/Socially Tolerant" and Strong on Defense.
Barry Goldwater is the standard-bearer. If you agree with Barry on 90% of the issues, guess what? You're a libertarian.
Today's more popular libertarians include: CA Cong. Tom McClintock, Idaho Gov. Butch Otter, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, SC Gov. Mark Sanford, AZ Cong. Jeff Flake, Dennis Miller, Neal Boortz, Larry Elder, and Ted Nugent.
If you feel comfortable amongst that group of folks, and if you think that Conservatives get a bit wishy-washy sometimes, than you're a libertarian.
Eric Dondero, Publisher
Libertarian Republican
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.18.08 @ 6:23PM
A real libertarian will not define his creed for another, nor will he let another define his creed.
Alan brooks| 12.18.08 @ 10:18PM
No problem w/ libertarianism, OF COURSE smallest possible govt is best. i just dont like libertarians.
why do libertarians have to be such radical pigheads?
like totalist anarchists, they want to take apart 'society' without putting it back together.
i'll stick with conservatism, and take my chances with those who DO not want to neglect always attempting to mend what we call civilization back into one whole as it is continually taken to pieces.
Sandee Enriquez| 12.19.08 @ 12:03AM
Do I own my body..or not? That's the question from someone who calls themselves Libertarian. And this targets both the left and the right. Common sense from either would say yes. And then my reply to that is, well...then mind your own business and I'll mind mine. The U.S. Constitution seems to back this ideal so what's the problem? Seems simple enough to me.
Alan Brooks| 12.19.08 @ 2:55AM
too simple. what about partial birth abortion?
Sandee Enriquez| 12.19.08 @ 11:48AM
All abortion is abhorent. But if medical professionals had adherred to their hyppocratic oath, this wouldn't even be an issue. There's the rub. You cannot legislate morality. The war on drugs, like the previous Prohibition, proves it. This and abortion are a societal problem, not governments.
Every single problem this country has had or will have comes from meddling buttinskys using the power of government to get their way. If people would get out of being busy bodies and telling everyone else how to live, we'd be a better place. We might try getting back to state's rights and shrink D.C. for starters. Kind of like the Founders designed it, ya think?
Glenn K| 12.20.08 @ 10:36AM
Libertarianism is a mongrel philosophy which attempts to lend the appearance of objectivity to "I like this but I don't like that".
Michael L. Hauschild| 12.20.08 @ 6:57PM
Sandee for President.
Sara G| 12.21.08 @ 7:56AM
To Eric Dondero:
You need to revise your list of "Libertarians." Sarah Palin is the standard bearer for neo-conservatism. It is impossible to reconcile many of her ideologies with Libertarianism. She is hardly "objective" in an any sense of the word.
Sandee Enriquez| 12.21.08 @ 2:35PM
**Libertarianism is a mongrel philosophy **
In that case, Glenn K, so were the ideas of our Founders. Something tells me you wouldn't be too happy living in the Era of Jefferson. Me also thinks that far too many Americans fear individuality and responsibilty. Yes, Glenn, true freedom can be a scary thing and for some, it's better to be slaves to the state. No responsibilties to worry about....but you'll never escape the consequences!
Sandee Enriquez| 12.21.08 @ 3:22PM
Jimmy Durante :
"Why doesn't everybody leave everybody else the hell alone?"
ked| 12.22.08 @ 1:00PM
What's a libertarian? Easy! Someone who voted for Bush but just can't apologize for it in plain language.
SIV| 12.22.08 @ 6:38PM
Libertarianism is an ideology of radical right individualism ,advocating minimal (or no) government, often held by individuals who are appalled at being labeled rightists.
Colby Cosh | 12.24.08 @ 7:23PM
Alas, it's true. There isn't a single entry marked “Libertarianism” to consult. Readers will just have to make do with... THE ENTIRE BOOK.
Temujin | 12.25.08 @ 3:53PM
Leave it to Colby Cosh to actually see the forest even with those rotten trees in the way.
Jeremiah| 12.26.08 @ 9:32PM
Eric D. you're right on Bro'!! But do not forget our brother P.J. O' Rourke and his outstanding review of "Of the Wealth...".
Ted Nugent Really Rules!
Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 9:12PM
I only like the most solid conservatism, solid cons like Buckley and Will. To hell with social tolerance. You dont get so open minded your pants fall down.
You dont tolerate Michael Jackson Babysitters INC.
Let people do what they want but when they mess with your family, what do you do?
Alan Brooks| 1.6.09 @ 9:14PM
we social cons are just doing our thing.
Alan Brooks| 1.7.09 @ 9:53PM
dont forget that dope dealers and pornographers are libertarians.
be very careful what you wish for, you just might end up with a libertarian dystopia.
Alan Brooks| 1.8.09 @ 9:18PM
alrighty, then, if you cant legislate morality then our gooses are cooked no matter what because if there's no consensus on morality then there is no morality and so where do you go from there?
We here know the case for free markets however
that's IT? free markets? no virtue? Horribly openended, freedom is, what sort of brave new world might it lead to?
Dean Smith| 1.18.09 @ 3:24PM
There is a difference between what I think people should not do and what I think should be illegal. Surely virtue exists even if not legislated, and 'legislating morality' refers to consensual and private acts that don't directly endanger others, not laws against murder, rape, assault, and fraud.
Charles Broadway | 1.19.09 @ 8:21AM
There is diversity of opinion among Democrats and Republicans. This is what you would expect in a relatively free society. I don't see why the same diversity amongst libertarians somehow represents a case against libertarianism.
Craig G | 1.24.09 @ 11:39PM
... any policy wonk charging valiantly but futilely against the massive government bailout was either a cranky conservative or an understandably angry libertarian.
Mmmpf. If I'm both a cranky conservative and an angry libertarian, do I get to raise both hands during the vote?
Seriously, sort of, if one were to attempt to write the same sort of reference on conservatism, wouldn't one have the same sort of problem? Political ideologies tend to be, at their root, a reflection of an approach to problems, rather than cookbooks for solutions.
links of london | 9.10.09 @ 10:30PM
Thanks for your information, i have read it, very good！