What Libertarianism Is and What Libertarianism Is Not

I have people asking me why I don’t support Gary Johnson’s presidential campaign. He’s the Libertarian Party nominee, after all — as a libertarian, shouldn’t I support him, if only to get more exposure for libertarianism? It’s an argument that’s not without a basis, but there’s a bit of question begging involved, since it tacitly asserts that more exposure for Johnson and the LP (and, hilariously, William Weld) will lead to more exposure for libertarianism. I’m not convinced this is the case; it seems more likely merely to bring more attention to the kind of bastardized, milquetoast libertarianism that even has room for Mitt Romney and Jeb!. I consider myself a "big tent" libertarian, but if the tent has gotten so big that it can accommodate not just William Weld but Jeb Bush, we’ve clearly left the big top behind in favor of the sideshow.

The real problem is one of definition; many "movement" libertarians simply don’t understand what libertarianism actually is. There’s a substantial cohort out there with the (entirely correct) conviction that both the Republican and Democratic parties are disastrous and the desire to fix the system. These people latch on to the Libertarian Party because it’s an alternative with some appealing talking points, and not because they truly understand libertarianism and want to promote it. So far, there’s nothing wrong with any of this; we all have to start somewhere, and I myself was once that exact person, so please don’t read me as being disdainful of people who are attracted to some elements of libertarianism without a fully developed libertarian theory. Unless, that is, those people are in the upper echelons of the Libertarian Party, in which case, yes, please do read me that way.

Strategy has always been a thorny problem for libertarians. The fundamental question of "how do we get there from here" has never admitted to a perfectly satisfactory answer, and, since the very beginning, the movement has been chock full of people willing to compromise every principle they have in order to appeal to a wider and wider demographic. In the early days, it seemed that libertarians had more common ground with the left (the party was born, after all, in the law’n’order heyday of the Nixon administration), and it wasn’t very long before we were treated to the spectacle of Ed Clark, during his presidential campaign, summing up the entire philosophy as "low-tax liberalism" — a complete absurdity that suggests that libertarians are happy with the entire panoply of government regulations and "social services," but just want to cut back on Rand Paulian "fraud and waste." As the political climate shifted, libertarians found themselves more in touch with the beat of the right wing, and began packaging the whole movement as a bunch of pot-smoking Republicans, selling the philosophy with the equally absurd slogan "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." To quote from something that’s actually up on the Libertarian Party’s web site right now:

In a sense, Libertarians "borrow" from both sides to come up with a logical and consistent whole — but without the exceptions and broken promises of Republican and Democratic politicians.

This is utter hogwash. This is nothing I want getting any more exposure. Libertarianism is not a type of gumbo. It is not — emphatically not — made up of little bits "borrowed" from here and there, as though libertarians are nothing more than lazy opportunists with no philosophy of our own. No, libertarianism absolutely has a philosophy, and a very robust philosophy at that; indeed, that libertarianism does have a philosophy sets it well apart from both the modern American "left" and "right," both of which, as descendants of the nineteenth-century Whigs, have nothing more sophisticated at their core than "to the victor go the spoils."

Libertarianism is a political philosophy, which is to say a theory of violence. All political philosophy ultimately reduces to theory of violence, as all political action consists of the doing of violence upon some person or persons for the benefit of some other person or persons. Therefore, the only question asked or answered in political philosophy is Lenin’s famous kto kovo — "who, whom?" Libertarianism answers that question by appealing to the non-aggression principle, which is, as the name suggests, the idea that one should never aggress. "To aggress" is generally defined as "to initiate violence against the non-violent." From this, the entire edifice of libertarian thought develops.

Libertarians are against war. Why? Because hippies in the 60s were against war, and we’re big fans of "borrowing?" Of course not. War is obviously a violation of the non-aggression principle; indeed, war is the paramount violation of the non-aggression principle. Libertarians (except Gary Johnson, of course) are also against the regulatory state. Why? Because Ronald Reagan once said that "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem," and we just "borrowed" that? Again, obviously not. We oppose government regulation because sticking a gun in somebody’s ribs and telling him what he can and cannot do is clearly aggression.

To emphasize again, no, I am not so haughty and sectarian that I don’t welcome people who are coming to libertarianism, even if they’re not all the way there yet. If you’re a young liberty activist who doesn’t want Trump or Hillary to be president, and you’re not really knowledgeable about underlying principles: cool! Happy to have you! I just hope that, as I did when I was in your place, you can find somebody to help you learn. Returning to the concept of strategy, that’s the real key: we have to learn. All of us. The single most important thing any one of us can do to advance the cause of liberty is to read books. Present the world with, as Albert Jay Nock put it, one improved unit. My beef is definitely not with people who are enthusiastic and interested, but who have learning to do. Who among us doesn’t? My beef is with people who already have the pulpit, and are using it to confound and muddle the libertarian message. Usually they do so with the best of intentions — hoping to bring more people into the fold — but all they really achieve is to make it harder for those enthusiastic, interested people to do the necessary learning.

So, no, I don’t very much want Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party getting more exposure — at least, not in their current state. I had high hopes for Johnson back in 2012, but he honestly appears to have spent four years learning nothing at all, and I don’t wish for him to inflict that fate upon anyone else.