Past Time to Abandon the Word 'Libertarian'
December 5, 2006
10:27 a.m., MT

Regular readers have probably noticed that for some time now, I've been using the term pro-freedom instead of the more common libertarian. It was a deliberate shift, as I saw while working at Free-Market.Net (and continuing since then) that some individuals and groups that self-identify as libertarian didn't consistently uphold freedom-friendly values, or offer solutions to problems that were freedom enhancing. They ranged from seemingly small things, like libertarian think tanks offering studies and opinions that further entrench state boondoggles like mass transit, to fundamentals such as supporting various flavors of victim disarmament or more restrictive abortion laws. And, of course, in the past few years the shift has escalated, to the point where libertarian can mean anything from a thoroughgoing love of liberty to a republicanesque façade that distills to Freedom for me, but not for thee at its best and quickly tails off.

That's problematic, because it's allowed many individuals who aren't libertarian to think that they are; and that further muddies the concept for others who are new to the ideas of freedom and come across a semi-libertarian individual or web site. Those people might get the idea that being anti-state in some areas means that one is a libertarian; or that if one is over 50% for freedom, one can call oneself a libertarian. (How one might perform such a calculation is beyond me.) And it's because of those problems that I chose to begin using the somewhat clunky, but much more conceptually clear term pro-freedom. It sidesteps all those questions of what, precisely, I mean; and it can be easily modified when I'm describing an entity that I'm unsure is totally pro-freedom, or is fuzzy in some areas. It also neatly sidesteps the problem of ties to electoral politics, which is really just talk about the color and length of one's leash.

Despite my preference for greater precision, I didn't think the term libertarian had become as useless as it apparently has. Reading through Jim Bovard's recent piece The Torturous Servility of Washington Think Tanks and its comments, I came across this call for clarity from Kevin Tuma:

... let's first determine what a 21st century libertarian stands for.
It's a question I don't believe many can answer.

At first I was ready to second Jim's endorsement of a debate on the subject, but then the gravity of such an exercise hit me. Have so many ostensibly liberty-loving individuals forgotten the Non-Aggression Principle and the Zero Aggression Principle and their fundamental importance to any philosophy grounded in freedom? Are so many of us mired in concretes and specifics that we're unwilling—or unable—to conceptualize abstracts and general principles that, if we stick by them, should guide our specific actions?

Someone who is pro-freedom can stand for many different things, particularly when the question is how to create greater freedom in a world almost completely filled with coercive states of varying sorts. I would hope that's the kind of debate Bovard and Tuma envisioned, but if so, it would lack some punch, focusing again on specifics rather than fundamentals. Rather, I suspect the subject of the debate in mind was deeper—which reveals the pathetic state of the concept of libertarianism. And that reinforces the need for pro-freedom individuals and groups to abandon libertarian as an identifier; it's no longer sufficiently clear, nor tied to principle.

However, I'm not calling for us to completely abandon the term. It seems to me that, by choosing to identify ourselves as pro-freedom or some other, equally precise descriptor [NAPper? ZAPper? ZAPA?], we can accomplish two things: 1] We offer an unequivocal statement of our position on what freedom is, our valuing of it, and how it is to be applied; and 2] we offer a channel for identifying the muddled state of the libertarian concept, and educating those who are interested as to its real meaning and history. Without that kind of conversation, the word is going to remain hopelessly unclear, and useless to those of us who remember what it once stood for.

Sunni

Comments: 16 people have contributed to the conversation

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 10:53 a.m. Mountain time, Michael said:

If ZAPatista wasn't already taken that might work. In the meantime I plan on sticking with libertarian and, when asked explaining what it means from my perspective and telling whomever it is that the word is becoming muddied by people who aren't libertarians, just interlopers.
*cough* Neal Boortz *cough*
"Pro-Freedom" is good, but it brings its own baggage with it, (thanks to the tyranny of the Klintonistas and Reno)that includes getting on "The List". I don't want to see us lose who and what we are because of a bunch of "trespassers" and political carpetbaggers. Before we abandon our name we should do everything we can to reclaim it from those to whom it does not belong.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 11:06 a.m. Mountain time, Warren Bluhm said:

I like to think of myself as a frank Zero Aggression Principle Purist Absolutely, but I'm afraid people won't take me seriously.

Words have meaning, but the meaning gets diluted, even the word you prefer. I mean, when someone like George W. can get away with describing himself as "pro-freedom," is that really such a great word? I've taken to using "statist" versus "individualist," but then I have to take time to explain what those words mean.

I'm confused by Tuma's statement, but maybe I've missed something about the 21st century. Isn't a libertarian (small l) someone who stands for liberty? And if then you're asked "yeah, but what does liberty mean in the 21st century," then someone's just trying to pick a fight, methinks.

Sure, the Capital-L Libertarians have abandoned the concept, but that's just a political party. There have always been democrats and socialist Democrats, just as there have been republicans and totalitarian Republicans. Doesn't make the words wrong, IMHO, it's the folks claiming the words for themselves who are wrong.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 11:31 a.m. Mountain time, Jorge said:

As I said here we need to find a new word, "libertarian" has been co-opted. What that word is I still don't know.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 5:53 p.m. Mountain time, Scott Bieser said:

I've gone back and forth on this, personally. But consider some history: the term "libertarian" itself was something adopted by our movement's pioneers in the 1940s-50s because the term "liberal" had come to be synonymous with social-democrat. Do we want to _again_ abandon an historically honorable brand just becomes some goinks ond drongos have moved in on us?

I'm not ready to give it up. I want to return the term "libertarian" to its historic roots as a synonym for individualist-anarchism, and make the Boortzes and the Michael Clouds of the world run from it in stark terror.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 5:53 p.m. Mountain time, Scott Bieser said:

I've gone back and forth on this, personally. But consider some history: the term "libertarian" itself was something adopted by our movement's pioneers in the 1940s-50s because the term "liberal" had come to be synonymous with social-democrat. Do we want to _again_ abandon an historically honorable brand just becomes some groinks ond drongos have moved in on us?

I'm not ready to give it up. I want to return the term "libertarian" to its historic roots as a synonym for individualist-anarchism, and make the Boortzes and the Michael Clouds of the world run from it in stark terror.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 5:55 p.m. Mountain time, Scott Bieser said:

I would apologize for the accidental double-posting, but somethings bear repeating.

On Tuesday, December 5th, at approximately 7:11 p.m. Mountain time, freeman said:

I am absolutely astounded by the continual onslaught of synchronicities that I've experienced within the past few months of my life. This is yet another one.

I was just thinking about this yesterday in relation to my own personal ideas. Upon reading an essay posted on Lew Rockwell.com a couple of days ago about South Park and libertarianism, I decided that I just don't want to deal with all the baggage associated with the term "libertarian" anymore. To the extent that the person who wrote that essay is a libertarian, I am not one.

Peoples' conception of what libertarianism is differs, and thus there is so much confusion out there as to what a person claiming to be a libertarian happens to advocate. I'm sick of having to explain to others that I'm not a "pot-smoking Republican" or a "corporate apologist" or any of the other conceptions associated with libertarianism that have nothing to do with my own ideas.

I began reading a book by Kerry Thornley last night titled Zenarchy. At one point within chapter 6 of the book, he wrote about a friend of liberty named George Boardman, and part of it resonated highly with me. Since I expect the whole excerpt would be of interest to fellow friends of liberty, here it is, with the portion relevant to this discussion in bold print:

" Old George Boardman was an instructor at Robert LeFevre's libertarian Freedom School in Larkspur, Colorado, where I was a student in 1964.
Most of the time Boardman lived in a ghost town called Chloride, Arizona, population: 250. No government was present there at that time, not even as a figment of its own imagination.
As for crimes against person or property, the most recent one was committed five years earlier by some Californians who were passing through. No crimes with victims occurred, said George Boardman, because there were no police to protect criminals from a watchful populace.
George wrote a regular column for the Santa Ana Register recounting his adventures in Chloride and setting forth his wise, usually slightly cranky or downright stubborn views of various issues. In 1969 he passed away and I wrote him a tribute that was published in the Register.
That man could cause an Orange County, California, Bircher to see the contradiction between "law" and "order" without ever feeling his mind had been changed about politics. In Zen, such tactful persuasion is called upaya, the "gentle method". And though Boardman's rhetoric was conservative, his philosophy was both humorous and - well, I hesitate to say "radical". For once he said, "I'm not an anarchist nor a libertarian, or anything else. I'm George Boardman - and I don't want to be held responsible for anyone's views but my own".

I'm not a libertarian. I'm freeman.

I don't oppose Scott Bieser's position at all. I'm just not real motivated to go to war over a word. That's all that "libertarian" is - a word.

On Wednesday, December 6th, at approximately 8:27 a.m. Mountain time, Happy Curmudgeon said:

I like Uncle Warren's suggestion (does that make me a ZAPPA-ian or a ZAPPA-ist?).

This discussion over a word - Libertarian - and Scott Bieser's mention of Michael Cloud for some reason brings to mind a speech Cloud (then named Michael Emmerling) give at the Maryland Libertarian Convention back in '79, where he stated that "words are tools; they are weapons."

The discussion also reminds me Robert LeFevre's article on autarchy v. anarchy, which lead to me calling myself an autarchist for awhile, until Dean Ahmad pointed out that the dictionary sometimes defines autarchism differently than LeFevre, which leads to confusion tather than clarity. Thus, at the end of the day, I stand with Freeman. I am Happy Curmudgeon.

On Wednesday, December 6th, at approximately 4:19 p.m. Mountain time, Jim Bovard said:

Sunni - thanks for the plug for the think tank brouhaha posting over at my blog.

One of the most amusing attempts to replace the word libertarian occurred in DC back in the 1990s. Some folks were pushing the term "market liberal."

Happily, this went nowhere.

On Thursday, December 7th, at approximately 4:25 a.m. Mountain time, Ian Scott said:

I'm not even sure "freedom lover" will always be the "label" that would bind folds that are indeed interested in freedom.

Even the word "freedom" has been used by many different people to mean different things. From my own experience, as a kid, growing up in a "Reformed" Christian background (at least they motivated me to think, god bless them), "freedom" had it's own meaning.. the "freedom" to do what is "right" in so far as what the elders decided.

in time, that's why I've used my own play on words, with regard to my name..."ianism"... and taken on the slogan of "student of all, disciple of none," while also asserting, like Thomas Paine, my church is my mind.

Indeed, Sunni's "freedom" in some ways, might not be the same as "Ian's Freedom," in that both us might have our own personal "boundaries" in so far as any particular activity or even interest is concerned.

If I can use the false analogy of what some call "freedom of expression" - by all means, I'll do what I can to guarantee your freedom of expression on your own property, but I can't gaurantee that you will have others listen to or experience your expressions.. nor will I promise you that when I entertain some friends and clients, that on MY property, you can yell, scream, or say whatever you want.. go home.. and yes.. you can say, scream, or yell whatever you want.

I _think_ I am sure what Sunni means by "freedom loving," but then.. perhaps there are Mormon tendencies, that I don't know about, that Sunni hasn't yet told us about.. and which eventually she wants to use her Mormon definitions of "freedom" to define exactly what "freedom" is.

And this indeed, is one of the issues with meanings of words. I see myself as "free," but that does not mean I am "free" to rape, pillage, or steal.

All you have to do is go back to the Old Testament, and you will find a tradition of a people that felt "free" to do whatever they wanted to others, in the name of their own God or some revelation.. because the others weren't "free" in being the Chosen People.

Libertarians, freedom lovers, classical liberals... I don't know that any suits.

The only thing I can think of so far is to assert that my mind is my own church. And i respect the church of other minds, while I demand and expect the same degree in return.

Is that "fredom?"

Maybe what we are, in the end, are "lovers of our own respectful values."

Nope, that doesn't quite seem right either.

how about "free traders?"

Or, "absolute free traders?"

But I guess that implies we are always trading, when indeed, we might not be trading anything at all.

Well, I'll invite you all to be "ianists."

On Thursday, December 7th, at approximately 8:50 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Jorge, I'd forgotten about your entry on this subject. Kind of sad to see there's been little progress on the subject since then ...

But on the other hand, that shouldn't be too surprising, since—as has been pointed out above— individuals' meanings and desires regarding freedom differ. And while I have a great deal of sympathy for the label rejecting advocates (including Jomama at Jorge's post) personally, educating others about the genuine meaning of labels can be an effective form of outreach. That's exactly why I was careful to say that I don't apply the term "libertarian" to myself any longer, while encouraging all who care to do so—not just those who still use it—to remind or inform others as to its principled roots. Kirsten was right (in her response to Jorge's post) that those who co-opt a term often seek to piggyback on its reputation; one of the best ways to turn that tactic against such usurpers is to show the lie behind their use of it.

So, I'm not looking for a new term, although I'm glad to see several picked up on my frank appreciation for some zappa-esque ones (you did much better with it than I, Warren); and I agree that "market liberal" is a dumb alternative, Jim.

Ian, I would say that you are indeed free to rape, pillage, and plunder if you wanted to. For most people, the possibility of taking responsibility for such actions keeps them from doing so; for others, and I'd put you in this category, the principles that guide their actions prohibit them. In other words, it's a freedom we have, but which the vast majority of individuals rightly choose not to indulge. Oh, and although I do find elements of the Mormon religion interesting, I can assure you my view of freedom is not based on it.

On Friday, December 8th, at approximately 12:45 p.m. Mountain time, Kevin S. Van Horn said:

"electoral politics ... is really just talk about the color and length of one's leash."

I'll have to add that to my list of pithy libertarian (uh, "pro-freedom" ) quotes!

BTW, I agree with Scott. First the word "liberal" was taken from us and twisted to mean something else, and now "libertarian". When does it stop? I guess I deal with it by calling myself a radical libertarian ("on the radical fringe of the radical fringe" ), libertarian anarchist, market anarchist, or rule-of-law anarchist.

On Friday, December 8th, at approximately 2:07 p.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Wow, I didn't know I was pithy—honored, I'm sure, Kevin!

I agree with Scott too, that it's a worthy goal to restore the term to its original meaning; but as freeman so aptly put it, I'm not willing to go to war over a word. So I don't use it to describe myself, but am very willing and able to take on those who misuse it.

On Sunday, December 10th, at approximately 5:40 a.m. Mountain time, Warren Bluhm said:

My friend k.d. finds the discussion of labels as counterproductive. With freeman saying "I am freeman" and Ian talking about "Ianism," et al, I think the conversation has drifted towards k.d.'s assertion that he is a "Popeye" - "I am what I am." I really like that thought. So often we make assumptions based on labels.

My observation that an individual human life begins at conception and that every human being has certain "unalienable" rights, for example, has led more than one person to assume that I want to see laws that ban abortion and punish abortionists, or that I have no compassion or feelings for the mothers who seek abortion, or that religious beliefs are at the root of my observation, or that I must believe in the death penalty and am therefore a hypocrite. All of those assumptions are attached to the label "pro-life," and all are wrong about me. Labels don't simplify conversation, they obfuscate and misdirect conversation.

In no way does my approach to life exactly match any other individual's. There are ways in which my philosophy or political beliefs might resemble my neighbors' beliefs, and certainly I'm more comfortable among friends who share many of my beliefs, but there's no such thing as a perfect match. I mention the abortion question because it's an area where I am more likely than not to disagree with my fellow freedom bloggers, which makes it a good example of why one word or one label cannot summarize a group. Labels are convenient when talking about groups, no doubt, but pretty close to useless when talking about or to an individual. I'm not even sure it's usually helpful to lump individuals together in groups.

I am what I am; I like that response. In the final analysis, we're all Popeyes.

On Sunday, December 10th, at approximately 7:18 a.m. Mountain time, Sunni said:

Warren, I found the place where your friend kd brought up this post. It's a very interesting conversation, but I don't want to link to it without an admin's okay.

That said, I understand where kd is coming from (and s/he's welcome to thwack me upside the head any time I seem to be getting over-analytical) to some degree. But the point of this post wasn't to try to get everybody to agree on some other term as a collective—rather, it was primarily to point out that the question of "What do libertarians stand for?" is now being seriously asked, and considered, by genuine libertarians. I found that a bit disconcerting, to say the least.

Regarding another's speculation, I realize that I may be an example to others, but I'm not particularly comfortable with that ... so it should go without saying that I'm not seeking to expand it.

And I, too, very much like that "plaid side" portrayal.

On Friday, December 22nd, at approximately 1:02 a.m. Mountain time, Spooner said:

My two cents is that "Libertarian" has been tainted with the political and therefore is not only dysfunctional but a contradiction. Statism is in its death throes, so are Petrine Christianity, Judaism, and Islam (the "Cult of the Sky Gods" as Gore Vidal put it, with Joseph Campbell agreeing). So the "Big Picture" is as Butler Shafer put it: The Collapse of Vertically Structured Institutions". What has to happen is a new conception of both failed Statist and Religious concepts. The State wishes to be the terrestrial Church just as the church wishes to be the celestial State. The new understanding is a connectedness of all people on earth, and that the church and the State are obsolete. The new conception of our existence is that the old ideas are obsolete.

Home
Previous entry: "Here Again"
Next entry: "Friend News Update"