In the mid 1980s both a friend and I were dating women that were part of the "war and free enterprise" crowd. I recall a conversation with my friend where we wondered if there was any way libertarians and these folks could work together to achieve some common ends, and maybe in the process we could move them towards peace and free enterprise. These women were not libertarians and did not consider themselves to be.
Little did I realize that 20 years later people who thought this way would be calling themselves libertarian. That the Libertarian Party would propose a "disengagement" plan for Iraq that involved more US government intervention, that people who consider themselves libertarians would advocate victim disarmament or a single payer patient abuse system. I have also read about "libertarian" city council members wanting to use zoning to "limit growth". And let's not forget the latest craze, advocating the use of eminent domain to seize Justice Souter's home in NH.
I don't know what being a libertarian means to these people, but it obviously has nothing to do with the zero (or non) aggression principle. All of the above are advocates of aggression in one form or another.
Where does this leave those of us who know that to be a libertarian means never advocating, never supporting and never using aggression? Is the word libertarian being co-opted, just like "liberal" was in the early 20th century? Do those of us who truly believe in Liberty need to find yet another label?
Liberwhat?
Ian Scott says:
Good article, Jorge. I've been concerned about this co-opting of the "libertarian" label.
As for your question, how about "Terra Librans" or "Individual Sovereigntists?"
To give credit where credit is due, I came up with those terms after reading "A Personal Declaration Of Independence" authored by Craig Green under the pen name, "Paine's Torch."
Sunni says:
Sadly, Jorge, I think you're right that the term has been co-opted. What's worse, though, is that I think some pro-freedom folks are at least partially responsible for that. The ASG, with their quiz, encourages people who score a particular way to call themselves libertarian. However, neither the quiz questions nor the definition of "libertarian" that follows it mentions the non-aggression principle! :confused:
Similarly, I've read statements asserting things like, "X [some group of people] are libertarians; they just don't know it yet." Well, that group may have general tendencies that libertarians would find familiar, and there may be individuals among that group who are genuinely pro-freedom, but that doesn't mean that all are. And it's the individuals who matter, not some over-arching label given them by some grouping (the most common use of this language I've seen is a geographical grouping, e.g., "Wyoming residents" or somesuch).
As far as labels go, I dunno about a new one ... seems to me there are too many out there already. I don't care for 'em much anyway.
Kemo Sabe says:
Yes, we need a new label!!
People take the World's Smallest Political Quiz, find they are located somewhere in the libertarian quadrant, and instantly "become" libertarians. They decide that since they are now libertarians (without the work involved in learning what "libertarianism" really means), anything they think MUST BE libertarian thought!! Then they go around spouting their "libertarian" beliefs to anyone who'll listen.
Ayn Rand said, "As a human being, you have no choice about the fact that you need a philosophy. Your only choice is whether you define your philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulously logical deliberation - or let your subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears thrown together by chance..." Most folks, including most "libertarians," are of the "junk heap" kind of human being.
The Libertarian Party claims to be the "Party of Principle." Quite a few people are exposed to libertarianism through them. I have long lobbied for the LP and their affiliates to teach their principles. But they can't be bothered to do that, with predictable results.
Philip K. Dick wrote, "The basic tool for the manipulation of reality is the manipulation of words. If you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use the words." We've lost the label "liberal" to those who wanted to hide their "un-liberal" agenda. We will lose the label "libertarian" to the same, or similar, folks for the same reason.
Jorge says:
Sunni, Thanks for the reminder about the quiz. It should have occurred to me, especially since I have recently been in two arguments which centered around it. One was on the Free State Project Forum, where Mike Lorrey claimed that scoring 70/50 or 50/70 on the test qualified as a libertarian. The other was in person, with an individual who scores 90 (economic)/60 (personal), yet claimed to "mostly agree with the principles". Fortunately, in the later case, I was able to demonstrate that he did not agree with the principles, that we only had coincidental agreement on some of the political positions that the non-aggression principle implied. I think I may be able to "convert" him. At least he realizes that he is not a libertarian.
I was not aware of that particular Rand quote. I like it. And unfortunately agree with your assessment of most people. Sturgeon's Law: "90% of everything is crud." Yet, if we are to achieve freedom we must figure out a way to reach these people. It will not be through a quiz and other material that do not mention, in fact, often go out of their way to avoid mentioning, the core value of the philosophy.
Sorry Ian, don't like either of those names :O, but language evolves, we may have already lost the "libertarian" label, and maybe one of those will catch on.
freeman says:
Is the word libertarian being co-opted, just like "liberal" was in the early 20th century?
This has crossed my mind on many occasions, especially when dealing with those "libertarians" who support war and/or support phony free market measures. Both corporate interests and hawkish interests have been attempting to co-opt libertarianism since the days of Reagan.
It does seem to resemble the co-opting of the term "liberal" by the statist left a century ago, leading many with libertarian values to seek out alliances with the right. The ones who are attempting to co-opt the term libertarian now are statist right-wingers, which is one of the reasons why many libertarians are now looking leftward for potential alliances.
jomama says:
I refuse to label myself anymore because eventually some dolt stands up and spouts something I don't agree with.
Avoid crowds and other non-profit organizations like the plague.
frank sauer says:
While I agree with Jorge that the positions noted are not libertarian (as I understand the term), I have to say that the abuse of power in taking Judge Souter's home is either 'satire' or 'reductio ad absurdum' or even 'guerilla ontology'. It is humor to make a point. Sometimes laughing is not only to keep you from crying, it is a good way to advance the liberty meme.
Kirsten says:
What such folks are after isn't the word- it's the reputation behind the word. Once the old world loses its good reputation, they'll be out to latch onto the new label. In a way, I suppose this could actually be a good sign- they wouldn't want the libertarian label if it signified a bunch of loser pot-smoking gun nuts as the old stereotype goes. In spite of the ugliness going on at the hands of their other "teammates" (those currently in majority control of government), perhaps there is something hopeful to be seen in these efforts to shed the old "conservative" label which has become a pathetic joke and latch onto "libertarian".
Kemo Sabe says:
I’ve been thinking about this blog all day. So, while surfin’ the ‘net this evening, I ran across something that made that light bulb go on over my head. You know the one.
F. Paul Wilson writes about other things than Repairman Jack, you know. One of my favorite stories, An Enemy of The State, contained in the book, The LaNague Chronicles, might contain the answer to what we’re looking for.
In the quote at the beginning of Part One, Chapter 3, he writes, "Never initiate force against another. That should be the underlying principle of your life. But should someone do violence to you, retaliate without hesitation, without reservation, without quarter, until you are sure that he will never wish to harm-or never be capable of harming-you or your again." (From the Revised Eastern Sect Edition) [of the Book of KYFHO –ks]
For the uninitiated, KYFHO stands for (and I tone it down for the snolfs that may read this blog) KEEP YOUR FREAKIN’ HANDS OFF!!!!!!! Only say it with more INTENSITY. Really make the other guy believe that if he even tries to touch what you consider yours, he'll be very lucky if he gets to pull back a bloody stump.
Our Founding Fathers had something similar. They put rattlesnakes on their flags with the caption “Don’t Tread On Me!” KYFHO follows that lead.
People who in general follow the teachings of the Book of KYFHO are called Kyfhons. It ain’t purty; it ain’t sweet. And I can’t see anyone who doesn’t believe in it hijackin’ it. And it’s not in the Wikipedia, yet!
You can call me a Kyfhon, ‘cause I am a Kyfhon.
Sunni says:
K.S., that's a terrific idea! And you can say "fucking" on this blog -- I believe that was my son's first swear word. (He used it in an appropriate context, too.)
jomama says:
Moral of da story?
Stay far away from crowds
and other non-profit
organizations.