Colleagues: There has been a resurgence of interest in Libertarianism—what it means, what it advocates, how does it differ from traditional conservatism, and how do Libertarians stand on national security issues. We asked NSF member and CATO senior fellow Jerry O’Driscoll to address these points.
What is Libertarianism?
By Jerry O’Driscoll
Libertarianism is a political philosophy. In his 1997 Libertarianism: A Primer, David Boaz succinctly summed it up:
Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others. Libertarians defend each person’s right to life, liberty, and property rights that people have naturally, before governments are created. In the libertarian view, all human relationships should be voluntary; the only actions that should be forbidden by law are those that involve the initiation of force against those who have not themselves used force – actions like murder, rape, robbery, kidnapping and fraud.
On its website, the Wall Street Journal has a statement of its philosophy (“About Us”) that constitutes an alternative statement of libertarianism with more concreteness:
We speak for free markets and free people, the principles, if you will, marked in the watershed year of 1776 by Thomas Jefferson’s “Declaration of Independence” and Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Nations.” So over the past century and into the next, the Journal stands for free trade and sound money; against confiscatory taxation and the ukases of kings and other collectivists; and for individual autonomy against dictators, bullies and even the tempers of momentary majorities.
Libertarianism and traditional Conservatism
Some may find these statements consistent with what they think of conservatism, especially a constitutional conservatism. No less a conservative icon than Ronald Reagan suggested as much. In a 1975 interview with Reason magazine, he said that “if you analyze it correctly, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.” Certainly, conservatives and libertarians often agree on support for free markets, fiscal responsibility and reliance on constitutional principles.
Libertarianism and conservatism share common intellectual origins. Beginning in the 17th and 18th centuries and maturing in the 19th century, a political philosophy that later came to be known as liberalism emerged from thinkers like John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, J. S. Mill and many others. Intellectual historian George H. Smith summarized the philosophy: “Laissez-faire in all spheres, personal, social, and economic, was the fundamental presumption of liberalism – the default setting, so to speak – and all deviations from this norm stood in need of justification” (The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism, p. 16). Laissez-faire was not just a principle of non-interference by government in economic affairs, but in all spheres of life.
That philosophy of political rights, rule of law and limited government undergirded the U. S. Constitution and largely governed political debate in the United States in the 19th century. In the United States, laissez-faire thinking was displaced by Progressivism first under Woodrow Wilson and then under FDR.
In between the two presidents, there was a laissez-faire interregnum under presidents Harding and Coolidge. It was, as Harding campaigned on, a return to normalcy. Laissez-faire largely became the governing principle again. Progressivism fell into such disrepute that Progressives sought another label. They hit on the brilliant strategy of appropriating the name of their enemy – “liberal.” Thus Progressives became liberals, and their opponents lost their identity.
I can find no widespread self-identification as a “conservative” until after WWII. It is an irony of history that what were once known as liberals are now called conservatives. In his Reason interview, Reagan commented on the “misnomer” of liberalism and conservatism. “If we were back in the days of the Revolution, so-called conservatives would be the Liberals and the liberals would be the Tories.”
To reference 19th century liberalism today, one uses the phrase “classical liberalism.” Classical liberalism is the intellectual progenitor of modern libertarianism. Libertarians view conservatives as not always being consistent in their adherence to individual liberty. The two areas where the greatest differences emerge are in social issues and in foreign policy.
Libertarianism and Social Conservatism
There is no necessary conflict between libertarianism and religion. Two of the great 19th century classical liberals, Alexis de Tocqueville and Lord Acton, were committed Catholics. Today there is an Acton Society devoted to demonstrating the compatibility between free markets and Christian teaching. For a number of years, I served on its board.
Libertarians come into conflict with the religious and social conservatives when the latter wants to use government to enforce a particular vision of personal morality. Libertarians oppose government action in all areas unless it is designed to combat force or fraud by one citizen against another, or to combat an external threat (more on that shortly).
On specific social issues, libertarians divide as does the American public at large. On the contentious issue of abortion, libertarians divide about 2/1 as pro-choice. However, the most famous libertarian politician, former congressman and presidential candidate, Ron Paul, is a lifelong advocate for the pro-life side of the debate. Like the American public at large, libertarians are conflicted about issues of when life begins. And, as we have seen once again, the issue of when life ends is also contentious.
A Libertarian Approach to National Security
I turn now to foreign policy, defense and national security. Chris Preble, vice president for defense and foreign policy at the Cato Institute, spoke to the NSF in November 2012. His co-authored (with Benjamin Friedman) piece on “Restraint” in foreign policy is republished on the NSF website. He begins the piece by presenting recent poll numbers from Pew Research, which found that 52 percent of respondents agreed that “the U.S. should mind its own business internationally and let other countries get along the best can on their own.”
That position deftly sums up how libertarians approach foreign policy. Libertarians are in sync with the rest of America on foreign policy. As Preble observes, it is America’s leaders who “aren’t on the same page as the American public.” Restraint is not a call for America to isolate itself from world affairs. Libertarians favor the free movement of goods and services, and people, across borders. Nor is foreign policy restraint a call for America to disarm. Libertarians favor a military strong enough to defend America from those who threaten it. They do not believe it is America’s responsibility to defend countries which, by global standards, are wealthy and able to defend themselves. These would include the European Union, Japan, South Korea, etc.
America has embarked on any number of wars to spread democracy and engage in nation-building. We have actually done this quite often beginning with the Spanish-American War. In After War: The Political Economy of Exporting Democracy (Stanford University Press, 2008), economist Christopher Coyne chronicles the record, which is mixed at best. We have either been very successful or very unsuccessful. The problem is that, in reconstructing countries, “continued force will be required when voluntary acceptance is absent. Given that the projected end of reconstruction is a self-sustaining liberal democracy, this is not a desirable state of affairs” (24). Democracy is not readily exported, and reconstructing societies (which is what nation building amounts to) is no easy task.
The libertarian policy of restraint flows both from principles and also from an examination of history. The same can be said of the American public’s re-affirmation of restraint in foreign affairs. The public has always been suspicious of interventionist foreign policy. The experience of nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq confirmed the public’s suspicions. And that experience has made a foreign policy of restraint mainstream once again.
Libertarians have been active on other fronts of interest to the NSF. My colleagues at Cato have been highly critical of the NSA surveillance program. They have argued that it is unconstitutional, an invasion of privacy and ineffective. Cato puts considerable resources into defending civil liberties. They author amicus briefs on key cases. The libertarian Institute for Justice is dedicated to defending economic liberties, political free speech and school choice in courts of law and public opinion.
Libertarianism: A Coherent Political Philosophy
To sum up, libertarianism is a coherent political philosophy of liberty in all areas of social and economic life. Libertarianism shares intellectual origins with the political philosophy of our founding fathers and the documents they crafted. I have dealt with only a few major issues. For those interested in learning more, I recommend the books I have quoted from. And, of course, the Cato Institute website (www.cato.org) is a treasure trove of libertarian thought.
Reno resident and NSF member, Jerry O’Driscoll is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute. He can be reached at [email protected].