[First published March 31, 2005] In my blog, “Freedomist vs. Libertarian — A Debate challenge” (link here) I argued that most libertarians have joined with the left in opposing American intervention abroad, military action, and President Bush’s “Forward Strategy of Freedom.” On this, these libertarians, who dominate the libertarian Party, are ahistorical, illogical, and morally questionable. So, while a libertarian (with qualification) on domestic policy, I am a hard-line interventionist to prevent massive democide and ensure American national security. I fully support Bush’s foreign policy, grounded as it is on democratic peace research.
Then, what should I call myself? I settled on freedomist, or one who is in favor of the maximum freedom at home (I am not an anarchist and believe that government has a distinct role in society—how I determine how much government is too much or too little is the subject of Monday’s blog), and the fostering of freedom abroad.
Now, I find that there is a group of libertarians who believe similarly (also with qualification about domestic freedom), and are organized to support, communicate, and foster this position. They call themselves neolibertarians (newlibertarians), and have a Q and O Blog (Free Markets, Free People — link here). They have just started a journal, The New Libertarian, to which one can subscribe on their blog (go here). I intend to join them and help as much as I can.
I should mention that I don’t favor their label. “Neolibertarian” smacks of “neoconservative,” which is a somewhat derogatory label that the liberal media originally gave those liberals, who disgusted with the anti-anticommunism of the left, began to support the hard line, conservative foreign policy. Now, the label seems to be applied to anyone close to Bush in foreign policy. Likewise, neolibertarian smacks of a label the liberal media would also apply to libertarians who have defected from the Libertarian Party to support the Bush foreign policy.
I much prefer freedomism, since it well describes one’s position domestically and in foreign policy and inherently stands in contrast to the liberal and leftist’s socialism. But I’m not going to argue it. The name “neolibertarian” is now imbedded in the effort of the QandO people, and it has organization, thought, and momentum behind it.
Let everyone be free
Toward peace and life
Link of Note
”Neolibertarian” Posted by Jon Henke (12.17.04) By Jon Henke on the BandO Blog
I’ve been occasionally asked to give a brief description of Neolibertarianism. Something against which people can compare their own values, to determine whether they are, in fact, Neolibertarians. Very well….
Here’s the short version:
• Pragmatic domestic libertarian; Hawk on defense
• Hobbesian libertarian
• Big-Tent libertarian
Any of those will do, in a pinch. To expand just a bit, though…
The libertarian ideal of a truly limited government is an utopian dream. In the real world, where powerful interests–individual and collective–compete for the reigns of power, there will be violations of the ideals libertarians hold. After all–as a result of their disavowal of power–libertarians are uniquely unqualified to defend their ideals against political opposition. . . . Indeed, all the “standing athwart history, yelling ‘stop!'” we can muster will not be enough to assuage the natural human desire to “vote themselves largess out of the public treasury”, or otherwise seek their own interests.
So, doctrinaire Libertarians are fighting an uphill battle against human nature. And they do so, precisely because they refuse to accept human nature as a part of their political calculation. . . .