Against
the Left: A Rothbardian Libertarianism, Lew Rockwell
Rockwell offers six chapters, expanding on the damage to
liberty being done by the left. He opens
with The Assault on the Family; by “family, the assault is on the traditional
family – “the hallmark of civilization.”
In order to maintain a free
society, it is essential that the traditional family, i.e. the union of one man
and one woman in marriage, in most cases to raise a family, be preserved.
Consider how that one sentence runs completely contrary not
only to the objectives of the left, but also places a dent in the application
of the thinnest of thin libertarianism – where “liberty” is defined as “anything
peaceful.” Anything peaceful is
libertarianism for juveniles; if you want liberty, you have to consider
society, culture, secondary consequences and the like.
I recall the joy many left-libertarians expressed when the
state made gay marriage “legal.”
Rockwell is suggesting that there is nothing at all “libertarian” about such
events. “How can this be?” you might
ask. Rockwell answers the question:
Libertarianism is the theory of
what people’s rights should be. It rules
out the state; and, to the unfortunate extent the state exists, libertarians
hold that the state should, to the greatest extent possible, refrain from
violating people’s rights. Beyond this,
libertarianism mandates nothing to the state.
Libertarians don’t have to hold that the state must grant marriage licenses
to couples of the same sex.
Rockwell cites Rothbard, furthering this point:
Since, according to libertarian
theory, there should be no government property since it is all derived from
coercion, how does any principle whatever of government property use follow
from libertarian theory? The answer is,
it doesn’t. on the question of what to
do with government property, libertarians, apart from calling for
privatization, are set adrift, I short, with nothing but their common sense and
their attunement to the real world, of which libertarians have always been in notoriously
short supply.
I have written about
a million words trying to make the same point (especially that last part
about most libertarians lacking common sense and an attunement to the real
world), and here Rothbard makes the point in eighty words.
Following this are sections devoted to feminism,
anti-Semitism, so-called Civil Rights, racism, discrimination, and equality. The state uses all such distinctions to
further state power, yet many libertarians either praise such movements as “liberating,”
or defend the libertarian position by suggesting that we all have the liberty
to “be a jerk.” Rockwell calls such
views “extremely short-sighted and most unfortunate.”
If we want to be free, therefore,
we must shun the State, its methods, and its language.
Rockwell devotes a chapter to Immigration. He calls out those who believe that the only
correct libertarian position on immigration must be open borders. He offers the concept of freedom of speech to
help make the point: there is no freedom of speech to be derived from the
non-aggression principle; one can manage or control speech on his property. In other words, libertarianism grounds this issue
of speech in property rights.
The same holds for freedom of movement. There is no such concept – all movement is
managed by the property owner. If all
property was privately owned, the answer to this question of immigration (we wouldn’t
even call it such) would be self-evident: there would be no such thing as free
movement. Every movement would be
controlled or managed by the property owner.
This is the exact opposite of open borders.
But we do not live in a world of 100% private property – we have
significant state property, we have significant regulation by the state on
private property, and – of course – we have state borders. Hence, every decision about
immigration, movement, and access is a state decision – managed and controlled
by the state. There is no libertarian
answer in a world of states. Period.
But what of the government-controlled land: surely
immigrants – or anyone – would be free under libertarian theory to move onto government-controlled
land. But this also represents an
invalid assumption: while government might control the land, we must
ask: who is the owner?
And the answer here is obviously simple: the taxpayers own
it, as it is taxpayer funds that have been used to acquire, manage, secure,
regulate, and improve such land. In other
words, there is no such thing as open, virgin, un-owned territory – at least
not in the regions where virtually everyone would choose to live.
Like all state action, this topic is one that the state will
always use to the advantage of the state – to change demographics and voting, to
allow labor movement in support of state-favored industry, etc.
Conclusion
Citing Rothbard on what drives the left:
…the hallmark and the fanatical
drive of the left for these past centuries has been in devoting tireless energy
to bringing about, as rapidly as they can, their own egalitarian, collectivist
version of a Kingdom of God on Earth.
Utopians of the world, unite! Paul VanderKlay has offered: when you try to
bring heaven down to earth, you bring hell up with it. The leftists might be wishing for heaven, but
we are seeing the hell.
This should be concerning, especially for libertarians. As Rockwell notes, however (and as Rothbard
made clear), when it comes to having common sense and an attunement to the real
world, libertarians have always held a notoriously short supply. I will cover more of Rockwell’s views along
these lines in a subsequent post.
I really like Lew Rockwell. Listened to several interviews with him, and he is a very kind, caring person too. So anything you read of his words don't imagine someone who is angry or loud. He has a very calm, peaceful demeanor.
ReplyDeleteHe is a gentleman, in the best and in every sense of the word.
DeleteBeauty post, as usual on point. Well written stuff
ReplyDelete