I’m really, really sick of deeply-stupid internet commenters using the word “libertarian” to mean “Republican”, “Nazi”, “plutocrat”, “Monsanto” or other bogeyman. Now, I obviously have no problem with anyone using rhetoric to attack one’s opponents, and the “your life belongs to almighty ‘Society’ and ‘rightful authorities’ have the right to use violence to compel your obedience” crowd are obviously going to be opposed to any philosophy which embraces self-ownership and rejects collectivized violence. Furthermore, libertarians only have themselves to blame for this; after all, the entire movement is based in the recognition that nobody can be trusted with power, and yet libertarians allowed racists, dissident Republicans and other malign filth to apply the term to themselves after Obama’s election ten years ago, when they should’ve shut that shit down immediately to avoid guilt by association from collectivist nitwits. Moreover, as I wrote in “To the Ground” over three years ago,
…I only call myself a libertarian because it’s the only popular term which has some general resemblance to the way I see the world. Technically, what I am is a minarchist, someone who is to an anarchist what an agnostic is to an atheist; I’m also more or less an agorist. But use either of those terms to most people, even to many libertarians, and you’ll be greeted with blank stares…For most uses, “libertarian” is good enough, though it means that I have to endure opprobrium from semi-literates who…seem to believe that “libertarian” means “caricature of a fundie plutocrat” or even “whatever I don’t like”…
Well, I’m exercising a woman’s prerogative and changing my mind. Though I’m still friendly with many people who use the term “libertarian”, the same holds true for the term “feminist”…and for me, both terms are polluted beyond reclamation by the behavior of bad actors and the one-dimensional thinking of authoritarians. While I’m still going to describe myself as a minarchist or anarchist, when I want a more general term I’m going back to the traditional one for the philosophy opposed to authoritarianism: “liberal”. At least until the American Civil War, the term “liberal” meant more or less what is now properly meant by “libertarian”: the belief that each individual owns himself and no other, that fundamental liberties are inalienable, that differences between individuals should be tolerated and even embraced, and that large collectives (especially governments) are to be distrusted and controlled. It’s the sense in which George Washington was using the word when he wrote, “As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government.” At some point in the late 19th century, people largely abandoned those old liberal ideals, and though there were people calling themselves liberals for most of the 20th century, they were actually progressives still clinging to a few liberal points (but willing to compromise on even those in order to establish their social engineering schemes and/or “beat” their so-called “conservative” opponents). Then, less than a generation ago, the term “liberal” was unceremoniously dumped as the progressives finally embraced being just a different flavor of authoritarian, one committed to licking the boots of “experts” while their opponents preferred to lick those of preachers (and both loudly proclaim their love for cops and caging people by the millions). Well, if they’re not going to use a proud old term (whose memory they insulted by misusing it for a century anyway), I’m going to. And if people are confused by that, good; maybe they’ll ask what I mean instead of ignorantly imposing their weird wanking fantasies onto me like the “sex trafficking” fetishists do.
Originally, the bulk of the Libertarian Party was “classical liberal” a la John Stuart Mill, specifically adherence to the harm principle which he first articulated in On Liberty. It’s since gravitated towards being dominated by not one but several fringe groups, with no practical ideas for bringing about their goals. A pity.
I have found that using the term “Heinlein Libertarian” helps make my views somewhat clearer to people… though it does assume a certain level of education on the part of the listener.
Maggie:
Some Americans are conservative Liberals like President Bush and some of us are moderate Liberals like President Obama and some of us are progressive Liberals like Senator Sanders, but most of us agree on the basic truths of Liberalism, the ones which a great Liberal once called “self-evident”.
It takes rare circumstances for a large minority, mostly poorly-educated, to be bamboozled by a brazen manipulator like Donald Trump into voting for a genuinely anti-Liberal, authoritarian platform.
You might be interested in Prof. Dan Klein’s project to reclaim the good ‘ol term “liberal” to mean what libertarian more or less means nowadays.
https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/liberty-justice/liberalism-unrelinquished-an-interview-with-dan-klein/
I like the idea of trying to reclaim “liberal” — it has a long, good history. You’ll probably confuse people into thinking you’re a “librul,” (which is essentially the right-wing term for progressive) unless you call it “classical liberal,” and you’ll probably have to fight off “neoliberal”…
You may want to think about that long and hard, considering The Times-Picayune, The Gambit, The Advocate, etc. Plus, I wouldn’t throw the good out with the bad. I still consider myself a Classical Liberal Libertarian, akin to the LP, the Cato Institute, and Penn & Teller, with bits of Judge Napolitano, Lew Rockwell (before he started paying lip service to Pat “douche bag” Buchanan and his wretched ilk), post-JBS Will Grigg, Scott Horton, and Sheldon Richman. Besides, you should beware of the likes of Lamar White, Jr., etc.
Labels tend to obscure more than they reveal. A ‘libertarian’ to a conservative is an irresponsible, flighty, drug user. A ‘libertarian’ to a liberal is a heartless Rand clone that only thinks about money.
If we reclaim the term ‘liberal’, we will confuse the conservatives who have spent a lifetime bashing the term, though we might gain some credibility with the current ‘liberals’ who would love to have some fellow travellers…even if in name only.
Maybe it’s best to not use labels. Just state what we believe in any given situation and let the other party try to pigeon-hole you. I just watched a video of Kurt Russell on The View inwhich he took a very ‘libertarian’ position on gun control without once putting himself into that definitional box. The ladies showed some respect, maybe because they didn’t have a bogey-man label to smear him with.
I prefer to call myself a “deep pragmatist” — a position best summed up as To hell with ideologies, go with what works
Getting into a fight about the current vs. historical meaning of words strikes me as a complete waste of time, but whatever floats your boat.
[…] comes to mind this morning, as on my second cup I read this piece called Reclaiming “Liberal”: … though there were people calling themselves liberals for most of the 20th century, they […]
With regard to minarchism vs anarchism, the best argument I know of against minarchism and in favor of anarchism is Roy Childs’ Open Letter to Ayn Rand: https://www.lewrockwell.com/1970/01/roy-a-childs-jr/objectivism-and-the-state-an-open-letter-to-ayn-rand/
He was young and idealistic then. He repudiated the letter later in life.
Well, as I understand it, he regretted the tone (which mocked Rand’s style), not the argument.