Information AboutNeolibertarianism |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT NEOLIBERTARIANISM | |
| libertarianism by genre | |
| political theories | |
|
Neolibertarianism is a political philosophy combining elements of Libertarian and Conservative thought that embraces Incrementalism and Pragmatism domestically, and a generally interventionist foreign policy based on self-interest, national defense and the expansion of Freedom . Neolibertarianism holds that the best form of national government is one that promotes liberty ( conservatives" or "libertarians who support the War On Terror ." Some libertarian celebrities that fit into this neolibertarian category include talk radio personality Larry Elder and comedian Dennis Miller . EVOLUTION OF THE TERM The term neolibertarian is undergoing a shift in meaning post- 9-11 and post- Iraq War . Originally it indicated a libertarian who embraced the alliance with the New Left , whereas now it is often used to describe a libertarian who favors an interventionist foreign policy, as opposed to an Isolationist course of action. In this sense the term is related to Neoconservative , and is synonymous with ''republitarian'' and the less flattering ''liberventionist''. Republitarianism The creation of the term republitarian is usually attributed to , who describes himself as a neolibertarian. Another similar term is ''liberventionist'', the term used by isolationalist libertarians to describe interventionist libertarians. Presently, republitarians are represented in the Republican party by the Republican Liberty Caucus , joining such codified groups within the GOP such as the Log Cabin Republicans and the College Republicans . NEOLIBERTARIAN SELF-DESCRIPTION The first neolibertarians to use the term did so in response to the Iraq War . Distancing themselves from the generally Anti-war response of the Libertarian Party (LP) and the mainstream libertarian movement, neolibertarians proudly set out their reasons for supporting a vigorous War On Terror and an effort to secure the freedom of Iraqis. Incrementalism in general is a common Hallmark of neolibertarians, who tend to avoid over-association with the LP itself. The most obvious neolibertarian instance of taking a practical course to serve a moral goal is the Iraq war, though this is a common approach to many political issues. Some neolibertarians see themselves as pragmatic and calculated compared to Idealistic , Ivory-tower Paleolibertarians . Others would cast themselves in the role of committed to Pragmatism only in service of idealism and would say their foreign principles are more idealistic than the paleolibertarian-favored isolationism. Since anti-war libertarians see themselves as the idealists and because neolibertarians embrace pragmatism in method if not in goal, the vision of neolibertarians as pragmatic tends to be over-emphasized. To describe neolibertarians, Dale Franks says this: {Link without Title} :When given a set of policy choices,
:In foreign policy, neolibertartianism would be characterized by,
Putting a different spin on it, the website "Neo-Libertarian" says that neo-libertarianism: {Link without Title} :...means making a political commitment to combat the initiation of force and fraud by the most effective and moral route possible; paleo-libertarians deal in words and thoughts, while neo-libertarians commit themselves to expanding freedom from the rhetorical world to the real world. It's the difference between saying something for freedom and doing something for freedom. :Moreover, it's a commitment to the Universality of freedom; just as calling oneself 'The Government' cannot legitimately add to one's Natural Rights , drawing an invisible line on a Map and calling it 'The Border' cannot legitimately subtract from one's natural rights. People in foreign lands have the same natural rights as people in the house next door; neo-libertarianism is about finding the most practical ways to stop infringements against the liberty of those around the globe, including the use of force if necessary, just as we would use local police and courts to stop infringements of liberty next door. :Put more succinctly: Individuals are the only morally significant unit of Political Economy . Individuals are imbued with infinite liberties circumscribed only by the rights of others to not be coerced or defrauded. The central right of humanity is the right to resist an aggressor, even if you aren't the victim. THE CURRENT DIVIDE Historical roots Historically, the neolibertarian/paleolibertarian debate was more a question of incrementalism vs. a no-compromise, strict adherence to a principled position in matters of government interference, and the paleolibertarians' rejection of the Vietnam Era alliance with the New Left in favor of an alliance with Paleoconservatives . As the definition of the terms and the debate has shifted, today the divide is far more between neolibertarians and much of the rest of the libertarian movement. The most crucial and watershed issue in this divide has been the Iraq War . Anarcho-capitalists , Paleolibertarian s, ultra- Minarchists , and "mainstream" Libertarian Party types generally came out very strongly against the Iraq war specifically and War in general, consistent with libertarians' historical support of either a Non-interventionist or Isolationist foreign policy (on both principled and practical grounds), while some Libertarian Party members, neolibertarians, and Libertarian Republicans generally were in favor of the war. The debate ignited has been one of the most bitter in the ~40 year history of the modern Libertarian Movement . The Civil War Paleolibertarians are more likely to adopt isolationist positions in issues and matters of war, while neolibertarians or those dubbed neolibertarian range anywhere from ambivalent to strongly for intervention. The largest debate is actually the American Civil War , where the paleolibertarians take the side of the Confederates against the Union, generally holding that the right of Secession in principle trumps other concerns. The 'neolibertarian' position favors the intervention, usually for the reason that freeing the slaves represents a moral justification for libertarians to support the war (there are complicated and often ambivalent arguments on both sides). The Iraq War and to a lesser extent the U.S. Invasion Of Afghanistan represent ongoing disputes between these factions. Common arguments and insults tend to characterize paleolibertarians as cowardly or racist and neolibertarians as murderous or fascistic. The philosophical foundation of this debate is relatively thin, having much to do with one's interpretation of events, but the clearest dispute between the sides is when a war is justified and whether pre-emptive war or war for the sake of other peoples and countries is morally justified. Paleolibertarians and incrementalism The original and longest-running point of contention in the Libertarian Party is incrementalism. The 1980 LP nominees for President and Vice-President, Ed Clark and David H. Koch , as well as Koch's brother Charles and campaign manager Ed Crane represented the faction closest to neolibertarian (though at the time this term was not used in relation to the Clark/Koch/Crane group). Crane was the founder and President of the Cato Institute , with financial support from the billionaire Koch family, and this faction within the LP is generally known in relation to the Cato Institute. Clark came off a 1978 run for California Governor where he pulled 5% of the vote, in a campaign also managed by Crane, and tried to craft his 1980 campaign platform as 'low-tax liberalism.' He was making a move for the young, affluent socially liberal voters. He achieved the highest vote to date for a Libertarian presidential candidate, both percentage-wise and in absolute numbers. The paleolibertarians, primarily the Radical Caucus, greatly disagreed with his strategy, which they saw as philosophically watered-down. The paleolibertarians disliked the political tactics, the DC connections and the rhetorical incrementalism of the Clark campaign. At the 1983 nominating convention they maneuvered to defeat the Cato faction's favored candidate. Attacking the Koch family as a Kochtopus and stressing the ideological purity of the LP's candidate, they succeeded in defeating the Cato candidate and nominating the Radical candidate (though they had to dismiss their first candidate, a radio talk-show host, after it was found he had made some militaristic comments that he would not retract). The Cato faction largely left the party and focused on think tank strategies to affect the Republicans. The LP since the 1983 convention has generally favored candidates that present unadulterated campaigns that try to include the entire platform in the campaign theme instead of narrower themes or incremental proposals. Conservatism and neolibertarianism Among American conservatives, neolibertarians differ with Paleoconservatives and Neoconservatives primarily over the so-called "War on Terror" and the necessity of various federal social programs such as Medicare, respectively. Neolibertarians, though not as strict in their definition of "separation of church and state" as many American liberals and libertarians, do not advocate as strongly as other conservatives for the use of religion in public policy disputes. CRITICISM A common critique of neolibertarians is that their core beliefs contain in themselves an inconsistency -- how can a government powerful and interventionist enough to fix problems abroad be trusted not to try to "solve" problems at home? Historically, there are no known examples of a State with "big" government abroad and limited government domestically. Critics often quote Randolph Bourne : "War is the health of the State." Neolibertarians typically respond to this criticism by saying they support military engagements that remove impediments to capitalism and only in the most extreme situations. This is an area where neolibertarians and neoconservatives slightly differ. Where neoconservatives strongly support the building of democratic governments in the wake of militarily defeated governments, neolibertarians are more concerned with letting capitalism operate after any military victory. If capitalism is allowed to operate, they argue, the former subjects of militarily defeated governments will naturally arrange governments (whatever the form) which are, if only out of political expediency, more friendly to their subjects' newfound economic freedoms and therefore much less likely to jeopardize the benefits which neolibertarians believe capitalism offers. SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL RESOURCES |
|
|