Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 10:50, 8 July 2005

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Part of the Politics series
Elections
Basic types By-election Corporate Direct / Indirect Fixed-term General Local Mid-term Plurality Primary Partisan Nonpartisan Proportional Recall Snap Sortition Two-round system
Terminology Anonymous elector Apportionment Audits Competition Boundary delimitation Crossover voting Electoral college Election law Election silence Gerrymandering Initiative Psephology Secret ballot Suffrage Right to stand for election
Subseries Administration Political party Voting Electoral systems
Lists Elections by country Close elections Most recent Next general elections National and local elections in 2024
Related Election security Electoral fraud Referendum (by country) Electoral reform Election science Paper candidate
Politics portal
v t e

This article deals with the individualist and propertarian meaning of "libertarian" (sometimes called right libertarianism). The term "libertarian" is also claimed by libertarian socialism (also called left libertarianism). The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a conception of free will. See also civil libertarian.

Libertarianism is a non-political political philosophy favoring personal and economic liberty or freedoms to the extent that they do not infringe on the same freedoms of others. Pure libertarianism favors the belief that no one may initiate coercion, which they define as the initiation of physical force, the potential initiation (threat) of such, or the use of fraud to interfere with individuals' use of their person or property. This ban on initiation of force, called the non-aggression principle, is central to the philosophy of many libertarians and is related to the principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership.

Libertarians generally believe that governments should be held to the same moral standards as individuals. Thus, they may oppose governmental initiation of force, even if it is supported by a democratic majority. Libertarians believe that if individuals are not initiating coercion against others, then government should leave them in peace. As a result, they may oppose criminalization of victimless acts. This opposition to coercion may extend into the economic realm; while some oppose all taxation, most support only enough taxation as they believe necessary to protect individual liberty. They frequently believe in reducing the size and scope of control of government. They also oppose government interference in business activities (other than to forbid businesses from engaging in coercion). To the extent that libertarians advocate any government at all, its functions tend to be limited to protecting civil liberties and economic liberties (by protecting private property and a free market) through a police force, a military (with no conscription), and courts. Anarcho-capitalist libertarians, on the other hand, maintain that these institutions should be privately owned, operated, and funded.

Criticism of libertarianism from the left tends to focus on its economic aspects, claiming that capitalism of a radical laissez-faire (free market) character is not in the best interests of society. Both left- and right-wing critics claim that libertarian appeals for both extreme degrees of economic and social freedoms are untenable. Libertarianism's proponents, however, claim it to be a sound rethinking of classical ideologies and a rejection of harmful statist policies, resulting in its increased popularity.

Terminology

The term "libertarianism" in the above sense has been in widespread use only since the 1950s. Originally, in the 18th century, it referred to the philosophical doctrine of free will, as opposed to that of determinism. In that meaning libertarianism is opposed to necessitarianism (see Libertarian free will). Later, in the 19th century, the word was applied to political usage.

The term's political meaning is a result of some French anarchists adopting libertaire as an alternative term for their ideas after the French government banned anarchism. It was first used in print in 1857 by French anarchist Joseph Dejacque in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon from New Orleans. Dejacque also published a periodical in New York called "Le Libertaire" (The Libertarian) from 1858 to 1861. The English term "libertarian" was used in the 19th century and early 20th century in America to refer to one who espoused individualist anarchism—a type of anarchism that opposed the European forms of collectivist anarchism at the time. But, for the most part, English-speaking anarchists choose to call themselves anarchists, individualist anarchists, anarchist-communists, or anarchist-syndicalists. Often, when distinguishing between the different uses of the term, the word libertarian is qualified as in "left-libertarian" or "right-libertarian" to distinguish between collectivist and individualist forms, respectively.

A typographical convention

When the "L" in Libertarian is capitalized, the word often refers specifically to a member of a Libertarian Party, as opposed to someone who favors the philosophy of libertarianism. This distinction between Big-L Libertarianism and small-l libertarianism is important because, just as not all believers in labor rights are members of a Labour Party, and not all believers in republics are Republicans, many libertarians do not align themselves with a Libertarian Party, and may even be members of other parties. Anyone who believes in the libertarian principle is a libertarian (lowercase), but a Libertarian (capitalized) is one who aligns oneself with a Libertarian Party and/or its platform. For example, Nobel Prize-winning libertarian economist Milton Friedman, author of the influential book Free to Choose, says he is a member of the United States Republican Party for the sake of "expediency."

Libertarianism in the political spectrum

Most libertarians do not consider their political philosophy to be right-wing, left-wing, nor centrist. In the U.S. some conservatives regard themselves as both conservative and libertarian, but other libertarians argue that the two conflict and that libertarianism is really a form of liberalism. One example of this position is Friedrich Hayek's Why I am Not a Conservative.

Instead of a "left-right" spectrum, some libertarians use a two-dimensional space with "personal freedom" on one axis and "economic freedom" on the other called the Nolan chart, which is named after David Nolan, who designed the chart and also founded the United States Libertarian Party. A similar chart and political quiz to place individuals on it is promoted by the Advocates for Self Government. A first approximation of libertarian politics (derived from these charts) is that they agree with liberals on social issues and with conservatives on economic issues.

Classical liberalism

Main article: Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism

Libertarianism originated in the tradition of classical liberalism, and often the terms are used interchangeably. Advocacy of free markets, free trade, limited government, and a focus on personal liberty unite the two philosophies.

The founders of the U.S. were called "liberals" at the time, as they opposed the European restrictions on individual liberty. Thomas Jefferson is credited as saying that "the government that governs best, governs least," which shares a common flavor with libertarianism. Libertarians tend to agree with the views of the liberal thinker John Stuart Mill on liberty but disagree with his socialist politics. The original framers of the U.S. Consitution were noteably aware of what they perceived as a danger of majority rule in oppressing freedom of the individual. For example, in Federalist Paper No. 10 and elsewhere, James Madison advocates a republic as opposed to a democracy because he feared that the majority would inevitably violate individual rights if it had the power to do so.

Some, such as David Boaz, executive vice president of the influential libertarian U.S think tank the Cato Institute, argue that the term classical liberalism should be reserved for early liberal thinkers for the sake of clarity and accuracy, because of differences between many libertarian and classical liberal thinkers.

Libertarian politics and philosophy

Libertarians tend to call themselves "individualists" and claim to oppose anything that they see as paternalistic or collectivist. Many libertarians hold that both personal liberties (such as privacy and freedom of speech) and economic liberties (such as the right to own property and the freedom to trade) are justifiable on the same philosophical or ethical foundations. Some libertarians have elaborate philosophies to support their positions while others express an instinctive politics.

Rights and the law

Main articles: libertarian views of rights and Libertarian theories of law

According to Walter Block, a U.S. Austrian School economist, the "non-aggression axiom is the lynchpin" of libertarianism. Individuals may not violate the rights of others by initiating the use of force, though force is not considered immoral when it is used in response to an initiation of force, threat, or fraud (as in self-defense).

Libertarians argue that only individuals have rights. Thus, the government has no original rights but only those duties with which it has been lawfully entrusted by individual citizens. Furthermore, libertarians do not consider majority rule to be sufficient justification for government coercion. To protect individual rights, libertarians tend to favor a system of law based on a constitution (which may be supplemented by a bill of rights) that limits the range of government actions against individuals and protects them from the "tyranny of the majority." Many libertarians favor common law, which they see as less arbitrary, more consistent, and more adaptable over time. Friedrich Hayek had some of the most developed ideas on what libertarian law would be like, while Richard Epstein, Robert Nozick, and Randy Barnett are three of the most influential modern thinkers in this area.

Most rights-focused libertarians would argue that the only "rights" are variants of "the right to be left alone" (also called negative rights). Currently, however, many "rights" that must be provided by the actions of others ("positive rights") are now the status quo especially in politically thorny areas like racial discrimination and health care. Libertarians believe that providing for others should be a matter of voluntary decision and that no-one has the right to compel anyone else to do so.

A popular perception of libertarians is that they would allow pollution of the environment. However, libertarians oppose environmental damage as an act of initiatory coercion and would impose civil or criminal penalties against it. For example, Russell Means, a Native American activist who competed for the 1988 presidential nomination for the Libertarian Party says: "A libertarian society would not allow anyone to injure others by pollution because it insists on individual responsibility." The U.S. Libertarian Party opposes pollution as "a violation of individual rights" in its platform.

Private property

Libertarians often justify property rights on the basis of self-ownership or the right to life. They reason that claims by others on one's labor and its products are tantamount to slavery. They may also argue that if individuals feel reasonably secure that their produce will not be confiscated (or treated as collective property as in socialism), then they are more likely to be productive and therefore contributive to the material wealth of themselves and society. Libertarians believe that capitalism is the only system that respects self-ownership and external property.

Libertarian economic views

Main Article: Libertarian economic views

Libertarians believe that the means of production should be privately owned and that investments, production, distribution, income, and prices should be determined through the operation of a free market rather than by centralized state control. Hence, in opposition to statism and socialism, they support capitalism. According to libertarians, government interventions such as taxation and regulation are at best necessary evils (as they involve coercion and disrupt markets). Libertarians contend that independent, subjective valuations by individuals interacting in a free market are the only sensible means of making economic decisions and that any attempt by a centralized authority to override these decisions by decree will fail or have overall negative consequences (see Austrian School). Libertarians favor separation of government and economy; therefore, they also oppose all collusion between government and corporations (see crony capitalism) that would override the free market.

Libertarians oppose initiatives that would seek to forcibly "redistribute" resources in an egalitarian manner. One reason is the belief of many libertarians that welfare programs serve as a perverse incentive to keep individuals from working to earn a living and that they tend to perpetuate unemployment and poverty. The maximization of economic freedom, they assert, would reduce poverty by making the economy more efficient, obviating the perceived need for tax-funded programs. Moreover, they believe that any temporary equality of outcome gained by redistribution would quickly collapse without continuous coercion, reasoning that people's differing economic decisions would allow those that were more productive or served others more effectively to quickly gain disproportionate wealth again. They see economic inequality as an outcome of people's freedom to choose their own actions, which may or may not be profitable.

Libertarians oppose forcing individuals to subsidize unprofitable businesses through taxation (see corporate welfare). Likewise, they oppose trade barriers to maintain businesses who would otherwise fail in the face of international competition, as well as oppose tax-funded programs such as The National Endowment for the Arts to support unprofitable artists. Libertarians believe government spending and government programs should be eliminated unless they are directly involved in protecting liberty and that private institutions should replace them. When dismantling government services is impossible, many libertarians (like Milton Friedman) prefer market reforms like school vouchers to the status quo while others (like Lew Rockwell) see such programs as a threat to private industry and as a covert means of expanding government.

Libertarian philosophy in the academy

Philosophical libertarianism first gained popular acceptance in the academy (as opposed to popular society) in 1974 with the publishing of Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Left-liberal philosopher Thomas Nagel famously argued that Nozick's libertarianism was 'without foundations' because Nozick's libertarianism proceeded from the assumption that individuals owned themselves without any further explanation.

The work of Jan Narveson aimed to meet this challenge. Based on the work of David Gauthier, Narveson developed contractarian libertarianism, outlined in his 1988 work The Libertarian Idea. In this work, Narveson argued with Hobbes that individuals would lay down their ability to kill and steal from each other in order to leave the state of nature, but he broke with Hobbes in that he argued that only a minimal state, not an absolute state, was necessary to enforce this agreement.

Other advocates of contractarian libertarianism include Nobel Laureate, and founder of the public choice school of economics, James M. Buchanan and Hungarian-French philosopher Anthony de Jasay.

The libertarian movement

Libertarians and their allies are not a homogenous group, but have collaborated to form think tanks, political parties, and other projects. For example, Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard co-founded the John Randolph Club, the Center for Libertarian Studies, and the Cato Institute to support an independent libertarian movement, and joined David Nolan in founding the United States Libertarian Party in 1971. (Rothbard ceased activity with the Libertarian Party in 1985 and some of his followers like Lew Rockwell are hostile to the group.) In the U.S. today, some libertarians support the Libertarian Party, some support no party, and some attempt to work within more powerful parties despite their differences. The Republican Liberty Caucus (a wing of the Republican Party) promotes libertarian views. A similar organization, the Democratic Freedom Caucus, exists within the Democratic Party, but is less organized. Republican Congressman Ron Paul is also a member of the Libertarian Party and was once its presidential candidate.

Costa Rica's Movimiento Libertario (Libertarian Movement) is a prominent non-U.S. libertarian party that occupies roughly 10% of Costa Rica's national legislature. The Movimiento Libertario is considered the first Libertarian organization in history to achieve substantial electoral success at the national level.

In 2001, the Free State Project was founded by Jason Sorens, a political scientist and libertarian activist who argued that 20,000 libertarians should migrate to a single U.S. state in order to concentrate their activism. In August of 2003, the membership of the Free State Project chose New Hampshire. However, as of 2005, there are concerns over the low rate of growth in signed Free State Project participants. In addition, discontented Free State Project participants, in protest of the choice of New Hampshire, started rival projects, including the Free West Alliance, to concentrate activism in a different state or region. There is also a European Free State Project.

Disputes among libertarians

Not all Libertarians agree on every topic. Libertarians share a common tradition of thought emerging from classical British liberalism. This tradition does not have a single representative: no thinker is considered a common authority whose opinions are universally accepted. Instead, libertarians make reference to a variety of past opinions when advancing contemporary arguments. Jacob Levy, writing for the weblog The Volokh Conspiracy, writes that "there hasn't been any one libertarian organization that has the semi-authoritative position that National Review had for a couple of generations of conservatism — or that, say, the Leonard Peikoff group has among orthodox Objectivists."

One illustration of this disagreement is the recent use of the term Neolibertarian to denote libertarians (both small and big 'L') who advocate domestic incrementalism and a strong, interventionist U.S. foreign policy.

Anarcho-capitalists and minarchists

Main articles: Minarchism and Anarcho-capitalism

There is a debate among libertarians about how much government is necessary. Libertarians debate if a government monopoly of protection can be legitimate. Minarchists believe that the government should be limited exclusively (or almost exclusively) to protecting rights. For them, the legitimate functions of government might include the maintenance of the courts, the police, the military, and perhaps a few other functions (e.g., roads or schools), while imposing no tax.

Anarcho-capitalists wish to keep the government out of matters of justice and protection, preferring to delegate these issues to private groups. Anarcho-capitalists argue that the minarchist belief that a state monopoly on coercion can be contained within any reasonable limits is unrealistic.

With the exception of a few groups, including some anarcho-capitalists and those influenced by an orthodox interpretation of Objectivist philosophy, the minarchist/anarcho-capitalist division is generally friendly. Since both minarchists and anarcho-capitalists believe that existing governments are far too intrusive, the two factions desire change in the same direction, at least in the short term. Some libertarian philosophers such as Tibor Machan argue that, properly understood, minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are not in contradiction.

Rights and consequentialism

While some libertarians do not emphasize the justifications of their beliefs, those that do can be broadly classified into two major categories: those who emphasize legal rights and contracts as the foundation of their philosophy, and those who believe that rights are justified by practical reasons such as economic efficiency. For those in the former group, such as Robert Nozick and Murray Rothbard, protecting rights is an end in itself. The beliefs of rights-focused libertarians are often derived, directly or indirectly, from the writings of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. Though Ayn Rand rejected the label "libertarian", she advocated a similar but distinct form of rights-based natural law that influences modern libertarian thought.

Representatives of utilitarianism, such as Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, and F.A. Hayek, instead emphasize arguments that libertarianism is the most effective means of promoting social good. This is a more pragmatic, consequentialist line of reasoning. Consequentialist libertarians favor protection of rights not because they consider rights to be sacred, but because, in their view, protecting rights produces a better society with increased wealth, safety, happiness, and fairness.

Some libertarians like Frédéric Bastiat see a natural harmony between the natural rights and utilitarian points of view, and do not attempt to establish one view as truer than the other.

The role of Objectivism

Main article: Libertarianism and Objectivism

Libertarianism and Objectivism have a complex relationship. Though they share many of the same political goals, some Objectivists see libertarians as plagiarists. These Objectivists claims that libertarians use Objectivist ideas "with the teeth pulled out of them". Some libertarians see Objectivists as dogmatic, unrealistic, and uncompromising. According to Reason editor Nick Gillespie in the magazine's March 2005 issue focusing on Objectivism's influence, Ayn Rand is "one of the most important figures in the libertarian movement... Rand remains one of the best-selling and most widely influential figures in American thought and culture" in general and in libertarianism in particular. Still, he confesses that he is embarrassed by his magazine's association with her ideas. In the same issue, Cathy Young says that "Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand's ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild." Though they reject what they see as Randian dogmas, libertarians like Young still believe that "Rand's message of reason and liberty... could be a rallying point" for libertarianism.

Other controversies among libertarians

These controversies are addressed in separate articles:

• Libertarian perspectives on political alliances: Most libertarians ally politically with modern liberals over noneconomic issues. Others ally with isolationist, religious paleoconservatives, despite sharp disagreement on economic issues.
• Libertarian perspectives on intellectual property: Some libertarians believe that property rights in ideas (and other intangibles) should be identical to property rights in physical goods, as they see both justified by natural rights. Others justify intellectual property for utilitarian reasons. They argue that intellectual property rights are required to maximize innovation. Still others believe that "intellectual property" is a euphemism for intellectual protectionism and should be abolished altogether.
• Libertarian perspectives on immigration: Libertarians of the Natural Law variety generally support freedom of movement, but some argue that open borders amount to legalized trespassing. Consequentialist libertarians may decide the issue in terms of what is best for the economy.
• Libertarian perspectives on abortion: The abortion debate among libertarians centers around whether the fetus is a person (and thus has its own rights) or a part of the mother's body (in which case it is subject to her wishes). A secondary controversy is the role of the state in regulating abortion, if it is in fact immoral.
• Libertarian perspectives on the death penalty: Some libertarians support the death penalty on self-defense or retributive justice grounds. Others see it as an excessive abuse of state power.
• Libertarian perspectives on foreign intervention: Most libertarians are suspicious of government intervention in the affairs of other countries, especially violent intervention. Others (such as those influenced by Objectivism) argue that intervention is not unethical when a foreign government is abusing the rights of its citizens but whether a nation should intervene depends on its own self-interest.
• Libertarian perspectives on gay rights: Most libertarians feel that adults have a right to choose their own lifestyle or sexual preference, provided that such expression does not trample on the same freedom of other people to choose their own sexual preference or religious freedom. Yet, there has been some debate among libertarians as to how to respond to the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in armed forces.
• Libertarian perspectives on inheritance: Libertarians may disagree over what to do in absence of a will or contract in the event of death, and over posthumous property rights.
• Libertarian perspectives on natural resources: Some libertarians (such as free market environmentalists) want to avoid mismanagement of public resources through private ownership of all natural resources, while others (such as geolibertarians) believe that such resources (especially land) cannot be considered property.

Criticism of libertarianism

See main article: Criticism of libertarianism

Conservatives often argue that the state is needed to maintain social order and morality. They may argue that excessive personal freedoms encourage dangerous and irresponsible behavior. Some of the most commonly debated issues here are sexual norms, the drug war, and public education. Some, such as the conservative Jonah Goldberg of National Review, consider libertarianism "a form of arrogant nihilism" that is both overly tolerant of nontraditional lifestyles (like heroin addiction) and intolerant towards other political views. In the same article, he writes: "You don't turn children into responsible adults by giving them absolute freedom. You foster good character by limiting freedom, and by channeling energies into the most productive avenues. That's what all good schools, good families, and good societies do... pluralism ... a suicide pact."

Some liberals, such as John Rawls and Ernest Partridge, argue that implied social contracts and democracy justify government actions that harm some individuals so long as they are beneficial overall. They may further argue that rights and markets can only function among "a well-knit community of citizens" that rests on social obligations that libertarians reject. These critics argue that without this foundation, the libertarian form of government will either fail or be expanded beyond recognition.

The argument that property itself is theft, promoted by many anarchists, would undermine almost all libertarian capitalist theory if successfully argued. Some also argue that current property owners obtained their property unfairly, and therefore lack rightful or complete claim. In the Americas, they argue, land was stolen from its Native American owners, but applies in any context where critics believe the power of the rich enables them to gain unearned profits at the expense of their workers.

Other criticism focuses on economics. Critics argue that where libertarian economic theory (laissez-faire capitalism) has been implemented (as in Chile, 19th-century Britain, and 19th- and 20th-century U.S.), the results show that libertarian economic ideas threaten freedom, democracy, human rights, and economic growth. In addition, some critics claim that libertarianism's anti-statism would eliminate necessary government services. A frequently cited example is health care; critics argue that a lack of medical knowledge among consumers, and what they believe to be a moral requirement of society to provide service for those who cannot pay, make sufficient health care impossible in a free market. These critics claim that a nationalized health care system provides better outcomes than does the market, and that health care, contrary to libertarian positions, is a public good justifying coercion.

Such critics may argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" (as visualized in the Nolan Chart) is flawed because it ignores the effects powerlessness and poverty have on liberty. Others argue that the associated political quiz is biased towards libertarianism or that the chart dismisses non-libertarian values.

Others critics, such as Jeffrey Friedman, editor of Critical Review magazine, argue that libertarians oversimplify issues such as the efficacy of state intervention, shifting the burden of proof to their opponents without justification. Friedman also argues that libertarian views on human nature consist more of "ideology and political crusading" than "scholarship," as when he claims that libertarians assume that people act to maximize their own utility or that their self-interested actions will always serve human needs better than government.

Some criticize the motives of libertarians, saying that they only support libertarian ideas because they serve as a means of justifying and maintaining what these critics perceive to be their position near the top of existing social hierarchies. For instance, Wired columnist Brooke Shelbey Biggs stated that "Libertarianism is uninformed capitalist greed in civil-rights clothing" and that there are "a few issues libertarians tend to ignore when talking about the promise of a future without government interference: inherent cultural disadvantage and affirmative action; public-works projects like freeways for all those new-money Jags around Silicon Valley; funding for the arts; child-abuse prevention and intervention; medical care for the elderly; and too many more to list. They are also not likely to complain loudly about capital-gains tax cuts or other tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy" . They claim that libertarians view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businesses, and corporations, which they saw as aristocratic. Thomas Jefferson in particular was critical of the growth of corporations, which such critics claim would form an important part of a libertarian society.

Most economists agree that decentralized decision-making is an important part of efficient markets, but non-free-market economists argue that market failures tend to result unless government intervenes. While libertarians believe in the efficacy of free markets to allocate resources efficiently and equitably, they would not allow market forces to occasion any violations of individual negative liberty. Moreover, they oppose any coercion that would be employed to remedy what some perceive as "market failures", arguing that government intervention leads to government failure, a cure worse than the disease.

Some critics see the libertarian view of property rights as a threat to the environment, rather than a cure. They also claim that many aspects of the environment, such as scenic beauty, are extremely hard to valuate.

Some critics claim that libertarianism would enable slavery per the self-ownership property right, repeal of labor laws, via contractual labor agreements, outright sale of future labor rights, and/or as a punishment for a person with unpaid debts as an indentured servant. There are even internal debates within libertarian camps as to the libertarian justification for contractual slavery and indentured labor Rothbard. The new libertarian rejoinder is that one's body, as Thomas Jefferson said of ideas, is not the subject of property, so slaverly is de facto illegal, as is false imprisonment. This view parallels the long-standing common law principle that rights are unalienable, a condition that could not be satisfied if rights were treated as personal property (in the legal sense) and tradable commodities, even though this is not in any official libertarian platform, and the issue of voluntary servitude contracts are still debated within the libertarian ranks.

See also

• See also: Objectivism; Republitarianism; Austrian School; Capitalism; Chicago school; Individualist anarchism; Deregulation; Republican Liberty Caucus; List of Libertarian Celebrities; List of Libertarian Politicians and Media Personalities; List of Notable Libertarian Theorists and Authors
• Opposes: Mercantilism; Statism; Collectivism; Socialism; Fabianism; Communism; Nazism; Fascism; Welfare state; Planned economy; regulation.
• Related topics: Civil society; Open society; Political models; Ideology

Notes and references

1. Huben, Michael. A Non-Libertarian FAQ, March 15, 2005 version.link
2. Who's Afraid of Noam Chomsky? Richard Wall, August 17, 2004. LewRockwell.com.
3. A. de Jasay: "Much as one may sympathize with Descombes critique of justificationism as redundant, existentialism as absurd, and much of modern political philosophy as talk in a talking shop, he seems to put forward no recognizable thesis about the rationality or otherwise of collective agendas in general. It is not clear how he would have us use reason to judge and rank-order political alternatives. His Aristotelian call for an architectonic ars politica, taking account of the structure of human activities that have their due place in the cité is discouragingly obscure. We are asked to respect the intrinsic purposes and orderly interdependence of men's social functions a call all would no doubt agree to heed. What, however, if we do heed it? Supposedly, we are then committed to treat literally everything as political in one aspect, and also as non-political in another. An example is needed to make this puzzle intelligible. It is not for politics to tell the doctor who is well and who is ill (nor how ill, needing how much medical attention), but it is for politics to say how many doctors there should be. Yet, this cannot be right. Politics cannot with impunity decide the number of doctors (unless by decide we lamely mean respond to medical needs) without also deciding the number of patients, and how ill they are. If doctors are to have enough patients and patients enough doctors, either both decisions must be collective (doctors and patients matched by the same fiat or the same political bargain), or both must be individual (the match between them emerging from the usual supply-demand adjustment processes). One of these solutions might be thought dictatorial, the other anti-social, but at least both provide for balance and order. A hybrid of the two is internally inconsistent, generating disorder and deficit, and no structurebased ars politica can make it fit the intrinsic purpose and content of human activities in the cité or anywhere else."
4. Don Franzen, Los Angeles Times Book Review Desk, review of "Neither Left Nor Right". January 19, 1997. Franzen states that "Murray and Boaz share the political philosophy of libertarianism, which upholds individual liberty--both economic and personal--and advocates a government limited, with few exceptions, to protecting individual rights and restraining the use of force and fraud." (Review on libertarianism.org). MSN Encarta's entry on Libertarianism defines it as a "political philosophy" (Both references retrieved June 24, 2005). The Encyclopedia Britannica defines Libertarianism as "Political philosophy that stresses personal liberty." (link, accessed 29 June, 2005)
5. Nettlau, Max. A Short History of Anarchism, 2000. p. 75
6. Friedman, Milton. The Drug War as a Socialist Enterprise. From: Friedman & Szasz on Liberty and Drugs, edited and with a Preface by Arnold S. Trebach and Kevin B. Zeese. Washington, D.C.: The Drug Policy Foundation, 1992.link
7. Hayek, F.A. Why I am not a Conservative, University of Chicago Press, 1960link
8. Advocates for Self Government website. "The World's Smallest Political Quiz".link
9. Madison, James. Federalist Papers #10. Daily Advertiser, November 22, 1787 link
10. David Boaz, "A Note on Labels: Why "Libertarian"?", accessed June 21, 2005 link
11. Walter Block, "The Non-Aggression Axiom of Libertarianism". February 17, 2003. Accessed 30 June, 2005.
12. The Capitalism Tour. Capitalism Magazine. link
13. Advocates for Self Government website. "Russell Means—Libertarian" link
14. Cleveland, Paul and Stevenson, Brian. Individual Responsibility and Economic Well-Being. The Freeman, August 1995.link
15. Rockwell, Lew and Friedman, Milton. "Friedman v. Rockwell." Chronicles, December 1998. link
16. Libertarian Party News. Murray Rothbard: 1926-1995, February 1995.link
17. Sanchez, Julian. "The Other Guevara." Reason magazine, August 12, 2003.link
18. Levy, Jacob. SELF-CRITICISM, The Volokh Conspiracy, March 19, 2003 link
19. Machan, Tibor R. Revisiting Anarchism and Government, link.
20. Rand, Ayn. Ayn Rand’s Q&A on Libertarians from a 1971 interview link
21. Gillespie, Nick. Rand Redux, Reason magazine, March 2005 link
22. Young, Cathy. Ayn Rand at 100, Reason magazine. March 2005 link
23. Goldberg, Jonah. Freedom Kills. National Review Online, December 12, 2001.link
24. Partridge, Ernest. "With Liberty and Justice for Some." Environmental Philosophy edited by Michael Zimmerman, Baird Callicott, Karen Warren, Irene Klaver, and John Clark, 2004.link
25. Kangas, Steve. Chile: the Laboratory Test. Liberalism Resurgent, link
26. Yglesias, Matthew. "Health is Forever". April 15, 2005. link
27. Huben, Michael, A Non-Libertarian FAQ, March 15, 2005 link
28. Friedman, Jeffrey. What's Wrong With Libertarianism, Critical Review Vol. 11, No. 3. Summer 1997PDF (large PDF file)
29. Brooke Shelbey Biggs, "You're Not the Boss of Me!", Wired, 21 July 1997.

External links

Libertarian political parties around the world

• Site of the United States Libertarian Party
• Site of the Personal Choice Party
• Site of Movimiento Libertario (Costa Rica)
• Site of Libertarianz (New Zealand)
• Site of ACT New Zealand, a self-described classical liberal party in New Zealand that is also sometimes described as libertarian
• Site of the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia
• Site of the Libertarian Society of Iceland
• Site of Rossiyskoye Libertarianskoye Dvizhenie (Russian Libertarian Movement)
• Site of the Libertarian Party of Bangladesh
• Site of the Libertarian Party of Canada
• Site of the Free Democratic Party of Germany
• Site of the Free Democratic Party of Switzerland
• Site of Civil Resistance in spanish: Resistencia Civil (Venezuela)
• Site of the Libertarische Partij (The Netherlands)

Libertarian think tanks

• site of the Cato Institute
• site of Tech Central Station
• site of the Competitive Enterprise Institute
• site of the Libertarian Alliance (British)
• site of the Advocates for Self-Government
• site of the International Society for Individual Liberty - see their Animated Introduction to the Philosophy of Liberty
• site of the American Liberty Foundation
• site of the Foundation for Economic Education
• site of the Institute for Humane Studies
• site of the Future of Freedom Foundation
• site of the Ludwig von Mises Institute (Austrian School economics)
• site of the Adam Smith Institute
• site of The Independent Institute
• site of the Mannkal Economic Education Foundation (Australia)

Other libertarian political projects

• site of the Free State Project
• European Free State Project
• The Libertarian International Organization
• site of the Libertarian International
• site of the Seastead
• Oceania a libertarian project terminated in 1994

Libertarian publications and websites

• European Libertarians
• Open Directory libertarian links List of Notable Libertarian Theorists and Authors web page
• site of the Libertarian Learning Centre
• site of Libertarian.org
• site of Laissez Faire Books
• site of The Tao of Liberty
• site of The Freeman
• site of Liberty (magazine)
• site of Liberator Online
• site for Thomas Szasz
• site of Lew Rockwell
• site of Freedom Daily
• site of Reason magazine
• site of Free Talk Live (libertarian radio show)
• Libertari.org Italian libertarian/anarcho-capitalist site
• The New Libertarian A journal of Neolibertarian thought
• site of The Free Radical magazine
• site of UK based Society for Individual Freedom

Sites about libertarianism

• site Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on libertarianism
• Libertarian FAQ

• Libertarianism