Irrelevant Differences

Update: I should clarify that my position still is that a) the "cosmopolitan" libertarian position of promoting individual rights and freedoms, and b) the "paleo" position of decentralizing power, are mutually re-enforcing agendas. I am more comfortable in "cosmopolitan" surroundings, provided "cosmopolitan" means "anything that's peaceful," (as opposed to granting voting rights to militant foreign nationalists and foreign religious fundamentalists). But I can't help but agree with the paleo interpretation of the Constitution, and believe adherence to the plain text of the Constitution is still the best practical path to liberty. In other words, in this dispute my tastes lean cosmpolitan, my head still leans paleo.

Two segments of our society agree that the federal government is the cause of many of our problems, and the main hindrance to finding solutions to many other problems. In short, they believe the Federal Government is the Enemy. One of these segments is individualist with a moral and political commitment to individual rights and freedoms. The other is communitarian with a commitment to a strong culture and social bonds. The first is angry with the federal government's attacks on individual rights. The second is angry with the federal government for undermining state and local government. They are known respectively by the names libertarian and paleoconservative.

They are divided by a common platform, in that principle is more important to them than power. Progressives and various identity groups cobble together a platform in the Democratic Party. Neoconservatives and the Religious Right manage to do the same in the Republican Party. The libertarian/paleo goals, in comparison, are pretty clear-cut and consistent:

- end the occupation in Iraq and dismantle the de facto Empire;
- dismantle the unconstitutional federal Police State, and end violations of the Bill of Rights from the War on Terror and War on Drugs
- restore honest money, dismantle the Federal Reserve
- cut federal taxes and federal spending
- federal deregulation
- protect gun rights
- abolish Dept. of Education, protect freedom of homeschoolers
- protect private property and freedom of association from federal interference

Some paleoconservative endorse these goals, but then rip libertarians for being libertine and naive worshippers of the almighty Market. And some libertarians allege that paleoconservatives hold their positions only because they are motivated by superstition (i.e., religion) and bigotry. They don't like paleoconservatives because they think paleoconservatives agree with these points for all the wrong reasons. They suspect paleoconservatives oppose federal tyranny only so that they can impose tyranny on their own terms at the state level, targeting minorities, gays, women, and non-Christians. In short, they've caricatured paleoconservatives as closet Ku Kluxers.

There are also disagreements among libertarians: on anarchy vs. limited government, on abortion, on immigration. Some will use these disagreements as excuses to ignore the many points of agreement above and abandon an alliance with paleoconservatives. Moreover, there is a "cosmopolitan libertarian" vs. "paleolibertarian" split; the former embracing not just toleration, but also acceptance, of lifestyles different from one's own, while the latter believe that maximum individual freedom will actually create stronger social bonds among people of similar beliefs and cultures, so that individualism creates stronger communities. They agree with cosmopolitans on matters of law, and with paleoconservatives on culture.

Anyway, these differences among libertarians, and between libertarians and paleoconservatives, have led to nasty statements back and forth on the web, as they try to discredit each other. And this has been going on long before the Ron Paul newsletter "scandal." For some, getting one's way all down the line is more important than actually making progress in downsizing the federal government; not only must we have common goals, but we must have common goals for the same reasons.

Well, I have news for both sides (or all three sides): most of us don't care. Most of us in the movement will find useful information and enlightening opinions at LewRockwell.com AND Reason AND The American Conservative. We find both the Mises Institute AND the Cato Institute very useful resources.

It seems to me that when Democrats smell success, they forget their differences and take advantage. Republicans do the same. But when the small-government wave starts to build momentum, something always comes up to serve as an excuse to divide and weaken it. And they're frequently petty personal issues or irrelevant ideological differences among leaders of the movement that the rank-and-file care nothing about.

Paleo Allies

Jason Kuznicki at Positive Liberty wonders why Murray Rothbard ever called for an alliance with paleo-conservatives:

Now here’s my question: In order for Rothbard’s strategy to work, there seems to be rather a missing step or two:

Phase 1. Associate libertarianism with the most radical far-right fringes of cultural conservatism.
Phase 2. ????
Phase 3. Libertopia!

My guess is that Rothbard's motivation was
a) The paleos were/are right about foreign interventionism, and opposition to non-defensive war is the #1 libertarian issue.
b) The paleos were/are right about safeguarding national sovereignty - not because national sovereignty is so great, but because it's a safeguard against fraudulent "free trade" agreements and social engineering from the UN and other international organizations.
c) The paleos were/are right about "states rights" as opposed to federal court meddling, because an out-of-control judiciary does not really safeguard liberty, but only opens the door for the rest of the federal government to be out-of-control. Moreover, secession fits in well with libertarian principles.
d)The paleos were/are the most reliable allies in the struggle for lower taxes and a smaller federal government.

In terms of policy, then, paleo-conservatives were more than 50% in agreement. I further speculate Rothbard believed that, through men like Ron Paul, paleoconservatives could then be brought along, albeit gradually, to a more libertarian philosophy.

Of course, this strategy won't make sense to self-described libertarians who would destroy other countries to "liberate" them, who believe the federal courts should be involved in every question from abortion to prayer in school, and/or whose conception of "free markets" means pro-Wall Street policies and a competent Fed chief. To such folks, the paleo-conservatives are the enemy. In their view, aligning with people who are uncomfortable with, say, gay marriage, is unpardonable, whereas slaughtering civilians of nations that do not attack us is entirely appropriate, or at least a "reasonable" position within libertarianism.

And this is why such self-described libertarians despise Ron Paul so much. He's actually united large numbers of libertarian and paleoconservatives, and in their eyes this will set the libertarian movement back.

There may be a valid criticism of this alliance and of Ron Paul. It has been made by anti-voting anarchists and Libertarian Party die-hards. But it doesn't carry much weight when made by "pro-war libertarians," because they are not part of the libertarian movement. If the libertarian movement is not, at its core, an anti-war movement, then it doesn't really exist.

Trashing Allies

Justin Raimondo, the libertarian hero of antiwar.com fame, also blogs at the paleoconservative site Taki's Top Drawer, and is disappointed that libertarian institutions Reason Magazine and the Cato Institute are so concerned with the right to drugs and porn, and almost completely silent on Iraq - the most pressing moral issue of our time. Raimondo writes, "Sometimes I wonder if I’m in the same movement as these people, who seem to have no moral sense—indeed, no sense at all."

Raimondo's post generated several responses from paleoconservatives who trashed libertarianism. A couple even somehow blamed the staunchly anti-war libertarians Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard for the same lack of moral sense Raimondo sees in Cato and Reason. I think it's more accurate to say that without the anti-State writings of Mises and Rothbard, paleoconservatism itself would be little more than a mishmash of old resentments and medieval theology. When paleos attack their libertarian allies, it is easy to remember why one would prefer the company of the supposed libertines at Reason and Cato over those who believe individual rights and freedoms should be subject to the prejudices of a local mob (under the guise of "law" or "tradition," of course).

(Okay, that was a cheap shot - in retaliation for paleo cheap shots on libertarians. I do admire many paleoconservatives and agree with them most of the time - and should expect that they respect libertarians the same way. After all, not everyone was born Southern Presbyterian or Latin Mass Catholic, and to even get to the point of rejecting the Yankee-Prussian-Imperial State and embracing libertarianism takes a good degree of personal courage and drains a lot of intellectual and emotional energy. Give us a break!)

One comment sticks out:

"I would suggest that immorality frees the will, so to speak, to rebel against the Law—that is against the Lawgiver: GOD; in doing so it brings about wars such as exists in Iraq."

If by "immorality" is meant sex, drugs, and rock & roll, and if the poster suggests that these in turn caused the Iraq War, I'd have to disagree. But if this means immorality in general, there's a point here. Considering the Mexican War, the "Civil" War, "winning the West," the Spanish-American War, and World War I, America has been been "immoral" and "Godless" for a very long time.