The American Libertarian Current
The American liberal current is in full recomposition. Born later than its European counterpart, its fight for freedom was forged on other themes in the 19th century, against slavery rather than against socialism. How can it be defined today? What are the new trends?
The main currents that cross it are presented in The Individualistsa book centered on the intellectual history of the libertarian movement, and published by the philosopher Matt Zwolinski and John Tomasi, president of the Heterodox Academy, in New York (Princeton University Press, 432 pages, 2023).
The Americans use the term “libertarian” after that, for about a century, that of “liberal” has taken on a meaning opposite to that found in Europe. There, this term refers to a Marxist definition of freedom, that is, the possession of social and material rights (rights to). This is called positive freedom. Conversely, in Europe, the liberals refer to a negative freedom (absence of constraint of a person, or of the State, on another). The term “libertarian” takes up in the United States the concept of negative freedom dear to European liberals.
Before evoking the recent libertarian tendencies, it is important to mention the values on which each current finds itself. Zwolinski and Tomasi define six fundamental markers: private property, skepticism of authority, free markets, spontaneous order, individualism, and negative freedom. Each of these markers should be considered not as an ideal, but as an absolute imperative.
Also Read: The Liberal Letter – Adam Smith set to be picked up by the left
Historically, the fall of the Berlin Wall caused an identity crisis among libertarians and the formation of what Zwolinski and Tomasi call the 3rd libertarian wave. The 2nd wave is that of the post-war period, with figures such as Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick; the first being that of the pioneers, in the 19th century, with Benjamin Tucker and Lysander Spooner.
Two camps have then gradually formed in recent years, according to Zwolinski and Tomasi. The first is called “paleo-libertarianism”, the second, more to the left, that of the left libertarians.
Paleo-libertarianism grew out of the efforts of Llewelyn Rockwell, president and founder of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. He seeks to get closer to the conservative right and its cultural values (family, church, Western values). His conservative commitment led him to claim an isolationist foreign policy and to attack an immigration policy that paleo-libertarianists considered too lax. Unsurprisingly, some of them supported Donald Trump in 2016 and 2020.
Left libertarians
A second current, which also takes up the six libertarian markers mentioned above, turned to themes dear to American democrats, such as the moral value of equality, feminism (fight against pornography), discrimination and fight against poverty through state redistribution.
The two authors of The Individualists admit to being part of this current. Matt Zwolinski launched his blog in 2011 «Blooding Heart Libertarians(“hardcore libertarians”), seeking to link the defense of free markets dear to Friedrich Hayek and that of social justice according to John Rawls. John Tomasi has himself published a book that aims to create a bridge between these two apparently contradictory schools of thought (For Hayek, the term social justice is an aberration, editor’s note). Another sign of this attraction for subjects dear to Democrats: Students for Liberty, an organization of liberal students created in 2008, has also taken an interest in themes such as intersectionality, discrimination and racism.
While this rapprochement with the Democrats appeared mainly in academic circles, it gradually spread to other circles. Two scholars resigned from the Cato Institute, a representative of classical liberalism, because of their more leftist positioning before founding the Niskanen Center, a think tank that would like to merge liberal and democratic ideas into what is becoming a form of ” Rawlsekianism”.
If the liberals have always defended capitalism as an economic system capable of favoring voluntary exchanges, growth and individual freedom, the libertarians of the left accuse it of being “unfair” with regard to wage earners.
These workers’ advocates want workers to benefit more from the fruits of their labor through better freedoms of trade and another reorganization of work that is somewhat reminiscent of Proudhon (as opposed to Marx’s concept of class struggle). For them, this objective of justice should not go through an increase in the powers of the State (necessarily coercive), nor moreover of the unions, because of their instruments of collective constraint (strikes, regulations). For left-wing libertarians, socialism is compatible with individual freedom provided that the state, strong in its monopoly of violence, does not interfere.
In order to improve the economic system, the libertarians of the left also take up the idea of an unconditional basic income. According to the authors, this instrument provides assistance to the poorest without reducing individual freedom too much by levying a tax.
Increase growth, freedom and the state?
“Hardcore” libertarians are criticized not only by “paleo-libertarians” but also by thinkers such as economist Tyler Cowen, author of the blog “Marginal revolution“. The latter intends to reduce poverty through statist intervention on the condition that it increases infrastructure and the functioning of the market, for example through programs in favor of nuclear power and space research. This movement is labeled “state-capacity libertarianism”. He distances himself from the left, which wants to increase social transfers and pleads instead to accelerate economic growth. With him, the increase of freedom would go hand in hand with that of the State. Would it really be possible to simultaneously increase wealth, positive freedom and the state?
The emergence of currents is not a new phenomenon within the liberal family. There are considerable differences between the objectivist theses of Ayn Rand – her philosophy of selfishness – and German ordoliberalism which grants a key role to the State, including that of creating a normative framework allowing undistorted competition. The American tendencies towards rapprochement with the Democrats or the Republicans, however, presuppose a marriage of the opposites. The American tendencies towards rapprochement with the Democrats or the Republicans, however, presuppose a marriage of the opposites.
Funding for think tanks
The survival of these movements is not only linked to that of their leaders and the acceptance of their new ideas. It also depends on their funding.
Libertarians are pro-business, but their relationships with their donors are very unstable. Defenders of individual liberty have long benefited from the financial resources of great entrepreneurs: The Koch brothers, for example, have supported countless think tanks, from the Cato Institute to Reason magazine to the Mercatus Center at Georg University Mason. The Volker Fund, for its part, financed Friedrich Hayek’s chair at the University of Chicago, as well as the Société du Mont-Pèlerin, the best-known liberal think tank, created in 1947 on the heights of Vevey.
But companies prefer to fund a party than a think tank. The amount would be $125 million per year for American liberal think tanks, while funds raised during the 2016 presidential campaign amounted to $1.5 billion. A question of pragmatism and profitability! It is also true that laboratories of ideas defend ideas that are too radical in the eyes of entrepreneurs and only with difficulty obtain the funds necessary for their development. The debate of ideas is therefore as economic as it is philosophical.
Read more: The throes of Credit Suisse in light of the theories of Adam Smith and Milton Friedman
2023-08-20 14:24:36
#Leftist #temptations #liberal #family #Temps
