There now seems to be a small rift growing between Glenn Beck, who claims to be evolving into a libertarian, and a number of the libertarians he hopes to attract with his new media project. Of course many are skeptical of a guy who, for many years supported the Bush administration, seems always to have supported the U.S. government’s wars overseas, and backed this guy for president in 2012.
That he recently accused the founder of Students for Liberty, Alexander McCobin, of being a jerk and a Nazi makes this all the more comical. McCobin was addressing the annual conference of Students for Liberty (SFL) when he suggested Beck’s libertarian cred may not be up to muster. Beck it seems was upset that he’s not being taken seriously and used his radio show to air his grievance.
In response, McCobin challenged Beck to “engage [young libertarians] in a meaningful conversation, embrace the positions where libertarianism is substantially different from conservatism, and work with [them] for a truly freer future.” He also offered that while he may call himself a libertarian, there’s no reason anyone has to accept Beck’s transition. As Andrew Kirell sarcastically put it: “We are glad for your newfound support for legal marijuana, gay marriage, and your backing down from Bush-era hawkishness. But many of us libertarians prefer to say ‘thanks but no thanks.’”
One peculiar point raised by McCobin in his letter to Beck was “that libertarianism is difficult to define, and there is significant room for debate.” Actually no, it’s rather simple to define, and there shouldn’t be any room for debate.
Libertarianism is simply the political system wherein the initiation of force is not acceptable. The use of force may only be used in defense against aggression and where force is being unjustly applied to persons or property. Beyond that all interaction is to be under voluntary terms and any system which deviates from this may not be accurately described as libertarian.
February 26th, 2013 at 7:32 pm
Well known people, like Beck, should know their announcements are going to be scrutinized. Your definition, Joel, is encompassing and with some honest analysis answers the libertarian assessment well. So sorry Beck, you are not there yet. Glad you are working toward it but you have a way to go. For those of us who have been involved for decades, it is irritating when people like Beck cheapen the concept to be popular. Maybe though I should not be an old stick in the mud and simply be glad people think being libertarian is so cool.I thought so about 50+ years ago.
February 28th, 2013 at 11:52 am
Great post Joel. The following is not a defense of Beck, however …
I think many who call themselves libertarian support small governments like the U.S. during the 1700s and the first half of the 1800s. Such a government would violate the idea of initiation of aggression. Beck could legitimately claim that he’s in that crowd.
I’m not sure you can say that your definition encompasses all libertarian ideals. I’m not sure all libertarians would agree that you have a legitimate claim to define them into a group, either.
I’d would only feel safe defining specific variants of libertarian thought, such as Voluntarism or Anarcho-Capitalism.
That’s just my opinion.
March 1st, 2013 at 10:20 am
I think you’re right about many libertarians being okay with “limited” government, such as that during the antebellum period. In fact, I’d say there are probably a lot of conservatives who fit in this category (as long as they get to keep the Pentagon, CIA, and their Social Security checks).
The definition I was using is basically Walter Block’s, from this article in the Journal of Libertarian Studies: http://mises.org/journals/jls/11_1/11_1_7.pdf (Tom Woods uses a similar verson of this, too, I think).
For me the key is that aggression is only unjust if it’s unwanted, i.e., if the person being taxed doesn’t consent. In the case of a libertarian who advocated limited government, it would seem they were okay with the arrangement, and thus to them it’s not aggression. I’ve also seen several writers argue that it’s possible for such a government to be funded by “voluntary taxation.” As long as I’m left out of the arrangement I don’t see a problem with this.
March 1st, 2013 at 12:05 pm
I think most libertarians would support the idea of a limited government that was “opt-in” with the ability to opt-out, while only exercising authority over its members. That’s the only way it could ever avoid being “unwanted”.
Once you’ve gotten to that point, a government is simply an association or a business. Therefore, I think you could say that this idea is covered already under voluntarism and anarcho-capitalism.
Such voluntary self-government is described quite well in “The Machinery of Freedom” and “A Market for Liberty”.
Illustrated summary of “The Machinery of Freedom”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
March 2nd, 2013 at 7:38 pm
Murray Rothbard and Glenn Beck both support Bush.