Taking Libertarianism Back: A Word Worth Fighting For
By now, all of us who have been involved in the so-called “liberty movement” have either (wrongfully) claimed, or (rightfully) denounced the phrase “fiscally conservative, socially liberal” to describe the ideology that we believe is the ideal way for political society to move forward. Those who denounce this description of the libertarian political philosophy understand what is at its true core: the private property ethic. Whether the justification is one rooted in (Misesian) Utilitarianism, (Rothbardian) Natural Law, or (Hoppean) argumentation, what is at the heart of libertarian legal theory is the justification of absolute private property rights, with no exceptions. This is something that has been lost on the self-identified “libertarian” who, more likely than not, has not read either of the ideological forefathers that I had mentioned previously nor any of their peers. The dependence on blogs, memes, and beltway libertarian websites by the self-described “libertarian” has done nothing but muddy the philosophical waters as to what it means to subscribe to the private property ethic. The “libertarian” of today cares more about the legalization of all sex work, marijuana legislation, and “campus free speech” than any other issues, undoubtedly because of the desire to find acceptance of from the left. The same left who not only despise the absolute private property ethic but will use any tactics necessary to suppress the philosophy, no matter how much these beltway types want to convince them otherwise. Reason Magazine and its ilk will not save libertarianism, but destroy it.
This issue of those who have not read libertarian theory, nor understand its roots, claiming the label to appear “edgy”, “above conventional thinking”, or “beyond the left/right divide” is one that will plague those who have chosen to properly defend the label as long as it exists. The question that must be asked: Is the term libertarian worth saving from those who have co-opted it, and if it is, can it be? Will the “libertarian” label go the way of “liberal”, that is used almost entirely by left progressives (and Jeffrey Tucker). The classical liberals and Ludwig Von Mises would be abhorred by the people who now claim the label that they felt was so valuable.
I, like Hans Hoppe, stated in his “Libertarianism and the Alt-Right” speech, am unwilling to abandon the libertarian label. I refuse to let leftists co-opt a philosophy that opposes them in every way. Some of my colleagues at Hoppean.org, and CJay Engel of Bastion Magazine, might disagree with me, and choose to use other terms to describe themselves, such as right wing separatist, and secessionist, but we all agree that putting “Hoppean” in front of these labels clarifies where we stand. Those who use these labels understand what is truly important to achieve libertarian goals, which depend on the rejection of political centralization, the acceptance of hierarchy as a natural and stabilizing force of civilized societal order, and the right to associate and disassociate with any person or group as they deem fit.
Libertarianism will not lose its philosophical value if we promote the ideas of one man who has clarified the private property ethic to a point where it cannot be argued against without contradiction.
That man is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, the namesake of this site.
For us to take libertarianism back, we must:
Crush the idea that egalitarianism is in any way compatible with the private property ethic.
Acknowledge that culture matters, multiculturalism, moral relativism, and cultural nihilism are antithetical to achieving or maintaining a libertarian social order
Gatekeep our ranks: leftists will fight to co-opt movements that oppose them, identifying and removing those who are opposed to the private property ethic at its core is necessary and essential to achieve our goals.
We must take libertarianism back, or we will let an ideology that gives us our best prospect of societal peace and economic prosperity fall.
