Skip to main content

American Libertarianism

Buckley -- National Review

“Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose
(The more things change, the more they remain the same) -- French writer Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr, 1849.

Most Americans – including, of course, citizens of Connecticut – are unfamiliar with libertarianism as a political orientation.

Libertarianism has a long historical pedigree and a sometimes tangled history. Were the anarchists of the post Romantic period in Europe libertarians? Some historians would answer yes. Was Robespierre, partly responsible for the worst excesses of the French Revolution, a libertarian? Some historians believe he was. May the revolutionary writings of the Marquis DeSade be characterized as libertarian?  Were DeSade’s moral judgments likewise libertarian? What is the difference between libertinism and libertarianism?

Historically, libertarianism has two taproots, one on the left, rooted, though not inexorably, in what might be called anarchic individualism, and another on the right, rooted in ordered liberty, a resistance to disorder not at all incompatible with American conservatism.

William F. Buckley Jr., largely credited with the regeneration of American conservatism in the post-World War II period, several times in his writings unabashedly identified himself as a libertarian. One of his last books, Happy Days Were Here Again, is subtitled Reflections Of A Libertarian Journalist.

It must be obvious to objective observers who have been paying attention to political ruminations in the post-World War II period that Buckley was never an anarchist, and his religious precepts put him at odds with DeSade’s attempts to eroticize traditional morality or to make a cultural virtue of, say, sadism.

So, “things change,” as the French say. And the more they change, the more they do not remain the same. The broad political and cultural thrust of both American conservatism and libertarianism is similar: to preserve the good in politics and culture, while showing the door to what is harmful.

Both American conservatism and libertarianism recognize that there are limits to things both good and bad.

Libertarianism is not a doctrine; rather it is a cultural and political orientation that values liberty and is watchfully suspicious of any attempt by agents of force to suppress free expression. “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man,” said Thomas Jefferson while in the grip of a libertarian mood.

The most important American libertarian economist in the modern period is Milton Friedman, whose posture towards unnecessary governmental force is similar to Jefferson’s. Friedman, an apostle of liberty, is a conspicuous spokesman of American libertarianism, which supports the maximization of ordered individual liberty – provided my liberty does not abort your liberty.

Friedman’s libertarianism is rooted in classical liberal free market property notions. His chief idea, he says, is that no one is better able to care for and make decisions  related to property than its owners. The poorest regulators of property – which necessarily includes the distribution of money and goods – are those busybodies who have no direct interests in economic, cultural and political outcomes. Disinterest is not always benign. Sometimes, it can be positively unhinged from reality.

American libertarianism carries all these golden perceptions with it in its ideational portmanteau. Libertarianism is not motivated by greed, even less so by self-interest, despite the disposition of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of atheistic libertarianism, to raise selfishness to the level of a secular virtue.

The average libertarian reacts intemperately to the many uses of autocrats’ “big sticks”, and they are rightly suspicious of tasty carrots as well. They demand that choice be unfettered by political machinations , which is less likely in the era of top-down government by noxious special interest groups, whatever they may be called: “one party” states, narrow-minded “experts,” and “politicians for life “ who cannot bear to leave the political stage to their betters.

“Every profession,” George Bernard Shaw used to say, when overcome by a fleeting libertarian spasm, “is a conspiracy against the laity.” The unchecked rule of experts often leads in short order to a gulag, where liberty itself expires. And a rule by doctors – as the now departed head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID, 1984 to 2022) “I am science” Anthony Fauci reminds us – may be worse.

Such notions as cited above do not arise from selfishness. They are the result of an application of skeptical, in the best sense of the word, common sense to an uncommonly disordered society.

Let us not forget that it was Buckley the libertarian who told us that he would rather be governed by the first 100 people picked at random from the phone book than the Harvard Law School faculty.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Murphy Thingy

It’s the New York Post, and so there are pictures. One shows Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy canoodling with “Courier Newsroom publisher Tara McGowan, 39, last Monday by the bar at the Red Hen, located just one mile north of Capitol Hill.”   The canoodle occurred one day or night prior to Murphy’s well-advertised absence from President Donald Trump’s recent Joint Address to Congress.   Murphy has said attendance at what was essentially a “campaign rally” involving the whole U.S. Congress – though Democrat congresspersons signaled their displeasure at the event by stonily sitting on their hands during the applause lines – was inconsistent with his dignity as a significant part of the permanent opposition to Trump.   Reaching for his moral Glock Murphy recently told the Hartford Courant that Democrat Party opposition to President Donald Trump should be unrelenting and unforgiving: “I think people won’t trust you if you run a campaign saying that if Donald Trump is ...

The PURA soap opera continues in Connecticut: Business eyeing the exit signs

The trouble at PURA and the two energy companies it oversees began – ages ago, it now seems – with the elevation of Marissa Gillett to the chairpersonship of Connecticut’s Public Utilities Regulation Authority.   Connecticut Commentary has previously weighed in on the controversy: PURA Pulls The Plug on November 20, 2019; The High Cost of Energy, Three Strikes and You’re Out? on December 21, 2024; PURA Head Butts the Economic Marketplace on January 3, 2025; Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA on February 3, 2025; and Lamont’s Pillow Talk on February 22, 2025:   The melodrama full of pratfalls continues to unfold awkwardly.   It should come as no surprise that Gillett has changed the nature and practice of the state agency. She has targeted two of Connecticut’s energy facilitators – Eversource and Avangrid -- as having in the past overcharged the state for services rendered. Thanks to the Democrat controlled General Assembly, Connecticut is no l...

Lamont Surprised at Suit Brought Against PURA

Marissa P. Gillett, the state's chief utility regulator, watches Gov. Ned Lamont field questions about a new approach to regulation in April 2023. Credit: MARK PAZNIOKAS / CTMIRROR.ORG Concerning a suit brought by Eversource and Avangrid, Connecticut’s energy delivery agents, against Connecticut’s Public Utility Regulatory Agency (PURA), Governor Ned Lamont surprised most of the state’s political watchers by affecting surprise.   “Look,” Lamont told a Hartford Courant reporter shortly after the suit was filed, “I think it is incredibly unhelpful,” Lamont said. “Everyone is getting mad at the umpires.   Eversource is not getting everything they want and they are bringing suit. It was a surprise to me. Nobody notified me. I think we have to do a better job of working together.”   Lamont’s claim is far less plausible than the legal claim made by Eversource and Avangrid. The contretemps between Connecticut’s energy distributors and Marissa Gillett , Gov. Ned Lamont’s ...