A New Liberty Now

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Friday, Dec 26, 2008

There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, but Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged. The reason is that Murray Rothbard was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.”Mr. Libertarian,” Murray N. Rothbard was called, and “The State’s Greatest Living Enemy.” He remains so. Yes, he had many predecessors from whom he drew: the whole of the classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these pieces together into a unified system that seems implausible at first but inevitable once it has been defined and defended by Rothbard. The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership, strict property rights, free markets, anti-state in every conceivable respect) but the implications are earthshaking. Once you are exposed to the complete picture – and For a New Liberty has been the leading means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century – you cannot forget it. It becomes the indispensable lens through which we can see events in the real world with the greatest possible clarity.

This book more than any other explains why Rothbard seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his death) and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies on the left, right, and center. Quite simply, the science of liberty that he brought into clear relief is as thrilling in the hope it creates for a free world as it is unforgiving of error. Its logical and moral consistency, together with its empirical explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any intellectual vision that sets out to use the state to refashion the world according to some pre-programmed plan. And to the same extent it impresses the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.

Rothbard set out to write this book soon after he got a call from Tom Mandel, an editor at Macmillan who had seen an op-ed by Rothbard in the New York Times that appeared in the spring of 1971. It was the only commission Rothbard ever received from a commercial publishing house. Looking at the original manuscript, which is so consistent in its typeface and almost complete after its first draft, it does seem that it was a nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting, and energetic.

(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)

The historical context illustrates a point often overlooked: modern libertarianism was born not in reaction to socialism or leftism – though it is certainly anti-leftist (as the term is commonly understood) and antisocialist. Rather, libertarianism in the American historical context came into being in response to the statism of conservatism and its selective celebration of a conservative-style central planning. American conservatives may not adore the welfare state or excessive business regulation but they appreciate power exercised in the name of nationalism, warfarism, “pro-family” policies, and invasion of personal liberty and privacy. In the post-LBJ period of American history, it has been Republican presidents more than Democratic ones who have been responsible for the largest expansions of executive and judicial power. It was to defend a pure liberty against the compromises and corruptions of conservatism – beginning with Nixon but continuing with Reagan and the Bush presidencies – that inspired the birth of Rothbardian political economy.

It is also striking how Rothbard chose to pull no punches in his argument. Other intellectuals on the receiving end of such an invitation might have tended to water down the argument to make it more palatable. Why, for example, make a case for statelessness or anarchism when a case for limited government might bring more people into the movement? Why condemn U.S. imperialism when doing so can only limit the book’s appeal to anti-Soviet conservatives who might otherwise appreciate the free-market bent? Why go into such depth about privatizing courts and roads and water when doing so might risk alienating people? Why enter into the sticky area of regulation of consumption and of personal morality – and do it with such disorienting consistency – when it would have surely drawn a larger audience to leave it out? And why go into such detail about monetary affairs and central banking and the like when a watered-down case for free enterprise would have pleased so many Chamber-of-Commerce conservatives?

But trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the audience was just not his way. He knew that he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to present the full package of libertarianism in all its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we read here: not just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.

Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, that is not what we get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as school vouchers or the privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead, he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write the Libertarian Manifesto have not stood the test of time, and yet this book remains in high demand.

Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism in the intervening years that have covered philosophy alone, politics alone, economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had mastery in all fields that permitted him to write an integrated manifesto – one that has never been displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own generation. In addition, some introductions of this sort are written to give the reader an easier passage into a difficult book, but that is not the case here. He never talks down to his readers but always with clarity. Rothbard speaks for himself. I’ll spare the reader an enumeration of my favorite parts, or speculations on what passages Rothbard might have clarified if he had a chance to put out a new edition. The reader will discover on his or her own that every page exudes energy and passion, that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all those years ago.

The book is still regarded as “dangerous” precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way again. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classical statement that I predict will be read for generations to come.

Prison Planet.tv Members Can Watch Fall Of The Republic Right Now Online - Don't Miss Out! Get Your Subscription Today!

CANCER CONSPIRACY? Are "they" suppressing the cure? Will YOU be the next victim? Learn the Secret Truth! - READ FULL STORY

Comment Terms Of Use

10 Responses to “A New Liberty Now”

Don Wills Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 10:16 am
Rothbardism has done more to marginalize libertarians than any statist institution. This flawed philosophy of statelessness, which eschews the traditional liberalism of the founding fathers, is no more plausible in the the real world than any of the utopian communes inspired by Marx et al. The founding fathers, recognizing the flaws of human nature, had the wisdom to balance limited government with individual freedom in a system that has shown itself to be resilient through our short history. The great experiment is now nearing the end of its run as the republic slides into democracy. We can hope that an individual liberty-respecting state of affairs will be the successor, but history tells us otherwise. I feel sorry for those who truly believe Rothbardism is realistic and possible, for those poor souls are living in lala land.
Highlander Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Well, Don, I don’t know as I’ll agree with that assessment.

The Founders were influenced by the themes of their time, one of which was that form of government which they’d just extricated themselves.

Additionally, the Founders knew that they could not make too radical a change, without losing credibility with the citizenry in the process.

THINK: The people wanted out of the oppressive atmosphere of British government, but at the same time they were looking for familiarity — something recognizable in terms of government.

Further, there were British government insiders doing their very best to ’spike the punch’ as it were, with machinations of power and control. Example: Alexander Hamilton and company.

Now, you say that Rothbard’s thoughts won’t work. Well, I say this: Why not let the people choose for themselves?

Are you afraid of letting that happen?
vladimir Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
http://www.democraticundergrou.....15;1989989
mr_bad Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
The impression that I get about libertarianism is that it’s kind of an every man for himself type philosophy, which in a perfect world where people treated one another with the golden rule, it would work just fine.

However, we live in a world of selfish “me-first and everyone else can go screw themselves” jack offs.

I don’t think true libertarianism has a chance.

People need Rights. People need something which says this is what your entitled to have because you have a pulse and you can fog up a mirror. If nothing exists to say, “This is what you get” then people get injustice.

Sorry, I’m just cynical.
G. Lauren Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 11:37 pm
Rothbard’s site also posts Bastiat’s ‘The Law” which will give you all the arguments in ten pages.
Jason P Says:
December 26th, 2008 at 11:51 pm
Of course the founders were influenced by their times, but what Don is saying is that the founding fathers recognized the *unchanging* flaws in human nature… namely that people are inherently selfish creatures, and will act in their own best interests before acting on behalf of others. That will never change! Anarchy would only work if you were the only man on Earth.

I don’t wish to be insulting, but anyone who believes that a system of anarchy will *not* degrade into violent mob rule in a matter of days is deluded, a dreamer, and has no grip on reality. Government is necessary, and hierarchy is necessary. Small, limited elected government is best. Governments are made up of people, and governments grow in power and corruption for the same reason which makes governments necessary in the first place: human nature. When a government becomes corrupted, the people must throw it off and start over. The government and the governed balance each other.

Do you really believe that anarchy is the path to liberty? Without the rule of law, the rule of nature is in effect. That means that the stronger rule the weaker. That is not freedom.
Jim Lunsford Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Maybe you are too selfish to live in a state of anarchy, but it would seem that Anarchy has received far too much bad press. Often by those who don’t want to give up their power over you. Amazingly enough, this is the very model espoused by the Bible’s Christ figure. “Render unto Caesar”, “No man walks taller in the eyes of the Lord,” and all of that which had more to do with his crucifixion than any other reason. This of course depends on whether you are a Christian or not. Self-rule is the normal rule practiced by most people anyway. Do you need a government structure or a law to help your neighbor? Most people in the US were too far away from the governments power source to be affected by it for many years. And now, we are far more educated about the consequences of our actions, plus the power of the internet to help facilitate communication and uncover corruption. This is far too short a posting to define how we already live in an anarchy based society, once we uncover how little control government has over us beyond it’s monetary powers. I suggest you read the book before you condemn it. I haven’t yet, but it’s philosophy suggested by this article has long been the spine of the southern culture I grew up in. And we weren’t nearly as violent because of this independence, than we were because of the laws we had imposed which encouraged less education and freedom. Peace, Jim
Kevin S. Van Horn Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 10:38 am
Jason P says that anarchy will never work because of the “unchanging flaws in human nature”. His argument itself is flawed on two counts:

(1) He makes the absurd mistake of discounting as impossible something that has, in fact, already occurred. Anarchy *has* worked in the past. Previous societies have indeed found it possible to protect individual rights and create functioning legal systems without invoking any central coercive authority.

The medieval Law Merchant developed this way. 19th-century miner’s courts in the American West are another example. Various Amerind nations, including the Comanche and Hopi, organized themselves this way. Medieval Iceland was almost entirely anarchic, having private courts and private law enforcement, with the sole exception of the yearly Althing (a legislature of sorts). The ancient Irish had an entirely stateless society with a well-functioning, sophisticated, centerless legal system.

(2) If flawed humanity are ill-suited to governing themselves, they are doubly ill-suited to governing others. The ranks of the state are filled with people every bit as flawed as those they govern — more so, in fact.

The defining characteristic of the state is that its officers can get what they want by initiating force and violence against others, or threatening to do so, all with social sanction and without fear of retaliation. All they have to do is pass a statute, or issue an executive decree, and their violence becomes blessed as “law enforcement”. It is therefore as inevitable as night following day that the state attracts those of a criminal mindset, and particularly the more intelligent criminals, who want the benefits of being able to use force and violence against others without the danger and social stigma it would normally entail.

In earthier terms, government attracts the worst elements of society like shit attracts flies.
New World Liberty Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
rothbard is flawed because he ignores georgism
Glenn Winstead Says:
December 27th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
A serious problem with government of any size is that it grows like any cancer, attracting the dregs of morality. Before long, there are millions of laws and regulations and taxes, to bleed money from the productive sectors. If the people are well-armed, and are willing to shoot those who tax them (steal at gun-point), then the monster can be stopped at its source.
Failing that fundamental act, the monster buys gunmen, who intimidate the productive sector, and steal the money it needs to grow and grow, until absolute tyranny results.
“If the government can take a man’s money without his consent, there is no limit to the additional tyranny it may impose upon him. With his money, it can hire soldiers to keep him in subjection, plunder him at discretion and kill him if he resists.” ~ Lysander Spooner, 1852