Are Libertarians Fascist Apologists?

Post Reply New Topic

Salon contributor Michael Lind thinks so. One example is Ludwig von Mises' Liberalismus, first published in 1927. Since this book is freely available online from the Von Mises Institute, I took a look. Von Mises correctly acknowledged fascism and related "nationalist, militant" movements as illiberal (or "antiliberal"), but he does in fact apologize for it. He sees fascism as a forceful reaction to socialism and Bolshevism that would in time moderate itself because of the "subconscious" liberal tradition within Western Europe (unlike in Russia). Note also that von Mises defines liberalism (or "classical liberalism") differently than most Americans: as simply the inverse of socialism: private ownership of the means of production.

Libertarians simply want government that carries out the proper functions of government:

1. To provide police services.
2. To provide an armed force to defend the nation.
3. To provide courts of law where crimes are punished and tort disputes are settle peacefully.
4. To provide services to deal with natural disasters such as earthquakes, storms, floods and the like.

No redistribution of incomes, thank you.

If you think that is pro-fascist kindly tell us why.

ruveyn

Please read the linked article on Salon.com. Michael Lind is arguing that many prominent right-libertarian thinkers have apologized for various fascist or right-wing–authoritarian regimes, including Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile, and the Nova Estado in Portugal.

Well shame on them! But that is not what the libertarian doctrine is about. What it is about is limited government that does not intrude on the basic liberties of the citizens. Libertarians tend to be anti-Statist in their thinking. The last thing we need is an All Powerful State.

ruveyn

Indeed. I myself am not a Libertarian but I respect their views far more than most other groups I disagree with (such as Social conservatives); I would never have thought of Libertarians, of all people, supporting Fascism (a very illiberal ideology) any more than them supporting a centrally planned economy or a China-like censorship of the Internet. This does not mean I agree, nor does it mean I disagree, with them, all it means is that it just seems like another gimmick, much like that annoying book "Liberal Fascism" was.

Hurricane Katrina is proof that Libertarians do not want the government to provide disaster assistance.

The OP is a bit overblown. All that is being shown is that libertarians believe that it is better to have a libertarian society than it is to have democracy, and that libertarians have been willing to accept non-democratic governments if they believed that these would help enact libertarian societies. It also shows that many libertarians are skeptical on the workings of democracy.

I don't see this as necessarily like them "being apologists for fascism". Overly kind to Pinochet and other pro-market authoritarian governments? Sure, and that could just be folly. But that's not really the same as "apologists" as let's be honest, a LOT of people of the time period had overstated the goodness of one terrible government or another, whether it was the USSR, or some US puppet or whatever have you. This isn't to say that these statements are excusable, but.... I agree with Abgal64 "it just seems like another gimmick".

A libertarian society would be governed as a republic. That means representative government elected democratically. The question of who gets the franchise can be debated. In days of yore, only property owners had the vote. That had the beneficial result of forcing the government not to squander the public treasury. Every voter by being a property owner had a "stake" in the system so it behooved the government to be careful of public funds. Nowadays, over half the voters are getting benefits from the government at the expense of others. That is what happens when anyone with a warm body gets the vote.

ruveyn

What assistance? The head of FEMA at the time of Katrina was expert in Arabian horses, not disaster relief. It was government at its usual incompetent worst.

ruveyn

Hal Lindsey of the Religious Right complained that the hurricane Katrina victims were just looking for a handout.

While the religious right like to try to jump on the libertarian bandwagon, they are not libertarian. A Theocratic state of the type the New Apostolic Reformation candidates like Perry and Machman would usher in are a long way fomr libertarian ideals.

Hunh? Ruveyn, libertarianism is a political philosophy on the laws governing behavior that there should be. It isn't as political philosophy on how these laws should be made. Monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, republic, anarchy, kritarchy, etc, can all be potential libertarian frameworks on the workings of law. It is likely true that certain frameworks are more likely to fit in with libertarian ideals, but... libertarians don't care how the laws are made, only what those laws are.

Also, because you've disagreed with something I've said, I might as well point out this other bone of contention:


1) Not all libertarians think government has proper functions. The line between anarcho-capitalist and libertarian is relatively artificial as anarcho-capitalist is simply a going along on a gradient, and most anarcho-capitalists identify as libertarians and a number of them have contributed massively to libertarian theory and practice.

2) Not all libertarians will agree with this list. Some will probably reject point 4. Others will add on various other features. Libertarianism, as a philosophy, isn't identical with whatever list ruveyn comes up with. Many libertarians have allowed for welfare to exist as a government function in some form or fashion. Milton Friedman notably pushed for governmental control over the money supply.

3) Not all libertarians believe that the notion "proper function" is reasonable. For example, members of the Chicago school of economics usually have never put forward anything so deontological, and instead hold that less government is desirable for utilitarian reasons, along with perhaps the intrinsic desirability of more liberty. However, "proper function" isn't a necessary part of the vocabulary of the ideology. Many libertarians have been utilitarians of some form or fashion, including Mises, and the Friedmans. Others have actually rejected the notion of governments being so explicitly formulated, such as Friedrich Hayek, whose position basically requires him to hold that many aspects of our legal structures are a result of some form of social evolution. And so on and so forth.

In short, because libertarianism is a broad-tent ideology, like conservatism, progressivism, etc, it really can't be clamped down as "This is what it is!". Just like conservatism and progressivism can't be so narrowly constrained either. Conservatives can be Jesus-freaks, neocons, big-business advocates, culture-warriors, ardent nationalists, social progress skeptics, etc. Not all of the reasonings to get there have to be legitimate, not every piece of policy is agreed upon by the big-tent ideology, and certainly many of the reasonings will not be the same.

That is correct. The Tea Party Movement started out with a libertarian impulse. When it caught on in 2010 the Republican Right Wing Barking Mad Religious Crazies hijacked it.

ruveyn

This was particularly the case in the Antebellum South. Slave owners were looking out for the interests of slave owners.

And, slave owners got benefits, at the expense of their slaves.

The property restriction also was in the Northern states too. No slavery there. The point is property owners had a good economic incentive to keep their government sound and inexpensive to run. When two thirds of the voters live on "entitlements" one gets a considerably different result.

Which brings up the question: why is any one "entitled" to the wealth and assets earned by others?

ruveyn

Under the Jubilee laws everyone became a property owner at least once ever 50 years.