Natural Rights Libertarian

U.S. economic and military assistance to foreign countries (“foreign aid”) is generally unpopular with the electorate, but particularly distasteful to libertarians, as it is seen to violate non-interventionism. Thus, the 2012 Libertarian Party Platform states:

Our foreign policy should emphasize defense against attack from abroad and enhance the likelihood of peace by avoiding foreign entanglements. We would end the current U.S. government policy of foreign intervention, including military and economic aid (my emphasis).

While the logic of this stance is superficially compelling, I do not believe it can justify a categorical ban on foreign aid. Continue Reading »

One of the common arguments heard in libertarian circles in favor of open borders is that it is impossible to distinguish, in any morally relevant way, between internal migration and the regulation of movement across international boundaries. To illustrate, assume that residents of Maryland, upon moving to Virginia, commit violent crimes at a much higher rate than the natives. We should, according to this reasoning, nevertheless condemn Virginia if it reacted by closing its borders. Thus, it is asserted that even if migrants were much more likely to commit serious crimes here than natives, this would still not justify immigration restrictions. Continue Reading »

As used by libertarians and other critics of US foreign policy, “blowback” is the bad stuff that happens when we stray from a foreign policy of non-interventionism, the essence of which is that we defend our homeland, and observe a benign neutrality elsewhere. Blowback is frequently invoked as an explanation for the rise of ISIS and for recent terrorist acts committed here and in France.[1] Ron Paul, the former congressman and presidential candidate is certainly one of the most influential spokesman for this position. Accordingly, it may be an opportune time to examine the case he makes for it in his best-selling book, The Revolution: A Manifesto (2008), Chapter 2.   Continue Reading »

Israel is not the cause of Palestinian suffering. Rather, it is the direct result of the refusal of the Palestinian leadership to conclude a just peace with Israel, despite the golden opportunities presented in 2000 and 2008. However, even if you disagree, no rational person could think that Israel’s sins are remotely like the egregious human rights abuses committed by such nations as North Korea, Zimbabwe, Sudan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and so on. Nevertheless, Israel is singled out for censure by many on the left here: academic associations in various disciplines refuse to engage with Israeli scholars, the BDS movement thrives on college campuses, and Israel is disproportionately the focus of criticism in the mass media.

Certain western critics of Israel have forthrightly acknowledged this double standard, but have attempted to justify it on the basis that it is some form of honor that Israel should appreciate For example, Jesper Vahr, Denmark’s Ambassador to Israel, recently stated that, “Israel should insist that we discriminate, that we apply double standards, this is because you are one of us…you have the right to insist that we…put you to the same standards as all the rest of the countries in the European context.”[1]  Continue Reading »

My Libertarian Philosophy in the Real World (see right sidebar) critiques our liberal democracy from the perspective of Nozick’s rights-based libertarianism. Chapter 5 (the regulatory state) includes an in-depth analysis of the statutory regime governing public and private sector unions, and Chapter 8 (public education) describes how the collective bargaining authorized by these laws enable the teachers unions to unjustly promote their interests at the expense of dissenting teachers (forced to pay union dues), taxpayers, and students. Given the ever-increasing evidence of serious, pervasive rights violations by local law-enforcement, I wish I had devoted a section to this specific problem. Continue Reading »

Many self-described libertarians hold the view that “all rights are property rights.” This idea appears to originate with Murry Rothbard. As he puts it,

In fact, there are no human rights that are separable from property rights. The human right of free speech is simply the property right to hire an assembly hall from the owners, or to own one oneself; the human right of a free press is the property right to buy materials and then print leaflets or books and to sell them to those who are willing to buy.  There is no extra “right of free speech” or free press beyond the property rights we can enumerate in any given case. And furthermore, discovering and identifying the property rights involved will resolve any apparent conflicts of rights that may crop up. (emphasis in original)[1]

Although he is less than pellucidly clear in this passage, I don’t believe that Rothbard is merely being descriptive. That is, he is saying something more than that the exercise of all rights requires the ownership of some form of property, which would imply nothing about the moral status of such property. Rather, I read him here, in combination with the remainder of the chapter from which this quotation is taken, as claiming that in all cases the wrong-making feature of impermissible acts against persons is the violation of the victim’s property rights. And, in my experience, this is how followers of Rothbard understand him. Continue Reading »

Having done my best to evict Thomas Szasz from the Libertarian pantheon, I feel that it is incumbent upon me to nominate a suitable replacement, and I believe I have found one. I speak of the great poet, playwright, and critic, T. S. Eliot. As far as I can tell, Eliot was not particularly active in or outspoken about his politics, but his most acclaimed play, Murder in the Cathedral, has unmistakable libertarian overtones.   Continue Reading »

Ever since the Enlightenment, philosophers and theologians have argued over a challenge to religious belief known as the “problem of evil.” Very briefly, how can God be both omnipotent and benevolent, yet allow things like the Holocaust or the 1994 genocide in Rwanda? If this apparent inconsistency cannot be resolved, God must either not exist or be radically different than conceived by most believers. As evident from the entry on this subject by Michael Tooley in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, there is an enormous literature on controversy. I believe it is fair to say that Professor Tooley is convinced that the problem of evil constitutes a decisive reason to deny the existence of a benevolent God. Continue Reading »

In a post last month I discussed the disgraceful failure of our public schools to adequately educate our most gifted children. As if on cue, the Wall Street Journal published last week an important opinion piece on this subject. This essay, “The Bright Students Left Behind,” by Chester Finn, Jr. and Brandon Wright (both affiliated with an Ohio think-tank dedicated to school reform) does a superb job of diagnosing and documenting the disease, but falls far short in its recommended cure. Continue Reading »

In previous posts (here and here) I have discussed Nozick’s somewhat neglected libertarian “framework for utopia,” which he lays out in Part III of ASU. Very briefly, in a perfect world the minimal state would provide the institutional skeleton around which individuals and communities could construct their own preferred modes of living. So long as people join them voluntarily and are free to leave, such communities may be distinctly illiberal. The state would function to ensure that the various sub-units do not aggress against each other, and would safeguard each person’s right of exit.

Nozick is operating here in the realm of ideal theory, and accordingly does not attempt to thoroughly address various practical problems that would arise under his framework. See ASU, 329-31. For one thing, children do not voluntarily elect to live in a particular jurisdiction, but are born, socialized, and educated wherever their parents have decided to reside.  Furthermore, exit from such communities will inevitably involve certain costs.  Such facts might, in the real world, require a more interventionist state than anticipated by Nozick in his idealized setting.  Apart from this, there may be certain group rules and practices that are so abhorrent to other communities, even if adopted on a consensual basis, that the latter may not wish to “share the same roof” with them, even symbolically.

Putting these complexities aside, Nozick’s idea has striking similarities to the federalism that the framers understood to be the essence of our constitution. “Federalism” is defined by my dictionary as “the distribution of power in an organization (as a government) between a central authority and the constituent units.” The founding fathers embraced this idea: all responsibilities not formally delegated to the federal government were to remain with the several states and ultimately repose in the people themselves (see the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution). The remaining substantive guarantees set forth in the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the federal government. Continue Reading »