[This essay is based on a paper presented at the April 1979 national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago. The theme of the meeting was \"Conservatism and Libertarianism.\"] <\/p>\n
Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today. Before judging and evaluating libertarianism, it is vitally important to find out precisely what that doctrine is, and, more particularly, what it is not. It is especially important to clear up a number of misconceptions about libertarianism that are held by most people, and particularly by conservatives. In this essay I shall enumerate and critically analyze the most common myths that are held about libertarianism. When these are cleared away, people will then be able to discuss libertarianism free of egregious myths and misconceptions, and to deal with it as it should be on its very own merits or demerits. <\/p>\n
This is a common charge, but a highly puzzling one. In a lifetime of reading libertarian and classical-liberal literature, I have not come across a single theorist or writer who holds anything like this position. <\/p>\n
The only possible exception is the fanatical Max Stirner, a mid-19th-century German individualist who, however, has had minimal influence upon libertarianism in his time and since. Moreover, Stirner's explicit \"might makes right\" philosophy and his repudiation of all moral principles including individual rights as \"spooks in the head,\" scarcely qualifies him as a libertarian in any sense. Apart from Stirner, however, there is no body of opinion even remotely resembling this common indictment. <\/p>\n
Libertarians are methodological and political individualists, to be sure. They believe that only individuals think, value, act, and choose. They believe that each individual has the right to own his own body, free of coercive interference. But no individualist denies that people are influencing each other all the time in their goals, values, pursuits, and occupations. <\/p>\n
As F.A. Hayek pointed out in his notable article, \"The Non Sequitur of the 'Dependence Effect,'\" John Kenneth Galbraith's assault upon free-market economics in his best-selling The Affluent Society rested on this proposition: economics assumes that every individual arrives at his scale of values totally on his own, without being subject to influence by anyone else. On the contrary, as Hayek replied, everyone knows that most people do not originate their own values, but are influenced to adopt them by other people.[1] <\/p>\n
No individualist or libertarian denies that people influence each other all the time, and surely there is nothing wrong with this inevitable process. What libertarians are opposed to is not voluntary persuasion, but the coercive imposition of values by the use of force and police power. Libertarians are in no way opposed to the voluntary cooperation and collaboration between individuals: only to the compulsory pseudo-\"cooperation\" imposed by the state. <\/p>\n
This myth has recently been propounded by Irving Kristol, who identifies the libertarian ethic with the \"hedonistic\" and asserts that libertarians \"worship the Sears Roebuck catalogue and all the 'alternative life styles' that capitalist affluence permits the individual to choose from.\"[2] <\/p>\n
The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a political theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals with the proper role of violence in social life. <\/p>\n
\"What a person does with his or her life is vital and important, but is simply irrelevant to libertarianism.\" <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
More here: <\/p>\n
Myth and Truth About Libertarianism<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" [This essay is based on a paper presented at the April 1979 national meeting of the Philadelphia Society in Chicago. The theme of the meeting was \"Conservatism and Libertarianism.\"] Libertarianism is the fastest growing political creed in America today Continue reading