Saturday, August 15, 2009

Karen De Coster: "modal libertarians"

Libertarian guru Murray Rothbard called them "modal libertarians." They are an assemblage of leftover Marxists, 60s-70s drug users, cultural leftists, assorted members of the Arts-and-Croissant crowd, and Christian-hating atheists. They latch onto the libertarian name because, somehow, they think "libertarian" means "do-whatever-the-heck-you-want" in the name of freedom.


Exclusive property rights, and therefore, the right to discriminate against others on one's own property, is not even a part of the left-libertarian thought process. After all, these concepts go against the very ideals they support, such as gay and civil rights, utilitarianism, moral relativism, and non-rationalism. However, enjoying true freedom, without absolute control of one's property, is not possible. And on the mass immigration issue, the modal libertarians put their devotion to multiculturalism, diversity, and PC-ness ahead of the core libertarian principle of private property.

Since When Is 'Private Property' Not Self-Explanatory?


  1. What Murray could never grasp, was that there was a third set of libertarians, like myself, very libertine on cultural matters, but hardcore Rightwing on foreign policy and economics.

    Murray, and subsequently Lew Rockwell, Anthony Gregory, Doug Bandow and the Anti-War wing of the libertarian movement, refused, and to this day, refuse, to acknowledge the "Bad Boy/Pro-Military Libertarians."

    We like to drink, cuss, whore around, listen to Ted Nugent and Van Halen, but absolutely despise the Leftist Rothbardian foreign policy views of the Ron Paulists/Rockwellians of today.

    We don't quite fit Murray's paradigm.

    And as a result his entire set of views on the matter of what constitutent "left libertarian," were suspect. For to Pro-Defense Libertarians like myself, it's Murray who was the Leftist given his AntiWar views.

  2. Eric,

    What you refer to as "leftist libertarianism" is actually just *plain* libertarianism.

    To quote that notorious "leftist libertarian" Hans Hoppe, "it is important to note that the U.S. government is not exactly innocent in all of this. Through its interventionist foreign policy, and in particular its almost blind support given to the state of Israel, the U.S. can be said to have provoked terrorist acts. If you meddle in foreign affairs, you should not be surprised if besides some friends you will also make plenty of enemies..

    Indeed, one may even ask if it is not the U.S. (and Bush) that constitutes the greatest danger to world peace. The U.S. commands more weapons of mass destruction than anyone else, they have not hesitated to gas their own population (in Waco), they engage in economic embargoes (against Cuba as well as Iraq) which harm especially the civilian population and which, because of this, have been traditionally considered particularly shameful forms of war, and spurred on by the neoconservatives and evangelic fundamentalist the U.S. is driven by an almost religious – and self-righteous – zeal to make the old Wilsonian dream come true and make the world safe for democracy."

  3. Some reasons why I disagree with Karen can be found in an old post here.

    I'm not a modal libertarian but think the paleos use flawed logic to argue for restrictions on immigration.


If the post you are commenting on is more than 30 days old, your comment will have to await approval before being published. Rest assured, however, that as long as it is not spam, it will be published in due time.

Related Posts with Thumbnails