the libertarians, like any other third party, have been clawing their way onto as many ballots as they can. As a party, in fact, their first pressing task was to secure places on the ballots of the several states. (This proved no easy matter for a group originally boasting only 500 members, half of whom were Californians.) In 1972, the party made the ballot in only two states; by 1976 it could claim a political presence in thirty-one states; in 1980, the Libertarian presidential candidate was a choice in all fifty ballots. By 1982, the party could boast a membership of approximately 40,000 (see Tables 1 and 2[tables omitted]). This is not the sort of electoral progress that is made by a party that doesn't care.

[Tables 1 and 2 omitted]

50 The Journal of Contemporary Studies Summer 1983

Person 1: Who are you going to vote for?

Person 2: I think 1'm going to vote for the Libertarian party.

Person 1: I was thinking about voting for the Libertarian party myself until I found out what they really stand for.

Person 2: Like what?

Person 1: Like abolishing social security and that's not all. The Libertarians want to get rid of nearly every federal program on the books. They think we should get out of every defense treaty and alliance we're involved with around the world.

Person 2: I'm for less government, not no government. That's crazy!

Person 1: Libertarians also want to repeal all drug laws and porno laws. If the Libertarian Party had its way, kiddie porn would be allowed in every state, including Alaska.

Person 2: Over my dead body!

Person 1: You see, Libertarians just don't understand we need some government and some laws.

Person 2: Gee, Joe, I'm really glad I spoke to you: Voting Libertarian would have been a big mistake.

Person 1: Can I suggest something else, pal? Do yourself a favor on election day. Vote Republican.

For a political party trying to make electoral headway, such attention is cause for celebration.

The formal party activity of the libertarians is in many ways the least visible aspect of the libertarian movement. The party itself is backed by a network of foundations, publications, and thinkers that, from blatantly partisan pamphleteers to more philosophic writers— such as Robert Nozick in Anarchy, State, and Utopia and Friedrich Hayek in the three-volume Law, Legislation and Liberty— broadcasts the libertarian message: the "interventionist state" is utterly at odds with liberty. The works of Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, and other thinkers whose works satisfy at least certain strands of libertarianism are routinely reviewed (favorably), distilled (judiciously), and sold (inexpensively) by libertarian publications and those generally sympathetic to some if not all of the tenets of libertarianism. From libertarian advertisements in the conservative Intercollegiate Review; for instance, one can snap up a copy of Frank S. Meyer's In Defense of Freedom for $1.00; and Hayek's massive The Constitution of Liberty is going for a mere $5.00 (a hardcover edition that regularly costs $19.95). Similarly, The Liber-

The Libertarian Movement in America 51

The theoretical spirit in libertarianism originates in the genesis of its doctrine. Libertarianism's painstakingly consistent logic— a logic of liberty— precisely what renders the libertarian movement a difficult one to hold together and the Libertarian Party a tough one to push. For the libertarian political theory of individual liberty rests on a split foundation: an economic foundation of the one side, and a moral foundation on the other. Thus, libertarianism is less a traditional political movement or party than it is a moral and economic system. More precisely, libertarianism consists of a set of economic and moral theories linked to each other by a uniform commitment to individual freedom. The moral and the economic commitments to individual freedom are arrived at in different ways and have different consequences for public policy. But they do have a common origin in a particular understanding of what it means to be a human being.

Hayek warned that economic planning the attempt to shackle the invisible hand of the free market, would lead to a creed of

54 The Journal of Contemporary Studies Summer 1983

To be free, truly free, men must be left alone to choose how they will live their lives and dispose of the fruits of their labors; to place demands or restrictions on such economic freedom is to destroy any meaningful notion of political liberty.

Free-market economics, with its clear dedication to the principle of individual autonomy, provides a solid point of departure for the political science of libertarianism. Not only does such an economic order leave men free, it makes them happy; and the happiness of the citizen is essential to the stability and vitality of the nation. The

The Libertarian Movement in America 55

The importance of Ayn Rand to libertarian thought cannot be overemphasized. She provided a moral justification for capitalism to replace the technical justification that had held sway until then. Until Rand, the strongest case for capitalism was efficiency: it worked. However, the mere fact that capitalism produced wealth better than other forms of economic organization did not, by itself, serve as a sufficient justification. Those who defended capitalism on grounds merely of its technical superiority had to contend with the view that, whatever the virtues of capitalism, it was necessitated by a moral defect within men. If men were better, went the argument, then capitalism would be unnecessary and all the waste and struggle of the free market could be replaced by peaceful, collective effort. However, since men were selfish scoundrels, capitalism was the best that could be expected from them. This moral ambiguity of capitalism is what had allowed, in large part, the transformation of classical liberalism into modern welfare liberalism.

The Libertarian Movement in America 57

Rand's intention is to show that the productive owe nothing to the unproductive— or to any one else, for that matter. In attacking altruism, she challenges those who believe that men are obligated to be charitable to those who are weaker to explain by what standard this is so; by what standard is greed to be regarded as unjust? For her, as for John Locke, reason can demonstrate no basis for anything but self-interest. Even, for example, if it could be shown that radical capitalism were inefficient (something she regards as impossible), it would still be the most moral system because it never compels anyone to assume any obligation to which he is not inclined. And for Rand no reasonable man would be inclined to assume any obligation in the first place, except one that is mutually beneficial.

Thus for Rand charity is morally wrong in itself, for it violates the obligation of the giver to himself while destroying the dignity of the recipient. Yet Rand would not legislate against charity. Her argument against altruism does not put her in opposition to the economic libertarians on questions of public policy. Politically there is agreement between Rand and those like Milton Friedman who see nothing inherently wrong with charity. The argument is simple enough: whether or not charity is good, the state ought not to make it compulsory. In the view of both the economic and the moral libertarians, welfare creates economic inefficiency; and for both, it is an injustice, a violation of the right of men to dispose their wealth as they see fit. For both, the state ought not intrude on productive or economic 1ife.

58 The Journal of Contemporary Studies Summer 1983

The two bases of contemporary libertarianism, the moral and the economic, explain in large part why the movement attracts disappointed conservative Republicans as easily as the disaffected remnants of the New Left. Hard hats and hippies might make strange bedfellows, but each can find comfort under the patchwork quilt of the libertarian movement or the Libertarian Party. For the most part the economic teachings of Hayek and Friedman and the moral teachings of Rand combine to provide a comfortable, moderate common denominator for libertarianism. Both traditions accept the right of the state to exist, and both see its function as the protection of private property and the defense of the community. Toward this end, both accept that the state has a right to levy taxes because those who are taxed benefit. But it is only toward this end that the state has the right to tax; anything beyond this point, both camps agree, is unjust.

Such moderation, while it generally characterizes the vital center of the libertarian movement, does not satisfy the more extremeand occasionally the most vocal— libertarians. Casting a suspicious glance toward their more moderate brethren, there are those libertarians who unflinchingly oppose all state functions. Why, they ask, does the state have the right to compel men to pay for their own defense? Moreover, aren't state police and state armies as likely to be inefficient as state-run postal systems? The more moderate among this faction hold that the state should support police and defense only by voluntary contributions; the more radical oppose any state power at all.

The most radical libertarians have a certain sympathy for the New Left. They oppose defense spending as much as welfare, and regard American foreign policy— any foreign policy— as imperialism. By extending their criticism of state activity to such extremes, they are in a way the most consistent libertarians. But the ultimate end for them is anarchy. Some are prepared for this; others deny it is a problem, possessing a faith that people are inherently good and only the state makes them wicked.

One could expand this to police. Say you are being robbed. You have a contract with a firm of private police and you call them. Chances are that they would show up faster than police do now because, motivated by profits, they would want your continued business. And so on.

Rothbard's scheme is an attempt to be both logical and realistic, though not without some resulting problems. The anarchists are morally right and the statists are practically right. Rothbard tries a compromise that is doomed from the beginning: his is a thoroughgoing attempt to turn political matters into entirely economic ones.

In a way, Rothbard's theory of competitive governments reveals the fundamental theoretical weakness of libertarianism. It accepts the deformed image of man as a purely economic animal devoid of political inclination not as a problem to be solved, but as an insight to be celebrated. Libertarians want this image of man to ho1d sway. But the problem is that economic man is an abstraction in the same way that a strictly sexual understanding of basic drives is an abstraction. Both models explain parts of human nature— even large parts— but neither alone is adequate to explain fully what it means to be human. The problems that extreme libertarians have in solving the consequences of their logic merely reflect the problems of the libertarian vision generally. The wackiness of the extreme libertarians, who treat human nature as preternaturally good and political regimes as consumer products, illustrates the problems of pushing the principle of liberty beyond the limits of its logic.

Ultimately, moderate libertarianism, in contrast with the more rarefied varieties, becomes practically indistinguishable from other kinds of American conservatism. Moderate libertarians support the Constitution and recognize the need for both national defense and internal police forces defending against violent crime. They support the diffusion of political power to localities and the need for a balanced budget. In other words, they support limited government in much the same way as traditional conservatives do, but for vastly different reasons.

60 The Journal of Contemporary Studies Summer 1983

While some planks of the party's platform will lure conservatives toward the libertarian fold, others will send them scampering away. On the whole, conservatives tend to be more attracted to the libertarian stance on domestic issues than on foreign affairs; but even on the domestic side, there is often too much that goes too far for most conservative tastes.

Many points in the libertarian program in foreign affairs simply fly in the face of what most conservatives see as the essence of sound foreign policy: peace through strength. While some might welcome the libertarian call for American withdrawal from the United Nations, other policies— notably the call for a substantial reduction in the defense establishment, the urging of complete disarmament (both traditional and nuclear weaponry) down to police levels, and the demand that the president's power to initiate military actions during declared states of emergency be abolished— leave most conservatives cold.

The libertarians' greatest contribution to the conservative intellectual and political movements in America is in the area of domestic policy— specifically, in the areas of welfare and the economy. The libertarian demands for the abolition of personal and corporate income taxes, their drive for a balanced budget, their dislike of consumer protection and environmental protection laws, and especially

61 Journal of Contemporary Studies Summer 1983

Whatever their ultimate relationship, conservatism and libertarianism are politically allied in the United States. Each is, in practical terms, more opposed to the Left than either is to the other. What binds them together is the fact that each is, in the final analysis, both a partisan of capitalism and a partisan of liberal democracy. Ultimately, each understands itself to be not only a defender of the American regime, but also the faithful heir to the American political tradition. In this spirit, while working together, both conservatives and libertarians understand the other as having in some way, betrayed the intentions of the Founders.