My topic today is Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism.
So let me start off by asking what libertarianism is.
And in my view, libertarianism is the idea of non-aggression.
You keep your midst to yourself.
You don't grab other people or their property.
The other side of the coin, though, is property rights.
Because suppose I grab Bettina's blouse or her wristwatch.
Am I aggressing against her?
You don't know unless you know what property rights are because maybe she stole that wristwatch from me yesterday and now I'm repossessing it.
So in order to tell the difference whether something is coercion or not, you have to have a theory of property rights.
And libertarians have a theory of property rights based on homesteading and legitimate title transfer of buying and selling anything volunteering.
Okay, so what is Big Tent? Obviously Big Tent is being inclusive.
And the way I see libertarianism, this two-sided of the two sides of the coin, there are implications like what's the libertarian view on rent control, what's the libertarian view on free trade, what's the libertarian view on unions, what's the libertarian view on this, that or the other. There are 10,000 things.
So to me, big tent libertarianism means if you're a weirdo and you believe in libertarianism in everything except rent control, you somehow you think rent control is great.
Okay, so you're a libertarian, I'm easy.
You know, they're a little weird,
it's a little idiosyncratic,
but what the heck, every dog gets one bite.
That was Murray's view, even a few bites.
We're not the randroids here.
We don't insist on perfection of agreement on everything.
You know, we have room for a little moderation.
My own experience with Murray,
I came to him as a minarchist and a non-Austrian.
He was very receptive, very open.
Murray has also had coalitions with the left,
The Peace and Freedom Party with the right, the Randolph Club.
These people didn't agree with us on everything,
but they agreed with us on some things,
and on those things he was willing to have a coalition.
So this is sort of the open tent kind of an idea.
Why did I pick this topic?
The reason I picked this topic is
there's this famous politician running
whose name I won't be sharing with you,
but I will say that he is a warm-up act
for certain libertarians.
And a lot of libertarians are criticizing him.
They're saying, well, he's a little imperfect on this,
he's a little imperfect on that, therefore we can't support him.
And that's why I wanted to pursue the Big Tent idea,
you know, just how far do we open ourselves up to other people?
And my idea is that there are certain issues on which,
on the basis of which, libertarians still have debates, internal debates.
There are eminent libertarians on both sides, and when there are eminent libertarians on both sides of an issue, it ill behooves us to say, well, anyone who's on this side of the issue can't be a libertarian.
I think that the big tent should be open up enough for that.
Later on, I'll give an example of where I think we should not open our tent to all comers.
Let me give another argument in favor of open tent or big tent.
we're very small so on pragmatic grounds it behooves us to accept people who are not perfect we don't insist on perfection progress is fine let me give you the example I've got 20 different issues on which libertarianism is either unclear or divisive or what have you and in my view if people disagree with me personally in all 20 and I have views of my own on all 20 of these they're still a libertarian for example immigration and I'll have more to say about that
But I find on the opposite side, I'm an open borders type, but I find on the closed borders,
three of the people who I regard as the chief preeminent libertarian theoreticians disagree with me.
Murray Rothbard, Stefan Kinsella and Hans Hoppe.
And they have what I recognize as libertarian arguments for their side.
I disagree, but that's a different point.
I would never say that if you disagree with me on this, you're not a libertarian
because there are eminent libertarians on both sides.
Another one is abortion. Should we be pro-life, pro-choice, when does human life begin?
Is the fetus a trespasser? Is it a parasite?
These views are all current among libertarians.
So how could we possibly say that someone
that doesn't agree with us on this issue
isn't a libertarian?
Voluntary slavery contracts.
Is this selling the will and therefore impossible?
What about specific performance contracts?
Some people say, well, if you don't own it,
you can't, if you can't sell it, you don't own it.
If you can't sell your freedom,
then you don't own your freedom.
This is a complicated issue.
What about reparations to former slaves
Should we give the country back to the Indians? What about a Statue of Limitations?
Again, there are disagreements among people who I regard as eminent libertarians.
We have a Lockean homesteading proviso that homesteading applies only if there is good and as much left for everyone else.
I think all libertarians reject that, but I've got a new one for stalling.
If you homestead in a donut pattern and you prevent people from entering the hole in the donut, is that a legitimate form of homesteading?
Form of Homesteading, again, disagreements on that.
What about property rights and the environment?
Intellectual property rights.
Stefan Kinsella and Murray Rothbard disagree on this.
I think if Murray were alive, he would agree with Stefan.
I know Stefan turned me around on this issue,
but it's still, it's a divisive issue.
Then there's the justification of libertarianism.
You see, the way I see libertarianism,
it's sort of like a teepee or a tent.
You got six or eight sticks,
and the long part of the stick holds the tent,
and then there's this little bit extra up there.
And these are the justifications of libertarianism.
Well, there are various justifications.
There's natural rights that Murray Rothbard started with.
There's the Mises utilitarian argument.
There's the Ayn Rand justification.
There's Hans Hoppe's brilliant argument from argument
or argumentation ethics.
Libertarians disagree on that.
In my view is we're all libertarians
if we agree on the non-aggression axiom
and property rights.
And it really doesn't matter how you justify it.
You sort of start from that two-sided coin.
Another one is minarchism versus anarchism.
There was the Dallas Accord, where people in the libertarian party said, well, look,
we won't fight this one out.
We'll wait until we get rid of 95% of the state, and then we'll worry about the rest
of it.
In the meantime, let's agree that there are both sides of this issue among us, and we're
big tentists in this regard.
Another one, should you take matching funds from the government?
Is it hypocritical to vote? Is it seizing stolen wealth if you take matching funds?
I just wrote about this in lewrockwell.com and I got a barrage of criticism from within
the libertarian movement, I regard. What about voting or not voting in political
elections? Is this taking part? Is this supporting evil? Or do we agree with spooner, no treason
where it's a defensive activity? Again, disputes, legitimate disputes.
What about the U.S. Constitution?
A certain politician supports the U.S. Constitution,
although at lunch he said that it's not perfect.
Well, maybe the Articles of Confederation are better.
If you support the Constitution, does that mean you're not a libertarian?
Ridiculous.
Ownership of ourselves.
We consist of nothing more than a sperm and an egg and a bunch of stuff from our mother.
So why don't they own us?
Why do we own ourselves?
And obviously you can go back.
This is an unsolved issue.
If anyone's got a great solution, please clue me in on this one puzzle.
Human shields. Suppose I take A and I throw A against B.
They've each got a gun, but they can't shoot me for some reason.
It's my example, you know, they can't shoot me.
Well, who has the right to shoot who?
The missile or the recipient of the missile?
It's unclear. Or a shield.
I grab A and I hide behind A and I try to shoot B.
Can B shoot through A to get at me, the bad guy?
Very complicated issues that lead into all sorts of complexities
And again, I'm not ruling anyone out of the libertarian movement who disagrees with me on this one also.
What about the bum in the public library?
There's a bum who's sitting there and smelling up the place and no one else can use the public library.
So one answer is kick him out.
Another answer, wait, wait, wait, this is public property, we're against public property, maybe we should root for the bum.
Very, very complicated.
Blackmail, I threaten that unless you give me money or go to bed with me, I will reveal to all that you take a bath with a rubber ducky.
Did I commit a crime? Well, it wasn't nice what I did, but is it a crime? Complicated issue.
Incitement, I say, go, burn, rape, loot, murder, kill. And you idiots go out and do that.
Well, you morons are criminals, but what about me? I didn't do it, I just told you guys to do it.
Well, if you have free will, it's your responsibility, but other people say,
Stefan Kinsella and I are finding ourselves on opposite sides of this one,
then I'm guilty too.
What about yelling for in a crowded theater?
I wrote about that in Defending the Undefendable.
I have certain views on that.
Other people have different views.
What about a quarantine for dangerous disease?
Is this an initiation of force against the person with the communicable disease?
Or do we interpret that the person with the communicable disease
is, in effect, a time bomb waiting to go off
nd he is like a bomb and we have to take defensive efforts against him. Complicated.
Last one is punishment theory. I steal a TV. What should happen to me? Well, my view is very draconian.
Two teeth for two. First I give him my own TV. First I give him back his TV. Then I give him one of mine.
Then we charge me costs of capture. And then we charge me a scaring fee. Scaring means I scared him.
Okay, let me now consider in some detail the issue of immigration. There is this article written by Don Boehm-Bawerk, who is the director of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States of America.
William Boudreaux, who is a professor of economics at the George Mason University, and he says one of the most bizarre developments in the last decade or so is the insistence by a small handful of people who parade under the banner of, quote, libertarian or advocate of free markets and say that the state has both the right and the duty to limit immigration.
and he goes on to just rip this to shreds for the best of his ability, implying that the people who believe this are not libertarians in direct contradiction to the point that I'm trying to make, the big tent approach.
Please, the people in the back, there are plenty of seats in the front, come on down, enjoy, sit down if you want.
Here's another quote from him.
Indeed, say these libertarian skeptics of immigration, open immigration today is 10 amounts of forced integration.
Now this is roughly a reasonable summary of Hans Hoppe's position and Murray Rothbard's position and Kinsella's position.
And again, my view is that they're wrong.
I'm an open borders type, but I differ from Boudreau in not dismissing out of hand as libertarian.
of Hand as Libertarianist. I regard this as a reasonable but mistaken Libertarian argument.
Here's another quote. First, to ask government to mimic the outcomes of a pure private property
rights system, the idea that since individuals can exclude or preclude people from entry
on grounds of trespass, is to come dangerously close to asking government to treat the entire
country as if that country is private property of the state. What an irony. Well, we come
Welcome back to The Bum and the Library. Should the government treat the library as its private property, and we sort of assume that if private, if we had a private library, they wouldn't allow bums in there, so maybe the government shouldn't.
The implication here is we shouldn't have any rules of the road, because again, government is acting to say, oh, 65 miles an hour and you can't do this, you can't be drunk or whatever it is.
The government is acting as if it owns the roads, and strictly speaking, I'm on record as saying we should have private roads, but does that mean that the government shouldn't have any rules?
Well, that's one position. Here's another quote from him.
Likewise, allowing people to immigrate into a country is not the same thing as forcing citizens of that country to associate with immigrants.
This is nonsense. I mean, if hordes of people come into the country, say a billion Chinese enter the country, will we have to associate with them?
Yes, we will have to. So I think it's disingenuous of Boudreaux to make this view.
Again, under a regime of open immigration, I need not hire or befriend anyone who I don't wish to hire or befriend.
Well, you might not have to befriend them, but they might mug you or rob you or rape you or what have you.
So to say that immigration has no effect is highly problematic.
Then again, he says, an immigrant who receives no welfare payments engages only in consensual capitalist acts with those and only those domestic citizens who choose to deal with the immigrant.
Well, but we do have welfare.
One of my favorite TV shows is The Simpsons, and when Appu got his, what do you call it, citizenship,
the first thing he said is, where's the welfare office?
Well, I don't know that everyone who does this will go on welfare, but the point is that they can go on welfare,
and we have to make this decision right now in the context of welfare,
not in some sort of idealized context where there is no welfare.
Okay, I've now discussed cases of open-tent-ism, one where you have one deviation on things
that most libertarians would agree on, say rent control. Then I've given you 20, a list
of 20 things where I think that libertarianism is in a state of flux. We deal with complex
legal realities and I think that our, you know, I once saw a sign, drive gently, you
know, when you drive. Well, I think we should ideologize gently. We should be gentle with
People who disagree with us on issues that are not settled.
But now, you know, they say an open mind is good,
but you don't want to have such an open mind
that your brains fall out.
Well, I'm now gonna approach a case
where I don't think we should have an open intent,
and this is the so-called pro-war libertarians
or the imperialist libertarians
or the warmongering libertarians
or whatever you want to call them.
The reason I'm not too open here
is I regard this as a direct attack
on the Law of Non-Aggression.
Now there's this guy Bill Peterson here.
I think I'm gonna go down and slug him.
Why?
Because he has weapons of individual destruction.
He's got arms, he's got legs, he's got a cane,
he could bop me, he's got teeth.
He didn't smile at my jokes.
So I regard this as a hostile act.
So I'm gonna go down and slug him.
Now, am I a libertarian?
Come on, give me a break.
This is not exactly libertarianism.
So I don't think that we have to have an open tent
to include the pro-war libertarians,
among whom are many critics of this politician
who is my warm-up act, whose name I won't mention.
I think we have to draw the line somewhere.
And if people so pervert the very essence of libertarianism,
the Non-Aggression Act seem to say that, you know,
because some little third-rate country,
10, 12,000 miles away could maybe one day attack us,
never has, never made any threats,
We're gonna go get them.
That's a perversion of everything
that we hold dear as libertarians.
Bob Higgs is one of my good friends.
I hope he'll regard me in that way.
And I agreed with everything he said
in his analysis last night about this idea of
being fooled by people who say that we should have wars
and whenever they announce a war
or even a war that might occur,
before we sort of all fall in line and let them get away with anything.
It was sort of a little depressing.
I mean, it was very accurate,
but it's sort of a critical kind of analysis that he gave.
I wish, I really wish that I had a solution and said,
aha, here's the case for optimism.
I don't really have the case for optimism,
but I sometimes find that if we can understand the problem,
even though it's not a solution,
it sort of leads to the solution,
and maybe other people will find a solution for it.
So what I want to offer is an analysis of why it is so hard to put forth the libertarian message or put forth the Austrian message.
And the answer is sociobiology. How many people here are afraid of bathtubs? Raise your hand.
Shut up. Trying to ruin my example. How many people are afraid of snakes?
Most people are afraid of snakes.
Yet more people nowadays die from bathtubs than from snakes.
Yet we're viscerally sort of hardwired to fear snakes. Why?
Because of sociobiological considerations.
Namely, we are the way we are today because of what it took to live 100,000 years ago.
I remember after the Katrina case, there were price gougers.
They would raise prices for orange juice or milk or candles or flashlight batteries.
and everyone visibly hated them and the governor said we're going to throw these price gougers in jail.
There are good reasons to have price gouging. One, it rations extant supplies and two, it calls forth new supplies.
But we're not hardwired to accept this. So I hope that this will be of some help to you in considering why we have such troubles in convincing people even though we're right.
are right. I think the only answer is education and the Mises Institute as far as I'm concerned
is one of the preeminent institutions in promoting this sort of education. Thank you.