From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
A common symbol among Right-Libertarians

Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism,[1] refers to libertarian political philosophies that advocate natural law, laissez faire capitalism, civil liberties, and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[2] Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property.[note 1] This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism.[note 2]

Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority.[6] Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism, however, differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation.[6][note 3]

The philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of their person and thus that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that their labor produces.[6] Economically, right libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive.[6] Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between those who adhere to the anarcho-capitalism position, who view the state as an unnecessary evil, and minarchists who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state.[note 4]

Although influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, there are significant differences. With Edwin van de Haar stating that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them."[9] Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state, which is the defining feature of libertarianism.[6] Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement,[10] arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state.[10] Also, right-libertarians often attack classical liberals for their support for central banks and monetarist policies.[11]


Right-libertarianism[note 5] developed in the United States in the mid-20th century from the works of European writers like John Locke, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the world today.[13] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[14][15] The most important of these early right-libertarian philosophers was Robert Nozick. While often sharing left-libertarians' advocacy for social freedom, right-libertarians also value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom.[16] Anarcho-capitalists[17][18] seek complete elimination of the state in favor of privately funded security services while minarchists defend night-watchman states which maintain only those functions of government necessary to safeguard natural rights, understood in terms of self-ownership or autonomy.[19]

Non-aggression principle[edit]

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[20][21][22] It is a moral stance which forbids actions that are inconsistent with capitalist property rights. The principle defines "aggression" and "initiation of force" as violation of these rights. The NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what constitutes aggression depends on what libertarians consider to be one's property.[23]

Because the principle redefines aggression in right-libertarian terms, use of the NAP as a justification for right-libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and as rhetorical obfuscation of the coercive nature of libertarian property law enforcement.[24] The principle has been used rhetorically to oppose such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation and military drafts.

Property rights[edit]

While there is debate on whether left, right and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme", right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property and property rights.[note 6] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner".[26] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[27]

Right-libertarians (also referred to as propertarians) hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[28] They generally support the free market and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[29]


There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate. While anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, though some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches.[30][31][32] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchism is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional and that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition.[citation needed] Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[33]

Anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[34][35] Many also argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient and that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[36]

Libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. These two groups are therefore not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[37]

Taxation as theft[edit]

The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection.[38][39] Voluntaryists and anarcho-capitalists as well as Objectivists and most minarchists and libertarians see taxation as violation of the non-aggression principle.[40]


Right-libertarianism developed in the United States 1950s as many with Old Right or classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarians.[41] H. L. Mencken and Albert Jay Nock were the first prominent figures in the United States to privately call themselves libertarians.[42][43][44] They believed Franklin D. Roosevelt had co-opted the word liberal for his New Deal policies which they opposed and used libertarian to signify their allegiance to individualism. In 1913, Mencken wrote: "My literary theory, like my politics, is based chiefly upon one idea, to wit, the idea of freedom. I am, in belief, a libertarian of the most extreme variety".[45]

In 1955, the term libertarianism was first publicly used in the United States as a synonym for classical liberalism by writer Dean Russell, a colleague of Leonard Read, who justified the choice of the word as follows:

Subsequently, a growing number of Americans with classical liberal beliefs in the United States began to describe themselves as libertarian. The person most responsible for popularizing the term libertarian was Murray Rothbard,[47] who started publishing libertarian works in the 1960s.

In the 1950s, Russian-American novelist Ayn Rand developed a philosophical system called Objectivism, expressed in her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged as well as other works, which influenced many libertarians.[48] However, she rejected the label libertarian and harshly denounced the libertarian movement as the "hippies of the right".[note 7] Philosopher John Hospers, a one-time member of Rand's inner circle, proposed a non-initiation of force principle to unite both groups—this statement later became a required "pledge" for candidates of the Libertarian Party and Hospers himself became its first presidential candidate in 1972.[citation needed]

Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard was influenced by the work of the 19th-century American individualist anarchists, themselves influenced by classical liberalism.[note 8] However, Rothbard thought they had a faulty understanding of economics because they accepted the labor theory of value as influenced by the classical economists while he was a student of neoclassical economics which does not agree with the labor theory of value.[citation needed] Rothbard sought to meld 19th-century American individualists' advocacy of free markets and private defense with the principles of Austrian economics: "There is, in the body of thought known as 'Austrian economics,' a scientific explanation of the workings of the free market (and of the consequences of government intervention in that market) which individualist anarchists could easily incorporate into their political and social Weltanschauung".[50]

The Vietnam War split the uneasy alliance between growing numbers of self-identified libertarians, anarchist libertarians and more traditional conservatives who believed in limiting liberty to uphold moral virtues. Libertarians opposed to the war joined the draft resistance and peace movements, as well as organizations such as Students for a Democratic Society. They began founding their own publications such as Reason magazine and Murray Rothbard's The Libertarian Forum[51] and organizations like the Radical Libertarian Alliance[52] and Society for Individual Liberty.[52]

Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona presented a challenge to established Republican politics in 1964 that had a major impact on the libertarian movement[53] through his book The Conscience of a Conservative and his run for president in 1964.[54] Goldwater's speech writer, Karl Hess, became a leading libertarian writer and activist.[55]

The split was aggravated at the 1969 Young Americans for Freedom convention, when more than three hundred libertarians organized to take control of the organization from conservatives. The burning of a draft card in protest to a conservative proposal against draft resistance sparked physical confrontations among convention attendees, a walkout by a large number of libertarians, the creation of libertarian organizations like the Society for Individual Liberty and efforts to recruit potential libertarians from conservative organizations.[56] The split was finalized in 1971 when in a New York Times article conservative leader William F. Buckley Jr. attempted to divorce libertarianism from the freedom movement. He wrote: "The ideological licentiousness that rages through America today makes anarchy attractive to the simple-minded. Even to the ingeniously simple-minded".[57]

In 1971, a small group of Americans led by David Nolan formed the Libertarian Party.[58] The party has run a presidential candidate every election year since 1972. Educational organizations like the Center for Libertarian Studies and the Cato Institute were formed in the 1970s, and others have been created since then.[59]

Modern libertarianism gained significant recognition in academia with the publication of Harvard University professor Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia in 1974, a response to John Rawls's A Theory of Justice. The book proposed a minimal state on the grounds that it was an inevitable phenomenon which could arise without violating individual rights. Anarchy, State, and Utopia won a National Book Award in 1975.[60][61]

British historians Emily Robinson, Camilla Schofield, Florence Sutcliffe-Braithwaite and Natalie Thomlinson have argued that by the 1970s Britons were keen about defining and claiming their individual rights, identities and perspectives. They demanded greater personal autonomy and self-determination and less outside control. They angrily complained that the 'establishment' was withholding it. They argue this shift in concerns helped cause Thatcherism and was incorporated into Thatcherism's appeal.[62]

Since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s, free market capitalist libertarianism has spread beyond North America and Europe via think tanks and political parties.[63][64]

Schools of thought[edit]

Classical liberalism[edit]

Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[65][66][67]

Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[68] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[69] utilitarianism[70] and progress.[71] The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[72]


Anarcho-capitalism, also referred to as free-market anarchism,[73] market anarchism[74] and private property anarchism,[75] is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market capitalism.[76][77][78] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.[79] Therefore, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.[80]

The most well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the mid-20th century by Austrian School economist and paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard. Rothbard coined the term and is widely regarded as its founder. He combined the free market approach from the Austrian School of economics (classical liberalism) with the human rights views and a rejection of the state he learned from 19th-century American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, although he rejected their anti-capitalism, along with the labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it).[note 9] In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[82] This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression.

Conservative libertarianism[edit]

Conservative libertarianism, or libertarian conservatism, is a political philosophy and ideology that combines right-libertarian politics and conservative values. Libertarian conservatism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, mirroring laissez-faire minarchist liberalism, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional and conservative social philosophy emphasizing authority and duty.[83] Conservative libertarianism prioritizes liberty as its main emphasis, promoting free expression, freedom of choice and laissez-faire capitalism to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends as they reject liberal social engineering,[84] or in the opposite way yet not excluding the above conservative libertarianism could be understood as promoting civil society through conservative institutions and authority such as family, fatherland, religion and education in the quest of libertarian ends for less state power.[85]

In American politics, fusionism is the philosophical and political combination or fusion of traditionalist and social conservatism with political and economic right-libertarianism.[86] The philosophy is most closely associated with Frank Meyer.[87]


A night-watchman state, or minarchy, is a model of a state whose only functions are to provide its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thus protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud and enforcing property laws.[30][88][89] 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as standard-bearer of this form of government among European countries.[90]

Robert Nozick received a National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia.[91] There, Nozick argues that only a minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against "force, fraud, theft, and administering courts of law" could be justified without violating people's rights.[92]


Traditional classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government and maximizing the power of capitalist market forces. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States.[93] It advocates civil liberties with a limited government under the rule of law and belief in laissez-faire economic policy.[94][95][96] Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, such as selected ideas of Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo, stressing the belief in free market and natural law,[97] utilitarianism[98] and progress.[citation needed] Classical liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government[99] and adopting Thomas Hobbes's theory of government they believed government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another.[citation needed]

Neoliberalism emerged in the era following World War II during which social liberalism and Keynesianism were the dominant ideologies in the Western world. It was led by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[100] who advocated the reduction of the state and a return to classical liberalism, hence the term neo-classical liberalism. However, it did accept some aspects of social liberalism, such as some degree of welfare provision by the state, but on a greatly reduced scale. Hayek and Friedman used the term classical liberalism to refer to their ideas, but others use the term to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views and therefore see all modern developments as being by definition not classical.[101] As a result, the term neoliberalism has often been used as an alternative, though this term has developed negative connotations and is usually only used by anti-capitalists as a pejorative.


The concept of neo-libertarianism gained a small following in the mid-2000s[102] among commentators who distinguished themselves from neo-conservatives by their support for individual liberties[103] and from libertarians by their support for interventionism.[102]


Objectivism is a philosophical system developed by Russian-American writer Ayn Rand. Rand first expressed Objectivism in her fiction, most notably The Fountainhead (1943) and Atlas Shrugged (1957); and later in non-fiction essays and books.[104] Leonard Peikoff, a professional philosopher and Rand's designated intellectual heir,[105][106] later gave it a more formal structure. Rand described Objectivism as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".[107] Peikoff characterizes Objectivism as a "closed system" that is not subject to change.[108]

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independently of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception (see direct and indirect realism), that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (see rational egoism), that the only social system consistent with this morality is one that displays full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.

Academic philosophers have mostly ignored or rejected Rand's philosophy.[109] Nonetheless, Objectivism has been a significant influence among right-libertarians and American conservatives.[110] The Objectivist movement, which Rand founded, attempts to spread her ideas to the public and in academic settings.[111]


Paleolibertarianism is a variety of libertarianism developed by capitalist theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell that combines conservative cultural values and social philosophy with a libertarian opposition to government intervention.

Paleolibertarianism is a controversial current due its connections to the Tea Party movement and the alt-right. However, these movements are united by an anti-Obama stance and liberal gun laws instead of further ideological overlaps. In the essay "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement", Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleolibertarians to engage in an "outreach to rednecks" founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Louisiana State Representative David Duke and former United States Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement.[112]

In Europe, European Union-parliamentarian Janusz Korwin-Mikke supports both libertarian economics and anti-immigration and anti-feminist positions.


Propertarianism,[113] or proprietarianism,[114] is a libertarian ethical philosophy that advocates the replacement of states with contractual relationships. Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for a state or other governance body whose main or only job is to enforce contracts and private property.


Criticism of right-libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental and pragmatic concerns, including the view that right-libertarianism has no explicit theory of liberty.[115] For instance, it has been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome,[116] nor does its philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources.[117]

Right-libertarianism has been criticized by the political left for being "pro-business" and "anti-labor",[118] for desiring to repeal government subsidies to the disabled and the poor[119] and being incapable of addressing environmental issues, therefore contributing to the failure to slow global climate change.[120] Furthermore, Noam Chomsky has repeatedly accused right-libertarian ideologies as being akin to "corporate fascism" because of how they remove all public controls from the economy, leaving it solely in the hands of private corporations. Chomsky has also argued that the more radical forms of right-libertarianism, such as anarcho-capitalism, are entirely theoretical and could never function in reality due to business' reliance on state infrastructure and subsidies.[citation needed]

From the right, traditional conservative philosopher Russell Kirk criticized libertarianism, quoting T. S. Eliot's expression "chirping sectaries" to describe them. Kirk had questioned fusionism between libertarians and traditional conservatives that marked much of the post-war conservatism in the United States.[121] Stating that "although conservatives and libertarians share opposition to collectivism, the totalist state and bureaucracy, they have otherwise nothing in common."[122] He called the libertarian movement "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating". Believing that a line of division exists between believers in "some sort of transcendent moral order" and "utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct", Kirk included libertarians in the latter category.[123][124] He also berated libertarians for holding up capitalism as an absolute good arguing that economic self-interest was inadequate to hold an economic system together, and that it was even less adequate to preserve order.[122] Kirk believed that by glorifying the individual, the free market, and the dog-eat-dog struggle for material success, libertarianism weakened community, promoted materialism, and undermined appreciation of tradition, love, learning and aesthetics. All of which, in his view, were essential components of true community.[122]

Author Carl Bogus states that there were fundamental differences between libertarians and traditional conservatives, libertarians wanted the market to be unregulated as possible while traditional conservatives believed that big business, if unconstrained, could impoverish national life and threaten freedom.[125] Libertarians also considered that a strong state would threaten freedom while traditional conservatives regarded a strong state, one which is properly constructed to ensure that not too much power accumulated in any one branch, was necessary to ensure freedom.[125]

Contention over placement on the political spectrum[edit]

Corey Robin describes right-libertarianism as fundamentally a conservative ideology united with more traditional conservative thought and goals by a desire to retain hierarchies and traditional social relations:[126] However, within right-libertarianism many reject associations with conservatism and often reject traditional left-right labels.

In the 1960s, Rothbard started the publication Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, believing that the left–right political spectrum had gone "entirely askew" since conservatives were sometimes more statist than liberals. Rothbard tried to reach out to leftists.[127] In 1971, Rothbard wrote about right-wing libertarianism which he described as supporting self-ownership, property rights and free trade.[128] He would later describe his brand of libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism.[129][130]

Anthony Gregory points out that within the libertarian movement "just as the general concepts 'left' and 'right' are riddled with obfuscation and imprecision, left- and right-libertarianism can refer to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations". He writes that one of several ways to look at right-libertarianism is its interest in economic freedom, preference for a conservative lifestyle, view that private business is "a great victim of the state", favoring a non-interventionist foreign policy sharing the Old Right's "opposition to empire". Some pro-property libertarians reject association with either right or left. Leonard E. Read wrote an article titled "Neither Left Nor Right: Libertarians Are Above Authoritarian Degradation".[131] Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives—nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times".[132] Tibor R. Machan titled a book of his collected columns Neither Left Nor Right.[133] Walter Block's article "Libertarianism Is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right Nor the Left" critiques libertarians he described as left and right, the latter including Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Edward Feser and Ron Paul. Block wrote that these left and right individuals agreed with certain libertarian premises, but "where we differ is in terms of the logical implications of these founding axioms".[134]

Notable people associated with right-libertarianism[edit]

Intellectual sources[edit]


Political commentators[edit]

Publications associated with right-libertarianism[edit]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ "Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land".[3]
  2. ^ "The best-known versions of libertarianism are right-libertarian theories, which hold that agents have a very strong moral power to acquire full private property rights in external things. Left-libertarians, by contrast, hold that natural resources (e.g., space, land, minerals, air, and water) belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner and thus cannot be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, the members of society".[4]
    In Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward, David Goodway states: "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".[5]
  3. ^ Saul Newman states: "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".[7]
  4. ^ "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".[8]
  5. ^ "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".[12]
  6. ^ There exist three major camps in libertarian thought, namely left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism and right-libertarianism. However, the extent to which these represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme is contested by scholars.[25]
  7. ^ "What was Ayn Rand's view of the libertarian movement?". Ayn Rand Institute. More specifically, I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called "hippies of the right," who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. [...] [L]ibertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication when that fits their purpose.
  8. ^ David DeLeon states that "only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by [past anarchists like Spooner and Tucker]. Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment".[49]
  9. ^ "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker".[81]


  1. ^ Libertarismo y deber. Una reflexión sobre la ética de Nozick. Revista de ciencias sociales (Spain), ISSN 0210-0223, no 91, 1989, pages 123-128
  2. ^ Baradat 2015, p. 31
  3. ^ Kymlicka 2005, p. 516
  4. ^ Vallentyne 2007
  5. ^ Goodway 2006, p. 4
  6. ^ a b c d e Heywood 2004, p. 337.
  7. ^ Newman 2010, p. 43.
  8. ^ Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565.
  9. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 71.
  10. ^ a b van de Haar 2015, p. 42.
  11. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 43.
  12. ^ Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4.
  13. ^ Carlson (2012). p. 1007.
  14. ^ Boaz, David (1998). Libertarianism: A Primer. Free Press. pp. 22–26.
  15. ^ Conway, David (2008). "Freedom of Speech". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Liberalism, Classical. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 295–98 at p. 296. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n112. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Depending on the context, libertarianism can be seen as either the contemporary name for classical liberalism, adopted to avoid confusion in those countries where liberalism is widely understood to denote advocacy of expansive government powers, or as a more radical version of classical liberalism.
  16. ^ "About". "Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another".
  17. ^ "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)". Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0748634959.
  18. ^ Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practicing voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists".
  19. ^ Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
  20. ^ Phred Barnet. "The Non-Aggression Principle (Americanly Yours, April 14, 2011)". Retrieved November 22, 2011.
  21. ^ "Join the Libertarian Party". Libertarian Party. I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals
  22. ^ Kinsella, Stephan (October 4, 2011). "The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0". Mises Wire.
  23. ^ Stephan Kinsella. "What Libertarianism Is (Mises Daily, Friday, August 21, 2009 )". Retrieved July 7, 2012.
  24. ^ "Libertarians are Huge Fans of Initiating Force". Demos. Retrieved August 19, 2016.
  25. ^ Carlson 2012, p. 1007
  26. ^ Vallentyne, Peter (July 20, 2010). "Libertarianism". In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved December 26, 2012.
  27. ^ Becker, Lawrence C.; Becker, Charlotte B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics. 3. New York: Routledge. p. 1562.
  28. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 978-0814775066.
  29. ^ von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. ISBN 978-0865976313.
  30. ^ a b Gregory, Anthory. The Minarchist's Dilemma. Strike The Root. May 10, 2004.
  31. ^ "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government? « Podcast « Peikoff".
  32. ^ "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1). « Featured Podcast « Peikoff".
  33. ^ Holcombe, Randall G. http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_08_3_1_holcombe.pdf. "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable".
  34. ^ Long, Roderick, Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism, Molinari Institute.
  35. ^ Plauché, Geoffrey Allan (August 27, 2006). "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy" (PDF). American Political Science Association. Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on September 10, 2008.
  36. ^ Linda & Morris Tannehill. The Market for Liberty. p. 81.
  37. ^ Kroy, Moshe. "Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics".
  38. ^ Feserm, Edward. "Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft (The Independent Review, Fall 2000, pp. 219–235)" (PDF). Retrieved July 10, 2012.
  39. ^ Tame, Chris R. "Taxation Is Theft (Libertarian Alliance Political Note No 44, 1989)" (PDF). Retrieved September 2, 2012.
  40. ^ Chodorov, Frank. "Taxation Is Robbery (Mises.org, reprint from Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist, by Frank Chodorov; The Devin-Adair Company, New York, 1962, pp. 216-239)". Retrieved July 10, 2012.
  41. ^ Russell, Dean (May 1955). "Who Is A Libertarian?". The Freeman. The Foundation for Economic Education. 5 (5). Archived from the original on June 26, 2010. Retrieved March 6, 2010.
  42. ^ Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 306. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7.
  43. ^ Henry Louis Mencken, Letters of H. L. Mencken, Knofp, 1961, p. xiii and 189.
  44. ^ Albert Jay Nock, Letters from Albert Jay Nock, 1924-1945: to Edmund C. Evans, Mrs. Edmund C. Evans and Ellen Winsor, Caxton Printers, 1949, p. 40.
  45. ^ H. L. Mencken, letter to George Müller, 1923, "Autobiographical Notes, 1941," as quoted by Marion Elizabeth Rodgers, Mencken: The American Iconoclast, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 105.
  46. ^ Jeffrey Tucker, Where Does the Term "Libertarian" Come From Anyway?
  47. ^ Paul Cantor, The Invisible Hand in Popular Culture: Liberty Vs. Authority in American Film and TV, University Press of Kentucky, 2012, p. 353, n. 2.
  48. ^ Rubin, Harriet (September 15, 2007). "Ayn Rand's Literature of Capitalism". The New York Times. Retrieved September 18, 2007.
  49. ^ DeLeon 1978, p. 127
  50. ^ "The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View, Journal of Libertarian Studies, vol. 20, no. 1, p. 7 (1965, 2000).
  51. ^ Lora, Ronald; Longton, William Henry (1999). Conservative press in 20th-century America. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 367-374.
  52. ^ a b Gilbert, Marc Jason (2001). The Vietnam War on campus: other voices, more distant drums. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 35. ISBN 0-275-96909-6.
  53. ^ Silverman, Henry J. (1970). American Radical Thought: The Libertarian Tradition. Heath publishing. p. 279.
  54. ^ Robert Poole. In memoriam: Barry Goldwater – Obituary. Reason. August–September 1998.
  55. ^ Hess, Karl (July 1976). The Death of Politics. 'Interview in Playboy.
  56. ^ Rebecca E. Klatch, A Generation Divided: The New Left, the New Right, and the 1960s, University of California Press, 1999 ISBN, 215–237.
  57. ^ Jude Blanchette, What Libertarians and Conservatives Say About Each Other: An Annotated Bibliography, LewRockwell.com, October 27, 2004.
  58. ^ Bill Winter, "1971–2001: The Libertarian Party's 30th Anniversary Year: Remembering the first three decades of America's 'Party of Principle'" LP News
  59. ^ International Society for Individual Liberty Freedom Network list Archived July 16, 2011, at the Wayback Machine.
  60. ^ National Book Award: 1975 – Philosophy and Religion Archived September 9, 2011, at the Wayback Machine
  61. ^ David Lewis Schaefer, Robert Nozick and the Coast of Utopia, The New York Sun, April 30, 2008.
  62. ^ Emily Robinson, et al. "Telling stories about post-war Britain: popular individualism and the ‘crisis’ of the 1970s." Twentieth Century British History 28.2 (2017): 268–304.
  63. ^ Steven Teles and Daniel A. Kenney, chapter "Spreading the Word: The diffusion of American Conservatism in Europe and beyond," (pp. 136–169) in Growing apart?: America and Europe in the twenty-first century by Sven Steinmo, Cambridge University Press, 2008, The chapter discusses how libertarian ideas have been more successful at spreading worldwide than social conservative ideas.
  64. ^ Anthony Gregory, "Real World Politics and Radical Libertarianism". Archived June 18, 2015, at the Wayback Machine. LewRockwell.com. April 24, 2007. Retrieved March 23, 2019.
  65. ^ Conway, p. 296.
  66. ^ Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219.
  67. ^ Dickerson, Flanagan & O'Neill, p. 129.
  68. ^ Steven M. Dworetz (1994). The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution.
  69. ^ Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780674530133.
  70. ^ Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE. p. 422. ISBN 9780761967873.
  71. ^ Hunt, p. 54.
  72. ^ Richardson, p. 52.
  73. ^ Stringham 2007, p. 50
  74. ^ Long & Machan 2007, p. vii
  75. ^ Stringham 2007[page needed]
  76. ^ Morris 2008, pp. 13-14 & Caplan 2008, pp. 194-195. at 195
  77. ^ Stringham 2007, p. 51
  78. ^ See J. C. Lester's philosophical critique of mainstream private-property libertarianism and his New-Paradigm Libertarianism alternative: https://philpapers.org/rec/INDNLA
  79. ^ Tannehill, Linda; Tannehill, Morris (1993). The Market for Liberty (PDF). San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-0-930073-08-4. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
  80. ^ "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" (2011). Libertarian Papers. 3: 3.
  81. ^ Miller 1987, p. 290
  82. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1973). For A New Liberty. "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts".
  83. ^ Heywood 2015, p. 37.
  84. ^ Piper, J. Richard (1997). Ideologies and Institutions: American Conservative and Liberal Governance Prescriptions Since 1933. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 110–111. ISBN 0847684598. ISBN 978-0847684595.
  85. ^ Hoppe, Hans-Hermann. "Getting Libertarianism Right". Mises Institute. ISBN 978-1-61016-690-4.
  86. ^ Dionne Jr., E. J. (1991). Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 161.
  87. ^ Meyer, Frank S. (1996). In Defense of Freedom and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
  88. ^ Peikoff, Leonard. "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government?". March 7, 2011. Retrieved March 23, 2019./
  89. ^ "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1). « Featured Podcast « Peikoff". www.peikoff.com.
  90. ^ Townshend, Charles (2000). The Oxford History of Modern War. Oxford University Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-19-285373-2.
  91. ^ "National Book Awards – 1975". Archived September 9, 2011, at the Wayback Machine. National Book Foundation. Retrieved March 8, 2012.
  92. ^ Feser, Edward. "Robert Nozick (1938—2002)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved March 13, 2017.
  93. ^ Hamowy, ed. (2008). p. xxix.
  94. ^ Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219.
  95. ^ Dickerson, M.O. et al. (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. p. 129.
  96. ^ Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955). "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom". Ethics. 65 (3): 157–17. doi:10.1086/290998. JSTOR 2378928.
  97. ^ Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. p. 58
  98. ^ Gaus, Gerald F. and Chandran Kukathas (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. p. 422.
  99. ^ Quinton, A. (1995). "Conservativism". In Goodin, R. E.; Pettit, P. eds. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 246.
  100. ^ Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 9781555879396.
  101. ^ "What Is Classical Liberalism?" is an example of an article that defines classical liberalism as all liberalism before the twentieth century.
  102. ^ a b Freund, Charles Paul (April 2005). "You Know You're Neolibertarian If..." Reason. Retrieved October 12, 2018.
  103. ^ Franks, Dale (November 2012). "Bryan Pick's Suggestions for the GOP". QandO. Retrieved October 12, 2018.
  104. ^ Badhwar & Long 2012
  105. ^ "Leonard Peikoff". Contemporary Authors Online. Retrieved March 2, 2008.
  106. ^ McLemee, Scott (September 1999). "The Heirs Of Ayn Rand: Has Objectivism Gone Subjective?". Lingua Franca. 9 (6): 45–55.
  107. ^ "About the Author" in Rand 1992, pp. 1170–71
  108. ^ Peikoff, Leonard (May 18, 1989). "Fact and Value". The Intellectual Activist. 5 (1).
  109. ^ Sciabarra 2013, p. 1; Badhwar & Long 2012; Gotthelf 2000, p. 1; Machan 2000, p. 9; Gladstein 1999, p. 2; Heyl 1995, p. 223; Den Uyl & Rasmussen 1984, p. 36
  110. ^ Burns 2009, p. 4; Gladstein 2009, pp. 107–08, 124
  111. ^ Sciabarra 1995, pp. 1–2
  112. ^ Sanchez, Julian; Weigel, David. "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?". Reason Foundation. Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes
  113. ^ Cain, Edward (1963). They'd Rather Be Right: Youth and the Conservative Movement. Macmillan. pp. 32–36. ASIN B0000CLYF9.
  114. ^ Bader, Ralf M.; Meadowcroft, John (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (2011). Cambridge University Press. p. 151.
  115. ^ "New-Paradigm Libertarianism: a Very Brief Explanation".
  116. ^ "Complexity Economics Shows Us Why Laissez-Faire Economics Always Fails".
  117. ^ Matthew, Schneider-Mayerson. Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. Chicago. ISBN 9780226285573. OCLC 922640625.
  118. ^ "When Congress Busted Milton Friedman (and Libertarianism Was Created By Big Business Lobbyists)". November 16, 2012.
  119. ^ Greco, Tony (17 January 2012). "Four Reasons to Reject Libertarianism". Daily Kos. Kos Media, LLC.
  120. ^ Schneider-Mayerson, Matthew (2015). Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226285436.
  121. ^ "The Volokh Conspiracy – Russell Kirk, Libertarianism, and Fusionism:". volokh.com.[permanent dead link]
  122. ^ a b c Bogus 2011, p. 17.
  123. ^ Kirk, Russell (Fall 1981). "Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries" (PDF). Modern Age. Wilmington, DE: Intercollegiate Studies Institute. pp. 345–51. Archived (PDF) from the original on September 2, 2009.
  124. ^ Kirk, Russell. "Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries".
  125. ^ a b Bogus 2011, p. 16.
  126. ^ Robin, Corey (2011). The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0199793743.
  127. ^ Raimondo, Justin (2000). An Enemy of the State. Chapter 4: "Beyond left and right". Prometheus Books. p. 159.
  128. ^ Rothbard, Murray N. (March 1, 1971). The Left and Right Within Libertarianism. Originally published in "WIN: Peace and Freedom through Nonviolent Action". Reprinted at LewRockwell.com.
  129. ^ Gerald Gaus; Fred D'Agostino (2012). The Routledge Companion To Social And Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-415-87456-4. Retrieved June 1, 2013.
  130. ^ Casey, Gerard (2010). John Meadowcroft, ed. Murray Rothbard: Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers. 15. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc. p. ix.
  131. ^ Neither Left Nor Right", The Freeman: Ideas on Liberty 48.2 (Feb. 1998): 71–73
  132. ^ Browne, Harry (December 21, 1998). "The Libertarian Stand on Abortion". HarryBrowne.Org.
  133. ^ Machan, Tibor R. (2204). Neither Left Nor Right: Collected Columns. 522. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0817939822. ISBN 9780817939823.
  134. ^ Block, Walter (2010). "Libertarianism Is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right Nor the Left: A Critique of the Views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the Left, Hoppe, Feser, and Paul on the Right". Journal of Libertarian Studies. 22. pp. 127–170.