Are You a Classical Libertarian?

For the past 25-30 years, the Libertarian Party has been largely dominated by reform-oriented Libertarians — that is, Libertarians who have resigned themselves to reforming and improving the welfare-warfare state way of life. Examples include saving, “privatizing,” or phasing out Social Security over a period of 40-50 years; school vouchers; health-savings accounts; immigration reform (e.g., letting in more immigrants); regulatory reform; reductions in the minimum wage; reform of occupational-licensure laws; Federal Reserve reform; income-tax reduction and IRS reform; advocacy of the “Fair” Tax; reductions in Pentagon spending; CIA reform; NSA reform; FISA Court reform; selective foreign interventionism (i.e., only when it is in our “national interest”); legalization of only marijuana; endorsing or recruiting “free-market-oriented” Republicans; and celebrating the appointment of free-enterprise-oriented conservatives to federal regulatory commissions.

On the other hand are those Libertarians who are committed to ending, dismantling, and repealing all infringements on liberty, instead of reforming them. The idea is that the achievement of liberty, which is what libertarianism is supposed to be all about, necessarily entails the termination of infringements on liberty rather than the reform of infringements on liberty. Making the principled case for liberty is obviously different from making the case for reforming the welfare-warfare state and, in fact, much more difficult.

Originally the term “libertarian” meant the group that was committed to ending, repealing, or dismantling infringements on liberty. For the past 25-30 years, however, as an increasing number of disgruntled Republicans began streaming into the Libertarian Party, many of them brought their reform-oriented proclivities and positions with them. Thus, over the years, the term “Libertarian” has come to encompass both Libertarians who are committed to reforming the welfare-warfare state way of life and those Libertarians who are committed to achieving liberty.

What undergirds this redefinition is what can be called the Libertarian Spectrum Concept. It holds that libertarianism consists of a broad spectrum of views. At one end of the spectrum are the reform-oriented Libertarians. At the other end of the spectrum are Libertarians who are committed to ending, not reforming, all infringements on liberty. Everyone on the spectrum is considered to be a Libertarian under this redefinition. (See my Substack article “The Falsity and Failure of the Libertarian Spectrum Concept.”)

This redefinition of the term “Libertarian” has come with some degree of tension. Whenever a Libertarian makes the principled case for liberty, for example, reform-oriented Libertarians inevitably go on the attack. They say things like, “You’re just trying to show that you are more libertarian or more principled than the rest of us.” In fact, when I was seeking the 2020 Libertarian Party presidential nomination, I myself was attacked by reform-oriented Libertarians for calling for the repeal of Medicare. They said that I was just trying to show that I was more libertarian than my Libertarian opponents, when, in fact, I was simply making it clear to L.P. members where I stood on this important burning issue of our time.

Thus, under this redefinition of Libertarian, the reform-oriented position is considered to be the default, “mainstream,” or “respectable” Libertarian position. The Libertarians at the principled end of the spectrum are expected to refrain from making the case for liberty because by doing so they are considered to be showing up, shaming, or embarrassing the reform-oriented Libertarians at the other end of the spectrum.

This redefinition obviously raises a question: If reform-oriented Libertarians and principled Libertarians are both considered to be Libertarians, how do we distinguish between the two? 

I have come up with an idea. How about we use the term “classical Libertarian” to describe those Libertarians who are committed to liberty? 

I thought about this possibility because of what happened to the term “liberal.” Originally, “liberal” meant someone who held libertarian views. Over the course of several decades, however, progressives co-opted the term and applied it to themselves. The result has been that a “liberal” is now a person on the left who believes in socialism, economic interventionism, or “big government.”

Thus, many original liberals began calling themselves “libertarians” to distinguish themselves from the new liberals But some original liberals were not ready to let go of the term “liberal.” They also have been been unwilling to call themselves “libertarians” because, for whatever reason, they consider that term to be a liability or an albatross around their necks.

So, these libertarians have come to call themselves “classical liberals,” to distinguish themselves from modern-day liberals. If you ask them what their political or economic philosophy is, they’ll respond, “I’m a classical liberal.”

So, since the term “Libertarian” has been redefined to include people who support the continued existence of the welfare-warfare state way of life and who simply wish to reform or improve it, how about we start using the term “classical Libertarian” for those Libertarians who remain committed to achieving the free society by making the case for dismantling, ending, terminating, and repealing all infringements on liberty?

At the risk of incurring the wrath of reform-oriented Libertarians, I’ll be the first to apply the label to myself: I am a classical Libertarian.