Unqualified Offerings

Jon Henke of the New Libertarian webzine was kind enough to answer some questions I asked him. I’m presenting the questions and responses unedited and without follow-up since I consider this just the beginning of getting a handle on the nature of neolibertarianism and its relationship to other ideologies.

1: Max Borders says foreigners have no rights Americans are bound to respect. A contractarian, or perhaps “Taneyist” conception of rights. Bruce McQuain says we have an duty to free foreigners from oppressive governments. (This seems to be the general neolibertarian view.) How do these two conceptions go together?

- – -First, I should emphasize that, to my mind, “Neolibertarianism” is more about broadening libertarianism sufficiently to create a coalition (as opposed to the purity battles in most Libertarian circles) than it is about specific policy prescriptions. We differ on many things.

In any event, my take is that: 1) Max meant to imply that our security interests come above those of foreigners. If our security depends on bombing Freedonia, then we should be more interested in our liberty than in theirs. (that’s not meant to imply a general necessity of bombing folks hither and yon…just that it is allowable to do so when our security interests are threatened) That, it seems to me, is consistent with libertarianism, which allows force in defense against attacks or even threats.

The question — unanswered by many libertarians — is just how specific (and nearby) those threats must be. If a gunman fires in the mall, must he point the gun *at* you before you take action against him? If you see a robbery being committed across the street, may you initiate force against the robber to stop it? After all, he’s not attacked you. If you may, just how far away must an attack occur before it’s no longer permissable for a libertarian to intervene?

Then there’s the more abstract threats. We all recognize that state supporters of terrorism/Rogue nations represent an abstract threat against the US. Must they actually launch an attack before we do something? Those are difficult questions, and I think there’s a range of possible answers.

I’m not aware of an instance in which McQ indicated that we have a “duty to free foreigners from oppressive governments”. We have a duty to secure our own rightful interests, and that may–at times–include freeing oppressed foreigners, but we’ve no obligation to do so to our own detriment.

2: You say you have a big tent and “we don’t all agree with each other on everything.” Would you say there are any neolibertarians who oppose, in retrospect or contemporaneously, the decision to change Iraq’s government
by force?

- – -I’m certain that there are. As I say, we maintain the option, but that doesn’t mean we necessarily think it was a wise policy choice. I tend to think that it was, but I don’t think we can really evaluate that effectively for many years.

Are there any neolibertarians who oppose preventive war as outlined in the Bush doctrine? Are there any neolibertarians who dispute the McQuain/Samizdatist argument that the US has an obligation to use military power to free the oppressed? Is it conceptually possible that a neolibertarian could believe any of these things, and which?

- – -It’s certainly possible to be opposed to the war and Neolibertarian, though I think you have the McQ arguments wrong.

3: Which friends and people does neolibertarianism most want to win and influence? As a matter of recruitment, is your highest priority: Winning existing libertarians over to neolibertarianism? Converting neoconservatives to neolibertarianism? Gaining converts from among Christian conservatives? Recruiting from the ranks of liberals and leftists?

- – -I’m not sure there’s an answer to that. Virtually every group has libertarian tendencies. Whether it be the liberal social tolerance, conservative fiscal restraint (no, really, some of them still have it!), etc. I don’t think we intend to proselytize so much as we intend to organize; to give direction to the libertarian tendencies that can be aroused to apply pressure within Major Party politics. I happen to think it can best be done within the Republican Party, but I know people who make a good case about doing that within the Democratic Party. More power to them, and I’d like to eventually have a contribution in TNL from a representative of the Democratic Freedom Caucus.

As far as the Libertarian Party: for a variety of strategic and psychological reasons, I simply think that’s a lost cause. I went into it in some depth in the first edition of TNL. I applaud the intent, but I think they suffer from a gross misreading of the lay of the political landscape.

Would you say the articles in your first issue are most concerned with refuting tenets of:

o “preneolibertarians?”
o neoconservatives?
o evangelical conservatives?
o main street conservatives?”

- – -The first issue revolve primarily around the paleolibertarians. (or, as you artfully put it, the preneolibertarians…:)

When Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the wall, he didn’t criticize every variant on religion. He was mainly concerned with Catholocism, because that’s where he’d come from, and their flaws were in his immediate sights. Similarly, we’re trying to rescue the political relevance of libertarianism from what we perceive (and history has shown to be) the near-suicidal Idealists in the movement, who seem far more interested in excluding the insufficiently pure, than in making marginal progress.

Since we come from that place, we’ll deal with the Paleos a great deal. I happen to think the Neoconservatives, evangelical conservatives and moderates get a worse rap than they deserve, but that’s the nature of hysterical politics. While I disagree with each of them sharply in areas, I try not to accuse them of bringing on — respectively — Empire, Theocracy and (whatever it is moderates are accused of). It seems to me that the term “Neocon” has become a caricature of what a Neocon really is, as have terms for the religious right. I have sharp disputes with them, and I’ve gone into them in some depth on the blog, but I don’t think they are as cartoonish as their publicity. I also think such caricatures do not lend themselves to intellectual discourse and understanding.

As Mark Steyn once noted: Hitler’s private analysis of Churchill was that he was a “puppet of Jewry”. That was probably good red meat for the German audiences, but as a clear-eyed analysis of reality, it was obstructively cynical.

I’ve my problems with both groups, but I think those problems stop short of “incipient communism/fascism”.

4: What do you see as the three most urgent issues demanding the political energy of neolibertarianism?

- – -My interests are more strategic: first and foremost, I’d like to see TNL get some traction. Second, I’d like to organize the Neolibertarian Network in order to give us the apparent weight to get some small attention from the political structure. Thirdly, I’d like to expand TNL to influence a wider audience, and set up an organizational structure akin to the liberal “Center for American Progress” and “Media Matters”, which is focused more on the media-side of the debate than on the policy side of the debate. (as is Cato) That is to say, an organization that can get the message out, instead of simply formulating policy for wonks.

As far as the actual policies, I think that largely depends on the items in public view at the time. Ultimately, I think ending the drug war, reforming the tax code, and getting more public support for free trade and non-interventionist economic measures are all important. There are more, but it really depends on what’s in the news at the moment.

Having said all that: does it make sense? I may have communicated poorly. If so, I’d be happy to answer any other questions, or to hear your feedback on the issue.

See also neolibber Dale Franks’ answers to questions from Drizzten.