sign in sign up
<<
Home , Authoritarian socialism, Death to the Brutes, Free trade, Karl Widerquist, Leo Tolstoy, Libertarianism

Georgetown University

From the SelectedWorks of

2008

Libertarianism Karl Widerquist, -Qatar

Available at: https://works.bepress.com/widerquist/8/ distinct using the same label. Yet, they have a few commonalities. [233] [V1b-Edit] [Karl Widerquist] [] [w6728] Libertarian : Libertarian socialists The word “libertarian” in the sense of the believe that all authority ( or combination of the word “” and the private, dictatorial or democratic) is suffix “-ian” literally means “of or about inherently dangerous and possibly tyrannical. .” It is an antonym of “authoritarian,” Some endorse the motto: where there is and the simplest dictionary definition is one authority, there is no freedom. who advocates liberty (Simpson and Weiner is also known as 1989). But the name “libertarianism” has “,” “libertarian ,” and been adopted by several very different “anarchist communism,” It has a variety of political movements. offshoots including “anarcho-,” advocates have popularized the association of which stresses worker control of enterprises the term with their in the United and was very influential in American States and to a lesser extent in other English- and in in the 1930s (Rocker 1989 speaking countries. But they only began [1938]; Woodcock 1962); “feminist using the term in 1955 (Russell 1955). Before anarchism,” which stresses person that, and in most of the rest of the world (Brown 1993); and “eco-anarchism” today, the term has been associated almost (Bookchin 1997), which stresses community exclusively with leftists groups advocating control of the local and gives egalitarian property rights or even the libertarian socialism connection with Green abolition of , such as and environmental movements. anarchist socialists who began using the term Modern libertarian socialists include nearly a century early, in 1858 (Woodcock (2003; 2004), Murray 1962, p. 281). Bookchin (1986; 1997), This entry distinguishes between three (Dolgoff 1986), Daniel Guérin (2005), Colin types of libertarianism, left, right, and Ward (1973), and (1962). socialist. It then considers the extent to which They take their defining influence from the the policies of these three diverse groups early socialists who split from the Marxists overlap. The third section focuses on the because of their to the policies right-libertarians, both because they authoritarian aspects of the of the have popularized their association with the . These thinkers include Pierre name and because they have a more unified Joseph Proudhon (Proudhon 1994), Michael policy agenda. Bakunin (Bakunin 1972), Peter (1995), (Rocker 1989 [1938]), Libertarianism: left, right, and socialist and (1969 [1911]). To some At least three distinct groups claim the name extent anarchist forbearers also include Max “libertarian” today. There is no clearly agreed Stirner, , , terminology to distinguish the groups but the , and the early liberal terms “left-libertarian,” “right-libertarian,” (Woodcock 1962), although some and “libertarian socialist” suffice. The three anarchists are hostile to what could be called are not factions of a common movement, but “bourgeois .”

1 A guiding of libertarian Libertarian socialist action today is socialism is that all people must have the embodied in the creation of nongovernmental equal privilege to share in the blessings of and networks aimed at mutual liberty, and this principle leads to opposition aid and sharing. in rural and to unequal property rights. They want to urban settings around the world are an aspect replace the and the capitalist property of anarchist actions. Workers , rights regime enforced by the state with such as the Mondragon in Spain, further a voluntary mutual aid associations made up of libertarian socialist agenda, as do consumer free . They consider centralized cooperatives. The sharing of software and , such as the regimes on the internet can been seen as a that took power in and , to be libertarian . another form of state oppression. Libertarian socialists have succeeding in Anarchists are a diverse group who put having some influence over left-of-center great stress on initiative and who are more closely associated action. Therefore, it is hard to determine the with Marxian . For example, libertarian socialist position on many specific Samuel Bowles, David M. Gordon, and issues. Some libertarian socialists oppose E. Weisskopf (1983, p 261-290) political action to further social reform within propose “An Economic Bill of Rights.” the prevailing system of government which is not strictly libertarian socialist authority, and prefer only direct action that because it works within existing state works outside of government authority. All structures. However, its content—including libertarian socialists want radical social rights to a democratic workplace and reform and the fewest possible restrictions on democratic rights for the people to chart their human behavior. All want to end the state and economic —have incorporated much private property as we know them, and of the libertarian socialist agenda. replace it with some kind of non-hierarchical decentralized coordination system that allows Right-libertarianism: Right-libertarians for voluntary mutual aid so that all people believe in strong private property rights have the same access to use the means of and/or an unregulated economy with toward their own ends (Bookchin little or no redistribution of property. They 1997; Chomsky 2003; Heider 1994; Rocker are also known as “free-market advocates,” 1989 [1938]; Woodcock 1962). “property rights advocates,” or “Neoliberals” The question of how this is to be done has The most extreme version of right- nearly as many answers as there are libertarianism, “anarcho-,” anarchists. Some want worker control of advocates virtually unlimited private property factories. Some want community control of rights. Right-libertarians seldom call local . Some place great stress on themselves right-libertarians, preferring to gender and ethnic equality, sexual freedom, call themselves simply “libertarians,” often and personal and cultural freedom. Some denying any other groups have claim to the place great stress on environmental name. It is perhaps poetically appropriate that protection. Some see worker control and property rights advocates have appropriated a economic equality as the primary means of term that was already used by people establishing most other kinds of personal who subscribe to the that property is freedom. theft, and that these property rights now 2 accuse anarchists of trying to steal it from means instead that every individual is free them. from being treated as the property of another Modern right-libertarian thinkers include a person. A self-owner determines what he or large number of economists, , she do. and political pundits, such as Milton Although libertarian socialists and right- Friedman (1962; 1980), libertarians agree about their skepticism of (1975), (1974), Eric Mack state authority, they have diametrically (1990; 1993; 1995), (1988; opposite views of property. Libertarian 1998), Kirzner (1981; 1989), William socialists oppose state authority largely Niskanen (2003), (1978; because they see it as the source of property 1982), and Michael Tanner (1996). They take rights; right-libertarians oppose state defining influence from such thinkers Ludwig authority because they see it as the enemy of Von Mises (1927; 1963 [1949]), F. A. Hayek private property rights (Heider 1994, p. 95). (1944; 1960), and the later writings of Right-libertarians combine the that all (1872; 1901). They individuals have strong self-ownership rights sometimes call themselves “classical ” with the belief that individuals have the and claim to be the heirs of early liberals such responsibility to respect preexisting claims to as (1962), private property in natural resources even if (1960), (1976 [1776]), and John these claims are unequally and unfairly Stuart Mill (1859). However, the modern divided. According to right-libertarians, right-libertarian defense of private property is unowned natural resources are essentially up so radical as to be in opposition to the views for grabs. But once someone appropriates of property held by nearly all classical them as private property, the owner’s rights liberals, and some liberals argue that right- are extremely strong and ever lasting. Owners libertarianism has strayed from the essential have little or no responsibility to share with characteristics of liberalism (Freeman 2001). those who have no property. In some right- Most right-libertarians use an ethical libertarian theories, individuals’ claims of based on natural property rights to property ownership are as strong as support their market policy prescriptions. individuals’ claims of self-ownership (Feser Right-libertarians promote liberty as negative 2005; Narveson 1988; Nozick 1974; Wheeler liberty or freedom as noninterference ( 2000). In contrast to the views of libertarian 1969). That is, a person is free to do whatever socialists any attempt by the government or no other person prevents her from doing any other authority to ensure that everyone whether or not she is actually able to do it. In has access to property is unjustified the sense, a person is free to fly by flapping interference with the natural right of property. her arms even though she is unable to do it. Government authority, if it should exist at all, Right-libertarian freedom is also often must be limited to protecting property and expressed as self-ownership—the belief that self-ownership rights. every adult individual owns herself and no The term right-libertarian also applies to one can take away her rights over herself those who believe that the government should away without her (Cohen 1995; be similarly limited for pragmatic or Locke 1960; Nozick 1974; Otsuka 2003). utilitarian , although this is usually Self-ownership does not mean that people considered to be a less important argument naturally treat themselves as property; it for right-libertarianism policies. Unlike 3 libertarian socialism, which leads to diverse and some influence from both of the other political objectives of its adherents, right- two libertarian movements. Modern left- libertarianism is easily identifiable with libertarian thinkers include moderate and strict policy prescriptions on (1992; 1994), (1998; 2003), nearly all issues. (2000; 2003), Nicolaus Tideman (1982; 1997; 2000; 2004), and Left-libertarianism: According to Peter (1995). The term, Valentine (2000), left-libertarians combine a “Georgist” refers to a subset of left- belief that all individuals have to libertarians who accept ’s strong self-ownership with a belief in some positive economic theories about the kind of egalitarian right of ownership of efficiency of a and the causal role of natural resources. They share the belief with rent in the cycle (George 1976), but libertarian socialist that an equal right to be most left-libertarians are not Georgists and free implies an equal right of access to (or they tend to consider their ideology as ownership of) natural resources (Gibbard primarily normative. There is a connection 2000; Otsuka 2003; Steiner 1994; Vallentyne between some forms of left-libertarianism 2000), but they propose a more individualist and Green, environmentalist, and libertarian solution. Rather than wanting to abolish socialist ideologies, but many of these groups private ownership of property, left- do not accept -libertarian thesis of libertarians want to equalize private holdings self-ownership. of natural resources, or at least tax private Left-libertarians, like libertarian socialists, holdings of natural resources in some way to are such a diverse group that it is hard to ensure that all individuals have equal access define the left-libertarian position on many to their benefits. issues. However, unlike libertarian socialists, Use of the term “left-libertarian” for this left-libertarians are largely defined by one group in particular is slightly overly specific policy issue. Although they differ on how because libertarian socialists are also on the resource equality should be achieved and on left of the . The term “left- what resources should be equalized, they are libertarian” is sometimes used as a generic united by the search for some version of term for the two groups of libertarians on the resource equality. left. However, “left-libertarianism” is mostly The best known left-libertarian policy commonly used for the combination self- prescription is the belief that the government ownership with resource equality, and it is must tax away 100% of the resource of what this group usually calls itself, while the land and other fixed assets, and every other main group in the libertarians left more individual is entitled to one share of whatever often use the terms “libertarian socialist” or benefits are derived from that revenue “anarchist.” (George 1976; Paine 1797; Steiner 1994). Left-libertarians take their defining Property holders would pay a tax to the state influence from thinkers such as Thomas equal to the rental value of a vacant lot on the Paine (1797), Thomas Spence (2000 [1793]), site of their property. For these left- the early writings Herbert Spencer (1872), libertarians, the private individual or business Henry George (1976), and Leon Walras attains the right to hold a by (2000 [1896]). They take a great deal of paying the full market value of the resource influence from the early liberal movement in its raw state to the government as 4 representative of everyone else, but the value The basic left-libertarian judgment about of the efforts and improvements they put into resource ownership could be paired with any their holding are private property at least for other type of policy. Some left-libertarians the life of the owner. This form of left- appear otherwise very close to right- libertarianism leads essentially to a market libertarians; others consider themselves to be economy on stated-owned, privately rented both left-libertarians and libertarian socialists. land. Philippe Van Parijs uses left--libertarians do not necessarily agree premises in an argument for an extremely about what the government should do with activist state (Van Parijs 1995). the revenue from such a tax. Some believe that it should be used for public purposes, Are any policies common to all such as defense, police, courts, parks, libertarians, left, right, and socialist? healthcare, and anything else that benefits the Although all three movements have roots in community (George 1976; Steiner 1994). the liberal tradition, they do not stem from a Others argue that it should be redistributed in common branch off of that tradition, and cash as an basic income—a cash income there is a great deal of mutual animosity at unconditionally paid to everyone (Steiner least between right-libertarians and the other 1992; Van Parijs 1995). Under the equal- two groups. Perhaps Max Stirner (1971 shares version, each person receives one [1845]) is common to the three movements, share of the rental price of all natural but he is not a central figure for any of them, resources in cash, as if she owned one share and some in each group would deny his in a giant real estate holding firm the influence. As different as these groups are, distributed all of its profits in dividends. they do have some beliefs in common. They Others argue that an equal claim to natural all put a high priority on protecting their exists, but it confers only the right to work (conflicting) conceptions of liberty, and they with resources or the right to are all skeptical of authority. All advocate (Van Donselaar 2003). strict limits on government authority, Left-libertarians disagree about when to sometimes to the point of advocating its stop taxing. Some believe that although it is complete abolition. imperative that the government tax 100% of the land and natural resource rights, respect Tendency to : Neither anarcho- for self-ownership prohibits almost all other syndicalists and anarcho-capitalists do not see kinds of taxation, most especially income and the absence of government as the absence of sales (Vallentyne 2007). However, most coordination. Anarcho-capitalists, led by argue that inheritance should also be taxed Murray Rothbard (1978), see anarchy as a either because assets are abandoned at the private property economy in which owners point of death (Steiner 1992), or because protect their property with private security there is a person or a group can do to forces hire private arbitrators to settle their impose their claims to any asset on disputes rather than relying on government generation (Widerquist 2006). Others add courts. Anarcho-syndicalists and eco- taxes on and income derived anarchists see anarchy as the breakdown of from any market disequilibria, such as government protection of property rights. efficiency and insider advantages (Van Workers take control of factories, or Parijs 1995). neighborhoods take control of the local 5 economy, eliciting only voluntary in natural resources without compensation participation from individuals (Bakunin 1972; constitute forced aid from poor to the rich . Goldman 1969 [1911]; Guerin 2005; Rocker They believe ownership of 1989 [1938]). resources (and perhaps the ) gives them great leeway to make Deference to individual choice: Left- and sure that no one is needy without forcing right-libertarians endorse J. S. Mill’s harm anyone to aid anyone else. A few right- principle as the guiding principle of libertarians have give tentative approval to government (Mill 1859). Enforceable the idea that taxation of resources as at least can be summarized as one not to harm more acceptable than other forms of taxation each other. The sole justifiable use of (Pollock 1996). government’s coercive power is to defend Neutrality between lifestyles implies a individuals from harm imposed by others. very liberal outlook on social issues. Because left- and right-libertarians posit very Minorities as defined by sexual orientation, different property rights, they have very ethnicity, , and must have the different conceptions of what constitutes same access to public facilities and the same harm, and the similarity in how they apply rights of free speech, contract, freedom of this principle is limited, and applies mostly to expression as everyone else. Even some areas in which property is not directly right-libertarian think-tanks have come out involved. for gay (Epstein 2004). However, Libertarians of all stripes tend to differ to right-libertarian defense of property often individual choice and oppose motivated allows private discrimination. The business by , laws that require one person owner’s entails the right to to actively aid another, and laws that are refuse to do business with anyone else even if designed to promote a particular kind of that decision is based on bigotry (Murray . Anti-paternalism implies opposition 1997). Similarly, all three groups tend toward to drug and to individual safety unconditional defense of free speech, but such as seatbelt and helmet laws, many right-libertarians believe that and to taxes such as alcohol and cigarette employers may discriminate against taxes to the extent that those taxes are employees based on their speech, their designed to protect the consumer from political activities, or any other they harming herself rather than to prevent the choose. consumer from imposing harm on others. Prohibition of forcing one person to Child protection: Anti-paternalism applies actively aid another implies opposition to the only adults. With the exception of the most draft and possibly to mandatory radical right-libertarians most libertarians voting, jury duty, and Good Samaritan laws. accept that the government or the community Right-libertarians and libertarian socialists has a role in protecting , which can have worked together against war and the include protection against child abuse, military draft (Heider 1994, pp. 93-94). on child labor, mandating Right-libertarians believe redistributive attendance. However, libertarians taxation constitutes forcing one person to aid would argue that the government should defer another, but left-libertarians and libertarian to parents unless there is strong of socialists believe that unequal property rights wrong-doing. Rather than publishing a list of 6 regulations for how all parents should Right-libertarians could say that one group behave, government protection of children of people has a right to certain land, and should be limited to protecting children from another does not, but under right- clearly unfit parents. libertarianism nearly all rights occur at the individual level. Therefore, if any one person Abortion: Abortion divides libertarians as within a nation wants to hire, or rent a much as it divides everyone else. Some dwelling to, a foreigner, no one else has the libertarians view the prohibition of abortion right to interfere. A few libertarians have as one group’s attempt to force their lifestyle found excuses to overcome this implication on other groups. Other libertarians, of their (Hoppe 1998), but most do particularly right-libertarians, claim that the not (Block and Callahan 2003). fetus’s right to self-ownership implies that all abortion must be illegal (Gordon 1999). Right-libertarian policies However, a self-ownership argument can be Even within right-libertarianism, there is a made in the opposite direction. That is, a large disagreement about how minimal the prohibition on abortion amounts to forcing minimal state should be. The most extreme the pregnant woman to aid the fetus against version, anarcho-capitalism, is discussed her will, violating her self-ownership above. More commonly, however, right- (Narveson 1988; Thomson 1971). libertarians argue for the minimal taxation Most libertarian socialists believe that no necessary to support the protection of self- government authority has the right to prevent ownership and property ownership (Narveson a woman from having an abortion, but some 1988; Nozick 1974). This version of the more radical anarchists believe that instead of right-libertarian government is often called taking political action in favor of legal the “night watchman state,” because the recognition of that right, an individual’s government is essentially limited to a security would be better spent helping women obtain role. It can justifiably tax individuals to abortions, or working to subvert a support police, courts, defense, and not much government that assumes overreaching else. However, there is some difficulty in authority. determining exactly what level of spending on police, courts, and defense constitutes the : The three groups of minimum necessary to defend individual libertarians tend to support open immigration rights. A large part of the military budget, but for slightly different reasons. The left- especially in a powerful nation such as the libertarian and libertarian socialist belief in is not strictly limited to egalitarian ownership of the Earth makes it defending from invasion. Many difficult to exclude anyone from immigration. people who otherwise espouse right- However, left-libertarians might believe one libertarian economic policies also espouse nation can exclude immigrants as long as hawkish military policy, but the right- individuals on both sides of the have libertarian position is for a small military that equal access to the use of (or the value of) the does only the minimum necessary to defend world’s resources. Some libertarian socialists the nation from attack, and only that which is have been known to give aid to so-called genuinely in the interests of the vast majority illegal aliens. of individuals (Rothbard 1978).

7 Of course, even the functions of defense, of administers or social workers to supervise police, and courts are justified by the the poor or the find work for them, it simply market’s failure to deliver these transfers from one group to another. without government intervention (Nozick 1974). But exist for Education: A strict right-libertarian almost anything an activist government might education policy would be none at all except want to provide including public parks, roads, perhaps a mandating that parents find and highways; libraries, the post office, some way to educate their children. However, public education; healthcare; of given that mandatory public education is so industry; social safety nets; and breaking up overwhelmingly popular many right- monopolies. Thus there are many different libertarians have searched for a market-based kinds of right-libertarianism depending on policy that achieves public education’s goal. where and how one draws the line of a In 1962, proposed a market-failure argument for government “voucher plan” for schools in which parents action. Some make strict rights-based would receive a certain amount of money arguments against nearly all government from the state that could be used at any action (Narveson 1988; Rothbard 1978), and private or parochial school whether for others merely look for market-based solutions or not (Friedman 1962). Although the state to popular government goals (Friedman 1962; still pays for education, this program is right- 1980). libertarian in the sense that parents would have a choice in a market of schools. Redistribution: While a radical change in Although this program has not been fully the property rights regime is essential to left- implemented in any jurisdiction, elements of libertarianism and libertarian socialism, it is it have been incorporated into “school anathema to strict right-libertarianism for choice” initiatives around the United States reasons discussed above. However, some and the world; something like it exists in the right-libertarians have given provisional ; and the idea continues to gain support to limited redistribution of income momentum among right-libertarians and either for practical or charitable reasons or conservatives (Enlow and Ealy 2006; because they see it as a political inevitability. Salisbury and Tooley 2005). There is some connection between the three libertarian groups in the strategy for Healthcare: Although economic theory has redistribution. Right-libertarians who accept produced strong arguments for the redistribution tend to favor some kind of market failure in the healthcare industry, and basic income or negative although others see a strong argument (Friedman 1962; 1968; 1980; Hayek 1956; for free healthcare, a strict right-libertarian Murray 2006; Steiner 1992; Van Parijs 1995), policy would be to remove all government as do some left-libertarians (Steiner 1992; involvement from the industry by Van Parijs 1995), and some elements in the , ending special tax deductions libertarian socialist movement (Heider 1994, for medical benefits, and ending government pp. 66). The libertarian appeal of basic programs such as nationalized healthcare in income is that it is a simple policy that is most of the developed world and Medicare minimally intrusive in the lives of the poor. and Medicaid in the United States. The government doesn’t hire a large number Individuals would then have to try to solve 8 the market failure problems without insurance, and minimum government assistance, and those who cannot laws, all of which they see as afford it would seek it through the of something that might prevent firms from the wealthy. However, if that is not politically hiring as many workers as they might feasible, right-libertarians such as Charles otherwise. Murray have proposed something like Friedman’s voucher plan for healthcare. International : Right-libertarians tend Murray proposes that the government give to favor free and to each individual $3,000 per year that she must support the unilateral elimination of all tariffs spend on health insurance in a heavily and quotas on and all for deregulated market (Murray 2006). Thus, the . The usual nationalistic arguments for government would pay for everyone’s basic government protection of industry healthcare, but consumers would have a (such as self-sufficiency and support of local choice in a market for health insurance. industries or wage rates) all oppose right- libertarian principles of property ownership Macroeconomic Policy: Right-libertarians and free exchange. However, more recent tend to advocate (small c) conservative arguments for international trade restrictions macroeconomic policies. A few go so far as have the potential to justify them on to say that the government should privatize libertarian terms. (2002), for the or return to a standard, example, argues that much of the but most accept the argument that a familiar industrialized world’s trade with lesser state-run central bank is necessary. However, developed nations is not characterized by the right-libertarians argue that the government free exchange of property between rightful should not pursue an activist counter-cyclical owners. Many lesser developed countries are but should aim for a stable run by who essentially use money supply (Friedman and Friedman 1980; government authority to steal property from Friedman and Schwartz 1963). their citizens and sell it to the of Most right-libertarians wish for a the industrialized world. This argument government that is too small to make a seems to make a libertarian case for restricted counter-cyclical a realistic trade with (or even an embargo of) possibility even if it were desirable. The usual undemocratic countries, but the argument right-libertarian solution to recessions is to does not seem to have penetrated right- avoid causing them by sudden shifts in libertarian circles. The more common right- government monetary and fiscal policy, by libertarian view of international trade is that removing government barriers to market commerce with any nation is good and it will functioning, and by letting the economic eventually benefit everyone. cycle work itself out. Often right-libertarians see the as part of the natural Is right-libertarianism right-wing? Strict course of , which cannot be right-libertarian policies on economic stopped without reducing its long-run inequality, healthcare, education, and other benefits. According to right-libertarians, the issues give it an elitist, right-wing character, best solution to unemployment is to remove and justifies the rightist designation. government programs such as labor However, some right-libertarian policies are regulations, health and safety regulations, clearly distinct from right-wing . 9 For example, Murray Rothbard is highly arguments against the redistribution of critical of and the war on drugs, income, minimum wages, and government “That is a beautiful war, because they can regulation of industry while simultaneously never win it. It is a perfect war from the point espousing distinctly un-libertarian arguments of view of the state” (Interviewed by Heider on issues such as gay rights, drugs, religion, 1994, p. 95). Many of Rothbard’s followers militarism, and free expression. This view would say the same about the war on could reflect a willingness among right- terrorism. libertarians to sacrifice these issues to find Policies in which strict right-libertarianism allies on their most cherished economic conflicts with conservatism include not only issues, or it could reflect the appeal of right- the social policies they share with the libertarian economic with libertarian left but also many right-libertarian conservatives. Of course, the combination of economic policies. For example, some market economics with social conservatism American conservatives espouse right- (Gilder 1981; Mead 1986; 1992; 1997) is an libertarian to argue against ideology of its own, which seems to be government subsidies for passenger rail, but coalescing under the name of “neo- right-libertarianism, consistently applied, conservatism;” it is not, however, a form of would actually lead to an enormous libertarianism. expansion of passenger rail at the expense of most other forms of transportation, which receive enormous government subsidies. Not For and interpretation of liberalism only would the government have to stop see Freeden (1996), Gaus and Courtland subsidizing jet fuel, it would also have to sell (2003), and Manet (1994). For the history and government owned airports and the air traffic philosophical foundations of right- control system. Indirect automobile subsidies libertarianism see Boaz (1997), Machan would also have to go, including free roads, (1974; 1982), and Vallentyne (2006). For the streets, highways, public parking, and traffic history of left-libertarianism see Vallentyne lights, not to mention direct subsides for oil and Steiner (2000); for the philosophical drilling, for pipelines, and for dictators in oil- debate between left- and right-libertarianism producing nations. A few right-libertarians see Vallentyne and Steiner (2000b). For the make a strange exception by supporting the history of libertarian socialism see Guérin government provision of roads (Murray (2005), Nettlau (1996), Ward (2004), and 1997), but most libertarians believe that it is Woodcock (1962). no more reasonable for a government to provide a free road to every person who Selected References wants to drive a car on it, than it is to provide Bakunin, M. (1972). Bakunin On Anarchy: Selected works by the activist father of world anarchism . New a free rail line to every person who wants to York: A.A. Knopf. drive a locomotive on it. Part of the reason right-libertarianism is Berlin, I. (1969). Two of Liberty. Four considered to be a right-wing is the Essays . I. Berlin, Ed. Oxford: Oxford alliance between right-libertarians and University Press. religious and authoritarian conservatives in Block, W. and G. Callahan (2003). "Is There a Right the Republican Party in the United States. to Immigration?: A Libertarian Perspective." Human Many people espouse right-libertarian Rights Review 5 (1): 46-71. 10 Freeman, S. (2001). "Illiberal Libertarians: Why Boaz, D. (1997). Libertarianism: A Primer . New Libertarianism Is Not a Liberal View." York: Free Press. and Public Affairs 30 (2): 368-388.

Bookchin, M. (1986). An Appeal for Social and Friedman, M. (1962). . Ecological Sanity. The Modern Crisis . M. Bookchin, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Ed. Philadelphia: New Publishers. Friedman, M. (1968). The Case for the Negative Bookchin, M. (1997). The Bookchin Reader . : Income Tax: A View from the Right. Issues of Cassell. American Public Policy . J. H. Bunzel, Ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Bowles, S., D. M. Gordon and T. E. Weisskopf (1983). Beyond the Waste Land: A Democratic Friedman, M. and R. Friedman (1980). Free to Alternative to Economic Decline . Garden City, NY: Choose: A Personal Statement . : Harcourt Achore Press. Brace Jovanovich.

Brown, L. S. (1993). The Politics of : Friedman, M. and A. J. Schwartz (1963). A Monetary Liberalism, Liberal and Anarchism . New History of the United States, 1867-1960 . Princeton: York: Black Rose . Princeton University Press.

Buchanan, J. (1975). The Limits of Liberty . Chicago: Gaus, G. and S. D. Courtland (2003). Liberalism. The University of Chicago Press. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy . E. N. Zalta, Ed. Stanford: Center for the Study of Language and Chomsky, N. (2003). Radical Priorities . Montreal: Information, . Black Rose Books. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/ .

Chomsky, N. (2004). Language and Politics . George, H. (1976). and . New York: Oakland, CA: AK Press. Dutton.

Cohen, G. A. (1995). Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Gibbard, A. (2000). Natural Property Rights. Left- Equality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Libertarianism and its Critics . P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave , 23-30. Dolgoff, S. (1986). Fragments: A Memoir . Cambridge: Refract Publications. Gilder, G. (1981). and Poverty . New York: Basic Books. Enlow, R. C. and L. T. Ealy (2006). Liberty & Learning: Milton Friedman’s Voucher Idea . Goldman, E. (1969). Anarchism and Other Essays . Washington, DC: . New York: Dover.

Epstein, R. A. (2004). "Live and Let Live." The Wall Gordon, D. (1999). "Abortion and Rights: Applying Street Journal July 13 (reprinted Libertarian Principles Correctly." International http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=2737) . Journal of and Social Policy 19 (3/4): 96- 126. Feser, E. (2005). "There is no Such Thing as an Unjust Initial Acquisition." and Guerin, D. (2005). No Gods No Masters: An Policy 22 (1): 56-80. Anthology of Anarchism . Oakland: AK Press.

Freeden, M. (1996). Ideologies and Political Theory: Hayek, F. A. (1944). The Road to . London: A Conceptual Approach . Oxford: Clarendon Press. .

11 Hayek, F. A. (1956). The Road to Serfdom . Chicago: Mead, L. M. (1986). Beyond Entitlement: the Social University of Chicago Press. of Citizenship . New York: Free Press.

Hayek, F. A. (1960). The Constitution of Liberty . Mead, L. M. (1992). The New Politics of Poverty: Chicago: University of Chicago Press. The nonworking poor in America . New York, NY: BasicBooks. Heider, U. (1994). Anarchism: Left, Right, and Green . San Fransisco: City Lights Books. Mead, L. M. (1997). The New Paternalism: Supervisory approaches to poverty . Washington, DC: Hobbes, T. (1962). Leviathan . : Collins. Brookings Press.

Hoppe, H.-H. (1998). "The Case for and Mill, J. S. (1859). On Liberty. Collected Works of Restricted Immigration." The Journal of Libertarian . J. M. Robson, Ed. Toronto: Studies 13 (2): 221-233. University of Toronto Press.

Kirzner, I. M. (1981). , Entitlement, Murray, C. (1997). What it Means to be a and Economic . Reading Nozick: Essays on Libertarian . New York: Broadway Books. Anarchy, State, and . J. Paul, Ed. Oxford: Basil Blackwell , 380-411. Murray, C. (2006). In Our Hands: A Plan to Replace the . Washington, DC: The AEI Press. Kirzner, I. M. (1989). Discovery, Capitalism, and Distributive Justice . Oxford: B. Blackwell. Narveson, J. (1988). The Libertarian Idea . Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Kropotkin, P. (1995). and Other Writings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Narveson, J. (1998). "Libertarianism vs. : Press. Reflections on G. A. Cohen's Self-Ownership, Freedom and Equality ." The Journal of 2 (1). Locke, J. (1960). Two Treatises of Government . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nettlau, M. (1996). A short . London: Freedom Press. Machan, T., Ed. (1974). The Libertarian Alternative: Essays in Social and . Chicago: Niskanen, W. A. (2003). Autocratic, Democratic, Nelson-Hall . and Optimal Government: Fiscal Choices and Economic Outcomes . Cheltenham: Edward Elger. Machan, T., Ed. (1982). The Libertarian Reader . Totowa: Rowman and Littlefield. Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia . New York: Basic Books, Inc. Mack, E. (1990). "Self-Ownership and the Right of Property." Monist 73: 519-543. Otsuka, M. (1998). "Self-Ownership and Equality: A Lockean Reconciliation." Philosophy and Public Mack, E. (1993). "Sighting Rights." Ethics 103 (4): Affairs 27: 65-92. 779-791. Otsuka, M. (2003). Libertarianism Without Mack, E. (1995). "The Self-Ownership Proviso: A Inequality . Oxford: . New and Improved ." Social Philosophy and Policy 12: 186-218. Paine, T. (1797). Agrarian Justice . Philadelphia: R.

Manent, P. (1994). An History of Pogge, T. (2002). World Poverty and : Liberalism . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Cosmopolitan Responsibilities and Reforms . Oxford: Press. Blackwell.

12 Pollock, L. (1996). The . Boulder, CO: Tanner, M. (1996). The End of Welfare: Fighting Westview Press. Poverty in the Civil Society . Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Proudhon, P.-J. (1994). What is property? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Thomson, J. J. (1971). "A Defense of Abortion." Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1): 47-66. Rocker, R. (1989). Anarcho-Syndicalism . London: Pluto Press. Tideman, N. (1982). "A Tax on Land Value is Neutral." National Tax Journal 35: 109-111. Rothbard, M. (1978). , The Libertarian Manifesto . New York: Libertarian Tideman, N. (1997). ", Justice and Economic Review Foundation. Reform." American Journal of Economics and Sociology 56: 671-83. Rothbard, M. (1982). . Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Tideman, N. (2000). "Global Economic Justice." Geophilos 00 (1): 134-146. Russell, D. (1955). "Who is a Libertarian?" : Ideas on Liberty 5 (5). Tideman, N. (2004). "Secession as a Human Right." Journal of Moral Philosophy 1 (1): 9-19. Salisbury, D. and J. Tooley (2005). What America Can Learn From in Other Countries . Vallentyne, P. (2000). Left-Libertarianism - A Washington, DC: Cato Institute. Primer. Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate . H. Steiner, Ed. New York: Simpson, J. A. and E. S. C. Weiner, Eds. (1989). The Palgrave , 1-22. Oxford English Dictionary . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Vallentyne, P. (2003). Self-Ownership and Equality: Smith, A. (1976). . Oxford: Brute Luck, Gifts, Universal Dominance and Oxford University Press. Leximin. Real Libertarianism Assessed . A. Reeve and A. Williams, Eds. New York: Palgrave Spence, T. (2000). The Real . The MacMillan , 29-52. Origins of Left-Libertarianism: An Anthology of Historical Writings . P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, Vallentyne, P. (2006). Libertarianism. Stanford Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave , 71-80. Encyclopedia of Philosophy . E. N. Zalta, Ed. Stanford, CA:: Spencer, H. (1872). Social Statics . New York: D. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/ . Appleton and Company. Vallentyne, P. (2007). "Libertarianism and the State." Spencer, H. (1901). Essays: Moral, Political and Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (forthcoming). Speculative . London: Williams and Norgate. Vallentyne, P. and H. Steiner (2000). The Origins of Steiner, H. (1992). Three Just Taxes. Arguing for Left-Libertarianism: An anthology of historical Basic Income: Ethical Foundations for a Radical writings . Basingstoke: Palgrave. Reform . P. Van Parijs, Ed. New York: Verso , 81-92. Vallentyne, P. and H. Steiner (2000b). Left- Steiner, H. (1994). An on Rights . Oxford: Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Blackwell. Debate . New York: Palgrave.

Stirner, M. (1971). The ego and his own . London: Van Donselaar, G. (2003). The Stake and Cape. Exploitation. The Ethics of Stakeholding . K. Dowding, J. De Wispelaere and S. White, Eds. New York: , 94-113. 13

Van Parijs, P. (1995). Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Von Mises, L. (1927). Liberalism in the Classical Tradition . Irvington, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education.

Von Mises, L. (1963). . Chicago: Henry Regnery Company.

Walras, L. (2000). The Theory of Property. The Origins of Left-Libertarianism . P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, Eds. Basingstoke: Palgrave , 217-224.

Ward, C. (1973). . London: Allen and Unwin.

Ward, C. (2004). Anarchism: a very short introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wheeler, S. (2000). Natural Property Rights as Body Rights. Left-Libertarianism and its Critics: The Contemporary Debate . P. Vallentyne and H. Steiner, Eds. New York: Palgrave.

Widerquist, K. (2006). Property and the Power to Say No: A Freedom-Based Argument for Basic Income . Oxford University: Department of Politics and International Relations.

Woodcock, G. (1962). Anarchism: A history of libertarian ideas and movements . New York: Meridian Books.

Karl Widerquist, Lecturer in Politics, the University of Reading, [email protected] , Word count: 6728.

14