“Cultural Libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian Tradition in…” (Fields) CULTURAL LIBERTARIANISM AND THE JUDEO-CHRISTIAN TRADITION IN MURRAY ROTHBARD, BOB DYLAN, AND WOODY ALLEN Kollin Fields1 Abstract: Because libertarianism is rooted in the non-aggression principle, libertarians tend to focus on the state as the most violent offender of rights. However, this paper proposes that we likewise consider the validity of “cultural libertarianism.” Though this term has been in existence since at least the early 2000s, I define it in a specific way, and use the lives of Murray Rothbard, Bob Dylan, and Woody Allen as real-world examples of its practice. Cultural libertarianism, as conceptualized herein, suggests that social forces can be coercive to individuals in a way that complicates traditional libertarian theory. For Rothbard, Dylan, and Allen, I also show a connection between their roots in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and their cultural libertarianism. While religion is certainly not a prerequisite for libertarianism, there is a clear connection between Judaism, Christianity, and their belief in the uniqueness of the individual that is complementary to the philosophy of libertarianism. Keywords: cultural libertarianism, Christian libertarian, Judaism, Jewish libertarian, Judeo-Christian, Murray Rothbard, Bob Dylan, Woody Allen 1 Kollin Fields is a Ph.D. student at the University of Texas-Dallas, studying American intellectual history and twentieth-century political philosophy. He has elsewhere served an adjunct professor of American history. 19 The Christian Libertarian Review 3 (2020) I. INTRODUCTION It has been said that politics is downstream from culture. Whether or not this is always true, the idea is that culture precedes and shapes the political climate.2 The polemicist H. L. Mencken said that “democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”3 Consequently, we might say that the culture people want leads to the politics they deserve. If one’s culture emphasizes conformity and obedience, then a political climate of conformity and obedience will likely follow. Libertarianism, on the contrary, stresses individuality and self-ownership. However, largely since its formal inception in the early 1970s, the libertarian movement has seemed often to skip the step of culture formation in favor of focusing on the realms of economics, history, and political theory. Significant figures in the modern libertarian movement have mostly been theorists, economists, historians, and, occasionally, politicians. Brian Doherty, in his Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement (2007), focuses primarily on Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman. But, with the exception of Rand, this list excludes the artists, those who largely create culture on a mass scale. While social theory, political theory, and economics are vital to an understanding of the way the world works, these fields are not readily accessible to and/or consumed by the public; in short, they are not part of popular culture. One definition of culture is “the characteristic features of everyday existence . shared by people in a place or time.”4 To be sure, there is a “libertarian culture,” but few within the 2 The quote is typically attributed to the late founder of Breitbart News, Andrew Breitbart. See Lawrence Meyers, “Politics Really is Downstream from Culture,” Breitbart (Aug. 2011). https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2011/08/22/politics-really-is-downstream-from- culture/. 3 H. L. Mencken, “The Citizen and the State,” in A Mencken Chrestomathy (New York: Vintage Books, 1982). 4 Merriam-Webster, entry 1:1a. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture. 20 “Cultural Libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian Tradition in…” (Fields) general public would define this niche subculture as a “characteristic feature of everyday existence.” In attempting to define and explain libertarianism largely through an economic or political lens, Doherty’s protagonists tend to ignore the power of popular culture. But if we believe, at least in part, that politics is downstream from culture, then a libertarian culture will precede the political world (or lack thereof) envisioned by libertarian theory. If libertarianism focuses too narrowly on being “anti-state,” then it ignores one of the primary avenues by which ideas about the state are influenced. In terms of the definition of culture as relating to everyday existence, many, if not most Americans, have never heard of Ludwig von Mises, for example. There is certainly something to be said about libertarian education, but this is only one way to reach the broader public. Another way of conceiving libertarianism is through its cultural instantiation, an avenue which readily reaches the masses. Popular culture—in this case music and cinema—have long been woven into the fabric of American society. They are consumed en masse and are not typically overtly “political.” In short, they are accessible. As I will show, the output of two major figures in their respective fields, Bob Dylan and Woody Allen, has in many ways mirrored the prolific output of Murray Rothbard within the field of libertarian study, but reaching far greater audiences in the cases of the former. It is not only their work, but their personal lives which are emblematic of the kind of cultural libertarianism I am proposing. Though the politics of Rothbard, Dylan, and Allen are much different, they approached their professional lives in a similar way, and I argue that both Judaism and Christianity impacted their propensity for individual liberty. But first, let us further explore this concept of cultural libertarianism. II. CULTURAL LIBERTARIANISM AS CONCEPT 21 The Christian Libertarian Review 3 (2020) Although the term has been in circulation for at least a century now, there are still competing and conflicting definitions of libertarianism. As Stephen Kinsella has said, while “libertarians tend to agree on a wide array of policies and principles . it is not easy to find consensus on what libertarianism's defining characteristic is, or on what distinguishes it from other political theories and systems.”5 Broadly speaking, libertarianism is a political philosophy that deals with the proper use of force in society. Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) believed that “the libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” He referred to this as the nonaggression axiom, which elsewhere has been referred to as the non- aggression principle (NAP), the liberty principle, the freedom philosophy, the non-aggression obligation, and the zero-aggression principle. Rothbard defined aggression as “the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.”6 Libertarians generally measure the legitimacy or permissibility of an action based on its adherence to the non-aggression principle. The prolific libertarian writer and theorist, Walter Block, has written that libertarianism “asks only one question, and gives only one answer. It asks, ‘Does [an] act necessarily involve initiatory invasive violence?’”7 If so, Block and most libertarians believe such an act may be justifiably responded to with force, if necessary. More recently, however, self-styled “left-libertarians” have proposed additional commitments for libertarians which go beyond simply following the non-aggression principle. Long-time writer and libertarian 5 Stephen Kinsella, “What Libertarianism Is,” Ludwig von Mises Institute (Aug. 2009). https://mises.org/library/what-libertarianism. Adapted from the collected essays in Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, edited by Jörg Guido Hülsmann and Stephan Kinsella (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2009). 6 Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd ed. (Auburn: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006), 27. 7 Walter Block, “Libertarianism and Libertinism,” Journal of Libertarian Studies 11:1 (Fall 1994): 119. 22 “Cultural Libertarianism and the Judeo-Christian Tradition in…” (Fields) thinker Charles Johnson proposed a “thick” libertarianism in his essay from 2008 which raised concerns for the supposed inability of the non- aggression principle to fully deal with coercive or aggressive activity not perpetrated by the state: Noncoercive authoritarianism may be consistent with libertarian principles, but it is hard to reasonably reconcile the two. Whatever reasons you may have for rejecting the arrogant claims of power-hungry politicians and bureaucrats . probably serve just as well for reasons to reject other kinds of authoritarian pretension, even if they are not expressed by means of coercive government action (emphasis mine). And later: …there may be social practices or outcomes that libertarians should (in some sense) be committed to opposing, even though they are not themselves coercive…If aggression is morally illegitimate, then libertarians are entitled not only to condemn it, but also to condemn the destructive results that flow from it—even if those results are, in some important sense, external to the actual coercion.8 The notion of “noncoercive authoritarianism” is certainly interesting, if a bit clumsily delivered by Johnson. As is often the case in philosophy, however, the veracity of an idea depends on how it is defined. In this case, what would be deemed “coercive,” and, more importantly,