Any discussion of “Post-Libertarianism” is difficult for several reasons. First, the name itself is not official in any way. It was the name adopted by proxy during many discussions on the topic, and has stuck ever since. Given the lack of any better term, we will continue this trend and continue with moniker “Post-Libertarianism” here. Secondly, Post-Libertarianism is not clearly defined. It’s growth and attraction are very recent phenomena, and there is little if any literature on the subject. The only substantial form of media that the ideology exists in is the form of podcasts and blogs. Despite these obstacles, I will do my best to represent “Post-Libertarianism” in the best form possible, as well as where I believe it is correct, and where I believe it fails.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy based on a single foundational statement: the Non-Aggression Principle (or NAP for short). This principle states that it is ethically illegitimate for an individual to initiate aggression against another, provided he has not been first aggressed against. To paraphrase: don’t hurt other people and don’t steal their property. For the sake of further clarity, the NAP can also be written in a positive form: all interactions between human beings should be voluntary in nature. It is from this one principle that all ethical conclusions of Libertarianism are drawn. The Libertarian’s opposition to drug criminalization, war, economic interventionism, and taxation, as well as his belief in private property and self-ownership, are all derived from this one principle.
Principle is one thing, but the affairs of the real world are another. In the year 2021 of this real world, liberty and individual freedom are being systematically violated with acts of pandemic-induced authoritarianism. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments all over the world began to adopt unprecedented and deeply disturbing measures in an attempt to bring the pandemic under control (an attempt that utterly failed in all of its goals, I may add). These measures included: coercively shutting down certain businesses, forcing individuals out of work, instituting mask mandates, placing numerical restrictions on gatherings, and most recently, the beginnings of a push to mandate COVID-19 vaccines. All of which are violations of individual self-ownership and property rights, and therefore, opposed by Libertarians.
For all Libertarians, these developments have been shocking and supremely concerning. The power and scope of state power around the world has reached levels never before seen in human history. It is within this broader context that “Post-Libertarianism” has begun to find increasing popularity within the Libertarian community. The Post-Libertarian position is that principle and theory within Libertarianism is perfectly acceptable in the abstract intellectual realm, but we need to be focused on the what is happening in the world outside of that theory. The authority of the governments is currently at or nearing authoritarian levels in many countries, and millions of people are facing the choice between taking a COVID vaccine or being fired from their jobs. These are real problems that require solutions in the present, and we can’t find those solutions by living in the realm of our Libertarian theory. Instead of being purely focus on the NAP, we should focus on finding political solutions now that make real work towards rolling back the overreach and excesses of the state. If these solutions involve violating the NAP and property rights of others, this may be an unfortunate side-effect of fighting back against the state and its COVID-induced tyranny. What matters in the real world is not the principles we have, but the results that we can achieve. Praxis over principle, and concrete results over abstract theory. Again, there is no definite version of Post-Libertarianism as of this writing. However, I believe this to be a condensed and cohesive representation of the Post-Libertarian sentiments and beliefs.
Where Post-Libertarianism is Right
There are several aspects to Post-Libertarianism that I find myself in agreement with. First, there is a tendency within the Libertarian community to be far too focused on theory and not on real politics in practice. This unfortunate tendency often makes an appearance in the debate over whether Libertarians should have a preference for one political party over another. Pure Libertarian theory doesn’t speak to this topic in any way, so some Libertarians are hesitant to take any sides, and settle for the position that the two parties don’t matter, and they are both equally as bad. However, just because neither party is strictly Libertarian does not mean that Libertarians cannot ever have a preference for one party over another at any time, especially on particular issues. Throughout the early-to-mid 2000s, the antiwar movement was very strong in the Left wing, making that party more in line with Libertarian values over that period. Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Right-wing has generally been resisting the predations of the state much more than the Left. As such, that makes the Right more in line with Libertarian values in the current period. Post-Libertarian clearly recognizes this fact, and embraces this need to take a sober look at the political landscape when we think about Libertarian strategy for the future. While I find contention with some of the conclusions ultimately drawn from this position, the idea itself is sound and Libertarians should not be relegated to only thinking in terms of theory and not of practical matters.
Another aspect to Post-Libertarian thinking I find to be valuable is the idea that we should always be focused on actual strategy for fighting back against the state. There is a far-too pervasive sense with the Liberty movement of resilient and brave pessimism. “The state will continue to march on, and we can’t stop it, but we will at least go down fighting”, or so the sentiment goes. Nonetheless, I find this line of thinking to be unnecessarily defeatist. The state will continue to endlessly trample on the banners of liberty? Says who? I readily admitted that state has made impressive progress in the last decades of systematically dismantling the rights of individuals in nations all over the globe, but this is in the past. The future is always unknown, and it is our responsibility to do our best in changing it for the better. To believe that the fight is forever and permanently lost is to create a self-fulfilling prophesy. Post-Libertarian sentiment leans heavily in the direction of focusing on achieving results. Again, I disagree with some of the conclusions drawn from this notion by the Post-Libertarians, but it is important for any movement that the goal is success, not mere survival.
Where Post-Libertarianism is Wrong
1. The Great Libertarians of the Past Never Gave up their Principle
There is no doubt that the predations of the state during the COVID-19 pandemic are gravely concerning for the future of liberty in our modern world. However, this is not the first time in all of history that liberty has been systematically challenged by the state. Things have been bad before, and they will bad again in the future. Just because present circumstances are bleak does not mean we have to sell out our principles. The Libertarians of the past certainly did not.
Ludwig von Mises is one of the greatest economists of all time, as well as great Libertarian and political thinker in his own right. He was born in Austria, and lived in Vienna for most of his adult life. He was sent to fight in World War I, where he served as an artillery officer, seeing first-hand the death and destruction that the Great War had senselessly brought upon all of Europe. After the war, he went back to Vienna, only to see the Austrian government engage in dangerous hyperinflation, which stopped just short of copying the famous German hyperinflation of 1923. He lived in Vienna for many more years, teaching economics and holding his famous economics seminar. This came to an abrupt end in 1934, when he fled to Switzerland to escape the clutches of the Nazis. In 1940, he would leave Switzerland and move to the United States. He would go on to teach at New York University for the rest of his life, working in relative academic obscurity until his death in 1973.
Despite everything that Mises had seen, everything that he had experienced and suffered through, he never gave up on his principle. He never abandoned what he knew to be right in favor of might be politically expedient. Even when it might have led to a better job, or a more prestigious career, he never sold out on what he knew to be true. I ask the Post-Libertarians: should he have given up his principles? Was he wrong, seeing all the examples of destructive state power throughout his life, to stay firm in his beliefs?
Thank god that he did keep to his principles, because it was through his writings that he influenced Murray Rothbard, who would help to revitalize Austrian Economics and start the modern Libertarian movement as we know it. If not for Mises standing strong in his convictions, even when it was difficult, who knows if there would be any Liberty movement at all today?
Henry Hazlitt was for many years the only mainstream laissez-faire writer in the United States. If he had moderated on his economic worldviews, perhaps he could have curried more favor with the Keynesian economics establishment. However, he didn’t give an inch, and because of that, his introductory book on economic is still on the most read economics books of all time. Murray Rothbard was relegated to teaching economics at Brooklyn Polytechnic, when he could have easily had a much more prestigious position somewhere else, if not for his radical views on politics and economics. Was he wrong to hold to his views, even if his career suffered because of it? Should Rothbard have moderated his positions in an attempt to exert more influence at a better university? As someone who is only a Libertarian today because of Murray Rothbard’s writing, I am very glad that he did not.
The great Libertarians of the past never gave up their principles in efforts to exert more political influence, and they resulting helped to create and foster the Liberty movement that we have today. Obviously, we can never know the counterfactual as to what would have happened if they did give up their principle, but it is difficult to image how their results would have been better than the existence of the Liberty movement as we know it today. If not for their boldness to stand up for their beliefs, how many Libertarians today wouldn’t even be Libertarians at all? It was principle, not politics or short-term goals, that lead to their influencing millions in countries all around the world.
2. An Abandonment of Principle is Toxic to the Movement in the Long-Term
The most successful Libertarian politician in the modern era is unquestionably Dr. Ron Paul. His presidential campaigns in 2008 and 2012 generated massive amounts of enthusiasm and energy behind the Liberty movement, the likes of which has never been replicated before nor since. There are many people who are Libertarians today because of those presidential campaigns and the willingness of Ron Paul to go and spread the Libertarian message.
What exactly was it that made Ron Paul such an attractive and transformational figure? If to talk to anyone who was converted to Libertarianism because of him, the answer is abundantly clear: it was because held strong principles and was willing to tell the truth, even when it might not be politically beneficial. Ron Paul was running on the Republican ticket in a time where being an anti-war Republican was difficult, to say the least. In 2008 and 2012, the GOP was heavily in favor in continued intervention in the Middle East and expansion of the US military hegemony, both of which Dr Paul was strongly against. Even so, he never moderated his positions or backed down. He told the truth, even when it was to a room full of people who might not have wanted to hear it.
It was principle, not politics that inspired people in the Ron Paul campaigns, and it is principle that will continue to inspire people to join the Liberty movement going into the future. Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell and both excellent politicians. They are well-versed in the realpolitik of Washington D.C., and know how to use political leverage to get what they want. Nobody has ever been inspired by either of them. They will never enact any substantial change or ignite a movement in the way that Ron Paul did.
If the Liberty movement is serious about its goals, then it has a long and arduous journey ahead of it. If we truly wish to abolish the CIA, FBI, NSA, repeal the Patriot Act, deregulate the economy, dismantle the Federal Reserve and the crony banking system, end the War on Drugs, demilitarize the police, and grind down every other three-letter government agency into dust, we will need much more than politics. We will need passion. That level of dedication and enthusiasm never comes from having savvy congressmen and shrewd government action. It requires principle to energize someone to agree to this fight. If we give up that principle, then we seriously hamper our ability to accomplish substantial change in the long-run. For us to dismantle the behemoth of the state, we need principled positions that inspire people to make real change, just like Ron Paul did.
Never forget, Ron Paul had college students chanting “End the Fed” at his rallies. It was his principle, not his politics, that inspired them.
3. The State Was not Built in a Day
A common expression is that “Rome was not built in a day”. Similarly, the current state apparatus we live under was not built in a day either. It took decades worth of slow, but steady growth for the government to reach the size it has today. The state’s ability during COVID to shut down businesses, enforce mask wearing, and push for vaccine mandates was not constructed overnight. It took years for the media to build up the influence necessary to push people into a panicked state as effectively as they did. In 1776, the people of the United States were willing to fight and lose their lives because of, by modern standards, moderate taxation, and the lack of sufficient representation in Parliament. In 2020, the people of the United States were largely willing to give away every right they had as long as it made them feel safe from a virus.
How we got from 1776 to 2020 is a long road, and if we are to reverse that process, the road will be equally as long. The state is in control of the media, education systems, law enforcement, legal systems, and has considerable influence over the culture as well. Furthermore, each one of these pieces serves to reinforce the others. For example, the state generates support of itself through the education systems, and the state then generates support of the media, which can in turn generate support for the state education system. It is a positive feedback loop. Libertarians have to recognize that we have made for ourselves a very formidable enemy, and one that will not go down without a long, drawn-out, sustained fight. It won’t happen overnight, and to pretend otherwise is blatant self-deception.
It is not enough for us to just fight on a single issue, such as vaccine mandates. These mandates are undoubtably a violation of Libertarian principles, but to direct our focus exclusively in this area is to treat the symptoms instead of the disease. Fighting against vaccine mandates now may prevent them from occurring now, which is certainly a desirable outcome, but who is to say that they won’t be pushed again in the future? To prevent the imposition of vaccine mandates, we need to dismantle the entire media-bureaucratic-medical industrial complex-state system that causes these vaccine mandates to have support in the first place. This isn’t to say that we can’t ever look to short-term goals. However, the idea of vaccine mandates was first floated earlier on in the pandemic, and the resulting outrage forced these proposals to be withdrawn. In recent months, the idea has been reintroduced, with much more acceptance and implementation. All it took was for a few months of consistent messaging from the media and the medical establishment for the public’s opinions to turn. The vaccine mandates are a symptom of a much greater problem, one that will not go away overnight.
The Post-Libertarian ideology focuses on short-term objectives, but it is here that they possess a faulty understanding of the situation at hand. In the battle against the monstrosity of the modern state, there is nothing substantial that can be done in the short or near-term. The “COVID-Regime” is a product of years of expansion in state power and it will lack years to roll it back. The Post-Libertarian sentiment wishes to see results, but there cannot be meaningful short-term results against this current system. There is no button we can push, no matter what principles we give up to push it, that can dismantle the current state/media behemoth. If you abandon principle in search of such a button, all you find is that you have left your principle without anything to show for it. Leaving behind the NAP in search of results as quickly as possible is an unforced error, and one that will cause irreparable harm to the broader Liberty movement.
Conclusions
The Post-Libertarian ideology is correct in that the Liberty movement should not ignore the real world or strategy, but it takes these ideas too far. To abandon principle will cripple the Liberty movement in the long run, and will fail to achieve any results in the short-run. The fight against the state is not a fight over the coming weeks or months, but years and decades. A long-term struggle requires not a political coalition, but a movement. For that movement to exist, we must embrace consistent Libertarian principles, not reject them. The Post-Libertarian willingness to leave behind this principle will prove to be utterly fruitless, as there is no strategy, principled or otherwise, that will carve away at the state in the short-term, and the Liberty movement and its growth will ultimately suffer because of it.
We are the heirs of the philosophy of Libertarianism, passed on by the great Libertarians of the past. It is incumbent upon us, as recipients, to pass it on to others. The reason that we have this philosophy today is because of the continued steadfastness to principle of all of those who came before us. For us to pass it on, we must hold fast to our principle as well. The COVID pandemic has precipitated new heights of state authoritarianism, but to leave behind our principles in an attempt to fight against it is pointless and short-sighted. As Libertarians have always in past during times of trouble, we should recognize the predations of the state, hold firm to our principles, and renew in our hearts our dedication to fight for individual liberty in hope of a better tomorrow.
