A Journal of Neolibertarian Thought

by Liberty and Power

I was just saying to myself, you know, it's about time that somebody worked the insights of Irving Kristol about making peace with the welfare state into a flexible framework of pragmatic libertarianism. And presto, along comes the New Libertarian: a Journal of Neolibertarian Thought. Frankly, I like a journal whose inaugural essay begins"Frankly..." because then you know you're going to get some frank talk, like this, from editor Dale Franks:"Neos understand that a transformation towards what I like to call a Society of Liberty, will probably take a fair amount of time." I like to call it a"society of liberty" too. But it is better with the capitals.

As one of the editorials notes,"Doctrinaire hackles were raised recently" by Dale Franks' iconoclasm. And those are exactly the right hackles to raise. They'll probably even get some doctrinaire heckles, but I say that pomposity in defense of liberty is no vice, linguistic clarity in the pursuit of pragmatism no virtue.

Who is this"New Libertarian"? Contributor Max "Boil 'Em" Borders explains that, among other things, she"lives in a socio-political reality," and"is prepared to define her own rectitude." And how!

Do check it out.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Bill Woolsey - 4/3/2005

I believe "Hobbesian libertarians" are more usually described as "contractarian libertarians." It is a third major approach to libertarian fundamentals, the other two being natural rights/natural law and consequentialist/utilitarian.

The Hobbes connection is that Hobbes is usually given credit for introducting contractarianism.

I don't believe it has much to do with the hawkishness or incrementalism reform in domestic policy. It is just that one or more of the small group pushing this "neolibertarianism" favor a version of contractarianism as well as incrementalism in domestic policy.

Most advocates of incrementalist reform in the Libertarian Party, anyway, hold to a natural rights position. Some even believe that anarcho-capitalism is morally obligatory. They just aren't into "howling at the moon."

Consequentialist/utililatarians have all sorts of views regarding incrementalism and foreign policy.

There are plenty of natural rights advocates who are very "hawkish." The orthodox objectivists take it to an extreme.

John W. Payne - 4/2/2005

Seriously, I thought it was at first, but now I'm gravely concerned. If these people are sincere the libertarian movement has some problems. Usually I'm not one to go on a purity crusade but this is beyond the pale (Of course Max Borders already dahsed over that line with her whole boiling people alive piece.

Steven Horwitz - 4/2/2005

Check out the discussion at Hit and Run:

http://www.reason.com/hitandrun/2005/04/you_know_youre.shtml#009017

Hobbesian classical liberals do exist (Jim Buchanan could be so characterized), but your point remains.

You know there's trouble in libertarianville when I'm agreeing with Justin Raimondo who asked, in the H&R comments, "Why don't they just come out of the closet and call themselves what they really are: neoconservatives." Cha-ching.

Like Jason, I'm all in favor of finding pragmatic, evolutionary paths from here to there, but where their "there" is, is not someplace I wish to go.

Jason Kuznicki - 4/2/2005

...I'm revolted.

I know I recently suggested that the Libertarian Party could benefit from a good dose of pragmatism, but this is absolutely the last thing I had in mind. What on earth is "Hobbesian libertarianism," anyway? Yikes.

M.D. Fulwiler - 4/2/2005

Well, not a deliberate joke, but a joke nonetheless!

M.D. Fulwiler - 4/2/2005

Boy, another sucker falls for an April Fool's joke. LOL!

Mark Brady - 4/2/2005

If this is thought, would neolibertarians please stop thinking. I just checked out Max Borders's article. Priceless! So bad as to be funny. But it's also tragic because this sort of drivel discredits any sensible definition of the word 'libertarian'.

"Arguments about the 'size' of state fall by the wayside when, instead, she [The New Libertarian] questions the role of government (all within the context of history and geopolitical realities). As the state does its job, it may grow and shrink dynamically."

Apart from the irritating use of the word "dynamically" (which suggests that Max Borders has read too much "dynamist" Virginia Postrel for his own good), anyone with a semblance of understanding of classical liberalism will surely recoil in horror at his statement.

I suggest that Max Borders, who is currently a program director at the Institute for Humane Studies, take a short walk from his office to the Harper library and borrow F. A. Harper's "The Writings of F. A. Harper" (2 vols., Institute for Humane Studies, 1978-79) shelved at HB171 .H276 1978. Or, for that matter, any one of hundreds of volumes in the Harper library that reflect the rich diversity of classical liberal thought (a tradition that does not include a favorable view of a dynamically growing state). (F. A. "Baldy" Harper (1905-1973) founded the IHS in 1961.)