The main differences between a British libertarian gathering and an American one is the attitude towards foreign affairs and their own governments. During the Cold War many American libertarians, Murray Rothbard especially, denounced the US federal government’s attempts to “encircle” Communism, build alliances, station troops in Europe etc.
Most British libertarians, being somewhat closer to the Iron Curtain, and feeling that the English Channel might not be a huge obstacle to the Asiatic hordes of the Red Army, were rather happier with the presence of large, well equipped armies. We also took a more relaxed view of state violations of individual rights when the persons concerned were Communists, pro-Soviet peace protesters or “useful idiots” who acted spontaneously in a manner which would have delighted Stalin, Hitler or Napoleon.
We tended to admire the antics of the security services as they “bugged and burgled their way across London”. Some of us cheered when police officers on horseback smashed their way through ranks of protesting miners in 1984. I know no one in British libertarian circles who wondered if it might not be our turn some day, although Sean Gabb came closest.
The gloom among British libertarians today is partly the result of the realisation that now the apparatus of state oppression is randomly destroying people’s lives like in the final chapters of “Atlas Shrugged”.
But there is something particularly awful about the gloom engulfing British libertarians. No one born in the mainland of the United Kingdom and alive today has ever seen a group of police officers march up a residential street, knocking at selected doors and leading families away to some awful fate. Yet in every other member state of the European Union except Finland and Sweden, the are people who remember watching their neighbours being taken away. In the case of recent refugees from the former Yugoslavia, such memories may be very recent indeed.
The problem for British libertarians is that they aren’t really used to the idea that the state really is our enemy. This is one reason why I don’t think that the UK withdrawing from the European Union is an automatic recipe for joy.
Rothbard?
“Even if our nation is directly attacked by another, justice for those who look askance upon war efforts and levies still requires that the scope of state action be kept within responsible limits. The goal of all state action at such times must be a negotiated peace, so that the burden of destruction and taxes will cease. The state should do its best to put limits and rules on the war, and to outlaw as many weapons of destruction as possible – starting with the worst. Furthermore, so long as the emergency endures, all efforts should be kept voluntary – without conscription, economic controls, or inflation.”
And:
“The election of 1956 pitted Dwight Eisenhower against Adlai Stevenson, both of whom offered statist domestic policies. But Stevenson was against conscription and less pro-war, and thus garnered Rothbard’s support, the moral priority being the prevention of another massacre of young men. Rothbard even worked the phones from the Stevenson campaign headquarters in Manhattan. His turn against the Republicans got him tossed off the Faith and Freedom masthead, led him to appeal leftward for allies, and sparked a lifelong war with William Buckley and the mainstream of the conservative movement.”
Both from LewRockwell.com
American libertarians have the idea of the “non-aggression principle,” which basically states that it’s wrong to initiate force. From the posts I’ve read here, I gather British libertarians don’t have that.
Ken Hagler: I think the difference is what is regarded as ‘initiating’. I guess British libertarians do not actually need to see bombs dropping on their homes to want to have bombs dropped on the other people who threaten them.
In my experience (as a brit myself): your average brit is vastly more *emotionally* statist than any yank. Brits actually really *believe* in Authority and Law ‘n Order. So when a brit goes libertarian, mostly it’s not from a genuine love of unfettered freedom, but from irritation that this particular set of fetters is chafing. Brit libertarians on the whole want the state to become nice again, so they can relax and resume being law-abiding.
Julian has a very good point. I actually find myself feeling decidedly “un-British” in my instinctive distrust of the state and belief in liberty. Of course Julian’s observation might have been a bit different if he was writing 150 years ago, but after a century of creeping socialism, he is all-too-sadly correct.
Julian, Tom: I am neither American nor English, so what does that make me?!? I hate the state in all the forms it’s existed so far and see no point in collectivist institutitions (Not the same as collective endevour or entities). I find it surprising that two libertarians are making statements based on such crude generalisations rather than individual observations.
Adriana: methinks you have got the wrong end of the stick on this one. If, as Julian suggests, that Brits typically have a certain view of liberty and the state, then I wrote what I did to say I was different in that regard. Of course all generalisations are in that sense, “crude”, but probably no cruder than the generalisations contained in Jim Bennett’s concept of the Anglosphere. Anyway, my views are my own and don’t fit any obvious mould. Being a libertarian in Britain makes me feel odd enough as it is!!!
I don’t accept the idea that respect and devotion to authority and law and order mean the same thing as love for a leviathan welfare state. What was it Margaret Thatcher said about strong government? Some like that the government was stronger and most effective when it got its tentacles out of things it had no business or competence to run in the first place.
That’s the sort of authority those who value liberty should believe in. There’s no need to rail against the state indiscriminately. All sane people think there should be some sort of government. It’s big government that’s the enemy, not all government.
“All sane people think there should be some sort of government.”
Convenient to define the opposition as crazy before they even open their mouths. Because that’s what I and other libertarian anarchists are – the opposition, to any state whatsoever. If somebody tries to “rule” me, they are either an insolent fool, or an aggressor, depending on whether they intend to back it up with force.
Well, I doubt you really believe society can function without law or government, and I stand by the belief that those who do are following an incoherent, warped political philosophy.
I’m sure he doesn’t believe human society can function without law, but the anarcho-capitalist argument is that courts, legislation, enforcement etc. can be provided by a mechanism other than the state, not that we should be lawless.
If you want an example of a functioning, law-obiding anarchist society, I suggest you take a look at David Friedman’s work on Medieval Iceland. And there’s an interesting paper by Bruce Benson here. From that paper’s conclusion, “Individuals must face incentives to obey laws, and to accept court rulings when disputes under the law arise. One source of incentives is government coercion, but that is not the only source. Individuals can be persuaded to recognize the authority of law if there are clear personal gains from doing so. An examination of the medieval and modern Law Merchant reveals that government law and government courts are not necessary to establish an effective legal system.”
You might disagree with them, but I assure you these men are both perfectly sane.
Sure you can fight a war Rothbard’s way – if you do not mind losing.
If writing the above is an example of me (a British libertarian) being “emotionally statist” so be it.