Live Blogging: Radicals for Capitalism: Introduction: Reviving an American Radical Tradition

Having recently finished the Tannehills’ The Market for Liberty, I am currently reading Brian Doherty’s Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement.  The book deals with the many facets of the libertarian movement this century, as well as some details about classical liberal and proto-libertarian activists in centuries prior.  As I read the book chapter by chapter, I’ll write a little bit about it here for your pleasure.

Prior to reading this book, I had read one review of it: a poorly-reseached review from The New York Times by David Leonhardt.  The review had motivated me to write this reply.  David Boaz, too, couldn’t resist making mincemeat of Mr. Leonhardt’s review.

Mr. Doherty explains the title of his book on page fifteen.  It is true, as Mr. Doherty points out, that libertarians are radicals for liberty and for choice.  However the phrase “radical for capitalism” comes from Ayn Rand.  Mr. Doherty contends that this phrase “characterizes the movement’s prickliness, its willingness to take on terms from their enemies and turn them to their own advantage” (p. 15).  Although the term “capitalist” was used by Karl Marx to be a term of derision, many libertarians like the notion of “re-claiming” the term.  The GLBT community has since done the same thing with the term “queer.”

The introduction is where Mr. Doherty introduces us, broadly, to this whole “libertarian” thing.  Many have heard the term, perhaps linked to the Cato Institute or to the Libertarian Party, to blogs or to syndicated radio shows (p. 2-3).  Nevertheless, not everyone knows exactly what the term means.  Mr. Doherty sums up the libertarian belief as follows: “Government, if it has any purpose at all (and many libertarians doubt it does), should be restricted to the protection of its citizens’ persons and property against direct violence and theft” (p. 3).

Libertarians tend to have a fond view of America’s founding, but as Mr. Doherty explains, it is not a backward or reactionary ideology.  “By extending individual liberty into radical areas of sex, drugs, and science (no restrictions on stem cell research, cloning, or nanotech), libertarianism is the most future looking of American ideologies.  It sells the promise of a world mankind hasn’t yet fully known, one with personal liberty limited only by preventing damage to other people or their property” (p. 3-4).

One can arrive at libertarian views by a variety of avenues, including natural law theory and utilitarianism, sometimes both (p. 4-5).  But despite libertarianism’s radical individualism, it is not an atomistic philosophy.  Mr. Boaz’s father’s “good reputation didn’t extend much beyond the small town where [they] lived, and he would have had trouble borrowing money in a hurry even a few towns over.  [Conversely, Mr. Boaz has] instant access to cash and credit virtually anywhere…because the free market has developed credit institutions that extend around the world.  …  The network of trust and credit relies on all the institutions of a free society: individual rights and responsibility, secure property rights, freedom of contract, free markets, and the rule of law.  A complex order rests on a simple but secure foundation” (p. 7).  Despite the radical individualism advocated by libertarianism, it would yield a highly interconnected society.

The introduction states that the book will deal with five intellectuals in particular, Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich A. Hayek, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Milton Friedman.  He goes on to, in a section I love, note simularities and differences between these five (p. 8-9).  The book then briefly discusses these figures over the next few pages to provide the reader with some basic information.

Despite the libertarian’s association with the term “capitalism,” it would be a mistake to assume that libertarianism is simply apologia for privilege.  Whereas Big Business often petitions Big Government to enact protectionist measures, such as Roger Milliken agitating for tariffs, it would receive no such advantages from libertarians.  Those who advocate libertarianism do so therefore because of a personal conviction for liberty, not simpply out of pecuniary interest (p. 16).

Because libertarians are an eclectic bunch, arriving at their views from many different avenues, there tends to be a great deal of infighting within this movement.  To exemplify this, Mr. Doherty quotes one Fred Smith: “When two libertarians find themselves agreeing on something, each knows the other has sold out” (p. 19).

Although the in-fighting is quite annoying to those of us living through it, I suspect that the in-fighting depicted in this retrospective will make this an very interesting story indeed.  I look forward to it.