What is Libertarianism?
Libertarianism is a complex ideology that combines elements of conservatism and liberalism into one unified ideology. It is the core ideology of the Libertarian Party
For reference:
Libertarian: a member of the Libertarian Party
libertarian: one who subscribes to an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
In my last piece, “Why I Left Libertarianism,” I wrote that I was going to analize libertarianism, well here it is. As a progressive I can say there is a lot of common ground I can find with libertarians. The primary sales pitch for the Libertarian Party is that they’re the party of liberty. In addition to liberty, the sales pitch for libertarianism or at least the Libertarian Party is that libertarians/Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. This sales pitch is often made by Libertarian politicians to win over voters in elections. That sales pitch is one of the very reason Libertarians have more electoral success than Greens because Independents who aren’t politically savvy will vote Libertarian out of spite of Republicans and Democrats and see themselves as being conservative on economic issues and liberal on social issues. However, Libertarians or libertarians aren’t entirely fiscally conservative or socially liberal, they are mostly both, but there are areas where libertarians differ from conservatives on economic issues and where libertarians differ from liberals on social issues. Libertarians also lean conservative on guns and the environment, and they lean liberal on drugs and foreign policy. First, let’s dissect libertarian economic philosophy and examine where they stand on economic issues.
Fiscally Conservative (Mostly) and Socially Liberal (Mostly)
Taxation
The most well-known aspect of libertarianism is the support of the free market and tax cuts. The classic libertarian slogan is “taxation is theft,” the notion that having to pay taxes is a form of theft. Taxation is not theft it is part of being a citizen in a developed country. Every developed country has a tax system, and in fact, taxation is in the US Constitution. Of course, Libertarians know that taxation in the Constitution and know that it’s next to impossible to push an amendment to remove taxation from the Constitution, so they just run on lowering taxes. Many Libertarians run on eliminating the current taxes and replacing them with one consumption tax, this was part of Gary Johnson’s 2016 platform which he called the Fair Tax. The other thing Libertarians often do is they campaign on Ronald Reagan’s economic platform, the good old trickle-down economics. This explains why a lot of Libertarians are former Republicans and not former Democrats. People like Gary Johnson and Bill Weld were Republican Governors before they ran for president and vice-president as Libertarians. Meanwhile, Lincoln Chafee is the only well know example of a Democrat becoming a Libertarian. Even then Chafee was a Republican Senator from Rhode Island and then became an Independent Governor of Rhode Island before switching party affiliation to Democrat upon his gubernatorial reelection. That being said Chafee did run for president in 2016 as a Democrat before running for president in 2020 as a Libertarian. Fiscal policy is also why many libertarians run for office as Republicans instead of Libertarians. Keep in mind Ron Paul ran as a Republican for both of his Congressional runs and two out of his three Presidential runs. The 1988 election being the only time Paul ran for president as a Libertarian. Back to fiscal policy. Tax cuts sound nice on paper, but when they are actually implemented they cause economic shortfalls. Just ask Kansas Governor Sam Brownback about his failed tax experiment. That’s why Donald Trump had to pull give Brownback out of Kansas and give Brownback a job in his administration so Brownback’s reputation wouldn’t be ruined any further. As for just one singular tax that everyone pays at a consistent rate, well that also sounds good on paper. The reason we have different taxes like the income tax, capital gains tax, corporate tax, estate tax, and the top marginal tax is that these various taxes are designed to adjust for income. Middle-class Americans don’t pay the top marginal tax, that tax is designed exclusively for the top income earners. Additionally, only CEOs of corporations pay corporate taxes, most Americans don’t own corporations. So that’s why we have various taxes. If we went to a singular consumption tax system we’d see disparities in how much of a person’s that tax costs. A flat consumption tax would take more out of a worker’s income than it would a CEO’s income, which would lead to massive inequalities. Hence why we even have different sets of taxes based on the income of Americans. Of course, Republicans like to cut the corporate and top marginal tax rates so their wealthy backers don’t have to pay their fair share of taxes.
Regulations
The next aspect of fiscal libertarianism that should be addressed is the support of the “free markets.” Libertarians love to go on and on about how the “free market” will solve most if not all of society’s problems. This was the core of Ed Clark and David Koch’s presidential platform in 1980. Clark and Koch’s platform included lifting business regulations, repealing antitrust laws, and do away with workers’ protection laws. Many Libertarians often say that their policies will return America to the Roaring Twenties when businesses thrived. It sounds nice, but the Roaring Twenties was only a good time for the wealthy elite. If the middle class became nonexistent in the Roaring Twenties thanks to Warren Harding’s “Return to Normalcy” which turned the middle class into the working poor. Also, the deregulation of the Harding and Coolidge administrations caused the Great Depression. Herbert Hoover’s plan to use Laissez-Faire Economics to stop the Depression only made matters worse. It was Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal that ended up improving the situation. Aside from that part, a lot of the regulations Clark and Koch sought to repeal were in place during the “Roaring Twenties.” Laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act and Pure Food and Drug Act, which created the Food and Drug Administration, predated the Twenties. So, in other words, people like David Koch wanted to send us back to the Gilded Age when there was no protection for workers, and the rich dominated every aspect of American life. The reason labor movements emerged in the late nineteenth century and started unionizing to fight the oppression of workers from companies like Standard Oil and US Steel was that there were no regulations in place to stop those companies from doing so. On top of that work zones were unsafe, just read about the American sweatshops. Antitrust became necessary to stop companies like Standard Oil from completely dominating US markets. It was the changes brought forth in the progressive era where we finally saw the American worker get the appropriate fruits for their labor and laws to ensure safe work zones. The bulk of these policies were implemented by Theodore Roosevelt, but William Taft and Woodrow Wilson do deserve their due credit. In fact, most of the laws to create safe working environments came from the Wilson Administration. Also, Roosevelt’s trustbusting made the American markets free because it allowed for competition to take place in the free market, as opposed to Standard Oil and US Steel buying their competitors. Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson understood that a free market needs to be regulated in order to survive and be fair to everyone that participates in it. Unfortunately, in today’s world laws like the Sherman Antitrust Act aren’t being enforced by presidents of both parties. The last president to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act was Jimmy Carter.
UBI and Corporate Welfare
At the outset, I said that Libertarians aren’t entirely fiscally conservative, why I say that? Here’s why. While libertarians may be conservative on taxes and regulations, they aren’t entirely conservative on welfare laws. Now, most libertarians want to abolish Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the social safety net as a whole just like conservatives, libertarians also want to abolish corporate welfare and subsidies for multibillion-dollar corporations while conservatives want to expand corporate welfare to multibillion-dollar corporations. That’s actually a position progressives and/or liberals share with libertarians. Progressives want to abolish corporate welfare on the simple basis that corporations are not people. Meanwhile, libertarians want to get rid of corporate welfare because they see it as wasteful spending, and they’re not entirely wrong. In fact, Ron Paul actually worked with Bernie Sanders and Dennis Kucinich on legislation to abolish corporate welfare in the US House of Representatives. However, opposition to corporate welfare is not a position that is unanimously held by libertarians. Libertarian billionaires like the Koch brothers actually support corporate welfare because their companies benefit from it. Another fiscal policy position libertarians are split on is on the issue of Universal Basic Income (UBI) which is also a fiscally liberal position. Many libertarians support UBI because they see it as something to replace the social safety net with. It’s a way they think could help the poor and needy without “overspending” on “useless programs.” Unfortunately, a UBI on its own isn’t enough to help the poor, a UBI that adds, which is the UBI progressives support, on to the social safety net will benefit the poor in America. Many other libertarians oppose UBI altogether. That’s why Andrew Yang became popular with libertarians because he would pitch the libertarian UBI on programs like “The Rubin Report.” Now it’s time to talk about social issues.
Equality, Gay Marriage, and Abortion
Aside from supporting tax cuts and free markets, libertarians are known for opposing government efforts to violate the rights of minority groups. Libertarians support Civil Rights for groups such as people of color, religious minorities, and the LGBTQ community. On Civil Rights, libertarians oppose segregation and were supportive of the Civil Rights Movement. When it comes to LGBTQ, libertarians, support gay marriage and the right of a transgender person to get a gender change. Libertarians were opposed to laws like “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act. They also support a woman’s right to chose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy. Now, libertarians may not personally approve of decisions like terminating a pregnancy; they don’t want the government to ban abortions because they see it as an overreach of government. As a matter of fact, progressives don’t personally approve of abortion, but they think that the government shouldn’t ban abortions because there are cases where it may end up being necessary. That’s why progressives support expanding access to contraception to reduce abortion rates. Oddly enough conservatives actually oppose contraception which may end up disproving their narrative about opposing abortion on moral grounds. Then there are folks like Ben Shapiro who are perfectly fine with killing children so long as the military does it in a bombing campaign and not in a medical procedure to save a mother of a child. Of course, some libertarians may think they don’t agree with progressives and/or liberals on social issues because they conflate progressives with the so-called “social justice warriors” or the neo-progressives (as I call them because I think “social justice warrior” is an incredibly stupid name). This was the driving force behind Dave Rubin’s ridiculous woke culture argument regarding the California wildfires. However, they’d be surprised by how often progressives reject the antics of neo-progressives. Many libertarians are quick to call out racism when they see it and often end up siding with progressives on what constitutes as racist. Libertarian commentator John Stossel condemned the racist writings of conservative figurehead Gavin McInnes in a section of his Reason program. Many progressives actually agreed that many of McInnes’s writings were, in fact, racist for the same reasons Stossel outlined. They were also united in opposing Roy Moore’s Senate bid because of his bigoted views.
Corporate Discrimination
Much like fiscal issues, libertarians aren’t entirely socially liberal. Libertarians support 98% of the Civil Rights Act, but they do oppose article II and article VII of the Civil Rights Act. Article II of the Civil Rights Act bans discrimination based on race, religion, or nationality in all places of public accommodations. Article VII bans employers from discriminating against hiring people of different races, religions, or nationalities. This is Dave Rubin’s classic argument of “I’m a happily married gay man, but I don’t want the government forcing bakers to bake me a cake.” This argument originates from Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as one of the many reasons he deemed the Civil Rights Act unconstitutional. Now, of course, Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights Bill exceeded articles II and VII, but those were the focus of his arguments against the bill. Goldwater also opposed the Civil Rights Act to court disaffected Dixiecrats into the Republican Party. However, the arguments Goldwater made against the Civil Rights Act have been invoked by the likes of Austin Petersen as a reason to rewrite the Civil Rights Act to remove those acts. The problem with this mentality is that it sees public businesses as private property, which is an oxymoron. A public business exists to serve public interests, if it’s not a public business, then it doesn’t serve the public interest. In fact, private businesses and clubs are exempt from following the guidelines in articles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act. So, in other words, folks like Dave Rubin and Austin Petersen have already won that battle they just don’t know it, because bakeries aren’t private businesses. Now if they want a public business to be able to discriminate against consumers that’s a different story and one they’d gain no support from except social conservatives who want to ban gay marriage altogether. The reason articles II and VII are included in the Civil Rights Act is to protect the freedom of consumers to buy a wedding cake from wherever they want without having to worry about discrimination. This is a concept Dave Rubin struggles to understand until he asks Ben Shapiro to bake him a cake. Ben Shapiro doesn’t own a public bakery so he actually does have reason to decline Rubin’s request to bake him a cake. Then again this is the same Dave Rubin that said Donald Trump Jr. could call him a “faggot” and that anti-gay conservatives are tolerant begging Ben Shapiro to bake him a cake, so he shouldn’t be taken seriously. As a matter of fact, the distinction between public business and private property is what eventually caused Jordan Peterson to concede on the gay wedding cake issue. Now this position on articles II and VII of the Civil Rights Act isn’t unanimously held by libertarians because many libertarians don’t see those articles as an overreach of government power. In fact, Gary Johnson and Bill Weld supported articles II and VII of the CRA. Johnson was even booed at a Libertarian Party debate in 2016 for supporting the Civil Rights Act just the way it was. Conservative commentator Glenn Beck criticized Gary Johnson for holding that position. Needless to say, just like how libertarians are mostly fiscally conservative with some exceptions, they are also mostly socially liberal with some exceptions.
Guns and The Environment
Gun Control
Economic policy isn’t the only field of policy where libertarians lean right, they also lean right on the issue of guns. I’ll be completely honest here; I was never on board with the Libertarian stance on guns when I considered myself a libertarian, here’s why. Libertarians and Republicans have almost identical stances when it comes to the issue of guns. Both conservatives and libertarians oppose any newly proposed gun control measures. An area where the two differ is on the issue of repealing already existing gun control laws like the Firearm Owners Protection Act which bans fully automatic weapons. Conservatives rarely talk about repealing already existing gun laws. In the case of repealing FOPA that would mean Republicans would undo a law that was passed by their beloved Ronald Reagan. Now some libertarians do accept the previous gun control laws that are on the books, and some will argue that they are decent compromises, they’ll just oppose newer gun laws because they see them as “infringements” on their Second Amendment rights. See that’s where we have to ask the question of what constitutes an “infringement” on the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment is such a vague amendment that it is hard to know what it means by infringe. Libertarians and conservatives take the position that any gun control measure passed by the state or national government constitutes an infringement. Liberals and/or progressives think that passing a gun control measure so long as it doesn’t interfere with one’s ability to buy a gun is not an infringement, they see outright banning all guns as an infringement. That plays into the strict constitutionalist vs loose constitutionalist debate. Libertarians take a strict constitutionalist position, whereas progressives take a loose constitutionalist position.
Now why I was never on board with where Libertarians stood on guns, is because I do believe there are laws that can be passed to curb gun violence. It is too easy for a lot of the people who carry out mass shootings to get guns, and there are steps that can be taken to ensure that people who want to own guns for self-defense can get them and those who want to do harm can’t. I personally view, as some progressives do, assault weapons are non-starters, and calling for them at the outset will only serve to hurt our ability to have an honest discussion about gun control. That doesn’t mean assault weapons bans should be completely off the table. What we should look at is ways of improving our gun licensing system and expanding federal background checks to include mental health examinations in the background check. In fact, that was a point that David Pakman was able to get Ben Shapiro to concede on is that background checks are a good solution to gun violence. A good model for gun laws in the United States is the guns they have in Iceland. Iceland’s gun ownership rate is about the same as America’s but their gun violence rate is much lower than the United States’ gun violence rates. That’s because the process to get a gun makes it harder for criminals and people with mental health problems to obtain firearms. That sounds like a reasonable solution to the gun violence problem in the US. There’s a misconception that progressives don’t support one’s ability to own guns, that’s not remotely true. In fact, many progressive are gun owners themselves, so let’s not debate the issue of guns based on straw-men.
Climate Change
Another issue where libertarians lean right is the environment, and this was another issue I wasn’t really on board with libertarians on. At the time I was open with their idea of having the free market handling climate change, but I wasn’t thrilled with how libertarians downplayed the threat of climate change. To their credit, many libertarians actually agree with science and acknowledge that climate change is happening, unlike conservatives who outright deny science. Where libertarians and progressives differ is that they support two radically different approaches to climate change. Libertarians support a free market solution wherein which a private company creates energy-efficient technology. Progressives believe that the government should start initiatives to reduce greenhouse gases and fund green energy programs. Allowing the free market to deal with climate change sounds nice, I mean look at Tesla. However, the problem with relying on the free market to deal with climate change is it takes too long, and climate change is a problem that needs to be handled immediately. The United States had an electric car program during the 1970s, it was started by Jimmy Carter so the United States wouldn’t be reliant on fossil fuels. Then Ronald Reagan took an ax to Carter’s program, so that is why electric cars weren’t around until the late 2010s. The US needs to follow Carter’s example and take action on climate change before it’s too late.
Drugs, Civil Liberties, and Foreign Policy
At this point, you may think libertarians are just conservatives that don’t hate minorities. Well, that’s not true actually, social issues aren’t the only issues that liberals and libertarians agree on. In fact, it is quite possible to argue that progressives and libertarians agree on more issues than they disagree on, and quite possibly libertarians and progressives actually agree on more issues than libertarians and conservatives do. This is largely the logical explanation for the progressive/libertarian alliance that Ron Paul and Ralph Nader have been trying to form or at least tried to form at one point in time. It’s because Paul and Nader recognize there is common ground between libertarians and progressives that they can work together on and succeed in achieving the same goals. As mentioned earlier Ron Paul has actually sponsored legislation with Denis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders. That’s why Gary Johnson tried courting Bernie Sanders supporters over to him, with little success of course. I’ll just throw an issue out there where progressives and largely agree on and that is immigration. Progressives and libertarians agree that our immigration laws are too harsh and believe that it should be easier for people fleeing violence to come to the US legally and support abolishing ICE. There are some differences in the progressive stance on immigration and the libertarian stance on immigration. Progressives support decriminalizing border crossings and creating pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Libertarians have actually endorsed the idea of open borders and amnesty for undocumented immigrants. Progressives see the harmful impacts of open borders on American workers. Now there are many other issues that progressives and libertarians agree on that they where they almost have no disagreements on.
The War on Drugs
One issue where progressives and libertarians pretty much entirely agree on is drug legalization and end the War on Drugs. Both libertarians and progressives have advocated for the legalization of marijuana. They believe that marijuana isn’t worth banning when tobacco and alcohol are legal, and marijuana has many beneficial uses like for medical purposes. Both libertarians and progressives want to end the War on Drugs. Libertarians view the War on Drugs because they view it as an overreach of government. Progressives oppose the War on Drugs because they see it as a way to unfairly incarcerate people of color. In fact, many libertarians also oppose the mass incarceration created by the War on Drugs and how it is a war on people of color. They are right about the War on Drugs; Richard Nixon started the War on Drugs to put people of color in prison. Conservatives still defend the War on Drugs and defend the prohibition of marijuana. The irony is that I didn’t support legalizing marijuana until I left libertarianism, but then I did my research on the War on Drugs. That research allowed me to learn about Bill Clinton and Joe Biden’s Crime Bill that lead to the disproportionate mass incarceration of people of color. I also learned about Mike Bloomberg’s “stop and frisk” policy. That’s when I said, “Damn I was wrong about marijuana.” That is an issue that can unify progressives and libertarians, but it isn’t the only one.
Warrantless Surveillance
Another issue that libertarians and liberals agree on area issue s pertaining to civil liberties like warrantless surveillance, both progressives and libertarians oppose the government spying on its citizens. Progressives and libertarians believe allowing government agencies to monitor civilian activities because they view it as a violation of Americans’ privacy rights. Both progressives and libertarians opposed invasive policies such as the PATRIOT Act. In fact, libertarian icon Ron Paul and progressive icon Bernie Sanders both were adamant opponents of the PATRIOT Act because they both viewed it as an unconstitutional law that undermines the Fourth Amendment. Democratic Senator Russ Feingold was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. They are both right, the National Security Agency (NSA) has no business monitoring anyone’s private usage of the internet. Many conservatives, as well as neoliberals and neoconservatives, defend warrantless surveillance because they believe that the government doesn’t need a warrant to spy on its people if it involves national security. Some conservatives do oppose warrantless surveillance and support privacy rights. However, many of those conservatives only criticize Democrats for warrantless surveillance policies. If the government wants to view someone’s browsing history and email history, they need a warrant. Both groups view NSA Whistleblower Edward Snowden as a hero because he exposed the extent PATRIOT Act’s violations of American privacy rights. Progressives and libertarians have called to have Snowden pardoned. They’re right about Snowden, he should be pardoned because his work helped expose the Bush and Obama administrations undermined American privacy rights. Glenn Greenwald, a co-founder of The Intercept, and the progressive journalist who helped break the Snowden story believes that the left and right can be united in opposition to the PATRIOT Act and warrantless surveillance. There are two more issues that progressives and libertarians agree on.
Free Speech
Another civil liberties issue that progressives and libertarians agree on is the issue of free speech. Both liberals and libertarians oppose government efforts to suppress freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Libertarians and progressives both opposed the Anti-BDS law that was introduced by Marco Rubio. Many of these opponents didn’t personally support the BDS (Boycotts, Divestments, and Sanctions) Movement, but support the rights of the American people to engage in BDS if they want to. Conservatives and “moderates” endorsed the bill because, in addition to smearing critics of Israel as antisemites, the Anti-BDS bill serves as another method to silence descent around Israel. Progressives and libertarians were also unified in defending Julian Assange. They recognized that indicting Assange posed a grave danger to a free press. Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and others have defended Assange or at least opposed jailing him. Conservatives and neoconservatives defend the persecution of Assange because he exposed the war crimes carried out by their beloved Bush Administration. Chelsea Manning leaked the Iraq War logs to WikiLeaks, and she exposed war crimes carried out by the Bush Administration. Progressives and libertarians also defend Manning from her constant attacks from warmongers because they’re mad that Manning exposed the inconvenient truths about the wars the neocons cheerlead. Neoliberals defend the Assange indictment because they’re mad about losing the 2016 election and Assange is one of their scapegoats for their loss in 2016. Freedom of dissent is an important right and it should be protected in all spaces. Now there is one more issue that progressives and libertarians agree on.
Supporting Authoritarian Regimes
The area of policy that libertarians and progressives agree on the most is foreign policy. In fact, foreign policy is an issue both camps take very seriously and is a primary voting issue for many who identify as libertarian or progressive. It isn’t just whether or not we go to war, they also agree on alliances and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) activity too. For starters, both libertarians and progressives oppose aiding authoritarian regimes as they carry out human rights abuses. Libertarians primarily oppose this because they think the government should do as little as possible, but many libertarians do believe that backing human rights abusers is morally reprehensible in addition to supporting a smaller central government. Progressives primarily oppose backing human rights abusers because of their concerns for civil and human rights abroad. Conservatives, neoconservatives, and neoliberals will deny those human rights abuses are even taking place, and in some cases, they’ll smear opponents of those regimes as bigots. The most notable example is how zionists will smear critics of the Israeli government as anti-semites. Ron Paul was smeared as an anti-semite when he accurately criticized Israel for creating Hamas. Some have also cited the newsletters published by Paul’s publication to support the notion that Paul is a bigot, but there are also the speeches he gave opposing the War on Drugs where he defends minority communities who are disproportionately incarcerated. Regardless of his writings, Paul’s position on Israel doesn’t make him an antisemite because it has nothing to do with Jews. Ron Paul isn’t the only politician who is smeared as an antisemite for defending the rights of Palestinians, Ilhan Omar, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Jeremy Corbyn, and Bernie Sanders (who is Jewish himself) have been smeared as being antisemites. It’s almost laughable to claim Bernie Sanders is an antisemite because he is a Jew whose relatives were killed in the Holocaust, but since he’s called to make aid to Israel conditional because they routinely bomb civilians in Gaza that makes him an antisemite. What defeats the notion that people who oppose Israel’s human rights abuses in Gaza are antisemites, is that those same people oppose Saudi Arabia’s genocide in Yemen. Does that make Ron Paul, Bernie Sanders, Jeremy Corbyn, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, and Ilhan Omar islamophobes? Omar and Talib are Muslims who routinely denounce the terrorist nation of Saudi Arabia. The answer is an obvious no. Israel and Saudi Arabia aren’t above criticism both nations are notorious human rights abusers, and yet both countries are our allies. On top of that, Saudi Arabia played an active role in 9/11 and they back terrorist groups like Al Queada and ISIS, and they’re our ally. Not to mention the fact that the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed Bin Salmon, ordered the execution of an American Journalist, Jamal Khashoggi. In fact, Bernie Sanders was the lead sponsor in motion to stop supporting Saudi Arabia as they back Whabbist terrorist groups like ISIS and carry out a genocide in Yemen, that Donald Trump vetoed. Meanwhile, conservatives and “moderates” claim Saudi Arabia is an important ally and they’ll push the false narrative that Mohammed Bin Salmon is a reformer. Sabotaging alliances with human rights abusers isn’t the only area of foreign policy where libertarians and progressives agree on.
CIA Coup D’etats
Another aspect of foreign policy that libertarians and progressives agree on, is that the CIA shouldn’t be overthrowing democratically elected leaders worldwide. Both camps believe that the United States of America should respect the will of the people in foreign nations. They’re right, it is not the USA’s place to determine what leaders are good for the people living in a foreign nation. The CIA has been interfering in democracy worldwide from meddling in elections in foreign nations to orchestrating coup d’etats across the world. Ever since the CIA was formed it has been interfering in elections worldwide initially to stop the spread of communism, but now is used to preserve US hegemony. The US meddled in Russia’s elections in the 1990s and this helped Boris Yeltsin’s reelection, oh how the chickens have come home to roost. The CIA was instrumental in installing Saddam Hussein and the Ba’ath Party’s authoritarian rule in 1964. Of course, then the US would then use Hussein’s human rights abuses, that the CIA aided and abetted, as a justification to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein. The most prominent example of the CIA overthrowing a democratically elected leader and replacing that leader with an authoritarian regime is in Iran. In 1953, the CIA overthrew Mohammed Mossadegh after he nationalized Iran’s oil, and then they installed the Shah dictatorship to oppress the Iranian people. Operation Ajax was spearheaded by Allan Dulles and Kermit Roosevelt to install the Shah so that American oil companies could access Iran’s oil fields. Then in 1978, the Shah dictatorship was overthrown by the Iranian people and was replaced by the authoritarian theocratic Ayatollah regime.
The most recent example of a CIA backed coup which installed an authoritarian regime, is in Bolivia. In November of 2019, the democratically elected leader of Bolivia, Evo Morales, was ousted in CIA backed coup and was replaced by the fascist regime of Jenine Anez. Of course, then there are numerous attempts and plans to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected leader, Nicolas Maduro. Sure, Maduro does preside over an oppressive regime in Venezuela, but that is completely irrelevant to whether or not the US should overthrow Maduro’s regime for Juan Giaudo’s far worse fascist dictatorship. The US has been sanctioning Venezuela into oblivion and making the life of Venezuelans a misery with their economic warfare on Venezuela. Now libertarians, just like conservatives, will try to inaccurately attribute Venezuela’s turmoil to “socialism,” it’s the sanctions Lebowski. Unlike conservatives, libertarians oppose the effort to overthrow Venezuela’s democratically elected leader and replace him with a fascist dictator. Conservatives and “moderates” will invoke Maduro’s repressiveness to justify their support for installing Guaido’s white supremacist regime. The irony is that these same conservatives and “moderates” make excuses for Isreal, India, and Saudi Arabia, but Venezuela is too bad. Typical US foreign policy, if a dictatorship is friendly to the US and American corporations, it’s not a dictatorship, but if a government doesn’t kowtow to the usual suspects, it’s a totalitarian regime that must be eradicated. Of course, just like Iran in 1953, Venezuela is targetted by the neocons in Washington because they have some of the world’s largest oil reserves, and Venezuela doesn’t allow American oil companies to use those oil fields. So in addition to having an American friendly fascistic regime with Juan Guaido in Venezuela, the US will have access to Venezuela’s oil. On top of Guaido being a fascist, the Trump Administration has appointed Elliot Abrams, a war criminal, to be his envoy to Venezuela. Elliott Abrams famously was tasked by Ronald Reagan to lead the Contra Death Squads in Nicaragua, during the Iran-Contra Affair. That’s another part of US foreign policy that progressives and libertarians agree on, opposing US-backed death squads. Meanwhile, conservatives endlessly justify the massacres carried out by US-backed death squads. Libertarians and progressives recognize the destruction caused by supporting death squads in countries like Honduras and Nicaragua. This kind of behavior of the CIA is what lead to Bernie Sanders advocating to abolish the CIA. There is one more aspect of US foreign policy that progressives and libertarians agree on and this one is obvious.
The War on Terror and Endless Wars
The final area of foreign policy that liberals and libertarians agree on is ending America’s forever wars. Both camps believe that the USA shouldn’t be waging war against countries that they don’t like. Libertarians and progressives were united in opposing George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq. In fact, Bernie Sanders and Ron Paul lead the opposition to invading Iraq in the US House of Representatives. The Iraq war resulted in the destabilization of Iraq and created ISIS. Now, neither Paul or Sanders have perfect records on foreign policy, both of them voted to invade Afghanistan. Barbara Lee, a progressive Democrat, was the only representative that voted against invading Afghanistan. However, both Sanders and Paul have now come out in favor of ending the war in Afghanistan. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson both called to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2016. Neoliberals and neoconservatives support nation-building and invading countries that are deemed “enemies” of the US. Paleoconservatives and paleoliberals oppose foreign intervention. Conservatives are rather pro-war most of the time, every now and then they’ll denounce America’s forever wars. Make no mistake, conservatives are only anti-war to the extent it’s convenient, unlike progressives and libertarians. Conservatives cheered George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, they only denounced it over ten years later when it was an obvious failure and Bush was no longer in office. Meanwhile, liberals and libertarians opposed the Iraq War from day one. The inconsistency in conservative foreign policy views couldn’t have been more obvious than the contrasting reactions to Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan and his instigation of war with Iran. When trump finally withdrew troops from Afghanistan, conservatives by in large cheered Trump’s decision to withdraw troops. Many conservatives did criticize Trump’s withdrawal from Afghanistan, but most supported the withdrawal. Progressives and libertarians gave Trump credit for the withdrawal, but they had no delusions of Trump being anti-war, and in fact, they pointed to flaws in Trump’s plan. Meanwhile, when Trump killed Qasim Soleimani and began an aggressive effort to start a war with Iran. Those same conservatives who praised Trump for being anti-war on the issue of Afghanistan were praising Trump for being pro-war on the issue of Iran. They have no consistent foreign policy. Libertarians and progressives criticized Trump’s decision to execute Soleimani because they have a consistent foreign policy. Progressives criticized Barack Obama’s hawkish foreign policy. When the US wages wars against countries that don’t attack us it only leads to disaster. That’s why Bernie Sanders is sponsoring a motion to stop Donald Trump’s invasion of Iran. Just look at the death and destruction that was caused in places like Vietnam, Afghanistan, Grenada, Kosovo, and Iraq twice. Being anti-war is a morally correct position. No, Donald Trump isn’t remotely anti-war, don’t let conservatives and the contrarian left mislead you on Trump’s foreign policy. Donald Trump had Qasem Soleimani killed while Soleimani was negotiating a peace deal with Iraq. Trump basically ended peace between Iran and Iraq. On top of that, Trump threatened to bomb civilian zones in Iran, making America the aggressor in the conflict while Iran plays defense. Let’s not forget the series of lies he told to promote his war with Iran that includes the lie about the Japanese oil tanker on the Gulf of Oman, the US drone that was shot down in Iranian airspace, the Saudi oil fields that were blown up, and the US embassy that was stormed by Iraqi protesters that had nothing to do with Iran. He also promised to keep troops in Iraq, even though Iraq wants US troops out of Iraq. On Syria, Trump has escalated the conflict in Syria, his withdraw was just a relocation of American troops out of Northern Syria to other parts of Syria. Trump did this to allow Turkey into Northern Syria to slaughter the Kurds, not as an act of peace. The appropriate way to withdraw from Syria is to sit down with Syria, Turkey, and the Kurds and negotiate a deal where the US can leave Suria and ensure that Kurds are safe from harm, that’s not what Trump did. Trump also threatened to wage a war with Venezuela. Point being Trump is a warmonger who will occasionally pay lip service to anti-war sentiments only for votes. With that in mind, it is safe to say progressives and libertarians share common goals when it comes to what they want US foreign policy to look like.
That is libertarianism in a nutshell. Obviously, that doesn’t cover all of the degrees of libertarianism or the different variations. This was primarily a rundown of the more well known version of libertarianism, the one commonly thought of when libertarianism. The Ayn Rand and David Koch branch of libertarianism, and not the Noam Chomsky libertarianism which a completely different ideology all together. That being said there are many aspects of libertarianism that I strongly oppose like fiscal policy, but there are aspects of libertarianism that I strongly support like foreign policy.
