Liberty Blog

A libertarian schism more than forty years in the making is coming to a head in Pittsburgh. Given what's at stake, is this necessary or at all productive for a party perennially on the political fringe?

The outlook for increased human freedom seemed grim in April 1947. Economist Friedrich Hayek, whose 1944 book The Road to Serfdom warned about the dangers of right- and left-wing collectivism, called a convention in a Swiss hotel at Mont Pelerin. The attendees presented their view in a  statement of aims: The position of the individual and the voluntary group were under attack, arbitrary power was rising, and even “tolerant” creeds sought to suppress alternate views. But there was no universal agreement on how to reverse these trends. 

Ludwig von Mises, Hayek’s countryman, coworker, and one-time instructor, made this clear.

When the subject of taxation was debated by the assembly which included “people who you would hardly call socialist or egalitarian, people like myself,” recalled economist Milton Friedman. “Mises got up and said, ‘You're all a bunch of socialists,’ and walked right out of the room.”

So began a schism in the liberty movement that continues today, with the bloc claiming Mises’ legacy growing in prominence. Facing our own state convention, libertarians of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania find their present path paralleling the Mont Pelerin experience. Should we then follow in Mises’s footsteps? From my personal perspective on gaining members, systems of governance, and maximizing individualism, it would not be wise to follow Mises out the door.

Adding to the Movement

My personal journey towards individualism did not begin with Austrian economists but rather the classical liberals who preceded them. I didn’t spend years in the intellectual trenches before entering the arena. This is a problem for many modern-day adherents to the Mises movement who see their role as holding the line for theories whose author claimed they were true “a priori” and incontestable by real world experience.

Jacob Hornberger, a long-time economics lecturer and admirer of Mises, exemplified this attitude in his 2020 Libertarian Party presidential campaign. Hornberger went to great lengths to label Justin Amash, the first ever Libertarian Party congressional representative, a party “interloper." If someone with nine years of applying Hayek in Congress received this treatment, how would a newcomer fare? Like Mises himself, who refused to speak with a colleague for three years when he rejected the gold standard, his followers seemingly prefer a smaller, ideologically homogeneous membership over a diverse membership with unifying goals.

New libertarians should not be forced into this false dichotomy while their ranks are swelling from the past year of lockdowns, emergency powers, and executive overreach. 

Competing Visions of Society

Whether or not Mises intended it, the modern interpretation of his work forms the canon of anarcho-capitalist political philosophy. Mises’ student Murray Rothbard summarized its goal: a society without a state.

In Rothbard’s conception, this requires abolition of taxes and the state monopoly on force. All services are instead provided by the market – which sounds appealing to the libertarian ear. But while it lacks a societal overlord, anarcho-capitalism has no mechanism to prevent coercion equal in measure to state power. Competition against any weak or disadvantaged minority is all but guaranteed. Some strains rejects any community benefits, adopting what libertarian journalist Jane Coaston calls “personal libertarianism:” let me do whatever I want and let me make you do whatever I want.

If our goal is to maximize individual liberty, anarcho-capitalism cannot compete as an objective counterbalance to the violence of faction. Libertarianism is not fundamentally opposed to a government which utilizes voluntary coordination rather than control, provision not production, and maintains a common system of litigation in defense of the individual. We acknowledge this counterbalance comes at a price – the perpetual vigilance needed to preserve freedom.

Relinquishing Individualism

The ideals of a stateless society might not be caustic on their own, but increasingly visible Mises trolls represent only the beginning of how its idealogues attempt to corrode alternative systems. 

Many online Mises personalities championed presidential election conspiracies - which insisted Libertarian votes in our county were fraudulent They supported the January 6th incursion at the United States capitol which attempted to overturn every single vote cast in Pennsylvania. Failing that, they openly urged secession. 

It highlighted the perilous convergence between the new anarcho-capitalists and the alt-right. 

Hans-Herman Hoppe may be the most prominent Mises torchbearer removing “liberalism” from neoliberalism and substituting nationalist statism. Envisioning a “natural social order” with white heterosexual families at the top, he famously suggests opponents be “physically separated and expelled from society.” Presumably because such a world is predicated on coercive power, Hoppe prefers monarchy over representative government. Elements of the movement embraced rather than rejected these stances antithetical to human liberty; the leading “Misesian praxeology” institute hosts over 300 of Hoppe’s works. 

In rejecting a pluralistic world, the foundation of individualism is abandoned for identitarian tenets.

The Final Analysis

Libertarians of Montgomery County are separated by seven decades and 4,000 miles from Mont Pelerin. Like 1947, we confront the task of rebuilding a freer world. As the institutions that bear Mises’ name organize and fundraise with the apparent goal of systematizing all libertarianism in their image, I would urge every stakeholder in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, and the nation to ask themselves: 

Is it justifiable to limit participation to those who accept a strict interpretation of Mises? 

Must we adhere to a model which fails to defend individual rights?

Should we shed individualism in favor of right-wing identity politics? 

The room which Mises left was filled with future Nobel prize winners, economic luminaries, and masterful communicators who would spread the message of liberty to every corner of the globe. Like them, Libertarian leaders in our county and state can reach unrepresented constituents if they exemplify liberty and justice for all. They can guard human rights against all forms of coercion as the American political duopoly waivers. They can repudiate the bigotry of identity collectivism if they prize the individual above faction.

I cannot personally support the alternative ideological movement leading libertarianism away from openness, pluralism, and securement of rights. The path towards Mises’ ideological mountaintop is treacherous, and the summit is not always a safe place to plant our flag. 

Josh Marcinik is the current Vice-Chair of the Montgomery County Libertarian Party Committee. The views expressed in this article are his and do not necessarily reflect those of the Committee.