A reader commenting on my post describing different kinds of left libertarians proposed that I do the same thing for libertarians more generally. I have already covered left libertarians so this is on the rest of us, multiple lines along which we differ.
Minarchist vs Anarchist
A majority of self-identified libertarians are in favor of less government but not none. Typically, minarchists support the classical liberal list of minimal government functions: Police, Courts, and National Defense. Some also support government money but fewer since Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies demonstrated the possibility of alternatives.
Some regard themselves as libertarians who are neither anarchists nor minarchists, just in favor of much less government than we now have. That might still allow for government subsidy of basic research or campaigns against contagious diseases, perhaps government provision or subsidy of basic schooling. People at that end of the libertarian spectrum might describe themselves as classical liberals or libertarian conservatives.
At the other end of the spectrum are libertarians who believe that all useful functions of government can be replaced by private institutions, commonly referred to as anarchists or anarcho-capitalists. The strongest form of the argument would hold that governments have no useful functions, that everything can be done better privately. That is a hard position for a libertarian economist to hold, given the familiar economic arguments about market failures, situations where voluntary action produces a less desirable outcome than could be produced by government. Fortunately for those of us who are both anarchists and economists, there is the alternative of arguing that although there may be things government can, even will, do that make us better off there is no way of restricting a government with the power to do those things to doing only those, that gains from government doing what it arguably should do are outweighed by costs of it doing what it should not.
Some anarchists, basing their position on natural rights, argue that minarchy is inconsistent with libertarianism since the minarchist government will need taxes to fund itself and taxes, as a violation of property rights, are inconsistent with libertarianism. I reject that argument on the grounds that if anarchy is unable to defend itself against aggressive states or does not work, breaks down into either a new government, perhaps worse than the old, or a lawless society with private rights violation on a larger scale than public rights violation under government, then minarchy may be the most libertarian option available to us. Neither I nor, I think, anyone else has a proof that that cannot happen, that market anarchy not only could but must work.1
Consequentialist vs Deontological
Some libertarians base their arguments on consequences, on the claim that a libertarian society will be more attractive, by widely shared criteria, than any alternative; their arguments tend to be based on economics. That position is sometimes described as utilitarianism but should not be since utility (average or total) is not the only consequence that people value. Others base their defense of libertarianism on the claim that the violation of libertarian principles is inherently wrong whatever its consequences; their arguments tend to be based on philosophy.
Critics of the consequentialist position argue that its adherents support liberty only by accident, would support tyranny or slavery if they believed that it produced better consequences. They also point out that what consequences are better is a moral, hence philosophical, question to which economics can give no answer. Critics of the deontological position argue that, because it gives respecting rights infinite weight as against other values, it has implications in some situations that no libertarian would follow. They also argue that there is no adequate basis for libertarian rights, no argument that should compel a rational individual to accept them, and that the contents of rights theory becomes less clear the more carefully you look at it, the more willing you are to consider hard problems.2
Libertarians vs libertarians
Libertarians distinguish between Libertarians, members of the Libertarian Party, and libertarians who are not. One reason for a libertarian to be a member of the LP is the belief that the best way to make the society more libertarian is by running libertarian candidates. One reason not to be is the belief that there are better ways,3 perhaps that running candidates is an implicit endorsement of the present political system.
Another reason not to join the LP is that you disagree with its current positions, represented largely by those of the candidates it runs. In the recent past the party ran candidates who were libertarian in only the weakest sense, neither anarchist nor minarchist, watered down its positions in order not to offend the center and left. The Mises Caucus, members who disapproved of that, eventually succeeded in getting control of the party and shifted it to positions modified instead to appeal to the Trumpist right.
That brings up another and related division, between libertarians who see themselves as allies of Trump and the MAGA movement and those who see them as replacing one bad administration/ideology with another.
Objectivists vs Other
Ayn Rand was a very successful author, the creator of a philosophy she called Objectivism and founder of a political/philosophical movement based on it. The political implications of her philosophy were libertarian and many libertarians became libertarian via her writing but Rand herself and her more orthodox supporters rejected the libertarian label.
Considered as a form of libertarianism, Objectivism offers interesting positions on anarchy and minarchy, consequentialist and deontological positions. Rand wanted a single government with a monopoly on retaliatory force, courts and police but agreed with the anarchist claim that funding that government by taxation would be a rights violation. She therefor proposed that the government fund itself by selling services on which it had a monopoly such as the enforcement of contracts. Critics argued that maintaining that monopoly was itself a rights violation since it required the government to use force to prevent competition in the provision of retaliatory force. Either retaliatory force was a rights violation, in which case the monopoly government was violating rights by doing it, or it was not, in which case the monopoly government was violating rights by preventing others from doing it.
Rand’s moral conclusions were deontological — mostly. She dealt with the issue of justifying them by claiming to deduce them from the facts of reality. She dealt with the problem of situations where they led to unacceptable conclusions by labeling all such situations “lifeboat scenarios” and claiming that in such situations the normal rules did not apply.
Foreign Policy
In the decade before WWII conservatives who were in some ways the predecessors of current libertarians mostly favored a non-interventionist foreign policy. During the cold war years, however, libertarians mostly viewed themselves, and were viewed by others, as part of the conservative movement and mostly accepted the active anti-communist foreign policy adopted by that movement, in part because they saw communism as at the opposite extreme from libertarianism. Some, I think more as the years went by, remembered Bourne’s doctrine that war is the health of the state and rejected an interventionist policy for its effects on a country that pursued it while others rejected it on the grounds that an interventionist policy done badly is worse than one not done and we could expect foreign policy done by the state to be done badly.
Austrians vs Marshallians
Many libertarians base their arguments on economics. Some identify with the Austrian school associated with Ludwig von Mises, some with the Marshallian school of Alfred Marshall and the subset of that school identified with the University of Chicago. Libertarians who consider themselves Austrians sometimes claim that only that version of economics is really libertarian, their Chicago opponents disagree. It should be an argument among economists but is often conducted by libertarians with a very limited idea of the ideas of (at least) the school they are arguing against.4
More?
What important divisions among libertarians have I left out?
My web page, with the full text of multiple books and articles and much else
Past posts, sorted by topic
A search bar for past posts and much of my other writing
Chapters 30, 34, 55 and 56 of The Machinery of Freedom deal with ways in which anarcho-capitalism might not work.
I discussed some of these issues in past posts such as Libertarian Problems, some in Chapters 41, 42 and 57 of The Machinery of Freedom. Many years ago I debated libertarian philosopher George Smith on economics vs ethics as a basis for libertarianism; the debate is webbed.
My critique of one version of the Austrian position. My debates with Austrian libertarian economists Walter Block and Gene Epstein. My post arguing that Chicago school economics provides better arguments for libertarian conclusions than the Austrian school.
Thanks much for this.
The only thing I can think of that you left out would be libertarians who align with Ron Paul in particular, and more generally those who align with the non-MAGA GOP.
I suppose they are somewhat covered under “libertarian conservatives” - especially the latter - but I’m not sure Ron Paul would describe himself as such. I describe myself as a “libertarian conservative” and/or a “‘conservative libertarian”, but do not consider myself a Ron Paul guy.
I do find it interesting that there is no “neat” way to describe/clump most of these differences in the same manner in which you identify 4 distinct flavors of left libertarianism.
Perhaps this is because most of the people who are attracted to libertarian ideas - hardcore Randian Objectivists perhaps excepted - are more open-minded and attracted to ideas than to tribes?
Re Consequentialist vs Deontological, ... I think an importantly new way of arguing for libertarianism is Intuitionist, eg Michael Heumer (Problem of Political Authority) and Dan Moller (Governing Least). The first two approaches are basically foundationalist—ie, they assume a (perhaps singleton) set of principles, and show that L'ism follows. The new approach relies instead on intuitions about private cases—to the effect that we would not accept in private life the sorts of things governments do regularly—and then rebuts the attempts by opponents (social contract, democracy, etc) to argue that government is special. This is an attractive approach. People find the private cases more plausible than any grand principle(s), and, in my view, their attempts to argue that the government is special are very often feeble.
Re Libertarians vs libertarians, ... Again, there is an assumption here, that the libertarian wants to make society more libertarian. Clearly, they will /want/ this to be so, but they may not want to /make it/ so, since this does seem like a rather collectivist goal, and, more importantly, life is short and the chance of success long. So, amongst libertarians who are /not/ members of a Libertarian Party, it is worth adding those whose goal is rather to make /their own lives/ better approximate what they would be in a libertarian society. Eg, selective law-breaking. Thus, some laws are consistent with (or required by) libertarian principles (eg, against force, fraud), or create a practice I am happy to contribute to (eg, I am actually quite happy for part of my taxes to go to public health services)—I do what these laws require, not because they require it, but because it is a good idea anyway. However, other laws are neither consistent nor attractive (eg, in my case, laws relating to the use of public bushland)—I feel no compunction in breaking them, if I can get away with it.