re: Different Kinds of Libertarians

Complicated Visionary posted a piece a while back that categorized different types of libertarians. The author put libertarians into 10 broad categories:

1. Randians/Objectivists/Egoists - Meet John or Jane Galt. While most card-carrying Objectivists assert that they are not libertarian in name, the movement started by Ayn Rand (author of The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged) was and is an important influence on the thought of modern American Libertarianism (Cathy Young says that “Libertarianism, the movement most closely connected to Rand's ideas, is less an offspring than a rebel stepchild.”). They imagine an individualist/collectivist and egoist/altruist dichotomy and put it at the heart of their entire worldview as the supreme good vs. evil (along with some peculiar axioms like “A is A” and “existence exists”). According to those influenced by Randian Egoism, greed is a virtue, while compassion is a deadly sin. The word capitalism can stimulate a spontaneous orgasm. They are prone to histrionics and delusions of grandeur.
2. Dominionists - Business giants and empire-builders, moguls, magnates and tycoons who don’t want antitrust laws, industry watchdogs, trade unions or environmental, worker, or consumer regulation to get in the way of their ambitions. They often fund libertarian and right-wing think tanks and organizations. Silicon Valley had many Dominionist younglings in the 90’s until most of them perished tragically in the bursting of the dotcom bubble.
3. Market Fundamentalists - Focused on libertarian theories of economics/political economy, Market Fundamentalists believe the capitalist free market is best for the common good, and any interference with said market is contrary to the common good. They frequently use concepts like “the wisdom of the market” and “the invisible hand,” etc. Austrian and Chicago schools, neoclassical economics, neoliberalism, etc.
4. Naïve Libertarians - This was a hard to name category (I also considered “propagandist libertarians”). Naïve Libertarians are like Market Fundamentalists, except they usually parrot Market Fundamentalist arguments and harp on “how liberals are weakening America” instead of coming up with arguments and ideas of their own. They believe hardship doesn’t befall people who do what they should do, the environment isn’t in any real trouble and environmental/pollution problems are negligible, and big corporations are really responsible and good on their own (“Greenhouse gas emissions? Those are just ‘unrequested carbon surpluses’”). They are likely to listen to/host right-wing talk radio or do/follow right-wing journalism, and usually amount to little more than apologists for the Right.
5. “Liberty” Libertarians - Their libertarianism arises primarily from their ideas on the metaphysics of personal liberty, around concepts like “non-aggression” and “self-ownership.” Libertarian philosophers are usually in this category, some of whom were founders of the modern American libertarian movement.
6. Libertarian Republicans - More traditional conservatives; Republicans who are against neoconservative big government and/or the religious right; conservative critics of the Bush administration. They consider themselves the true conservatives, and usually base their libertarian ideas on their perspective on the U.S. Constitution. “Goldwater conservatives;” Republican Liberty Caucus.
7. Crazy Libertarians - Primarily concerned about gun rights and privacy. Many survivalists, conspiracy theorists, tin-foil-hatters, etc. tend to fall into this group. They are likely to live in a rural area, with an impressive arsenal and weeks worth of food stocked up to secure against a New World Order threat.
8. Lifestyle Libertarians - Like the Crazy Libertarians about guns, but also for drugs, sex, alcohol, uncensored material, not having to recycle, driving without a seatbelt, driving without a seatbelt at 100mph, driving without a seatbelt at 100mph while receiving oral sex, etc. They are basically people who want to do whatever they want. If conservatives want government to be your daddy, and liberals want government to be your mommy, Lifestyle Libertarians want to get rid of daddy and mommy and stay up all night eating ice cream and watching after-dark cable.
9. Localist Libertarians - Anti-Federalists, they would rather have autonomy distributed to the community level, like town halls, local school boards and churches, than a strong federal government or any centralized power. More Main Street than Wall Street, they are communitarians and traditionalists, largely Catholic, often Scouting enthusiasts, people with Norman Rockwell paintings throughout their homes, etc. More compassionate and worker-oriented than other libertarians, and more likely to be concerned with local environmental problems.
10. Left-Libertarians - A special category. Left Libertarians believe big, powerful government is as oppressive and bad as big, powerful corporations. They are anti-war (including the War on Drugs), pro-choice, and against government favors for corporations (or against large corporations altogether). They usually favor participatory action and mutual aid over government for social justice and environmental causes, as well as smaller, more local businesses and community-centered marketplaces. They may caucus with right-libertarians (“vulgar libertarians” is a commonly used phrase) for strategic purposes, which is the primary reason they are on the list at all. They are also likely to work with Green parties. Often Georgist on physical property and against extensive and restrictive intellectual property (and a major front behind Open Source), they are related to others of the broad libertarian left--agorists, mutualists, libertarian socialists, cyberpunks and anarchists; also “Buddhist Economics.”

The Overall, I think it is a good run-down of different types of libertarians and exposes the various differences between different libertarians. I do have a few comments on each section, however.

Randians/Objectivists/Egoists - I've always seen the Randoids as similar to "Naive Libertarians". Randoids quickly accept many of the primary functions of the state: the need for state police services, a state military, state court systems, intellectual property, etc. etc. I believe that any true libertarian should at least question the basic underpinnings of the state. I am personally not fond of their hostility towards religion, but that's another matter

Dominionists – I wish there were more dominionists. Sadly, many dominionists conform to the opinions of the state in order to get through life. You've gotta play by the rules if you want to play the game, I guess.

Market Fundamentalists - I wouldn't necessarily put the Chicago school in this category; the Chicago School has lobbied for government intervention in the markets since its founding: fiat currency, price controls, a negative income tax, antitrust regulation, etc. Chicagoites are useful at convincing socialists of free market principles in general, but they themselves are not the real deal. I would restrict the Market Fundamentalists to the Austrian School, period.

Naive Libertarians – As a former Naive Libertarian myself, I can see the appeal of being in this school of thought. Like Chicagoites, however, they are useful in convincing others of the merits of the free market. They are particularly useful because they have more interaction with non-libertarians, especially in the political realm. Naive libertarians are frustrating to me, because I "know" that they don't really believe half of what they say: the Heritage Foundation calling a $3T budget from Dubya "Conservative", Rush Limbaugh supporting the War on Drugs even though he personally believes it is fruitless, The near-total conservative (and mainstream, for that matter) blackout of Ron Paul's presidential run, etc. Their skepticism of environmentalism is useful, particularly since there are so many holes in the global-warming-is -caused-by-man-theory that most Americans never hear about.

“Liberty” Libertarians – The Hoppes, the Rothbards, and others are the bedrock, the foundation, for libertarianism. Their work on theoretical principles of self-ownership and property rights are necessary for libertarianism to exist at all. Perhaps that is part of the reason Rothbard has such widespread appeal across the political spectrum.

Libertarian Republicans – I consider my own views similar to those of the Libertarian Republicans: Against big government, against senseless foreign adventures, etc. But I am not opposed to the Religious Right in general.

Crazy Libertarians – This seems like an unfair criticism. They are totally within their right to suspect the government to grow totalitarian over time and arm themselves accordingly, although I don;t buy their conspiracy theories.

Lifestyle Libertarians – "ACLU Libertarians" are NOT Libertarians. How could one clamor for a constitutional right to public sodomy while at the same time denying all others the right to live free of government economic and religious repression. These "libertarians" are all to quick to cede authority to the federal government and deny any role to local government, which they have more control over.

Localist Libertarians – I am a "localist" libertarian. I believe that the Articles of Confederation were superior to the Constitution, that the latter was a move towards centralization by Hamilton & friends. I am also a decentralist, believing that states have the right to nullify federal laws and local governments have the right to nullify state laws. I think that taxes, to the extent that they exist, should be burdened on the undeveloped value of land (i.e. Georgism). I see problems that the Left complains about, such as environmentalism and big business, are not the result of private power, but state power.

Left-Libertarians - Although I consider myself on the Right, Left-Libertarianism is legitimate. My beef with them is their obsession with non-state forms of coercion: racism, feminism, etc. etc. They think society would be flatter than it would be without the existence of the state. More likely, I believe, would be a hierarchical structure to a stateless society, based on the different ability levels of human beings. Also, luck and poor decisions would play a huge factor. But on the whole, it almost seems like the political spectrum is circular, with the Far Right and Far Left having a lot of things in common at the fringes.