What grounds, ultimately, does a classical liberal/libertarian have to believe in their political philosophy of minimal government and individualism? If we are to be truly rigorous in our thinking, that is a question we must confront. The great libertarian thinkers of the 20th century — Friedrich Hayek, Ludwig von Mises, and Murray Rothbard — certainly did not shy away from it. The battle against the various opponents of libertarianism will never be won until it is conclusively addressed.
A just published article in Interpretation: A Journal of Political Philosophy helps us illuminate the philosophical foundations of libertarianism. An earlier version was delivered at last year’s Austrian Scholars Conference in Auburn, Alabama. Written by Colin D. Pearce, a colleague of mine at the University of Guelph-Humber, the article is entitled:Â “Libertarianism: Ancient and Modern: Reflections on the Strauss-Rothbard Debate”.
The Strauss referred to here is Leo Strauss. About 5-7 years ago, his name was constantly popping up in the media as the supposed intellectual godfather of a neoconservative cabal within the Bush White House that was responsible for getting the US enmeshed in Iraq. Whatever the merits of this claim — not much, I’d say — Strauss undoubtedly established himself as one of the giants of 20th century political thought as an interpreter of the great books of Western political philosophy.
While focused on the task of understanding the teachings of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, et al, he nevertheless embedded a philosophic view of his own within his interpretive works. What this view exactly was continues to be hotly debated by Straussians (his followers) and anti-Straussians , with some in the latter group going so far as to say that he was a Machiavellian amoralist and a Nietzschean nihilist.Â One thing is clear, however, and that is the fact that Strauss was critical of the modern politico-philosophical revolution spearhead in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke.
As Prof. Pearce explains, this put Strauss in the cross hairs of Murray Rothbard. Locke’s teaching on self-ownership, after all, constitutes the bedrock of Rothbard’s libertarian theory.Â Thanks to Roberta A. Modugno, who has edited Rothbard vs. The Philosophers,we now have access to Rothbard’s fascinating commentaries on Strauss. These are found among the book reviews that Rothbard wrote during the 1950′s and 1960′s while working at the Volcker Fund as a research analyst. As Rothbard said then of Strauss:
The great defect is that Strauss … is bitterly opposed to the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century conceptions of Locke and the rationalists, particularly to their â€œabstract,â€ â€œdeductiveâ€ championing of the natural rights of the individual: liberty, property, etc.
Underlying this disagreement, however, was a more profound agreement on the objectivity of ethics. In this respect, Rothbard disagreed with his mentor, Ludwig von Mises, who held that ethics is beyond objective adjudication. The big issue left hanging is whether Rothbard was correct to have sided with Strauss on this as opposed to Mises.Â And, if Mises is right about the inescapable subjectivity of morality, can libertarianism still be defended against the alternatives? Prof. Pearce’s article is a good place to start exploring these questions.