Tyler Cowen outlines what he sees as the major schools within contemporary libertarianism:
1. Cato-influenced (for lack of a better word). There is an orthodox reading of what “being libertarian” means, defined by the troika of free markets, non-interventionism, and civil liberties. It is based on individual rights but does not insist on anarchism. A ruling principle is that libertarians should not endorse state interventions. I read Palmer’s book as belonging to this tradition, broadly speaking.
2. Rothbardian anarchism. Free-market protection agencies will replace government-as-we-know-it. War is evil and the problems of anarchy pale in comparison. David Friedman offered a more utilitarian-sounding version of this approach, shorn of Misesian influence.
3. Mises Institute nationalism. Gold standard, a priori reasoning, monetary apocalypse, and suspicious of immigration because maybe private landowners would not have let those people into their living rooms.
4. Jeff Friedman and Critical Review: Everything is up for grabs, let’s be consequentialists and focus on the welfare state because that’s where the action is. Marx is dead. The case for some version of libertarianism ultimately rests upon voter ignorance and, dare I say it, voter irrationality.
5. “Hayek libertarianism.” All or most of the great libertarian thinkers are ultimately compatible with each other and we have a big tent of all sorts of classical liberal ideas. Hayek and Friedman are the chosen “public faces” of this approach. “There’s a classical liberal tradition and classical liberal values and we can be fuzzy on a lot of other things.”
I think Left-Libertarianism deserves its own category, but I guess that could be crammed in with Rothbardian Anarchism. Objectivism is another obvious omission. Other than that, it seems like a pretty good descriptive classification (though I’m sure many ’round these parts would define “libertarian” more narrowly than Cowen).
It seems that Rothbardian Anarchism, if we include Left-Libertarianism, is the most common variant among Fr33 Agents. I see myself more of the Cato-influenced school (though reaching more Anarchist conclusions than most Cato folk).
Anyone else care to reveal their position, or suggest additional categories?
Brad Taylor is a graduate student in Political Science at the University of Canterbury in Christchurch, New Zealand. He blogs at 
I’m an Agorist so I guess that I would fall into the Rothbardian Anarchism group even if I hate how Rothbard always used anarchy as a synonym for chaos so the term “Rothbardian Anarchism” seems a little strange to me.
The grand Agorist strategy looks to me to be clearly the best approach to achieving liberty.
I tend to think of the strategy you use to advance liberty as being distinct from the classification Tyler is trying to capture here.
I’m definitely on board with the tactics of agorism and other “replace the state instead of fighting it” approaches (such as Arnold Kling’s “civil societarianism,” crypto-anarchy, and seatsteading), but I think my reasons for believing liberty is a good thing are closer to the Cato-influenced strand than proper Agorists, Rothbardians, etc.
While I like the non aggression principle, I think it’s an empty vessel and its application depends entirely on how we define “agression.” There are obvious cases – punching someone in the face is an act of aggression; walking past their house smoking a cigar is not.
There are also borderline cases – how much smoke am I allowed to blow onto your property before I am violating your rights? There doesn’t seem to be any natural answer to that question.
That’s why I don’t take the NAP the pivotal part of my worldview. Not because its wrong, but because its too vague. I’ve even heard anti-smoking people use the NAP to argue for bans on smoking in public places.
Nick, care to reference a few places where Rothbard “always used anarchy as a synonym for chaos”?
Hmm, lessee…. I started my political awareness from Newt Gingrich, then got to agorism/market anarchism/revolutionary counter-economics via Ayn Rand, M Friedman, D Friedman, Mises, the Libertarian Party, and some original work of my own. Throw in small doses of Zen, Julian Jaynes, and Dr Laura for flavor.
I see war as just another symptom, not a significant standalone issue, with socialism, utilitarianssm/consequentialism, and moral relativism as far more significant threats. I’m an atheist who thinks that monotheism was a significant and important philosophical milestone. I don’t see agorism as inherently leftist, even if most of its adherents come from that side.
Which thread would that be?
@Joe Every instance of the word “anarchy” in For a New Liberty, for example.
@J Nick Puglia: It is my understanding that For a New Liberty is an primer or introductory text for the curious libertarian or anarcho-curious.
I did a search for all references of the word “anarchy” and, besides one source references, Rothbard always accompanied anarchy with scare quotes to denote shock, irony or distance.
I am sure, based on his other works, that it is just a rhetorical device he used to tailor his speech for an uninitiated audience.
There is no need to “hate” or otherwise get upset.
I don’t hate Rothbard. I hate his usage of the word “anarchy.” Us anarchists have enough working against us and we don’t need any more.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/029272.html
This made it to the LRC blog. Seems they are just as perplexed by it as others are. I tend to agree with Kinsella here. The odd separation of Mises and Rothbard libertarians struck me at first and I figured it was a dig against some Mises institute guy. He seems to know more, but I really don’t care for feuds like that. Petty libertarians… I also agree with the Kinsella on the laughable nature of CATO being held up as the orthodoxy of libertarianism.
I think I just became an agorist without adjectives.
This outline is too minarchist in nature for what is becoming a largely anarchist movement. I would fall into the Rothbardian category if I had to pick one, but even Rothbard said many things that bother the hell out of me.
Constitutionalist / Libertarian is certainly a category. Jeffersonian libertarian, for instance.
I think that there are a lot more strands (as well as specific conceptual categories) of libertarianism and anarchism then this. The list of sub-categories, some of which may overlap for various people, is quite large. Geo-libertarianism, paleo-libertarianism, neo-libertarianism, left-libertarianism, agorism, mutualism, constitutionalism, libertarian socialism, utilitarian libertarians, natural rightsers, amoral egoists, neo-aristotilean libertarians, post-objectivists, “thin” and “thick” libertarianism, pacifism, individualist anarchism, libertarian communism, and getting into the “anarcho” adjectives we have anarcho-capitalism, anarcho-communism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, anarcho-primitivism, christian anarchism, green anarchism, anarcha-feminism, anarchism without adjectives, and so on. That’s a lot of isms to take into account, and it can be rather confusing.
i still don’t understand how anarchism is leftist and still libertarian unless it is georgism. georgism is the land value tax and citizen dividend.
i’m a bit utilitarian georgism in that i believe in trade tariffs to protect a georgist society from slave labor products. i also believe in sales taxes as a transitional system and as a general indirect tax on land and consumption of natural resources to go along with the land value tax.
also, i believe in the citizen dividend, which i believe has an added benefit of preventing a welfare state from rising. the citizen dividend is justified agrarian justice because everyone has the natural born inalienable right to land without having to work for another (land slavery) and acts like a free market form of welfare where freedom of choice and the free market is guaranteed.
the citizen dividend really enables a libertarian government because it eliminates all demands for state programs.
i think libertarian socialists would favor a tax on excessive capitalism and corporations. big capital is as dangerous as big government.
“I consider myself to be a libertarian actually, and I don’t see anything wrong with contributing to the protection of the society whose benefits and protection you yourself enjoy. if you want to live in a state of nature without such benefits and protection, then you are more than welcome to it. but as long as you enjoy the benefits of living in a society, then you should have to make your own contribution to it.”
Said to me on a forum today by a guy claiming that conscripted military service is not a form of slavery.