"Andrew McIntyre rejects the label of conservative and calls himself a radical libertarian." Philip Adams LNL, 31 May 2007 'Public Debate in Australia under Howard'
There is a common myth around today, perpetuated by certain 'think-tanks', that libertarianism is simply an 'extreme' form of liberalism (individualism). Generally this is an idea which goes uncontested. 'Soft-left' intellectuals such as Clive Hamilton (Australia Institute) who do sometimes write coherent and insightful analysis of the current crisis, are themselves unable to challenge these 'libertarians'[1] due to their own role in the current elitist order - an order which, in the 'free' West, swings between between the two poles of 'free-market' neo-liberalism or an insipid form of social liberalism - both thoroughly enmeshed in the halls of corporatist power.
Self-proclaimed 'radical libertarians' such as Andrew McIntyre [IPA] and Andrew Norton [CIS] considering themselves to be the modern heirs of the likes of Adam Smith, have been able to cleverly appropriate a term which historically has a much wider meaning. What the neo-liberal 'libertarians' have been able to do is to successfully muddy the waters around that much larger and richer tradition of libertarianism, which stem from the ancient [Greek] democratic traditions, which are attempted to be reimplemented in the 19th-20 century via grass-roots social movements such as mutualism, unitarianism, socialism, communitarianism, and anarchism.[2]
Ignoring the last 300 years of social, political, or philosophical progress, McIntyre and his ilk regress to a preliberal Hobbesian worldview which amounts to the 'survival of the fittest' which, in the final analysis is a war of 'all against all' - i.e. the destruction of the social fabric of society. This 'super-liberalism', devoid of any ethics, justice, or social responsibility, is unable to reconcile the individual with society. In such a world, the State takes on it's more mencing role - essentially one of protecting the 'haves' from the 'have nots', either through the mechanism of the 'traditional' State or the Private State (private security firms).
This is the type of society which these 'libertarians' are helping to create. They do in fact NOT challenge the State or any other institutions of power or priviledge. What they have done is play an integral role in foisting upon a politically disengaged public an experiment in social engineering which is at its very root, authoritarian. It's legacy is a poisonous one, the extent of the damage yet to be fully realised.
Despite what these 'libertarians' would like us to believe, the last 200 years of history has, notwithstanding some forms of social progress, not been one of increasing freedom for all, but a continous expansion of monopoly capitalism with a corresponding expansion of the power of the State. This 'progress' has ironically taken on the very characteristics found in 'state socialism' (bureaucracy, state intervention, and social engineering). Corporate-funded think-tanks like the IPA and CIS, with their ideological attack-dogs gaining prominent places in public debate, (notably the ABC) have supported this program to the hilt.
"FREEDOM IS SLAVERY" ~ Orwell, '1984'
In the final analysis, this is the motto of corporate think-tanks which support the 'free market' and it's protector the State. The neo-liberal, or even the social-liberal State of today is unable to do anything outside of its co-operation with Big Business and the growth economy, to do anything else would be outside its logic of power. This 'modern' State engages in private/public partnerships, gives huge slabs of corporate welfare in order to attract investment, and is unable to regulate insane (some would say immoral) salaries of CEOs. This is a State which competes on the international market for cheap capital and cheap labour. This is a State which transfers wealth from the poor to the rich, passes laws which attack workers, the unemployed, the disabled, pensioners, refugees, and anyone else who doesn't fit onto their Procrustean Bed - the 'ownership society'. This is a State of theft which (undemocratically) sanctions GM food crops, privatises nature (the patenting of genes), privatises schools, roads and rivers, sanctions nuclear waste-dumps and introduces National Identity Cards. This is a paranoid State which re-introduces archaic 'sedition' laws in order to repress free speech. This is a State (Australia) which, according to my reckoning, has violated 22 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and has abused three articles in contravention of article 30.[3] This is a State which is perpetually at war. Their tools of trade include lies and deceptions, blatant use of propaganda, the smearing of opponents, the 'massaging' of public opinion, or buying off the electorate at election time.
The role that 'intellectuals' like Andrew McIntyre play is to allow them to do it more easily.
Unfortunately for the likes of McIntyre, the rhetoric-reality gap between their fake libertarianism and reality is beginning to widen. The utopia of the 'free market' and the 'ownership' society - is now out of reach for an increasing number of Australians who are increasingly in personal debt and can't even afford the deposit on a house. The neoliberal workers' State is a utopia (or dystopia) which surely runs a close second to the workers' State of the old authoritarian Left. It portrays the same elitism, the same neo-Taylorism,[4] the same sense of 'scientific' economic detemerminism, the same authoritarianism, the same arrogance, and the same contempt for the masses[5] - all of which will eventually lead to it's undoing.
#
[1] debate between Clive Hamilton and Andrew Norton (Late Night Live -25/07/05 ABC Radio National) in which Hamilton refers to Norton as a 'libertarian'.
[2] "Libertarian" in Spanish does not mean the same thing as it does in English. In North America, so called anarchocapitalists began calling themselves "libertarians" and the term is today barely used for anarchists. It lost its original meaning. In Spanish, however, the term "libertarian" continues to mean the same thing as anarchist.
[3] seditioncharter Vs federal government Nov.22 2006.
[4] "Under capitalism the system of piecework and of grading, the application of the Taylor system, etc., have as their object to increase the exploitation of the workers by the squeezing out of surplus value... "The very principle of compulsory labour is for the Communist quite unquestionable .. . the only solution to economic difficulties that is correct from the point of view both of principle and of practice is to treat the population of the whole country as the reservoir of the necessary labour power - an almost inexhaustible reservoir - and to introduce strict order into the work of its registration, mobilisation and utilisation". ~ Trotsky, 'Terrorism and Communism'
[5] "Industry is always necessary. Democracy is not always necessary." ~ V.Lenin, 1921
"Democracy is not important, what is important is people happiness and prosperity" - Thaksin Shinawatra (ex Prime Minister of Thailand) 2005
Battle Tanks: How Think Tanks Shape the Public Agenda
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2005Q4/battletanks