Right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism,[1][5][6] is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties,[1] natural law,[7] free-market capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[8] Right-libertarians strongly support capitalist property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property.[9] This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, to which it is often compared, hence the name.[10] As a term, it refers to a set of political philosophies that support free-market capitalism. This is because libertarianism in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that in the United States the common meaning of the term libertarianism is different from elsewhere,[11][12][13][14][15][16] where it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists.[17][18][19][20]

Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority.[21] Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation.[2][21][22] Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of his person and that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that his labor produces.[21] Economically, right-libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive.[21] Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between anarcho-capitalists, who view the state as an unnecessary evil and want property rights protected without statutory law through market-generated tort, contract and property law; and minarchists, who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state, to provide its citizens with the military, the police and courts.[3]

While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it,[23] there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them".[24] Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism.[21] As such, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement,[25] arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state.[25] Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of central banks and monetarist policies.[26]


Traditionally, libertarian was a word coined by the French libertarian communist Joseph Déjacque[17][18][27][28] to mean a form of left-wing politics that has been frequently used to refer to anarchism[2][13][17][18] and libertarian socialism[15] since the mid- to late 19th century.[19][20]

With the modern development of right-libertarian ideologies such as anarcho-capitalism and minarchism co-opting[11][12][14] the word libertarian in the mid-20th century to instead advocate laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights such as in land, infrastructure and natural resources,[29] the terms left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism have been used more often as to differentiate between the two.[2][3] Socialist libertarianism[30] has been included within a broad left-libertarianism[31][32][33] while right-libertarianism mainly refers to laissez-faire capitalism such as Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism and Robert Nozick's minarchism.[2][3][5]

Right-libertarianism has been described as combining opposition to the state and individual freedom, with strong support for property rights and free markets. Property rights have been the issue that has divided libertarian philosophies. According to Jennifer Carlson, right-libertarianism is the dominant form of libertarianism in the United States. Right-libertarians "see strong private property rights as the basis for freedom and thus are—to quote the title of Brian Doherty's text on libertarianism in the United States—"radicals for capitalism".[4]


Right-libertarianism developed in the United States in the mid-20th century from the works of European writers like John Locke, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the United States today.[4][34] It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[35][36] The most important of these early right-libertarian philosophers was Robert Nozick.[2]

Although often sharing the left-libertarians' advocacy for social freedom, right-libertarians also value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom.[37] Anarcho-capitalists[38][39] seek complete elimination of the state in favor of private defense agencies while minarchists defend night-watchman states which maintain only those functions of government necessary to safeguard natural rights, understood in terms of self-ownership or autonomy.[40]

Right-libertarians are economical liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism.[41]

Non-aggression principle

The non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies.[42][43][44] It is a moral stance which forbids actions that are inconsistent with capitalist property rights. The principle defines aggression and initiation of force as violation of these rights. The NAP and property rights are closely linked since what constitutes aggression depends on what libertarians consider to be one's property.[45]

While the principle has been used rhetorically to oppose such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation and military drafts, use of the NAP as a justification for right-libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and as rhetorical obfuscation of the coercive nature of libertarian property law enforcement because the principle redefines aggression in right-libertarian terms.[46]

Property rights

While there is debate on whether right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism or socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme", right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property and property rights.[47] Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner".[48] Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax).[49]

Right-libertarians are also referred to as propertarians as they hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes.[50] They generally support the free market and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means.[51]


There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate. While anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, although some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches.[52][53][54] They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchy is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional and that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition. Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough.[55]

Right-libertarians such as anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud.[56][57] Others argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient and that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency.[58]

Right-libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. According to Kroy, these two groups are not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance.[59]

Taxation as theft

The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection.[60][61] Right-libertarians see taxation as a violation of the non-aggression principle.[62]

Schools of thought


Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free-market capitalism.[63][64][65] In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market.[66] As a result, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics.[67]

The most well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the mid-20th century by Austrian School economist and paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard. Rothbard coined the term and is widely regarded as its founder. He combined the free market approach from the Austrian School with the human rights views and a rejection of the state he learned from 19th-century American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, although he rejected their anti-capitalism, along with the labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it.[68]

In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression.[69] Many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all, or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism, regarding it instead as right-libertarian.[2][3][5]

Classical liberalism

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[70][71][72]

Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[73] Thomas Robert Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[74] utilitarianism[75] and progress.[76] The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[77]

Right-libertarianism has been influenced by this school of liberalism. It has been viewed as an outgrowth or as a variant of it[23] and it is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism.[35][36]

Conservative libertarianism

Conservative libertarianism is a political philosophy that combines laissez-faire economics and conservative values. Conservative libertarianism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional and conservative social philosophy emphasizing authority and duty.[78]

Conservative libertarianism prioritizes liberty as its main emphasis, promoting free expression, freedom of choice and laissez-faire capitalism to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends as they reject liberal social engineering,[79] or in the opposite way yet not excluding the above conservative libertarianism could be understood as promoting civil society through conservative institutions and authority such as family, fatherland, religion and education in the quest of libertarian ends for less state power.[80]

In American politics, fusionism is the philosophical and political combination or fusion of traditionalist and social conservatism with political and economic right-libertarianism.[81] The philosophy is most closely associated with Frank Meyer.[82]


Minarchism is a political philosophy supportive of a night-watchman state, or minarchy, a model of a state whose only functions are to provide its citizens with the military, the police and courts, protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud and enforcing property laws.[52][83][84] 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as standard-bearer of this form of government among European countries.[85]

Robert Nozick received a National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia,[86] where Nozick argues that only a minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against "force, fraud, theft, and administering courts of law" could be justified without violating people's rights.[87]


Traditionally, liberalism's primary emphasis was placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government and maximizing the power of free market forces. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States,[88] advocated a limited government and held a belief in laissez-faire economic policy.[89][90][91] Built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century such as selected ideas of Locke,[73] Smith, Malthus, Say and Ricardo, liberalism stressed the belief in natural law,[92] utilitarianism[93] and progress.[76] These liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government and adopted Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, believing government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another.[94]

Neoliberalism emerged in the era following World War II during which social liberalism was the mainstream form of liberalism while Keynesianism and social democracy were the dominant ideologies in the Western world. It was led by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman,[95] who advocated the reduction of the state and a return to classical liberalism, hence the term neo-classical liberalism. However, it did accept some aspects of social liberalism such as some degree of welfare provision by the state, but on a greatly reduced scale. Hayek and Friedman used the term classical liberalism to refer to their ideas, but others use the term to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views and therefore see all modern developments as being by definition not classical.[23]

Right-libertarianism has been commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism[35][36] and referred to as neo-classical liberalism.[96]


The concept of neolibertarianism gained a small following in the mid-2000s[97] among commentators who distinguished themselves from neoconservatives by their support for individual liberties[98] and from libertarians by their support for foreign interventionism.[97]


Paleolibertarianism is a political philosophy developed by theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell that combines conservative cultural values and social philosophy with a libertarian opposition to government intervention.[99]

Paleolibertarianism is a controversial current due its connections to the Tea Party movement and the alt-right. However, these movements are united by an anti-Barack Obama stance, their support of the right to keep and bear arms and as a result an anti-gun control stance in regard to gun laws and politics instead of further ideological overlaps. In the essay "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement", Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleolibertarians to engage in an "outreach to rednecks" founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Louisiana State Representative David Duke and former United States Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement.[100]

In Europe, former European Union-parliamentarian Janusz Korwin-Mikke supports both laissez-faire economics and anti-immigration and anti-feminist positions.[101][102][103]


Propertarianism[104][105] is an ethical philosophy that advocates the replacement of states with contractual relationships. Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for a state or other governance body whose main or only job is to enforce contracts and private property.

See also


  1. Rothbard, Murray (1 March 1971). "The Left and Right Within Libertarianism". Originally published in WIN: Peace and Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. Reprinted at LewRockwell.com.
  2. Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
  3. Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "The problem with the term 'libertarian' is that it is now also used by the Right. [...] In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".
  4. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R., ed. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764.
  5. Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8. It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all.
  6. "Libertarismo y deber. Una reflexión sobre la ética de Nozick" [Libertarianism and duty. A reflection on Nozick's ethics]. Revista de ciencias sociales (in Spanish). 91: 123–128. ISSN 0210-0223.
  7. Miller, Fred (15 August 2008). "Natural Law". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Retrieved 31 July 2019.
  8. Baradat 2015, p. 31.
  9. Kymlicka 2005, p. 516. "Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land".
  10. Vallentyne 2007. "The best-known versions of libertarianism are right-libertarian theories, which hold that agents have a very strong moral power to acquire full private property rights in external things. Left-libertarians, by contrast, hold that natural resources (e.g., space, land, minerals, air, and water) belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner and thus cannot be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, the members of society".
  11. Rothbard, Murray (2009) [1970s]. The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. ISBN 978-1610165013. One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over.
  12. Bookchin, Murray (January 1986). "The Greening of Politics: Toward a New Kind of Political Practice". Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project (1). "We have permitted cynical political reactionaries and the spokesmen of large corporations to pre-empt these basic libertarian American ideals. We have permitted them not only to become the specious voice of these ideals such that individualism has been used to justify egotism; the pursuit of happiness to justify greed, and even our emphasis on local and regional autonomy has been used to justify parochialism, insularism, and exclusivity – often against ethnic minorities and so-called deviant individuals. We have even permitted these reactionaries to stake out a claim to the word libertarian, a word, in fact, that was literally devised in the 1890s in France by Elisée Reclus as a substitute for the word anarchist, which the government had rendered an illegal expression for identifying one's views. The propertarians, in effect – acolytes of Ayn Rand, the earth mother of greed, egotism, and the virtues of property – have appropriated expressions and traditions that should have been expressed by radicals but were willfully neglected because of the lure of European and Asian traditions of socialism, socialisms that are now entering into decline in the very countries in which they originated".
  13. Nettlau, Max (1996). A Short History of Anarchism. London: Freedom Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-900384-89-9. OCLC 37529250.
  14. Fernandez, Frank (2001). Cuban Anarchism. The History of a Movement. Sharp Press. p. 9. "Thus, in the United States, the once exceedingly useful term "libertarian" has been hijacked by egotists who are in fact enemies of liberty in the full sense of the word."
  15. "The Week Online Interviews Chomsky". Z Magazine. 23 February 2002. "The term libertarian as used in the US means something quite different from what it meant historically and still means in the rest of the world. Historically, the libertarian movement has been the anti-statist wing of the socialist movement. In the US, which is a society much more dominated by business, the term has a different meaning. It means eliminating or reducing state controls, mainly controls over private tyrannies. Libertarians in the US don't say let's get rid of corporations. It is a sort of ultra-rightism."
  16. Ward, Colin (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."
  17. Robert Graham, ed. (2005). Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas. Volume One: From Anarchy to Anarchism (300 CE–1939). Montreal: Black Rose Books. §17.
  18. Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. p. 641. "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person who upheld the doctrine of the freedom of the will; in this sense, Godwin was not a 'libertarian', but a 'necessitarian'. It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. In anarchist circles, it was first used by Joseph Déjacque as the title of his anarchist journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social published in New York in 1858. At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists".
  19. "150 years of Libertarian".
  20. "160 years of Libertarian".
  21. Heywood 2004, p. 337.
  22. Newman 2010, p. 43 "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. [...] Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all".
  23. Goodman, John C. (20 December 2005). "What Is Classical Liberalism?". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Archived 9 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine.
  24. van de Haar 2015, p. 71.
  25. van de Haar 2015, p. 42.
  26. van de Haar 2015, p. 43.
  27. Mouton, Jean Claude. "Le Libertaire, Journal du mouvement social" (in French). Retrieved 16 July 2019.
  28. Woodcock, George (1962). Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. Meridian Books. p. 280. "He called himself a "social poet," and published two volumes of heavily didactic verse—Lazaréennes and Les Pyrénées Nivelées. In New York, from 1858 to 1861, he edited an anarchist paper entitled Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social, in whose pages he printed as a serial his vision of the anarchist Utopia, entitled L'Humanisphére."
  29. Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism. Vol. II : H-R. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0816052247. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.
  30. Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R., ed. The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. "There exist three major camps in libertarian thought: right-libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, and left-libertarianism. [...] [S]ocialist libertarians [...] advocate for the simultaneous abolition of both government and capitalism."
  31. Bookchin, Murray; Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell. p. 170 ISBN 0-304-33873-7.
  32. Hicks, Steven V.; Shannon, Daniel E. (2003). The American Journal of Economics and Sociolology. Blackwell Pub. p. 612.
  33. "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227.
  34. Lester, J. C. (22 October 2017). "New-Paradigm Libertarianism: a Very Brief Explanation". PhilPapers. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  35. Boaz, David (1998). Libertarianism: A Primer. Free Press. pp. 22–26.
  36. Conway, David (2008). "Freedom of Speech". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Liberalism, Classical. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. pp. 295–98 at p. 296. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n112. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Depending on the context, libertarianism can be seen as either the contemporary name for classical liberalism, adopted to avoid confusion in those countries where liberalism is widely understood to denote advocacy of expansive government powers, or as a more radical version of classical liberalism.
  37. "About the Libertarian Party". Libertarian Party. Retrieved 27 June 2019. "Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another".
  38. Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0748634959. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)".
  39. Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practicing voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists".
  40. Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books.
  41. Raico, Ralph (2012). Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute. p. 376. ISBN 9781610160032.
  42. Barnet, Phred (14 April 2011). "The Non-Aggression Principle". Americanly Yours. Retrieved 22 November 2011.
  43. "Join the Libertarian Party". Libertarian Party. Retrieved 26 June 2019. I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals.
  44. Kinsella, Stephan (4 October 2011). "The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0". Mises Wire. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  45. Kinsella, Stephan (21 August 2009). "What Libertarianism Is". Mises Daily. Retrieved 7 July 2012.
  46. "Libertarians are Huge Fans of Initiating Force". Demos. 17 November 2013. Retrieved 19 August 2016.
  47. Carlson 2012, p. 1007.
  48. Vallentyne, Peter (20 July 2010). "Libertarianism". In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 26 December 2012.
  49. Becker, Lawrence C.; Becker, Charlotte B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics. 3. New York: Routledge. p. 1562.
  50. Rothbard, Murray (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 978-0814775066.
  51. von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. ISBN 978-0865976313.
  52. Gregory, Anthory (10 May 2004). "The Minarchist's Dilemma". Strike The Root. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  53. "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government?". Peikoff.com. 7 March 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  54. "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1)". Peikoff.com. 10 March 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  55. Holcombe, Randall G. "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable" (PDF). Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  56. Long, Roderick T. (16 February 2009). "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism". Molinari Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  57. Plauché, Geoffrey Allan (27 August 2006). "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy" (PDF). American Political Science Association. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008.
  58. Tannehill, Linda; Tannehill, Morris (1970). The Market for Liberty. p. 81. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  59. Kroy, Moshe (21 September 2010). "Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics". Mises Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  60. Feserm, Edward (Fall 2000). "Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft" (PDF). The Independent Review: 219–235). Retrieved 10 July 2012.
  61. Tame, Chris R. (1989). "Taxation Is Theft" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance Political Note (44). Retrieved 2 September 2012.
  62. Chodorov, Frank. "Taxation Is Robbery". Mises Institute. Retrieved 10 July 2012. Reprint from Chodorov, Frank (1962). Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist. New York: The Devin-Adair Company. pp. 216–239.
  63. Stringham 2007, p. 51.
  64. Morris 2008, pp. 13–14.
  65. Caplan 2008, pp. 194–195.
  66. Tannehill, Linda; Tannehill, Morris (1993). The Market for Liberty (PDF). San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-0-930073-08-4. Retrieved 30 June 2011.
  67. "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" (2011). Libertarian Papers. 3 (3).
  68. Miller 1987, p. 290. "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker".
  69. Rothbard, Murray (1973). For A New Liberty. "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts". Mises Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  70. Conway, p. 296.
  71. Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219.
  72. Dickerson, Flanagan & O'Neill, p. 129.
  73. Steven M. Dworetz (1994). The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution.
  74. Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780674530133.
  75. Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. p. 422. ISBN 9780761967873.
  76. Hunt, p. 54.
  77. Richardson, p. 52.
  78. Heywood 2015, p. 37.
  79. Piper, J. Richard (1997). Ideologies and Institutions: American Conservative and Liberal Governance Prescriptions Since 1933. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 110–111. ISBN 0847684598. ISBN 978-0847684595.
  80. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (28 September 2018). "Getting Libertarianism Right". Mises Institute. ISBN 978-1-61016-690-4.
  81. Dionne Jr., E. J. (1991). Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 161.
  82. Meyer, Frank S. (1996). In Defense of Freedom and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.
  83. Peikoff, Leonard. "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government?". 7 March 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2019.
  84. Peikoff, Leonard (3 October 2011). "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1)". Peikoff.com. Retrieved 26 June 2019.
  85. Townshend, Charles (2000). The Oxford History of Modern War. Oxford University Press. pp. 15. ISBN 0-19-285373-2.
  86. "National Book Awards – 1975" (1975). National Book Foundation. Retrieved 8 March 2012. Archived 9 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine.
  87. Feser, Edward. "Robert Nozick (1938—2002)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2017.
  88. Hamowy, ed. (2008). p. xxix.
  89. Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219.
  90. Dickerson, M. O. et al. (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. p. 129.
  91. Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955). "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom". Ethics. 65 (3): 157–217. doi:10.1086/290998. JSTOR 2378928.
  92. Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. p. 58.
  93. Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. p. 422.
  94. Quinton, A. (1995). "Conservativism". In Goodin, R. E.; Pettit, P. eds. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 246.
  95. Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 9781555879396.
  96. Mayne, Alan James (1999). From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 124. ISBN 0-275-96151-6.
  97. Freund, Charles Paul (1 April 2005). "You Know You're Neolibertarian If..." Reason. Retrieved 12 October 2018.
  98. Franks, Dale (10 November 2012). "Bryan Pick's Suggestions for the GOP". QandO. Retrieved 12 October 2018.
  99. Rockwell, Lew. "The Case for Paleo-libertarianism" (PDF). Liberty (January 1990): 34–38.
  100. Sanchez, Julian; Weigel, David. "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?". Reason Foundation. Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes.
  101. Lansford, Tom, ed. (2014). Political Handbook of the World 2014. CQ Press. p. 1157.
  102. Papierz, Magda (8 April 2015). "Korwin-Mikke: Potrzebujemy takich przywódców jak Margaret Thatcher!" [Korwin-Mikke: We need leaders such as Margaret Thatcher!]. Najwyższy Czas! (in Polish). Retrieved 15 March 2017.
  103. Graham-Harrison, Emma (8 November 2014). "Nigel Farage's new friend in Europe: 'When women say no, they don't always mean it'". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 June 2019.
  104. Cain, Edward (1963). They'd Rather Be Right: Youth and the Conservative Movement. Macmillan. pp. 32–36. ASIN B0000CLYF9.
  105. Bader, Ralf M.; Meadowcroft, John (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (2011). Cambridge University Press. p. 151.


This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.