Abortion and the Non-Aggression Principle: A Reply to A Pro-Life Libertarian

By Jeff Godley

Brandon Craig is the creator of a Facebook page entitled “Non-Aggression Principle Against Abortion” (NAPAA). The page is intended to persuade that abortion is an act of aggression against an unborn human being, and therefore is not permissible according to libertarianism.

I think this is an admirable effort; as libertarians, our opinion on all issues must be informed by the non-aggression principle (hereafter "NAP") - or else we are not really libertarians. And Mr. Craig’s claim, if true, is certainly a slam-dunk case against abortion. If abortion ipso facto violates the NAP, than no further discussion of the legitimacy of abortion is needed among libertarian circles. 

However, in a recent post at the NAPAA page, Mr. Craig made his argument against a competing attempt to reconcile the NAP and abortion - evictionism (view the whole post here). Mr. Craig objections to evictionism and positive case for his own views reveal what I believe to be several flaws in his reasoning, which I would like to address over the course of several posts.

In this first entry, I want to show that Mr. Craig is not being consistent in his appeal to the NAP when he argues against eviction. He states his thesis on evictionism as follows: “I do not even think eviction is morally permissible.” This subtle change in criteria casts some doubt on his argument. His initial claim is that abortion violates the non-aggression principle, yet he is now seeking to prove that eviction immoral. These two claims are vastly different in scope.

The NAP is but a small subset of morality. It is one thing to say "abortion is immoral". But if abortion is immoral, that does not in any way imply that it violates the NAP. It is possible even to be a wretched, immoral monster and NOT violate the NAP. 

People have the legal right (i.e. a negative right derived from the NAP) to shoot up with heroin and pay other people for sex. That does not mean that these actions are moral, or that anyone should condone them. It does however, means that our response to them cannot be one of force. That is all the NAP ever implies. 

The NAP does not address whether you should or should not shoot someone who breaks into your home. It only tells you that you have a legal right to do so - or, more to the point, that no one ought to force you NOT to shoot the intruder. Similarly, the NAP does not address whether you should or should not get an abortion. It only specifies what the legal ramifications ought to be if you make the decision to abort. 

This is not a semantic difference. It is fundamental to libertarian philosophy that we keep crystal-clear the distinction between the strict negative legal rights implied by the NAP, and all other positive obligations which may be placed on us by other aspects of moral theory. 

Yet Mr. Craig cannot seem to maintain this fundamental distinction in his argument. To respond to the common evictionist analogy of trespassing, he offers this counter-analogy: “Imagine it is winter time and it is 0 degrees outside. Now lets say I am paralyzed from the waste down and you invite me over to your house. You wheel me in and then once I am there you tell me to leave. Since I am not able to leave, I do not move. You tell me I am trespassing and I still do not move because I am not capable of it….For the eviction argument all you do is wheel me out into the 0 degree weather and I freeze to death. That would be what eviction is like.”

As an evictionist, I do not quibble with this analogy. I do not need to, because in the analogy the person wheeling the cripple into the cold has not violated the NAP!  Trespass has nothing to do with the intent of the trespasser, nor with their ability to leave. It has to do with the will of the person who owns the property. If a person is not welcome, they are by definition a trespasser. Their reason for being there is irrelevant; the owner’s reason for wanting them gone is also irrelevant. Most of all, the trespasser’s ability to leave or the difficulties they may have once they do are not relevant as far the NAP is concerned. 

In this analogy, Mr. Craig is not appealing to the NAP at all - he is simply appealing to our moral outrage at the monster who would cast a person into certain death. Monster though they may be, according to the NAP this person is not a criminal; they have committed no aggression, they have merely revoked permission for another person’s use of their property, as is their right. There is nothing invalid about the analogy; it simply does not imply was Mr. Craig believes it does. 

In abandoning his thesis that “abortion violates the NAP” in favour of the argument that “abortion is immoral”, Mr. Craig has ceased to argue as a libertarian and instead argued as an ethicist. In that regard, I support his efforts. I too have ethical problems with abortion; I too believe life begins at conception, and that every life, no matter how small, ought to be preserved.

But as a libertarian, I cannot condone the confusion of making an immoral choice, even one that harms another, with violating the NAP. The first in no way implies the second. Mr. Craig does a disservice both to liberty and to his own pro-life views by his imprecision. I urge him to do better. 

[Note from Anand: I think Jeff Godley has made an interesting and well-written case for the "evictionist" position, which means evicting the pre-birth fetus without killing it. While I am personally more inclined to the pro-life position, I believe Jeff thoughtfully reconciled the argument that abortion is morally impermissible and that it doesn't violate the non-aggression principle. I believe that one can hold the "evictionist" position without believing that abortion is moral, for evictionism makes no moral statement about the abortion itself; it only argues that abortion doesn't violate rights and thus shouldn't be criminalized).

Follow Me On Medium.com

Now, your host, Anand Venigalla, is now posting on Medium.com as well as his very own blog.

Here is my profile on that page: https://medium.com/@ajvenigalla

Also, check out one of my favorite authors, Dan Sanchez, on Medium.com as well.

Christian Post Report: "Massachusetts High Court Upholds 'Under God' in Pledge of Allegiance as Constitutional" (Including My Own Thoughts on the Pledge)

Christian Post reporter Anugrah Kumar reports that the Massachusetts High Court upholds the constitutionality of the "under God" clause in the Pledge of Allegiance:

Atheist parents and students wanted the Pledge of Allegiance banned in schools in Massachusetts because it contains the phrase "under God," but the state's highest court has ruled that reciting it does not violate the commonwealth's constitution or laws. 

"We hold that the recitation of the pledge, which is entirely voluntary, violates neither the Constitution nor the statute [which prohibits discrimination in Massachusetts public school education] ...," the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court said Friday in Doe v. Acton-Boxborough Regional School District. 

"Simply being offended by something does not make it a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution," said Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco of Alliance Defending Freedom. "As we argued in our brief and as the Supreme Judicial Court found, the recitation is completely voluntary, and listening to the words 'under God' does not violate anyone's constitutional freedoms."

I agree that the term "under God" may not be unconstitutional per se, and neither does a mere inclusion of the phrase into the pledge violate any First Amendment restrictions on the government. However, I am of the personal conviction that the Pledge of Allegiance should not be recited and should be scrapped as a whole, as it is a statist pledge that argues for pledging allegiance to a flag that represents a bloated State, and the "under God" phrase doesn't help that much either. Laurence Vance says of that phrase:

...just because the phrase “under God” in the Pledge doesn’t violate the Constitution doesn’t mean that it belongs in the Pledge or, more importantly, that Christians should recite the Pledge. 

One reason why Christians should not recite the Pledge is a simple one, and one that has nothing to do with patriotism or religion. 

The United States is not a nation “under God.”

Later on, Vance argues against those who would say that "it is not worshipping anything other than God." He argues?

Only a madman would say that the United States is a nation “under God.” 

Oh, but the Pledge is just some words, some say, the reciting of which doesn’t really mean anything. 

Then why say it? If the Pledge is just some words that don’t really mean anything, then it makes more sense not to say it than to say it. 

The Pledge doesn’t say that the United States used to be one nation under God. It doesn’t say that the United States should be one nation under God. It says that the United States is one nation under God. 

That is a lie.

Christians are not supposed to lie: 

Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds (Colossians 3:9) 

Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another (Ephesians 4:25) 

Thou shalt not bear false witness (Romans 13:9) 

Is it unpatriotic to not say the Pledge? It may be. But it is certainly right, Christian, and biblical not to.

And not only that, the Pledge can be said to be un-American as well. As Benedict D. LaRosa points out:

To Americans of the late 19th century, “allegiance” was a feudal concept denoting subservience to a master. Americans considered themselves sovereigns, not subjects. They feared that the natural supremacy of the individual over his government, as reflected by the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the constitutions of the United States and of the several states, might eventually be overturned by the ideas expressed in the Pledge. They, unlike so many Americans today, understood that those who exercise the instruments of government – public servants – feel more comfortable ruling than serving. 

The Pledge’s words also smacked of nationalism, which Americans of that period considered, well, un-American. Their objection to nationalism seems strange today, but to Americans of 1892 it was a dangerous concept.

And not only that:

Although [the Americans] saw themselves as separate and distinct from foreign peoples and powers, internally they considered themselves a collection of independent states united by a compact called the Constitution of the United States. “One nation” implied that the states were merely subdivisions of a national government, which Americans of that era knew was not the case. Pledging allegiance to one nation, they knew, would undermine the concept of federalism and threaten constitutional government. 

Their suspicions were justified, for the intent of the Pledge’s author, a socialist named Francis Bellamy, was to support the secular education of the public-school system and efforts by the National Education Association (NEA) to counter the growing influence – especially among immigrants – of the Catholic Church’s parochial schools. Bellamy and the NEA felt that inculcating a sense of nationalism into America’s children would serve their purposes.

And last, I would also add that the decision of whether to recite the pledge or not is not always voluntary.

Ultimately, what it all comes down to is that I oppose the Pledge and feel it not only lies about America and glorifies the State but that it isn't even truly American (but then again, sometimes what is "American" can be interpreted subjectively). Thus, I honestly don't care that much regarding the phrase "under God," nor do I support the recitation of it. Despite what some proponents would argue, the Pledge doesn't describe an ideal world but presents itself as a telling of what is. And America's government isn't exactly a promoter of liberty and justice, despite what the Pledge implies. It constantly erodes these two through wiretapping, warrantless spying, police statism, economic regulation, national-security statism, warmongering, and all these.

New Comments

I just received several new comments on this blog, and I want to post about it, notifying everyone.

1. Marc Clair's comment on In Defense of Lew Rockwell, Part 1:

Marc Clair • 15 minutes ago 

Great perspective here and keep up the great work!

2. Henry Moore: "In Defense of Lew Rockwell, Part 2"

Henry J. Moore • 14 hours ago: Another sound defense of Mr. Rockwell, Anand. The main group of people he (and many other LRC and Mises associates) seems to have a grudge against are beltway "libertarians" who are generally weak on the anti-war issue (and plenty of other key issues) and all too willing to compromise with politicians on this or that. These same "libertarians" have no problem attacking "purists," but when they are on the receiving end of criticism, you'll hear plenty of whining.

3. Aaron Catlin Styles on the same article:

Aaron Catlin Styles • 3 hours ago: The "adding to libertarianism" crowd is making a fatal mistake. They are under the delusion that this tactic will draw in "new blood" to the liberty movement. In reality they will push more away since the ideas/philosophies they wish to add are the same flawed ideas and philosophies that drove most of us to libertarianism in the first place. Libertarianism finds it strength in its very basic, widely acceptable, core principles. Lew Rockwell knows this is the case and that is why he is such a integral part of our community. You have defended him wonderfully. Keep up the great work, Anand!

There are many more comments here on the site, including on "Explaining Anarcho-Capitalism," and I will regularly post when I get new comments. 

In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 2)

In my first post, I responded to two major criticisms of Lew Rockwell that have surfaced in the libertarian movement, in part due to his alleged "racism" and his extreme radicalism.

And in my second post on Lew Rockwell, I intend to address several other criticisms regarding his libertarianism and his strategy. I intend to defend Lew again against certain attacks that have surfaced against his work in some libertarian circles, particularly in left-libertarian (or "cosmopolitan libertarian") circles.

1. Lew Rockwell's strategy is too hostile to libertarians that are not in perfect agreement with either Rothbard or Rockwell—in short, Lew Rockwell doesn't welcome disagreements very well. Many libertarians who disagree with Rockwell or Rothbard on certain issues often argue that Rockwell doesn't welcome them very well and harbors personal resentment against such libertarians. They see Rockwell as a bitter and cranky man that can't agree to disagree. So they often dismiss him and his work because they see him as not worth spending time with.

However, I think this is somewhat far-fetched. It is true that Lew Rockwell disagrees with several libertarians on many issues. For example, he is a culturally conservative Catholic himself while some of the folks at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (LvMI) (Roderick Long, for example) hold to different cultural and social values. However, he has respected them and welcomed them into his institute. Also, he disagrees with Ron Paul with regards to the State (Lew Rockwell is an anarcho-capitalist while Ron Paul is a minarchist-constitutionalist), but Lew has been known to be very good friends with Ron Paul and has often praised Ron's work. 

And even when he diverges from what some libertarian would believe, he doesn't deny that they are libertarians. Far from it, he acknowledges that they are libertarians. However, Rockwell is clear that his strategy would be different from those other libertarians who hold different cultural and social values from him. He himself says in a 2006 interview:

I've noticed a general tendency here. When the right is in control, the left looks better to libertarians. When the left is in control, the right looks better. We are all generally drawn to the merits of the people who are not in power! So it is hardly surprising to see a rise of "left libertarians" in a time when the chief threat to liberty comes from the right, that is, from the red-state fascists who celebrate militarism and see no downside to every form of human-rights violation. Right now, it seems as if most of the intelligent non-libertarians are on the left. I would only caution that the left is beset with as many problems as the right. They want freedom without markets, peace without free trade, civil liberties without property rights. This can't work.

So while he does welcome some disagreements well, he doesn't welcome compromise on essential libertarian principles. And while it can get counterproductive at times (mostly because left-libertarians can huff and puff at that), I think that is a respectable position to hold.

2. Lew Rockwell promotes dangerous conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism, and all that crazy stuff. Another major criticism of Rockwell is with regards to his alleged promotion of conspiracy theories, anti-Semitism/anti-Israel stuff, racism, and most politically incorrect ideologies that many of his detractors despise. They argue that since the general public dislikes such stuff, Lew Rockwell's work is then a hindrance to the liberty movement, not a boon. However, I don't think that such things are harmful to the liberty movement. Yes, such stuff can be counterproductive, but I don't believe it is half as bad as the detractors make it out to be. I believe the conspiracy theories don't go to the extremes of Infowars.com (though Lew himself admires Alex Jones), and most of the "anti-Semitic" stuff is mainly rational, logical thought that refuses to look at the Israel issue with emotionally-charged eyes. As a dispensational premillennialist who believes that God still has a plan for the Jewish people, I don't exactly support much of what the neocon and Israel lobby spouts—they often support war-mongering in the name of national security, economic sanctions on "rogue" nations, and the use of statism/force in furthering their goals. I also believe that it could be argued that the Palestinian people can have a better claim to the land on propertarian/property-rights grounds and that the Zionists' actions in 1948 can be called aggression and initiation of force against civilians. And at the end of the day, I would like to close with this statement of Rockwell's himself:

Lew strives to present a diverse daily selection of interesting articles from our writers and other sites, but he does not necessarily endorse every view expressed. He does, however, believe that each piece will repay your reading.

That means that Rockwell doesn't endorse everything he publishes on the site. So keep that in mind whenever you see some "wacky" article on LRC. And sometimes the "wacky" stuff may not be so bad after all—maybe the reaction to it might not be due to the wackiness of the content per se; it may be because of the over-sensitivity of the reactor. And even the revisionist history from LRC and Mises.org (two of my favorite sites) is very eye-opening and thoughtful. It invites deeper thought and smashes long-established myths that have been taught to us about history, regarding hot topics like Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War, WWI, the national-security state apparatus, WWII, the Vietnam War, and even certain aspects of the Founding. Such revisionism and history is necessary to understand the motivations of the "power elite."

Murray Rothbard argued long ago in an article on revisionism:

Revisionism is an historical discipline made necessary by the fact that all States are governed by a ruling class that is a minority of the population, and which subsists as a parasitic and exploitative burden upon the rest of society. Since its rule is exploitative and parasitic, the State must purchase the alliance of a group of "Court Intellectuals," whose task is to bamboozle the public into accepting and celebrating the rule of its particular State. The Court Intellectuals have their work cut out for them. In exchange for their continuing work of apologetics and bamboozlement, the Court Intellectuals win their place as junior partners in the power, prestige, and loot extracted by the State apparatus from the deluded public. 

The noble task of Revisionism is to de-bamboozle: to penetrate the fog of lies and deception of the State and its Court Intellectuals, and to present to the public the true history of the motivation, the nature, and the consequences of State activity. By working past the fog of State deception to penetrate to the truth, to the reality behind the false appearances, the Revisionist works to delegitimate, to desanctify, the State in the eyes of the previously deceived public. By doing so, the Revisionist, even if he is not a libertarian personally, performs a vitally important libertarian service.

Thus, revisionism is actually far more noble than its detractors, libertarian or otherwise, would like to believe. And Lew Rockwell's resources—Mises.org, LewRockwell.com, and the other stuff—do that brilliantly. They shine light and promote liberty, and they do a fine job at that.

A Christian's Perspective on Santa Claus

Santa Claus is a divisive issue among many Christians. Some Christians see Santa Claus as harmless fun for children. Some see him as a fabrication of Satan used to deceive little ones away from the truth. And still some say that while there is nothing wrong per se with having Santa Claus appear at a party and ask children about what they want for gifts, there should be clarification as to whether Santa Claus is real or not.

My view of this is that while children should recognize that Santa Claus is not a real character, there is nothing sinful about enjoying his depiction in cinema, literature, TV, or in any other area. There is also nothing sinful about dressing up as Santa Claus or inviting a fake Santa over to one's Christmas party or event.

But still, we must keep in mind that we ought to be telling the truth (Colossians 3:9), for if we lie, and if we don't clarify it, then kids might be deceived into thinking Santa Claus is real when he is not (though I will submit that there is room for debate among Christians as to whether letting kids believe in Santa is a deadly lie or not).

Having said that, however, we could do well by looking into how the Santa Claus stories came to be, that in fact they were ultimately based off a real person in a real setting.

Saint Nicholas: The "Original Santa Claus"

Many have noted that Santa Claus's possible origins might lie in the Greek bishop Saint Nicholas (270-343), who was the Bishop of Myra in Lycia. He was known for many things, including his famed miracles attributed to his intercessions, the most iconic trait of his was his secret gift-giving. Many have gone into further detail about his great acts and his childhood, so I will not do this here. But I will note his most famous act. A poor man had three daughters, and he lacked the proper dowry for a wedding. This would mean that due to their poverty, the daughters might resort to prostitution to receive money. So Nicholas saw this and wanted to help them. However, due to the fact that the poor man might be humiliated at the thought of receiving charity and that Nicholas didn't want to look like one drawing attention onto oneself (Matthew 6:1), he decided to give secretly (Matthew 6:3-4), and in the night he threw three purses of gold coins through the window of the house. There are many variations of this tale, but one thing remains clear: the secret charity of St. Nicholas was so memorable that later it influenced other depictions of Santa Claus either indirectly or directly.

How Did Santa Claus Come About?

But since we had the original St. Nicholas, why couldn't we have him? Why did we choose Santa Claus? The reason is a little bit complicated. Let us turn to Mark Driscoll and see how he explains this:

During the Reformation, however, Nicholas fell out of favor with Protestants, who did not approve of canonizing certain people as saints and venerating them with holidays. His holiday was not celebrated in any Protestant country except Holland, where his legend as Sinterklass lived on. In Germany, Martin Luther replaced him with the Christ child as the object of holiday celebration, or, in German, Christkindl. Over time, the celebration of the Christ child was simply pronounced Kris Kringle and oddly became just another name for Santa Claus.

And then again, the common tale of Santa Claus might have originated from folk tales from various cultures (some of which came from the legends of Saint Nicholas) that have been brought to America by Dutch immigrants. While there are commonly held legends, there is not one official interpretation of Santa Claus (though some could count L. Frank Baum's rendition of the Santa Claus story to be a definitive version of the American Santa Claus we all know and love). There are many varieties of this character, such as Father Christmas from England, Sinterklaas and other variations. However, these traditions all center around one jolly old man who brings joy throughout the Christmas season (or winter holidays).

What Should The Christian Think About All This?

I have given a historical perspective on St. Nicholas and Santa Claus, and now I will explore how Christians should react to it.

I said before that Christians should not be dishonest in dealing with this issue, especially when it comes to children. However, as long as Santa Claus does not replace Jesus Christ as the center of Christmas, there is nothing wrong with enjoying this tradition. And it would be helpful in telling the story of St. Nicholas and how it relates to Christianity and to Santa Claus.

In Defense of Lew Rockwell (Part 1)

Recently, Lew Rockwell announced that he was writing a new book — Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto. However, Eglė Markevičiūtė, member of the International Executive Board for Students for Liberty (SFL), decided to attack Lew Rockwell. Robert Wenzel responded to her quite well. However, he also suggested that one can increase one's blog traffic by speaking in favor of Lew Rockwell and libertarian purity. I will embark upon this attempt to defend Lew Rockwell and his libertarian work against certain criticisms that he has received from some libertarians, not just to increase the blog traffic but also because I want to clear up some misinformation that has been spread about this man.

My personal views on Rockwell are this: while he is not a flawless man and while he is human, I think Rockwell is a boon to the liberty movement, a tireless and fearless defender of liberty, not afraid to ruffle a few feathers (even among libertarians), and he is always willing and able to stand fast to the liberty message.

However, some libertarians don't share as fond a view of Rockwell that I do (his work has been instrumental in my becoming a libertarian). Many see him as a bitter egomaniac and a right-wing racist who is bad for the liberty movement, often because of Rockwell's controversial views on certain things (federalism, Lincoln, etc.). I intend to respond to a few criticisms of Rockwell that I have encountered among some libertarians and clear up certain misconceptions that I have found.

1. Lew Rockwell is a racist who was responsible for the Ron Paul newsletters and isn't man enough to admit it. This is one of the most interesting criticisms of Lew Rockwell that I have encountered, as it recollects to the controversial Ron Paul newsletters that the mainstream media dug up in light of the Ron Paul revolution of 2008 and 2012. Some libertarians have suggested that Lew Rockwell, a friend of Ron Paul and the late Murray Rothbard, was responsible for writing the newsletters and that he should come clean about it. Particularly notable is the libertarian magazine Reason's coverage of the issue, which pinned the whole thing on Lew Rockwell and the "paleo-libertarian" strategy that Rockwell and Rothbard advocated in the 1990s.

However, Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com addresses this issue very ably in his column for Taki's Magazine on the issue. He points out that the so-called "racist" statements are actually far from racism and that those statements are actually not anti-libertarian or a stumbling block to libertarianism. He said this of Ron Paul that can be safely applied to Lew Rockwell:

It’s no mystery, really: Ron Paul is, in many ways, the exact opposite of the Beltway fake-“libertarians.” He’s a populist: they suck up to power, he challenges the powers-that-be; they go along to get along – he has never gone along with the conventional wisdom as defined by the arbiters of political correctness, Left and Right. And most of all, he’s an avowed enemy of the neoconservatives, whom he constantly names as the main danger to peace and liberty – while the Beltway’s tame “libertarians” are in bed with them, often literally as well as figuratively.

2. Lew Rockwell's political incorrectness, radicalism and right-wing extremism are dangerous for libertarianism. Another corollary criticism of Lew Rockwell and the Mises Institute is that regarding Lew Rockwell's politically incorrect ideas, radical interpretation of libertarianism and culturally conservative views, as well as Rockwell's own rejection of leftist values and political correctness. Left-libertarians and culturally liberal libertarians often protest that Lew Rockwell's "backwards" values will hinder the liberty movement from growing and will ultimately hinder libertarianism.

One author argues:

Mentioned in Weigel and Sanchez’s piece was another libertarian giant, Murray Rothbard, who was mostly an advocate of what is known as “anarcho-capitalism.” This is what libertarians are typically branded with by those on the right and left, that we want to create a world where there is no government, where everything is handled by private companies (including courts, fire departments, police, highways, you name it, it’s private.) While I feel that anarcho-capitalism does get a bum rap, most libertarians do not espouse this position. Most of us instead believe a minimal government is ideal, even some of us (myself included) may be “philosophical anarchists,” that it would be nice to have anarchy, that it would be a great ideal, but it’s just that—an ideal, something that will not work in the real world.

Ah, just more "anarcho-capitalism is great in theory but bad in practice." However, even if most libertarians are not anarchists, I believe that the non-anarchist is being somewhat naive in believing that there is such a thing as limited government, for the State doesn't limit itself but in fact will use what is intended as a limit to expand its own power. For example, certain phrases in the Constitution that could be interpreted as limited government platitudes by one group can then be interpreted as statist platitudes in one instance. Murray Rothbard himself said in "Anatomy of the State":

Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the State has been the Bill of Rights and other restrictive parts of the American Constitution, in which written limits on government became the fundamental law to be interpreted by a judiciary supposedly independent of the other branches of government. All Americans are familiar with the process by which the construction of limits in the Constitution has been inexorably broadened over the last century. But few have been as keen as Professor Charles Black to see that the State has, in the process, largely transformed judicial review itself from a limiting device to yet another instrument for furnishing ideological legitimacy to the government's actions. For if a judicial decree of "unconstitutional" is a mighty check to government power, an implicit or explicit verdict of "constitutional" is a mighty weapon for fostering public acceptance of ever-greater government power.

So basically, the "great in theory but bad in practice" can truly be applied to the belief in "limited government" rather than anarcho-capitalism.

And as to Rockwell's political incorrectness and right-wing leanings, I would like to give extended comment. In many of Rockwell's writings, I haven't noticed any attempt to claim that his "right-wing values" are libertarianism, whereas in many of his left-wing detractors' writings, I have noticed attempts to merge libertarianism and culturally leftist values into one holistic philosophy. Yes, Lew Rockwell probably believes his views fit more nicely with libertarianism, but that does not mean he wants to incorporate it into a "holistic" libertarianism; in fact, he is a "thin" libertarian who believes that libertarianism is only a political philosophy dealing with the non-aggression principle/axiom and the use of force in society. In his recent article "What Libertarianism Is, And Isn't," Rockwell rightly says:

Libertarianism is concerned with the use of violence in society. That is all. It is not anything else. It is not feminism. It is not egalitarianism (except in a functional sense: everyone equally lacks the authority to aggress against anyone else). It has nothing to say about aesthetics. It has nothing to say about religion or race or nationality or sexual orientation. It has nothing to do with left-wing campaigns against “white privilege,” unless that privilege is state-supplied. 

Let me repeat: the only “privilege” that matters to a libertarian qua libertarian is the kind that comes from the barrel of the state’s gun. Disagree with this statement if you like, but in that case you will have to substitute some word other than libertarian to describe your philosophy.

Libertarians are of course free to concern themselves with issues like feminism and egalitarianism. But their interest in those issues has nothing to do with, and is not required by or a necessary feature of, their libertarianism. Accordingly, they may not impose these preferences on other libertarians, or portray themselves as fuller, more consistent, or more complete libertarians. We have seen enough of our words twisted and appropriated by others. We do not mean to let them have libertarian.

So this should put to rest some concerns that Rockwell is trying to make libertarianism right-wing. And if by right-wing it is meant consistency and purity in libertarianism, then I am all for it, as it is not an attempt to insert cultural values into libertarianism.

Logan Albright also notes:

The trouble is that by attempting to redefine a narrow political philosophy to encompass all things that we like and think are nice – like non-discrimination, like treating people as ends rather than means – we dilute its power and simplicity. We destroy what makes it great. Once we proceed down the road of declaring everything we think is good to be “libertarian,” we will quickly find that libertarianism suddenly has no meaning at all.

So I have noticed that many of Rockwell's detractors have often criticized him for not being "thick" enough, for being too strict and all that.

However, this strictness is what keeps libertarianism from being convoluted, and I am all for that.

Next up: Part 2, where I deal with more criticisms of Lew Rockwell and his strategies for liberty.