printINTERVIEW: Big League Politics interviewed me on my paleolibertarianism under the headline: “Writer Ilana Mercer Takes On The Cato Institute’s ‘Left-Libertarianism.’” I didn’t think I took CATO on, but was just pointing out sharp distinctions, in reply to correspondent Seth Segal’s sharp questions. But OK. <g>
BIG LEAGUE POLITICS: Being a preeminent paleolibertarian thinker today, how would you define paleolibertarianism and how does it differ from standard paleoconservatism?
ILANA MERCER: First, let’s define libertarianism. It’s concerned with the ethics of the use of force. Nothing more. This, and this alone, is the ambit of libertarian law.
All libertarians must respect the non-aggression axiom. Libertarians don’t initiate aggression against non-aggressors, not even if it’s “for their own good,” as neoconservatives like to cast America’s recreational wars of choice. If someone claims to be a libertarianism and also supports the proxy bombing of Yemen, or supported the war in Iraq; he is not a libertarian, plain and simple.
As to paleolibertarianism, in particular. And this is my take. It’s how I’ve applied certain principles week-in, week-out, for almost two decades. So, some will disagree. In my definition, a paleolibertarian grasps that ordered liberty has a civilizational dimension, stripped of which the just-mentioned libertarian non-aggression axiom, by which all decent people should live, will crumble. …
… Read the rest. “Writer Ilana Mercer Takes On The Cato Institute’s ‘Left-Libertarianism’” is on Big League Politics.