i I The Has Libertarian I. Alan Reynolds The criticisms of libertarians by Ernest van den Haag and Lawrence V. Cott [June 3] rest on extremely restrictive conceptions of both libertarian and con- servative views. de?nitions that preclude diversity. Professor'van den Haag some- how- de?nes the elimination of ?half: the present government activities" as con-' servative. and elimination of all govern- ment as libertarian. Since no shadings are admitted to exist between these positions. it follows by de?nition that there must be ?unbridgeable chasms" between them; van den Hang literally has no word at all to describe those who favor a very small..strictly limited government. In reality. of course. opin- ions are not sharply discontinuous but spread in varying degrees along many dimensions. Both van den Haag and Cott de?ne libertarian as synonymous with the Cato Institute; Cato is de?ned as syn- onymous with inquiry magazine: and all libertarians are held responsible for every word written by Murray Roth- bard. None of this is remotely accurate. much less fair. Murray Rothbard and the editors of inquiry (Bill Evers) and Libertarian Re? view'(Roy Childs) are leaders of the Libertarian? Party Radical Caucus?a splinter group that geeks to push the party toward a non-interventionist for- eign policy. Ihe Libertarian Party itself has always attracted the most activist of libertarians. yet this ?radical caucus? . can claim to have generated some-interd- est among only 10 per cent of the Cal- ifornia branch of the arty. What NR chooses to label the ibertarian move- ment is in reality only an avowedly radical faction within an activist wing. Move ment Mr. Cott is quite right that many (probably most) libertarians acknowl- edge ?a need for some national defense, some police agency. and a court sys? tem." And since that is true. van den H'aag must be wrong in claiming that ?all libertarians believe that crime is . not an act that organized society must punish . . Some libertarians may believe that. but others do not. Both van den Haag and Cott observe that many of those who write for in- quiry are ?no more libertarianthan those in The New Repabiie.? Yet they fail to draw the obvious conclusion. which is that inquiry is not a libertar- ian journal and is therefore irrelevant to a critique of libertarians. Nobody has ever claimed that inquiry is liber- tarian?not Rothbard. not the journal itself. In fairness. Cato does more than publish inquiry. despite Mr. Cott?s cu- - rious failure to report anything else. Cato publishes a ?ne newsletter on economic policy. Poiiry Review. and subsidires Libertarian Review [which follows the Rothbard line. but contains some good material}. Cato'also ?nances seminars. speakers. radio debates. and research F. A. Hayek's}. Remarkably. Reason magazine gets only two parenthetical shrugs in van den Haag?s critique. Yet this little Santa Barbara journal has survived for a dec- ade. mainly 'on dedication and merit {not massive subsidies}. and has a cir- culation of around twenty. thousand. Reason probably has the fairest claim to representing the mainstream of-libiir- .tarian thought. having survived the -tESt of a tough market. Since Mr. Cort provided a list of writers who appear in inquiry. here are .r 1" I eA SPIRITED EXCHANGE a few. of the ?kooks. neurotics. and per- verts? (to use van den Haag?s phrase) who have appeared in Reason: Milton Friedman. Robert Nozicit. Bill Ricken- backer. William Niskanen. Edith Efren. Sidney Hook. Paul Craig Roberts. Jim Davidson. David Brudnoy. W. Phillip - _Gramm. Henry Marine. Petr Beckmann. and Ronald Reagan. A. really danger- ous bunch. There is very little in van den Haag's critique that had not already? been han- dled more expertly within the libertarian literature itself. Reason. for instance. has published such self-examination as ?Wishful Thinking Is No Defense." by R. J. ?Natural' Rights Aren?t." by John Goodson and David M. Longinotti. and ?Must We Abolish the State?" by Arthur Shen?eld. Robert szick?s Anarchy. State. and Utopia covers much of this same ground from a libertarian perspective. ?an DEN Hsso claims that ?Liber- tarians lack either the willingness. or the ability. td" make crucial distinctions with respect to Communism." Not true of Rothbatd: even' less true of others'_ {Henson?s Tibor Machan. for example). In Libertarian Review this February. Rothbard deplored the way Stalin 'bm- tally collectivized? the Soviet economy and reigned by ?political terror.? He al- so described the ?Cambodian monstros- ity? as ?the most monstrous. bizarre. and evil State in many centuries." From "a man who hates ail states. those aren?t soft words. Although Communist states do di?'er substantially in practice. their driving vision is clearly the precise an- tithesis of libertarian. ?The main issue." says Mr. van den AUGUST 3. l979 967