From conservatism to Rothbardian humanism

There’s a wide spectrum of people who claim to love liberty, from conservatives to classical liberals, Misesians, and the rare Rothbardian.

But conservatives, classical liberals, Misesians, and Rothbardians don’t all mean the same thing when they talk about liberty. Some think liberty should exist within boundaries. Others, like me, know that liberty is the boundary.

Let me break down where these schools of thought cross, where they collide, and why I ultimately took the stance that I did.

Conservatives: Order before liberty

Conservatives talk a big game about limited government until someone wants to live outside their definition of morality. Then suddenly, the State becomes their weapon of choice.

Conservatives believe in preserving tradition, hierarchy, and social cohesion. They see the State as a moral guardian, something that should maintain order and protect the nation’s “soul.”

Conservatives are people who want the State to enforce their own version of virtue. But if virtue requires coercion, then it also requires violence to enforce. You can’t enforce order without exerting control.

Classical Liberals: Liberty within limits

I’m mostly fine with classical liberals. Think Locke, Smith, and Mill, Enlightenment architects who sold the idea that individuals have rights that the State can’t interfere with. They gave us language that true pro-liberty advocates use these days, like natural rights, property, free exchange, and the rule of law.

But classical liberals stop short. They want a “night-watchman” State that guards property and enforces contracts. That’s a huge step forward from monarchy, collectivism, and even democracy, but it still contradicts itself: Who limits the limiter?

Give a government the power to “defend rights,” and it will inevitably decide what those rights are. The moment you give a monopoly the right to enforce justice, you’ve already lost liberty.

Classical liberals built the foundation, but they forgot to build the house.

Misesians: Liberty through human action

Misesians took things a step further than classical liberals. Ludwig von Mises showed that voluntary exchange and private property are more than just moral, but functional.

Mises demonstrated that socialism is impossible because central planners can’t calculate. Without prices generated by free exchange, there’s no way to allocate resources rationally. Every intervention distorts signals, which leads to more interventions until liberty collapses under the bureaucracy meant to “manage” it.

That insight is gold. But Mises still stopped short of calling for the total abolition of the State. He believed in a minimal one, a framework to enforce contracts and prevent aggression.

Even minimal coercion is still coercion, and that still requires violence to uphold. And once the door is open, history shows it never stays minimal for long. Just study American history, starting with the Articles of Confederation. I’ll wait…

Rothbardians: Liberty with no strings attached

Enter Murray Rothbard. The man who took Mises’ ideas to their logical conclusion and refused to flinch. Rothbard fused economics with moral philosophy and asked the forbidden question: If aggression is immoral, why give the State a pass?

The Rothbardian worldview rests on the Non-Aggression Axiom, the idea that no one has the right to initiate force against another’s life, liberty, or property. Not even in the name of “order,” or if it’s supposedly “democratic.”

Rothbard was a moral radical, and that’s a good thing. He argued that the State, by its very nature, is organized crime. Taxation is theft. War is mass murder. Regulation is extortion. And yet, people continue to worship government like a god that must exist, even when it violates every moral standard we apply to individuals.

That’s where Rothbard’s ideas hit me hardest. The State doesn’t need reform. Voluntary institutions, mutual aid, private arbitration, and decentralized order must step in and replace it.

Where do I stand?

You know the answer: I’m a Rothbardian, someone who knows liberty is a moral and spiritual law.

Voluntary order, the idea that people, when left free, naturally build communities, meaning, and exchange. I reject the idea that chaos erupts when authority is absent. The real chaos comes from those who believe they’re fit to rule others. And if you want any proof, just look at their ability to keep wars going. The State’s pretty good at that.

Every person owns their body, mind, and what they produce. Morality needs self-ownership, not more government enforcement. No institution, ideology, priest, politician, or planner can dictate how people should live.

I don’t want to be ruled, and I’m not interested in ruling others. I’d rather see a world where the smug pricks who think they know better than the masses to mind their own damn business.

And if you want to see these ideas in action, check out my Arcane Elemental Academy series. It’s where the protagonist, Yote Diamondback, stumbles across a Rothbardian society and she learns a lot about how it can function.

Catch the first three chapters of this young adult fantasy and meet Yote before she ventures up to Arcane. If you like the intersection between Harry Potter and Chaos Theory, you’ll love Arcane Elemental Academy.