For twenty years, I have called myself a Libertarian, but now - despite my belief in the principles of Libertarianism - I shrink from the name "Libertarian".

In Fall 1980, when I was a freshman at Georgetown , Libertarian Party (LP) Presidential candidate Ed Clark spoke at the university. The event was covered by both the local TV news and by Bill Moyers, who was working on a PBS special about third parties in United States. I had the opportunity to meet Ed Clark and I even received a brief cameo in the PBS special. In high school, I had become familiar with Libertarian thought - an unequivocal commitment to individual rights - but did not know that there was a political party based on it.

At Georgetown, I joined the LP campus chapter and attended a number of functions, but I wasn't an active member. Following graduation, I served in the Army and then attended graduate school. I wasn't active in any political organization, but maintained an interest in politics and read conservative and libertarian publications.

In 1993 or 1994, I joined the National LP and its local affiliate. I wrote a few columns and drew cartoons for the local party newsletter. At the first meeting, I began to have doubts about the LP and Libertarians after listening to a guest speaker cite the anti-Semitic Spotlight and rant about the Federal Emergency Management Agency (an agency I have worked with) taking over the country. During the same meeting, I listened to a fellow LP member, who boasted of his attempts to declare his home a sovereign nation and avoid taxes.

Former Libertarian activist Justin Raimondo writes about a "fruitcake" element in the LP. I certainly had a taste of it myself. Many on the Left and Right paint Libertarians with a broad brush: Libertarians are "greedy" and "self-indulgent" people who exalt the Virtue of Selfishness. That is a generalization. There are Christian Libertarians who believe that a free society is the proper ground for personal and communal faith and charity. But there is a type of Libertarian who gains center stage, and runs the Natonal Party, and is held up as typical (and ridiculed, as in a recent column by Don Feder, a political conservative).

The basic tenets of Libertarianism (or "Classical Liberalism") are not a modern invention. The American Founders invoked these principles when they signed the Declaration and rebelled against Great Britain. The Founders (like modern Libertarians) believed that each individual has an inalienable right to life, liberty, and property - and that the basic purpose of government is to protect these rights.

The Founders (like Libertarians) distrusted large, centralized government with its broad police and military powers. They feared that it would lead to domestic tyranny or unnecessary wars. They favored limited government, well-defined and restricted by a Constitution, with the Congress (the people's representatives), not the President, as the dominant decision-making body. (That is why the Congress, not the President, has the
legal power to declare war, although Presidents have illegally assumed these duties in recent decades.)

I embrace Libertarian principles, but the security and development of a society depend on more than a commitment to individual rights. The Founders believed that virtue - civic and moral - is necessary for maintaining and building a good society. When Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States in the early 1800s, he was amazed that Americans were so civic minded. No laws compelled them, but they willingly built public libraries, fed and educated the poor, and supported local schools through voluntary efforts and donations.

Despite the defects of the militia system, American men - civilians - believed they were the foundation of the nation's defense and eschewed the idea of a large standing army. In my home state of Pennsylvania, most militia companies and regiments were established in the same way volunteer fire companies are, through local donations and volunteer manpower.

For the past five years, I have been deeply involved in volunteer and philanthropic activities in the local community. This has been a great source of personal satisfaction for me. I also believe that it is a moral duty. Much of my time has been spent as a leader and trainer of volunteers. I've worked with the Jaycees, Civil Air Patrol, Red Cross, and community food bank. During this time, I have met only one other Libertarian involved in this work (and he was only interested in making business connections). The most active volunteers are people whose political and religious views I do not share: liberals, social conservatives, and traditional Christians. We have struggled and sweated together to help make the community a better, safer place to live.

The liberals, social conservatives, and religious people tend to believe that government has some right and obligation to use coercion to make society better, a view I disagree with. Leftists believe in the redistribution of wealth (socialism). Many religious and social conservatives believe that government should pass laws to promote public health and morality. Libertarians disagree - they say that these efforts must be voluntary - and I support the Libertarian position.

I believe that a free society is the best ground for solving social problems and fostering economic and cultural development. But social problems will not go away by themselves simply because we have individual liberty and free markets. And the "freedom to choose" has not, of itself, improved our impoverished culture. Freedom creates opportunities - but people create solutions.

Libertarians say that military service must be voluntary - and I agree. But will they shoulder arms in defense of our nation, if we are threatened by a foreign power or internal crisis? I believe (or hope) that they will - but the anti-social, often anti-nationalist spirit of many Libertarians is not reassuring.

Will they defend their country or community or only their own homes when foreign invaders or rioters approach? It is said that no one shoulders a rifle in defense of a boarding house. America has become a big boarding house - not a home - for most of us.

One Libertarian explained to me that if the United States were ruled by an oppressive regime, he would simply move to another country.

When the Constitution was signed, Benjamin Franklin told the public that they now had a "Republic - if you can keep it."

Most Libertarians speak of reducing the size and scope of the military - which is spread all over the globe - and returning to a purely defensive system. Many recommend reliance on a state militia system. But how many will serve? The original militia system fell apart largely because individuals avoided duty. Militias and other military reserves - not unlike local volunteer fire companies and the American Red Cross - need to be trained and equipped collectively, well in advance of hostilities or crisis.
If you want peace, George Washington explained, you must be ready for war. Washington and the Founders believed that the main role of the military is to deter aggression. In his Farewell Address, he opposed permanent alliances with foreign countries and warned of getting involved in Europe's incessant conflicts and intrigues. He advocated a small active military, backed up a large national reserve and local militias. The burden of defense was placed upon the citizenry, not a professional caste or mercenaries.

Washington also spoke of the need to cultivate and maintain a national identity and a true patriotism.

Libertarian author and thinker Jacob G. Hornberger offers this definition of "patriotism": "(T)he devotion to a certain set of principles regarding rightness, morality, individualism, liberty, and property; and... a firm stand against one's own government when it violated these principles."

That isn't patriotism - that is a political ideology, basically, the Libertarian political ideology. There are people throughout the world who subscribe to Libertarian principles. The Libertarian Alliance in Great Britain and its members are devoted to Libertarian principles - are they American patriots? Patriotism must be something more than a political or moral ideology.

In my view, American patriotism does indeed include a commitment to the principles that Hornberger speaks of, as well as a willingness to defend them, but it is not defined simply by those principles. Patriotism is the spirit or sentiment that arises from SHARED principles and a sense of connection and devotion to neighbors and countrymen, that is, fellow Americans.

An Indian nationalist with a love of Mankind and Truth, Swami Vivekananda wrote of patriotism as a love and active devotion to countrymen.

A shared commitment to basic principles (those espoused by Libertarians) must be accompanied by a common spirit of kinship and devotion to fellow countrymen.
As Aristotle observed twenty-three centuries ago, individualism develops and flourishes in a social setting. He also claimed that democracy could not function properly unless citizens possessed a common perspective and connection to one another.
Libertarians rightly believe that government should not restrict individual rights. The failure of the Libertarian Party and many Libertarians (not Libertarianism) is their neglect of moral and civic virtue and the importance of national identity and community spirit.

A weak or decadent society of autonomous beings, unwilling to work together in peace or band to together in crisis, is easy prey to domestic tyranny or foreign aggression.
Libertarian philosophers and activists have played an important role in battling Leviathan - Communism, Fascism, and Theocracy. They helped slay the Minotaur, but never escaped from the maze. We have economic prosperity - but our culture is in ruin. Millions of people, now defined as consumers, fill their bellies and distract themselves with cheap entertainment, but are isolated, lonely, and impoverished in spirit. We are free, but wandering in the dark, unable to grasp Ariadne's thread - a thread woven by many hands - and find our way to the light.