The Dawning Of ‘Roy Moore Libertarianism’

Ever since Ron Paul retired from public life in 2012, libertarians have been completely rudderless. As much as libertarians may like to delude themselves that they do not need leaders, it has become abundantly clear that they need them as much as anyone. Without a strong leadership figure, libertarians have accomplished little other than being a national laughingstock. The post-Paul era has been defined by nothing but folly and embarrassment for libertarians, who are stubbornly unwilling to admit the political reality staring them in the face.

The silver lining is that it should not be particularly hard for libertarians to reinvent themselves. The anti-establishment fervor of the Ron Paul revolution has boiled over into Trumpmania, a phenomenon so powerful that it swept the nation and gave the Republicans a spectacular victory in last year’s election. Candidates who embody the Trump persona–moreso than his fluid policy platform–can make serious gains in the midst of the unprecedented level of chaos enveloping our political process. Nobody has demonstrated this better than Judge Roy Moore.

Pulling out a firearm during a final campaign stop and riding into the polling center to vote for himself on horseback, Judge Roy Moore is about as far from Paul Ryan as anyone you could ever imagine. The unflinching favorite son of the Heart of Dixie, raised to love his country, never be ashamed of his heritage, and hold his Christian faith above all else, Judge Moore has earned his reputation as a fighter. He was removed from the Supreme Court of Alabama on two separate occasions because he put fidelity to his faith before the dictates of the robed, unelected lawyers of the federal Supreme Court.

The first time Moore was booted from the Alabama Supreme Court, it happened because he refused to remove a monument listing the Ten Commandments from public land. The second time he was kicked off the court, it was because Moore refused to enforce the homosexual marriage edicts proclaimed by SCOTUS in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). Libertarians, who tend to be hostile toward religion and traditional morality, typically scoff at Judge Moore’s history of dissidence. Libertarians skeptical of Judge Moore’s bold stances should ask themselves the following questions: If more people took Judge Moore’s example to heart and refused to comply with orders that went against their conscience, would we be freer or would we be less free? Is it a good thing or is it a bad thing when individuals peaceably refuse to comply with centralized power? As Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, Judge Moore nullified federal tyranny in a manner that the Founding Fathers would have found admirable.

For taking his courageous stances, Judge Moore was called every name in the book by the mainstream press. He claimed that Jihadi-sympathizer Keith Ellison should not be allowed to serve in Congress, making him an anti-Islamic bigot in the eyes of the liberal media. His belief that his God, his faith, takes precedence over all else, including his nation, has caused critics to call Judge Moore the equivalent of the Christian Taliban. Despite the leftists’ usual haranguing, the voters didn’t give a damn. Moore’s unique and sometimes radical beliefs made him authentic in the eyes of Alabama voters. The voters knew that Moore was one of them. Although he has been a lawyer and a government official in different capacities for many years, Moore isn’t cut from the same cloth as your average beltway insider. He is a man of Alabama values, a statesman and a patriot, who will go to Washington D.C. to give the dirty bastards of the swamp every bit of hell he can possibly muster.

Libertarians who bemoan Roy Moore’s caustic approach and corresponding success do so out of jealousy. They are jealous that Moore is at the forefront, at the cusp, serving as the tip of the spear of a national revolution that is giving the political establishment fits while libertarians mostly sit on the sidelines in irrelevance. Of course, some liberty-minded legislators remain active within the GOP fold, but their influence has waned substantially. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) and Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI), once seen as the brightest stars of the liberty movement, have seen their stars dim after embracing pragmatism and softening the message for the purposes of appealing to broader audiences (a plan that has failed abysmally by every possible metric). The most effective liberty-minded legislator in terms of embracing the populism of the Trump-era GOP is Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), who has proven to be a shrewd maneuverer and astute judge of the tempestuous political climate.

Cosmopolitan libertarians want us to believe that it is somehow more brave to stand for transgender bathroom rights than it is to take on arguably the nation’s most influential nexus of institutional power, the Supreme Court. Libertarians have shown that they won’t speak out on behalf of religious freedom due to the fear of losing a pointless, do-nothing Koch brothers job, much less losing a prestigious judicial position. Moore’s courage is what impresses voters so they lend them their support despite his many excesses. In the same sense, the public supported Ron Paul as well. They admired Ron’s steadfast resolve, and were willing to overlook a kooky stance here or there because of their respect for the man. ‘Roy Moore Libertarianism’ can get us back to what once resonated nationally for the movement: Standing for God First, Nation Second, and Government Never.

Roy Moore’s particular brand of libertarianism is an easy sell to the public too. It’s uniquely American, and taps directly into the DNA of the nation. Libertarians need to learn a thing or two about branding, and realize that coaching their message in populist anti-establishment terms is how to proceed. Americans just don’t want soft, weak, whiny, bowtie-clad nancy boys prancing around fancifully as their political leaders. Reciting tedious dogma about rejecting leaders and hierarchies and the force of government has not moved the libertarian movement forward one inch. Activists need to realize that this cause isn’t about satisfying their personal subjective desires, but rather about appealing to the public and drawing them into the message of liberty. ‘Roy Moore Libertarianism’ is a big winner that has already been proven to overcome the many advantages of the political establishment, and every libertarian activist would be wise to take notes.


  1. Agreed wholeheartedly!
    Note that the left doesn’t care about obeying orders, rules, laws. “Sanctuary Cities” and states? Voters in CA voted to deny illegals any state benefits and to not recognize Gay Marriage and both were overturned by courts – they hate democracy when it doesn’t agree with them.
    Trump, and now Moore shows that there may be a price to pay, but to be authentic you have to go against and ignore the petty and evil rules the establishment is trying to push.

  2. Shane doesn’t understand the definition of libertarianism.

    Roy Moore may be an anti-federal, and he may be anti-establishment, but he is not libertarian.

    I’m glad he beat Luther because he is anti-establishment and an anti-federalist. But calling him libertarian is a farce.

    • I feel where you are coming from and agree with 90% of your comment. The question always ends up (on the federal) level “Exactly how strict constructionist, Article I, Section 8 delineated powers are you?”. So long as Moore draws the line at spending 10% less than last year that might be as libertarian as an elected official on the federal level is likely to get prior to 2018.

      Should people stop calling him a libertarian? Maybe so. What yard stick should be used? Is Roy Moore more libertarian or less libertarian than Gary Johnson? Take a look at his positions and let me know where he scores on your ruler.

      May Roy Moore end up being a good Liberty Republican? Maybe. I sure hope he does.

      • I don’t “feelz” where he’s coming from and I agree with about 10% of his comment. The part where he’s glad Moore beat Strange.

    • This is a totally out of place reaction to something – I don’t know what! The post is perfectly right on. You’re never going to get perfect.

      And homosexual marriage is not a “libertarian” issue per se. Freedom is. Steps toward decentralizing power is a step forward toward localizing government, getting it closer to the real-world village, where real families live and practice their faith.

      Whereas some people worship government to right all wrongs. That’s what many so-called “libertarians” are doing today. (Looking at you Reason Magazine)

  3. Libertarianism is less government in individual and economic affairs. Most establishment republicans don’t do that at all and are the opposite. Ron Paul that’s definitely a libertarian 100% compared to Roy Moore.

    • Jim, I’m afraid that I must disagree. Interjecting yet more religious ideology into American politics is not a move toward preserving individual rights, liberty, and freedom. On the contrary; religion has always been the enemy of freedom and non-conformity. A review of world history will make that very clear.

    • Carp all you want about inserting Christian values into politics, the reality is that in America there are too many good folks who will not vote for those who disrespect their faith. And I’m glad for that.

    • Seperation……in order to avoid promoting the values, teachings, philosophies, practices, and prejudices of ANY ONE RELIGION in the form of restrictive or “tailor made” laws, policies, leanings or prejudices in any and ALL levels of government. That is the only way we can inshure that no “group” can force everyone through law to live and abide by someone else’s religious wishes! Without true separation of church and state; none of us can ever truly be free……instead we would be slaves. Slaves to the wishes of others!

  4. Libertarianism is an intellectual movement–not some dumbass political party trying to buy people’s votes. Libertarianism is growing and will win out in the end. It is the only policy that is compatible with man.

    • Agreed for the most part. I would only argue semantics… small “l” is the movement. Big “L” definitely wants to be a political party.

    • Libertarianism is a cowardly movement–where you can avoid taking a principled stance against the tidal wave of degenerate scum competing for our children’s souls. If you want your daughters to marry effeminate beta males or abusive narcissists, keep using muh constitution to fight with people who would use it to wipe their asses.

      • It sounds like you want government to enforce social standards in a manner that is to be determined by you.

        • We’re sitting on a mountain of forced-morality policies implemented by the far left.

          Libertarians haven’t repealed a goddamned thing.

          • By what figment of the imagination do you identify the actions of the
            “far left’ as being accepted as Libertarian ??

            or that inability to remove objectionable legislation constitutes approval ?

    • …not some dumbass political party trying to buy people’s votes —WITH OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.

  5. The point is not that Roy Moore is a solid libertarian. The point is that we can learn from his example on how to be successful. The point is that he holds strong to his principles even when they aren’t popular with the DC/media elites, and people respect him for it. If we had a Moore-type in our midst, he would be vastly more successful than these pc libertarians who never dare to say anything that isn’t politically correct.

  6. Defying authority is not a good thing if the authority is trying to get you to respect people’s rights and your defiance is in order to violate them.

    The Ten Commandments have no business in a courthouse. Most of them are unenforceable under US law, and some of them would be unconstitutional if they were law. The gov’t has no business displaying unconstitutional imperative statements.

    Moore did not take an oath to uphold his conscience; he took an oath to uphold the law. He violated that oath when he disobeyed the orders of the SCOTUS. If he wants to defy authority, let him do it as a private citizen.

    • “Moore did not take an oath to uphold his conscience; he took an oath to uphold the law. He violated that oath when he disobeyed the orders of the SCOTUS. If he wants to defy authority, let him do it as a private citizen.”

      False libertarianism in a nutshell. Many of these types are libertarian at all, but are anti-God.

      • Libertarianism is a philosophy about how you treat your fellow man. It is not pro-God and it’s not anti-God. It tells you to respect the rights of others, but does not tell you *why* you should do so. It’s up to you to decide why: you can believe that you should respect others’ rights because God wants you to, or you can respect others’ rights for utilitarian reasons, or you can respect others’ rights just because you were brought up that way, … whatever … libertarianism doesn’t address metaphysics.

        The US government also doesn’t care why you obey the law. You can do it because you believe in the 10 Commandments or because you’re a dutiful authoritarian or because you’re scared of the police … whatever … the gov’t doesn’t care. The US government is not pro-God and it’s not anti-God.

        But several of the 10 Commandments are unenforceable under US law. They have no business being displayed in a government building dedicated to law enforcement.

        • I agree – libertarianism is not inherently pro or anti-God, just as plumbing, or the study of history is not inherently pro/anti-God. So if that is the case, why MUST the 10 commandments be removed? Why can’t we leave it up to local tastes, since, in theory, libertariansim has nothing to say on the matter?

          • Taking the 10 Commandments down has nothing to do with libertarianism; it has to do with the Constitution.

            Even beyond the obvious, that the 1st Amendment doesn’t allow the gov’t to favor one religion, there’s the simple fact that the gov’t must not order a citizen to do something that is not part of the law. That’s part of the checks and balances of the Constitution. The only commands the gov’t can give us are those that have been passed by the legislature and signed by the executive.

            The gov’t can’t order us not to make graven images. The gov’t can’t order us to honor our father and our mother. The gov’t can’t order us not to covet our neighbor’s wife. None of those are laws.

            The 10 Commandments are commands that the gov’t is not legally allowed to make of its citizens. And that’s why they don’t belong in a court of law.

          • That makes sense, if you consider the constitution to be an inherently libertarian document which cannot be quesitoned.

            I find it very ironic for a self described Libertarian to be saying, in effect “You can’t do what you want and follow local customs, because the founding document of our state says so – so just follow the universal law of the land imposed by Washington, and shut up.”

            If people choose to be governed by the 10 commandments and all wish to respect them, this is just as valid as people who wish to do the opposite; and claiming that the govt has the right to prevent them from doing so “because the law says so”, isn’t exactly libertarian, in my opinion.

          • This has nothing to do with libertarianism or whether the Constitution is a libertarian document.

            It also has nothing to do with whether people choose to follow or display the 10 Commandments. They’re free to do both.

            But the government can’t enforce the 10 Commandments and the government can’t order people to obey the 10 Commandments. Roy Moore can display the 10 Commandments at his home but he cannot appropriate government property to display the 10 Commandments. And when he had his government-issued robes on and was sitting on the government’s bench wielding the government’s power, he was obligated to implement the government’s law – which is explicitly not the same as the 10 Commandments. He swore an oath, with his hand on the Bible, to do exactly that.

            And he violated that oath repeatedly and knowingly. He deserved to be removed from the bench and he does not deserve to work in government again.

          • So, let’s look at your “Libertarian” stances.

            1. “No public figure dare defy the awesome authority of the SCOTUS!”
            2. “What is right and wrong, is not objective, but based on the laws of the US govt”
            3. “You can’t do what you want, even though it doesn’t hurt anyone and is in accord with local customs, because the govt says so!”

            and now:

            4. Public property and authority is sacred, so don’t you DARE do anything the central govt would disaprove of in such areas/positions – if you do so, your career must be ruined!

            I will just end with this. A Theocratic Monarchy is just as Libertarian as a Dictatorship, or a Local Democracy, or a society solely based on the 10 commandements – so long as it is based on private property. Libertarianism does not mean a lack of governance, but instead lays out the framework for proper governance (private property).

            No matter what Washington says, your landlord has every right to force you to put the 10 commandements in your house (or to remove them) – to pretend that just because Washington says X, therefore X is what it must be, is hardly Libertarian. This is why most Libertarians aren’t really Libertarian, they are Libertenes – they associate Libertarianism not with the rule of private property, but with freedom from rules/governance which they don’t like, because ultimately, they are little children who just want to do what they want with no restrictions.

          • First, nothing I’ve said has anything to do with libertarianism. Nor does it have anything to do with what is right or wrong, or what private citizens can do. This has to do with the Constitution, the rule of law, and whether a man is true to his oath.

            Moore swore an oath – on the Bible – to uphold the law. He knew when he did that, that the SCOTUS has a role in making law and that he was accepting a post subservient to the SCOTUS. He knew that he was taking a job in which he was expected to apply the law without being swayed by his personal bias.

            And he violated his oath. Over and over and over again.

            I’ve never taken that oath. You probably haven’t either. You and I may defy the SCOTUS (we might be punished by the gov’t, but morally, we’re free to defy the SCOTUS). I can be skeptical about “the rule of law” (and I am) but Moore cannot be when HE IS PART OF THE LAW. (When he takes his robes off and goes home, he can be skeptical again.)

            It’s very simple: the government must follow the government’s rules. Do you have a problem with that?

            Regarding “public” property: it’s owned by the gov’t. I, as a libertarian, have issues with “public” property. But Moore, as a government agent, swore to accept the law. When he’s in his gov’t job, he has to respect the gov’t’s rules about public property. I don’t consider public property “sacred”, but Moore has to WHILE HE’S ON THE JOB.

            Your characterization of libertarianism is wrong. Our emphasis is not property, it is the use of force, coercion, and fraud. No one may may use force against another or credibly threaten to use force. Private property is a consequence of our philosophy, but it’s not a foundation of it. This is not a matter of “children who just want to do what they want with no restrictions”. This is a matter of someone threatening to beat you up or arrest you or shoot you unless you do what they want you to do.

            Is that how you prefer to structure human civilization? Upon a foundation of violence?

  7. Roy Moore is not in the slightest a libertarian. Like all other conservatives, they’re “okay” on some issues and bad on others.

  8. Conservatism and liberalism are two sides of the same coin. Both are the opposite of Libertarianism.

  9. God first? Nation second? Not for me. Theocracy and nationalism are the two great enemies of individualism and human rights. Yet we are constantly offered those two tag-team partners. Oppressive religion? Politicians will free you. Political oppression? Jesus will save you. Neither offers liberty. Both offer coercion. Neither wants to leave you in peace. True Libertarians have it right: humans should leave each other alone. Politicians and preachers won’t do that.

  10. Libertarians, for the past two elections, chose former Governor Gary Johnson as their leader. As governor, Gary Johnson, took federal money, continued the drug war, privatized prisons and increased the prison population in New Mexico methodically. How is putting people in prison consistent with liberty? It’s not.

    In “For a New Liberty” Rothbard argues for privatization of everything. The philosophy of privatization of all prisons, water, lands, and roads is antithesis to liberty.

    Modern libertarians are clueless to what individual liberty really means.

  11. LOL he’s an unhinged weirdo, though I’m glad he got elected.
    The American Republic has been an evil empire since day one. It can not be reformed, fixed, or ‘restored’, it needs to be dismantled. It is a fake nation held together by naked force and financial fraud.

Comments are closed.

Latest from Politics

Thanks for visiting our site! Stay in touch with us by subscribing to our newsletter. You will receive all of our latest updates, articles, endorsements, interviews, and videos direct to your inbox.