I believe that many in the Asatru/Heathen community would identify themselves as libertarians, and in my experience, this correlates with a somewhat right-wing, conservative, pro-military, anti-government point of view. I have been trying to make a case for a more liberal-leaning Asatru, and in so doing, I have the definite sense of being an embattled minority.
It would be interesting to know more about dominant political viewpoints in various Pagan movements.

Today, most progressives regard modern Libertarians as folks who want no government control of business or drugs, but are fine with all kinds of other government intervention. Few Libertarians objected when Bush threw out the rights first guaranteed in the Magna Carta.

Hecate-
Libertarians back when I began to try being one for some years had a strong counter cultural element. As I explained in my discussion of the Kochs, I think there are two broad libertarian orientations- the “don’t-mess-with-me” types and the counter cultural types that are more concerned with free relationships being possible for all people. That’s old empathy ‘dichotomy’ I’ve been toying with.
The don’t-mess-with-me types are not necessarily authoritarian, but they are not much concerned with others so long as they are left alone. They are attracted to ‘tough guys’ and so it seems to me are prone to co-optation by right wing nut jobs who adopt the libertarian label, but who are basically authoritarians – like Bob Barr, who bizarrely was named a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. Where authoritarians and don’t-mess-with-me folks come together is neither wants anyone else to exercise authority over them. But the libertarian types don’t want to exercise it over anyone else either whereas the Bob Barrs have no similar resistance. I suspect it was the growing influence of these jerks that shifted libertarianism from a more reasonable “limited government” perspective to an ahistorical and ignorant “small government” perspective that made them almost complete servants of corporations except for being stoned.
Heinlein seems to me to have been on the don’t-mess’with-me side – but in time spilled over into the counter cultural type, especially in Stranger in a Strange Land. So he inspired a lot of counter cultural libertarians who formed the Church of All Worlds – about as far from the Asatru types Michael describes as one can get. Libertarianism on the right is a very paradoxical movement – and now many of the freer spirited types are rebelling against just the kind of attitude you describe, and even moving left.
It’s all very confusing for those looking for clear and logical lines of descent. But it’s interesting, that’s for sure.

Political ideologies and alignments change over the course of a lifetime. So do Pagan world views and orientations. I think that there is a considerable gap between early Pagan libertarians–small “L”–and the ideology and proponents of large “L” Libertarianism, who may be Pagans.
My sense is that early Pagans responded to the self reliance and DIY groundedness of libertarianism, since many of them were building a spiritual movement pretty much from the foundation up.
The gap has probably grown as Libertarianism has itself changed to express more of the right wing’s views and objectives. Seekers who come to Paganism in the past couple decades probably found a very different influence on Pagan L/l-ibertarianism.
Much as I love the song, I more and more find myself grouchy with the term “heretic” applied to Pagans. For more detail, I have mulled some at:
http://pitch313.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-am-not-hereticin-my-heart.html

I like your discussion Pitch. But as I understand it, heresy comes from a Greek word for choice. And in that sense you do have a heretic heart – I assume that freedom of choice is essential to your spirituality. Your heart chooses, and so by definition might well be a heretic heart, aided by skin and bones.

The libertarian movement seems dominated now by anti choice people who believe the government need to interfere in all aspects of peoples lives, except where corporate profits are concerned… and sadly there is a very strong conservative christian bent there that wants to see evangelical Christianity become the sponsored religion of America. That doesnt sound very libertarian to me, but maybe the pagan ones can get it right. Unfortunately I do not think the tea party movement would be what theyre looking for if they want religious freedom.

I have a hypothesis about American libertarianism which helps me to understand its conflicting tendencies. Basically I see two primary sources for American libertarianism. The first is the older of the two and is rooted in New England Transcendentalism and particularly Henry David Thoreau. Personally, Thoreau has always been a kind of guide for me for most of my life in political matters. And because Thoreau’s views on government were also intimately intertwined with contemporary issues of his day, such as abolitionism and a nascent environmentalism, this strand of libertarian thought tends to be broader and more complex. By more complex I mean it is more willing to see other factors in a dispute than simply whether government is large or small.
The second strand is more recent and is based on the writings of Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard and the Austrian School of economics. This tradition is rigidly deductive and scholastic (Rothbard explicitly admired the late medieval scholastic tradition). It is therefore uncompromising and considers its views non-negotiable.
I view someone like Ursula LeGuin as rooted in the Thoreau strand of libertarianism, while Bob Barr, to the extent that he is a libertarian, is in the deductive, more recent tradition. The most significant difference between the two strands is that the Thoreau strand is not based on economic analysis while the other tradition views economics as central and is mostly blind to other considerations.
Jim

The big-L Libertarian Party no longer means much to the small-l libertarian movement. What possible appeal could a Bob Barr have to anyone who wants to be left alone to live in peace? Being a repentant drug warrior is not enough; Bob needed to do a complete mea culpa for a very long catalog of sins to obtain any credibility as a genuine libertarian.

Some Pagans are libertarians because all Pagans are people, and people come in all political shapes and sizes. You cannot spot a “There’s no government like no government” bumper sticker on a car and reliably deduce the driver’s religion. (No fair looking at other stickers on the same bumper.)

In one sense, the Libertarian movement has become a victim of its own success. The Tea Party, for example, was founded by Libertarians — but once it became big enough to make headlines, the Conservatives saw that there was gold in them thar hills, and moved in to try and take over. Likewise, the GOP began actively courting it. There are still plenty of libertarians in the Libertarian party and Tea Party, but they’re getting swamped by hopeful Conservatives. It’s quite understandable that libertarian Pagans would feel annoyed by their presence, and move away.
I’ve seen this sort of takeover happen before, with the anti-war/counterculture/New-Left movement of the ’60s and ’70s. Once it got big enough to sway some votes, both the Marxists and the Democrats moved in.
Let’s hope that the present-day Libertarian movement can learn enough from history in time to save it from the sad fate of the New Left.
–Leslie

Just picking at some nits, nothing personal implied or intended.
Heinlein is no longer around to dispute the labels applied to him, but from his several published essays one can make a safe assumption: Regardless of the first letter being upper- or lower-case, I believe he would have rejected the label of “libertarian”.
He never hesitated to acknowledge common ground, regardless of the group or ideology involved. My perception of him might be described as a Jeffersonian republican, meaning that his starting point on matters of governance and institutions was one of how well or poorly the citizens were or are served. Based on that view, I opine that it is beyond oxymoronic for a US citizen to be anti-government and pro-military. Despite what his many critics believed, I believe he was as staunchly pro-government as he was pro-military and pro-citizenship as defined by obligations as the necessary quid pro quo of rights and liberties.
A representative (republican) form of govenment has two equal and mutually-dependent components: The representatives fulfill their duties ethically, and the citizens (electorate) trust their delegation of power to those representatives and do not hesitate to remove them should they prove incompetent or worse. Taxes, I would argue, is the mechanism of delegation and trust. People who refuse to pay any taxes have violated their obligations of citizenship.

Very good insights here in my opinion.

The spammers are getting more sophisticated – spewing meaningless drivel as befits the inner spirit of our corporate society- “Mark” and “Sami” will be deleted as soon as I ventilate.
The combination of venality, meaninglessness, and simple degeneracy among spammers along with technical skills better used for good is amazing.
Bye guys

I helped found the libertarian movement by an act of ceremonial magick when I organized the draft card burning at the 1969 YAF convention which resulted in the libertarians splitting off from conservatives and starting a nation wide and now an international mmovement. Check us out at Libertarian Pagans or Pagans for Ron and Rand Paul on Facebook or at broken chains caucus at yahoo.

Your criticism of Bob Barr is misplaced. Bob Barr is not a conservative libertarian. He is a conservative turned libertarian. His views changed and he has disavowed many of his previous positions. I know that he was not a friend of pagans, but the Bob Barr of today is involved with the ACLU, a group that many libertarians feel is too far LEFT on some issues (mainly gun rights), although I think most feel that their work on behalf free speech alone is too important to nitpick.

Barr has definitely vastly improved his positions in a great many issues. I applaud him for that. BUT did he change his positions because he developed a greater empathy for people with views and ways of life different from his own? Or did he do so because he rigorously followed through the implications of his new belief system? I would guess the latter. (I do not know Barr, so I could be wrong.)
Jim’s post above as well as my own stuff describes a huge distinction between libertarians of the ‘right.’ Some have a strong attraction to Thoreau, the Counter Culture, Robert Lefevre, and other sources that emphasized the benefits of a society where coercion was reduced to a minimum (whatever that would be) and people were free to lie their lives as they wished. This position was connected with a serious concern for others. It accepted the market as good but did not worship it as a substitute for personal decency nor regard it as more infallible than anything else.
Others were attracted to talk of “rights” “self-interest” and private property as defining walls of autonomy within which an individual was sovereign. These folks worship economic success as evidence of successfully serving others while becoming rich. In contrast to the first group they can be very authoritarian or at best completely uninterested in the well-being of those not particularly close to them. Their concern for human well-being is completely or almost completely abstract. For example, I knew Murray Rothbard reasonably well, and he had no tolerance at all for people who questioned his views. Ayn Rand was no better. As the deductive ‘marketolaters’ treatment of the employee relation in capitalism evidences, they have virtually no conception of the abuse of power other than whatever the government does. And government abuse is based not on what is actually done but that the government does it. Some prominent ones have even defended voluntary slavery (so long as it is ‘voluntary’).
So I do not think I was unfair to Bob Barr in putting him in this second group. But I would like to be shown I am wrong.