A Complete Analysis of a Concept Split into Six Incompatible Doctrines

Among contemporary political terms, few have collapsed into incoherence as dramatically as “neo-libertarianism.”
Originally coined in a specific academic context, it has since been recycled, distorted, and appropriated by ideological currents that have nothing in common.

Today, “neo-libertarianism” can mean:

an institutional statist libertarianism (Sterba + Kochtopus)
an anti-state anarchist libertarianism (Konkin)
an authoritarian post-libertarian doctrine (post-libertarians)
a culturally conservative radical libertarianism (paleolibertarianism)
an egalitarian left-wing libertarianism (left-libertarianism)

One term, six incompatible ideologies.

This article explains why the concept is analytically useless and should be abandoned.

1. The Bloc of “Institutional Statist Neo-Libertarianism”

(James P. Sterba + the Kochtopus / Atlas Network)

Although they come from entirely different worlds, James P. Sterba and the Koch-funded libertarian think-tank ecosystem end up converging toward the same structure:

👉 a form of libertarianism that affirms, preserves, or legitimizes the State as a necessary framework.

They represent the institutionalist pole of neo-libertarianism.

1.1 Sterba’s Version: A Procedural, State-Regulated Libertarianism

Sterba proposes a model where:

negative liberty is essential,
yet a stronger State is required to balance conflicting freedoms,
using a Rawls-style procedure to decide legitimate restrictions,
in order to guarantee a high minimum of liberty for everyone.

He explicitly rejects the minimal night-watchman State, arguing that liberty conflicts inherently require government arbitration.

His “neo-libertarianism” is essentially:

👉 a procedural social-liberalism, not a radical libertarianism.

1.2 The Kochtopus Version: Corporate, Pro-Institution Libertarianism

The Koch-funded network (Cato Institute, Reason Foundation, Mercatus, Atlas Network) promotes a libertarianism that is:

pro-business,
compatible with Washington,
pro-globalization,
reformist rather than revolutionary,
favorable to a strong, stable, arbitration-oriented State,
tied to corporate interests and policy engineering.

This is a polished variant of neoliberalism, dressed in libertarian language.

It is neither anti-state nor radical:
👉 it depends on the State as an institutional backbone.

1.3 Why Sterba and the Kochtards Belong Together

Despite no direct link between them, Sterba and the Koch ecosystem share essential traits:

they defend the legitimacy of the State
they distrust anti-state radicalism
they prioritize institutional stability
they embed liberty inside a political framework
they reject revolutionary strategies
they seek “respectability” within academia or government

Together, they form the statist-institutional neo-libertarian bloc.

2. Konkin’s “New Libertarianism”: Agorism and the Abolition of the State

In total opposition to the institutional bloc stands the vision of Samuel Edward Konkin III.

His “New Libertarianism” is:

uncompromisingly anti-state
based on the creation of the agora, a fully free counter-economy
fueled by black and grey markets
explicitly anti-political (no elections, no lobbying)
strategically revolutionary
grounded in a multi-phase plan of peaceful subversion

For Konkin, political participation is not a tool — it is a betrayal.

He represents the radical anti-state bloc.

3. Post-Libertarians: A Libertarianism Subordinated to a Strong State

Post-libertarians argue that:

pure libertarianism is unworkable,
order must precede liberty,
a centralized hierarchy is necessary,
the State should be strengthened or rationalized,
libertarian ideals must adapt to “realism.”

Some frame this as “realist neo-libertarianism.”

This is, in substance:

👉 a state-centric authoritarian libertarianism — the exact opposite of Konkin and incompatible even with Sterba’s proceduralism.

A third meaning of the term.

4. Paleolibertarianism: Radical Anti-State Economics + Cultural Conservatism

Paleolibertarianism, articulated by Rothbard, blends:

absolute economic anti-statism,
strict property rights,
populist traditionalist values,
cultural conservatism,
rejection of elite Beltway libertarianism,
voluntary traditional communities.

It is incompatible with:

left-libertarian egalitarianism,
Koch-style corporatism,
Sterba’s proceduralism,
Konkin’s counter-economics (strategically),
post-libertarian statism.

A completely distinct tradition.

5. Left-Libertarianism: Egalitarianism, Anti-Rent, Non-Absolute Ownership

Left-libertarianism includes:

mutualists,
Georgist libertarians,
market socialists,
anti-rent individualists,
theorists of equal initial access to natural resources.

They defend:

self-ownership,
but not absolute private property,
equality of opportunity grounded in resource fairness,
decentralized or cooperative market structures,
opposition to corporate capitalism.

Some consider their doctrine a “new egalitarian libertarianism.”

Again, a meaning wholly incompatible with the others.

6. Why We Must Abandon the Term “Neo-Libertarianism”

The verdict is clear: the word is beyond repair.

1. It has no stable theoretical meaning

It refers to six incompatible ideologies.
A concept that means everything means nothing.

2. It generates confusion instead of clarity

When someone uses the term, you cannot know whether they mean:

a statist procedural liberal,
a corporate neoliberal,
an agorist anarchist,
an authoritarian post-libertarian,
a paleoconservative radical,
or an egalitarian left-libertarian.

The ambiguity is built-in and unavoidable.

3. It hides real ideological divisions

The libertarian landscape is sharply divided into:

agorists,
institutionalists,
corporatists,
egalitarians,
paleos,
post-libertarians.

The term blurs distinctions that matter.

4. It is now a rhetorical weapon, not an analytic tool

It is used to:

smear opponents,
amalgamate unrelated ideas,
disguise statist agendas as “modern libertarianism,”
dilute radical doctrines into bland centrism.

5. Precise terms already exist

We already have clear categories:

agorism,
procedural libertarianism,
corporate libertarianism,
post-libertarianism,
paleolibertarianism,
left-libertarianism.

Each corresponds to a real tradition.

6. The term is too politically parasitized to save

Too many factions have redefined it.
The semantic contamination is irreversible.

Final Conclusion

“Neo-libertarianism” is not a coherent doctrine.
It is a semantic graveyard where incompatible ideologies collide:

Sterba’s statist proceduralism,
Koch-style corporate institutionalism,
Konkin’s counter-economic anarchism,
the authoritarian post-libertarian turn,
Rothbard’s paleolibertarian conservatism,
the egalitarian left-libertarian tradition.

A single term that tries to contain all of this is worse than useless —
it actively destroys conceptual clarity.

For the sake of intellectual precision, doctrinal coherence, and philosophical honesty, the term “neo-libertarianism” must be permanently abandoned.

Why the Term Neo-Libertarianism Is Fundamentally Confusing