son to support the rampant collectivismnof 1950. Instead, Chodorov suggested,nindependent lecturers should be broughtnto the campus from outside. They wouldnnot indoctrinate, he thought; insteadnthey would truly “educate for liberty.”nSince, Chodorov had concluded, libertariansnand socialists were born withninclinations toward their respectivencreeds, “the libertarian teaches not ton’make’ libertarians, but to find them.”nISI has existed since the 1950’s, concentratingnits quiet efforts on the nation’sncampuses, and it made a majornintellectual contribution to the conservativenpolitical victories of 1980. However,nit has moved away from Chodorov’snstrict dedication to individualism,nsymbolized by its change of name,nand it has also adopted a strong anticommunistnstance with which Chodorovnwould not have been pleased.nSimilar things could be said of HumannEvents, which on its masthead declaresnits bias “in favor of limited constitutionalngovernment, local self-government,nprivate enterprise and individualnfreedom,” However, Human Eventsnis strongly anticommunist in foreignnpolicy and writes most of the timenabout current domestic politics. Chodorovnwould no doubt have disagreednwith both of these approaches.nWere he alive today, Chodorovnwould very likely feel most comfortablenwith the positions of the LibertariannParty, the “party of principle” as it callsnitself, whose 1980 platform was almostnentirely consonant with his thought ofn30 years ago. To be sure, since he wasnantipolitical as a matter of convictionnand prided himself on never voting,nChodorov might be unhappy to see hisnideas promoted by a political party—butnthen by this time he might reluctantlynhave come to agree that in our politicizednage the leviathan state can bencountered only through political means.nMoreover, the Libertarian platformndoes call for the elimination of greatnchunks of the existing state, and alsonfor a “none of the above” option onn18nChronicles of Culturen-.^.a^jnevery electoral ballot. (“In the event thatn’none of the above’ wins a plurality ofnvotes, the elective office for that termnwill remain unfilled and unfunded.”)nIn a sense, it is an antipolitical politicalnparty.nChodorov at his best argued that truenchange would ensue only from ideasnwithin the minds of individuals, not asnthe result of organization. “The onlyntrue values,” he wrote in 1941, “arenideas, which, permeating the depths ofnthe human mind, work in their inscrutablenway toward a better world of betternmen.” Ten years later, in the final issuenof his journal. Analysis, he reaffirmednhis faith that the anticollectivist revolutionnwas inevitably advancing in thenminds of youth. One of the few positivenstatements he ever made about hisnnative land was that America was mostnvaluable because it protected freedomnof thought. He benefited from that freedom,nand he was persuaded that eventuallynthis instrumentality might bringnabout great and positive changes innAmerican society.nChodorov founded his political philosophynon the individual, whom he considerednthe “only reality”: society fornhim was an abstraction constituted ofnactually existing individuals. Inherent inneach individual is the right to life, andnfrom that derives each person’s inalienablenright to own private property. Chodorovnfirmly rejected the false dichotomynbetween human rights and propertynrights so prevalent nowadays: “Propertynrights are in fact human rights,” henwrote at one point. The individual mustnenjoy freedom as one of his highestngoods, and “the essence of freedom,”nas Chodorov wrote in an essay on Thoreau,n”is an inflexible respect for one­nnnself.” From that freedom flowed responsibilitynfor one’s own actions as well.nThe Libertarian Party of 1980 upholdsnthe principle of individual responsibilitynby opposing such concepts as “no-faultninsurance” and by advocating the responsibilitynof the criminal to makenrestitution to his victim so far as possible,nthough it still has difficulty withnthe concept of punishment for criminalnacts and supports the victim’s rightn”to pardon the criminal or wrongdoer,nbarring threats to the victim for thisnpurpose.”nThe overarching domestic issue ofnChodorov’s time, as of ours, was that ofnthe state, which he called the “modernngolden calf.” Chodorov always distinguishednbetween government and thenstate: the former, with some reservations,nwas legitimate, whereas the latterncould never be. Government, he argued,nought to attend to “the dispensation ofnjustice, cheaply, and the maintenancenof order,” things which Chodorovnplainly thought would be rather easy tonaccomplish in most societies. But thenstate, he believed along with his friendnNock, had come into being throughnforce and duress and served as an instrumentnfor the exploitation of certainnsocial groups by others through suchndevices as tariffs, subsidies and mostnespecially taxes, the levying of whichnamounted to legalized thievery for thensupport of a parasitic bureaucratic class.nIn his libertarian view of the state Chodorovndiffers radically from a traditionalistnconservative thinker such as EdmundnBurke, whose conception of thenstate has a transcendental dimension.nHe wrote in Reflections on the Revolutionnin Erance:nTo avoid therefore the evils of inconsistencynand versatility … we havenconsecrated the state, that no mannshould approach to look into its defectsnor corruptions but with due caution;n. . . that he should approach tonthe faults of the state as to thenwounds of a father, with pious awenand trembling solicitude.n