The Mises Community

Milton Friedman and Libertarianism

teuch — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:53:49 GMT

Whatever happened to Milton Friedman? Back in the day he was hailed as the bringer of small government, and a minor media sensation. When I talk to libertarians today, he hardly gets a mention.

How did he lose his standing in the libertarian movement? Why is it that the intellectual backbone of Libertarianism is Mises and the Austrians and not Friedman and his Chicago school?

A New Political "Spectrum"?

chloe732 — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:37:06 GMT

Most people think of the political spectrum as "left" or "right". Differences are considered to be merely the extremes. Think of a continuum, a line, with arrows outward toward the left and right. They place Democrats on the "left" and Republicans on the "right". Then they think of the "extreme" left and "extreme" right.

I suggest the above is incorrect. I believe the political spectrum is actually a "segment", with two definite end points. On the left, one endpoint is called "dictatorship / totalitarianism". On the right, the other end point is called "freedom / liberty".

To illustrate, imagine a stick figure with arms outstretched. The left hand is a fist, representing the totalitarian state. The right hand is open, representing freedom / liberty. Two definite end points, not a continuum. In the middle is the "head" or the "human mind".

On the left elbow, I place the Republicans (interventionists). On the left wrist, are the Democrats (socialists). In the fist are the Collectivists (Marxists). On the right elbow, I place the "Independent Conservatives / Constitutionalists"; the right forearm, Minarchism; in the right hand (open) is Anarcho-Capitalism (freedom / liberty).

The human mind is the divider. We choose either liberty or tyranny (statism). The "left" and the "right" in the conventional sense are actually both on the same "arm", heading the same direction, to the fist. The Republicans are seen to be no different than the Democrats.

My question is this: Is the above representation useful? Does it provide insight or is it a waste of time?

Minarchism: The Real Utopian Socialism

Sage — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:38:42 GMT

"[M]inarchist libertarians, I suggest, have not disentangled themselves from the magical picture so thoroughly as anarchist libertarians have. Instead, they often write (when discussing anarchism, though seldom when discussing any other topic) as though a government’s decreeing some desired result is equivalent to its achieving it – and then contrast this idealised picture of government with the muddling reality of anarchy, to the latter’s detriment." - Long, p.14

In his chapter in the Long/Machan anthology Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government a Part of a Free Country?, Adam Reed writes of the steps needed to establish a minarchist government:

The first step that those who seek to maximise their own objective freedom will need to take is find each other, organise for communication and planning of subsequent stages of action, and weed out from their company any who would join them with a religious or other repressive or subjectivist agenda. ...
If their company does not already include a sufficient number of members with defense and law enforcement skills, and adequate experience in using those skills, progress to the next stage will depend on the development of effective law enforcement and defense capabilities among the prospective citizens...

In the second stage, the citizens will form a new "law and defense enterprise" ... Membership-citizenship in the new cooperative-enterprise-community will require a contribution of resources from each member-citizen...

For stage 3, the cooperative will need to find an entrepreneur who recognises its members' objective right to protect all their other rights by establishing a government of objective law... After establishing its gated community, the cooperative will build a secure defense perimeter around it, and train its members to defend it...

In the next stage, the citizens of the cooperative will proceed to exercise all their rights. Their gated community being their property, they will have a recognised right to restrict access to that property... [Those] who persist in attempts to invade the community, and impose their arbitrary "laws," will be dealt with as enemies. The new constitutional republic will take all the steops that it may need to take to bring the use of retaliatory force within its borders under objective control. ... It will make treaties with existing "market law-defense agencies" only on the basis of absolute inviolability of the rights of its citizens" ...

Neither voluntary organisations nor subsidiary governments can be allowed to violate individual rights, and to do its job, a federal republic will need the authority and the means to prevent such violations. ... the Republic must have the authority and the means to correct (and justly punish) any resulting violations of individual human rights. Anything less would be itself a violation of individual rights and an infringement of liberty. ("Rationality, History, and Inductive Politics" p.34-36)

So these are the steps required to achieve Reed's ideal government. But Reed has only indicated what will need to happen; he has given no indication as to how this goal will be achieved. In other words, he has fallen into exactly the fallacy described by Long: he is treating the decreeing of the desired goal as the equivalent to the achievement of that goal. But of course this is absurd. Ends cannot be achieved without means.

For instance, Reed's government "will make treaties... only on the basis of absolute inviolability of the rights of its citizens." Okay, how will it do this? Of course, it is an impossible task: there are no means that can achieve the end of absolute inviolability of rights.

Or this gem: "Neither voluntary organisations nor subsidiary governments can be allowed to violate individual rights". If only rights could be secured just by writing this on a piece of paper! Like the Utopian Socialists, Reed does not seem concerned with means; what matters is the goal, not whether the goal can be achieved. Wishful thinking much?

Right on cue, Reed then contrasts this idealized government with a realistic anarchy, thereby committing the second half of the fallacy described in the Long quotation above:

Once the laws and the constitution have been adjusted to assure me of maximum protection of my rights, a subsequent reversion of legal or defense authority to men whose vision of liberty differs from the normative facts can only infringe the rights I already enjoy. What possible benefit could I, or any other rational person, derive from enabling anti-abortion Christianists, or Al Qaeda, or the Socialist Party, to operate their own "market law-defense enterprises" capable of enforcing, to whatever extent, the false beliefs of their members—and of compromising my rights in the process of doing so? (p.36)

Given that Reed's ideal government is perfect, the answer is obviously that no rational person would choose anarchy. Why settle for less than perfection? But of course this is just the nirvana fallacy: comparing an idealized, perfect government with an imperfect, realistic anarchy. Since Reed's perfect government is impossible, the actual relevant comparison is between imperfect anarchy and imperfect government. Once the question is put in terms of comparative institutional analysis, Reed's minarchism turns out to be full of holes. After all, the Socialist Party and other interest groups will be a problem under minarchy as well. Since anarchy has a more extensive set of checks and balances, it can resist interest groups more effectively than minarchy, which is protected only by a weak paper constitution.

In the end, minarchism can remain a viable, consistent theory only if it can evade comparative analysis. For once realistic, imperfect anarchy is compared with realistic, imperfect minarchy, it is clear that anarchy will be the victor: the incentives generated by market competition are more reliable than the incentives generated by bureaucracy. Minarchists must show that the arguments for free markets do not apply to the legal system. Since they have failed to do so, their theory must be regarded as on a par with the Utopian socialists.

What kind of music do Misenians listen to?

Democracy for Breakfast — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 23:44:55 GMT

I mainly listen to true metal. Not the bull**** metal like thrash. Pantera, Metallica, Anthrax, ect. I listen to Norwegian Black Metal, Doom Metal, and Folk Metal. I like bands like Agalloch, Candlemass, Emperor, Immortal, Ulver, Burzum, Warning, Fen, Windir, Wintersun, Elvenking, Katatonia...

currently listening to the new Katatonia album, its amazing.

I also like Stoner Rock, and prog.

The Day that Global Warming Died

NewLiberty — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:58:29 GMT

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/hadley_hacked/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails

http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091120/full/news.2009.1101.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8370282.stm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576009,00.html

"So the 1079 emails and 72 documents seem indeed evidence of a scandal involving most of the most prominent scientists pushing the man-made warming theory - a scandal that is one of the greatest in modern science. I’ve been adding some of the most astonishing in updates below - emails suggesting conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more. If it is as it now seems, never again will “peer review” be used to shout down sceptics."

Funny parody of anarchism and libertarianism

VanDoodah — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 22:25:12 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Ethical/Moral question concerning taxes and bonds

Wanderer — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 05:19:14 GMT

In my econ class we were talking about how interest gained on bonds is subject to federal taxes. This is true for all private sector and federal bonds, however does not apply to state and municipal bonds. I was getting more and more pissed the more I heard about this. Obviously, I am against the capital gains tax and want it repealed in its entirety, but would it be "good" if the federal government extended these taxes to municipal and/or state bonds so as to encourage private investment? Or would that further centralize power?

Books I'd like to see; what about you?

thelion — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 04:26:28 GMT

1. Franz Cuhel 1907. No translation available.

2. New translation of Heinrich Gossen 1854. I have got my hands on all three: the 1889, 1927 reprint, and the 1983 translation. Too bad the translators too so many liberties with the text, according to a family member who reads German (but has trouble with specialty economic words in German). He noticed the 1983 translation differs very often in phrasing.

This is not important, however; the problem is no one reads Gossen because the 1983 translation is about as rare as the 1889 translation at this point, and costs as much too, unless the seller has no idea what is being sold.

But Mises in Socialism rightly credits Gossen for understanding the essence of economic calculation; it is a wonderful presentation.

3. Have Hermann Hoppe's earlier works been translated?

Anyone else have any books they'd like to see (likely only in their dreams)?

Children as slaves

alimentarius — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:41:54 GMT

Is it true that libertarians advocate that parents should be allowed to sell their children as slaves?

Child Support

Scott F — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 03:48:54 GMT

What do people here think about state enforced child support.I'm sure no one has any issue with child support voluntarily agreed to by contract but how do people here feel about child support when it's forced on a father against his will and child support agencies are able to withdraw his passport,driving licence etc and track him down while speaking to everyone he associates with.

I don't think I've heard many libertarians mention this.

What happens when the United States declares bankruptcy?

Justin — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 06:36:02 GMT

California is already there. What happens when all States, or most of them, declare bankruptcy?

What would life be like in the "United States" after it ceases to exist?

I would think something along the lines of the Second American Revolution. But with all the apathy out there, who knows if that's likely.

Lifeboat Situations Revisited

Daniel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:46:34 GMT

What would be the moral answer to this situation:

A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?

Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.

Book recommendation for Vietnam War

prr — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:46:19 GMT

I'd like to read a 200-500 page book on the Vietnam War this winter and have no real idea where to start. I'm open to reading a book from any perspective, although in addition to a recommendation I'd like to hear why you think your book is the best one to read. I have pretty much no background in this part of American history, although I do have a Master's so I can handle heavy reading.

How to stop mad people from acquiring WMDs in a stateless society

alimentarius — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:38:03 GMT

In an anarchy, everyone can buy WMDs if they can afford it. How do we stop crazy people like Ahmadinejad to acquire weapons like atomic bombs?

Rand Paul turns out to be a neo-con

Sukrit Sabhlok — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:05:34 GMT

What good is it to win if you don't stand for anything? This is very disappointing.

BOWLING GREEN, KENTUCKY – Leading United States Senate candidate Rand Paul today criticized the Obama administration’s decision to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center and try terrorism suspects in United States Civil Courts.
“Foreign terrorists do not deserve the protections of our Constitution,” said Dr. Paul. “These thugs should stand before military tribunals and be kept off American soil. I will always fight to keep Kentucky safe and that starts with cracking down on our enemies.”

Lew Rockwell is right to stay away from the dirty business that is politics. Rand Paul deceived his supporters, and took money from them without telling them about his fundamental ideological differences with his more principled and honest father.

Learning Economics

Individualist — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 02:03:08 GMT

Is it really necessary for someone, like me, who does not want to become a professional economist to make "Economics" a major part of his studies (in college or elsewhere)? It seems to me that it shouldn't take too much study to decide whether or not a free marker is truly the most efficient system.

How much study of economics do you recommend to one who is going into the profession of history/journalism? How much is needed to have a good grasp of political theory and the self-ownership proposal?

Simple

The Late Andrew Ryan — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:20:23 GMT

Things are simple in statist eyes.

Wages not high enough? Get the government to put guns at people's heads to force them to higher them for more than they are worth.

People to rich while others are to poor? Force them at gunpoint to pay you money

Other country doing somthing you don't like? Invade it and kill people

Companies doing somthing that your voters are unhappy with? Force the companies to stop taking responsibility and make them pass inspection that will stop the search for real solutions

Some other type of problem? With society, economy, or schooling? Shoot other people's money at it with a high pressure hose until the problem drowns... Or learns how to live off of money.

Anything goes even slightly wrong? Blame it on either the other party being in charge or the other party not cooperating

Somthing organisation not working properly? Blame greed and take over the problem with the government or regulate it

Things are simple through statist eyes

Any stories to tell about examples of incredibly simple solutions proposed by statists? About the statists just making the problem black and white and more often than not claiming that the solution is more of the poison that began killing it in the first place?

the least evilest taxes are...

Marko — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:51:35 GMT

This is something I was going to ask for a while now in relation to this Rothbard quote from How and How Not to Desocialize:

"Whatever taxation that might exist after desocialization should, however, be as close to neutral as possible. This would mean, in addition to very low rates and amounts, that the taxation be as unobtrusive and harmless as possible, and imitate the market as closely as it can. Such imitation might include the voluntary sale of goods and services at a price, or setting a price for participating in voting. The sale of goods or services by the government would, of course, be drastically limited in our desocialized system, because of the enormous scope of privatization of government activities. Privatization will be treated below."

Any ideas what sort of goods and services does Rothbard have in mind specifically? He is being very unspecific.

What does a government selling goods look like? A government monopoly on salt?

And selling services? That would be the government demanding a fee for issuance of marital licenses and passports and the like? Am I kicking in the dark here?

I'm confused about Net Neutrality

Democracy for Breakfast — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:25:48 GMT

I was surprised to read that Classical Liberals are opposed to Net Neutrality. Wouldn't it be a bad thing if the Internet was no longer Neutral? It would be a lot more difficult to have to pay to use more services of your already current ISP. The internet is great as it is now. If Net Neutrality ended, how wouldn't it become like Enron?

Internet Freedom Act

Stuff we can do

liberty student — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 21:17:52 GMT

Here is some stuff we can do.

Promote Mises.org books and the bookstore.
Promote liberty oriented web sites.
Increase our own knowledge of Austrian Economics and liberty oriented philosophy
Present a positive image of libertarianism
Spread articles and flyers.
Spread ebooks, youtubes and audio
Raise money for libertarian causes, through fund raising or your own direct charity
Live as free as possible. Not confront the state necessarily, but given choices, choose libertarian oriented activities, including but not limited to,
- Entrepreneurship
- Education
- Charity
- provide and use services the state fails at (raw milk, natural medicine, home schooling,data security)

Without going into too much detail, the propaganda corps always needs help. People with money could help pay libertarian students during summers and between semesters to write content, to create analysis. To make appropriate edits to Wikipedia to keep Austrian Econ pages up to date and accurate. To comment daily on Paul Krugman's blog. To create YouTube videos, to hand out lit on campus.

Feel free to add on.

But the gist is, there is a lot you can do, with little or no money, with little or no free time, on your own, without waiting for a plan, orders from a leader or collaborators. The hardest thing is getting started. People are slow to take the initial step. Once you start walking, it's easier to break into a run.

Smith proved recessions aren't caused by scarcity of money...need source

MatthewWilliam — Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:48:51 GMT

Here, Mises discusses Smith, Say and recession:

"Whenever business turned bad, the average merchant had two explanations at hand: the evil was caused by a scarcity of money and by general overproduction. Adam Smith, in a famous passage in "The Wealth of Nations," exploded the first of these myths. Say devoted himself predominantly to a thorough refutation of the second."

Can someone point me to the passage where Smith explodes the myth, or link to an article that explains the gist of it

Corruption and Legislation

Monty Pelerin — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:01:47 GMT

From the standpoint of economics, I don’t think I have ever seen a more harmful set of programs and policies. These started with Bush but have been taken to insane levels by Obama. It defies logic, economics, common sense and history to believe that these programs will help. If implemented and/or continued, they will seriously compromise the nation’s ability to sustain its current standard of living.

“The more corrupt the state, the more it legislates.” Tacitus

New Group: Mises Lounge

Lilburne — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:57:32 GMT

I've started a new Community Group called "Mises Lounge." It's open to everyone.

It's great for fellow Misesians to socialize and shoot the breeze. But we want to put our best foot forward to the world, so let's keep discussions about heavy metal and loose personal musings to the Lounge, and try to make the Forum front page (as is the slogan at RichardDawkins.net) a "clear-thinking oasis".

Really Ignorant people you've encountered on a political basis.

Libertyandlife — Sat, 31 Oct 2009 06:00:57 GMT

Just went to a party, swear I've never heard heard someone so outright say they didn't want to talk about Ron Paul, thought he was crazy and a joke, and the same to libertarianism. She said she was a liberal democrat who supports Hillary, I've never heard someone so closed minded towards libertarian politics EVER. I've talked to both socialists, real conservatives who like rush, and other non libertarians who were in between, and I've had agreeing points with all, and much friendlier responses except her.

She had no openness to legalization of marijuana. She kept bashing libertarians with no actual points. Seemed to be so elitist in her words that I think it made her sound ignorant. She was even talking about all the experience shes had as if this complete justification for a lack of logic. She held no actual argument, just bashing and thought we were just talking or debating on politics. Debate, really? She thought Obama was actually doing something and when I told her he held all the same stances as Bush, she was giving that first year in office excuse.

I'm shocked some republicans are more open. She couldn't even answer my arguments, but kept contentlessly bashing, with no backing up. Sure some republicans are bigots, but some democrats are really pissing me off.

Similar experiences?

Another Failed Presidency

Monty Pelerin — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:27:13 GMT

From Monty Pelerin www.economicnoise.com

From my post on American Thinker.

For the past couple of months I have worried regarding the risks of a Failed Presidency. No one should want this, regardless of party affiliation. It is harmful and dangerous to our economy and country. However, it appears obvious to me that the royalty regime known as Obama has ended.

Seth Leibsohn summarized it this way: "This is reminiscent of the Jimmy Carter years — the last time the U.S. was seen as weak — unable to move and coax other countries, unable to reassure dependent allies, unable to have the respect of the world and, of course, unable to move the mullocracy of Iran."

Even the liberal media are beginning to question the effectiveness of the President. The media, in full Camelot mode, are slow to react and often lag what the populace started to recognize months ago. Quotes like these, however, suggest they are not far behind.

The New York Times reports: "China held firm against most American demands. With China’s micro-management of Mr. Obama’s appearances in the country, the trip did more to showcase China’s ability to push back against outside pressure than it did to advance the main issues on Mr. Obama’s agenda, analysts said."

The Washington Post: "If there was any significant change during this trip, in fact, it was in the United States' newly conciliatory and sometimes laudatory tone. . . . Obama's trip stood in stark contrast to visits by his predecessors."

The New York Times stated that Obama was given "less respect than was given presidents Bush or Clinton."

All of the above quotes can be found in this recommended post by Seth Leibsohn. He concluded his piece: "Not a very good first year for America, or the world, under a new leadership that promised a new respect, a new start, and a new way of doing business. It's new alright — it just isn't any good."

We have a Failed Presidency that cannot be retrieved. The dream cannot be rebuilt because there was never a foundation to begin with. It was all show and no substance. Yes, it created much excitement and (false) hope. But so did Elmer Gantry and James Jones. However, the image was akin to an old Hollywood set, all facade and no depth. Now the winds of reality are slowly and inexorably tearing the facade away.

The politicians in Congress see these same signs and read the polls. At this point they are trying to decide what is least dangerous for their individual careers. For the Republicans that probably means pouring gasoline on ship Obama. For the Democrats, it is a more difficult problem. Ultimately, I believe they will abandon the rotting ship. Politicians of both parties are like rats; they are survivors. All politicians will take that course which they believe gives them the best chance for individual survival. Loyalty be damned.

Hang on, this will be a rough period ahead.