The Mises Community

Best U.S President ever

IrishLiberal — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 13:26:55 GMT

Who was it?

Are Deontologists confused?

twistedbydsign99 — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:26:55 GMT

I'm wondering if deontology is rephrased consequentialism essentially. If you have certain things that are your duty to perform regardless of the consequences, you must at some point have differentiated what is "duty." Without looking at consequences how do you differentiate what is duty from what is not duty, before the official standard of duty exists?

The hard left thinks Obama is shaping into von Mises

Marko — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:24:39 GMT

Before you go on take a moment and ask yourself do you really want to read this? In case you do, and you probably shouldn`t:

The Great Stimulus Debate of '09:
"Crybabies need not apply"

By MIKE WHITNEY

Barack Obama has decided to push the economy back into recession, and no one can figure out why. Perhaps the impressionable Obama has come under the spell of the deficit hawks and crystal gazers who see Armageddon around every corner. Or maybe he's thrown-in with the snappish Marc Faber whose dire predictions of hyperinflation are about as cheery as Hieronymus Bosch's vision of Hell. Whatever the reason, the President has done a hasty volte-face and decided that trimming the deficits in the middle of a severe economic downturn is the way to go. Here's what Obama said just days ago on his Asia tour:

"I think it is important to recognize if we keep on adding to the debt, even in the midst of this recovery, that at some point, people could lose confidence in the U.S. economy in a way that could actually lead to a double-dip recession."

Obama is either getting some very bad advice or he's simply determined to drive a stake into the flickering economy. All plans for deficit-pruning should be postponed until the economy steadies itself and the jobs picture improves. Raising taxes or slashing spending while the economy is still contracting is crazy. It shows that Obama is being influenced by the Gain through Pain school who think that mass liquidation and years of bitter retrenchment are the best medicine. They're wrong. Sensible people look for solutions that don't involve hair shirts, moving to underground bunkers or living off root-crops for the next millennia.

Obama's metamorphosis into Ludwig von Mises sends a disturbing message to working people as well as to foreign creditors. It suggests that the commander-in-chief is in the thrall of careworn Jeremiahs. If that's the case, things could get ugly fast. With the Democrats backing-down on a second round of stimulus, the Fed signaling an end to quantitative easing, and Obama moaning about rising deficits; there's a good chance that the ailing economy could take another dunk down the elevator chute.

To read more: http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney11202009.html

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.

Legalization of Marjiuana for Recreational use

Democracy for Breakfast — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:52:57 GMT

Well I was listening to a speech last night on The Federal War on Drugs in the class. The speaker actually presented a very good point, and he knew what he was talking about unlike most people on the subject.

He advocated ending The Federal War on Drugs, but he raised a really good point. If Marijuana were legal for recreational use and then made a taxable income, it would be financially beneficial. However, once The Government raises the tax on Marijuana we will again be in a War on Drugs, because users will retreat to The Black Market once more to get it for cheaper. I'm not sure how to refute this. Here in Connecticut there was a tax on tobacco and cigarettes and it went to hell.

The state of Rhode Island is talking of its legalization for both Recreational and Medical use. The thing is, unless its legalized on a Federal scale people from this state will travel over to RI causing massive drug trafficking between the states where its legal and where its not.

Additionally, what is a non-statist way to control recreational drug use? I mean if we legalized all the drugs(Heroine, Crack, Cocaine, ect).

Could the free market choose Ammunition as money?

bearing01 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:44:51 GMT

I'm thinking no... but I'm adding 9mm and .357 to my "precious" metal portfolio because that's what I shoot. I roll my own ammo so I have the bullet, powder, primers and cases all separate and roll as much ammo I want on demand. In today's recent climate all these materials are very scarce and are being hoarded. When one finds product on the shelves they stock up. Bullets are typically made of Lead and Copper. Casings are Brass (copper + zinc). Price of these things are only going up with inflation and demand. I recently bought primers from a gun forum member at 50% higher than store list price. Small pistol primers here in California at your local store are priceless right now. Obama has been an absolute excellent stimulus for firearm and ammunition purchases! People who forgot they owned guns are now joining the NRA and buying ammo.

Thinking about how gold and silver both together don't work simultaneously well as money; the value of one cannot be a fixed denomination of the other, and one needs a single unit of account for economic calculation... lets apply that to ammo. I'm thinking that a loaded cartridge / round (the assembled ammunition) would not work well as money either. To load a round of ammunition you need the primer, bullet, case and powder. Each one of these things can be in different demand and supply. Then there's the quality of the round considering different bullet types - hollow point versus wadcutter (pellet). And then there's the caliber for what particular gun you own. 9mm Luger seems to be perhaps the most common ammo of them all considering that's what police use. However, people who do not own 9mm guns would have to find someone else who wants 9mm to exchange their ammo with for other goods.

Just some random thoughts.

Anyone else have such a precious metal portfolio?

Is Lockean homesteading objectively valid?

AJ — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 08:22:00 GMT

It seems that most people here who subscribe to the notion of "objective ethics" base their ethical systems on property rights. This seems to entail that property rights are objectively valid. However, on these forums, property rights are generally held to derive directly from the Lockean homesteading standard. Therefore, for such theories of objective ethics to be coherent, the Lockean homesteading standard on which they are based must be objectively valid.

I certainly see the value of the Lockean homesteading standard from a consequentialist and evolutionary point of view: it enables prosperity through free market exchange, and it provides standards for a system of justice and social cooperation. Moreover, humans tend to feel instinctively that an unused object taken up and worked with becomes "theirs." These arguments make good sense to me.

However, such arguments are not sufficient to serve as a basis for any notion of property-based objective ethics that I am familiar with. Can anyone supply or point me to an argument supporting the notion that the Lockean homesteading standard of "mixing one's labor with an unused thing" objectively determines ownership of that thing? (without using consequentialist/utilitarian or evolution-based arguments.)

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?

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/

ITS. OVER. NOW.

"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."

Dylan Ratigan: Four-Step Bank Fix

ZeroPoint — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 20:26:09 GMT

What do you guys think of his solutions and what's the austrian view on it? Heres the link... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dylan-ratigan/4-step-bank-fix_b_346140.html

Doesn't the concept of welfare contradict the absolute of the "greater good"

The Late Andrew Ryan — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:19:53 GMT

I was talking to a fairly sterotyped liberal the other day and he was continually talking about the "greater good" and how the government was there to provide for this most divine of concepts and he continuosly used phrases like "for the good of the many at the expense of the few instead of at the expense of the many for the good of the few" this seems like a common position for liberals, but almost all, if not all, liberals propose both the practice of welfare and the expense of personal economic liberties for the greater good and simaler phrases as those above.

But, so long as those on welfare are the minority doesn't this directly contradict this statement and work for the few welfare recipients at the larger whole? Doesn't this mean that programs such as medicare and welfare work against the greater proportion of the productive population? Doesn't this mean that all liberals by their adoration of the "greater good" must logically turn to marxism or whatever they believe will bring prosperity, not just focusing on small groups?

Are their any defences to this argument which I am missing?

Bob Murphy's theistic case for libertarianism

Stephen — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 05:44:17 GMT

Bob Murphy:

We are engaged in a great struggle for liberty. There are forces at work in the world seeking to literally enslave all of mankind. At any moment in history, there is a small minority who have given their time, treasure, and even lives in an effort to hinder and ultimately defeat the would-be tyrants.

Ironically, some of the most passionate and zealous combatants – and the combat might not be physical, but instead take place on the plane of ideas – are acting inconsistently with their own professed views of the ultimate foundations of justice and morality. Only if we believe in some higher power, and moreover one that has constructed the very fabric of the universe to ensure that good will triumph over evil, does our struggle make any sense.

...

The theist who believes in a just and omnipotent God does not suffer from the above inconsistencies. He can justify his passionate and heroic defense of liberty. Even if he dies, he knows he has done the right thing – where "right thing" is not defined as a set of strategies to maximize the likelihood of achieving earthly happiness.

Belief in the God of the Bible gives one hope in the ultimate triumph of good over evil. We know that those who enslave, steal, and murder may experience temporary victories, but that ultimately they are doomed to defeat.

Your thoughts?

Austrian & Keynesian Theories Vs. Mathematical Facts

DrKrbyLuv — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 21:40:35 GMT

George Orwell’s classic 1984 describes “doublethink” as holding two contradictory beliefs simultaneously and accepting both. To do so denies the existence of objective reality. A good example is the belief in economic theories that contradict mathematical facts.

Both Austrian and Keynesian economic theories hold fundamental beliefs that do not square up with math. The exponential growth of debt in our debt based money system is ignored and refuted by both theories. In place of math, we are offered beliefs such as the “quantity theory of money.”

To deny the exponential growth of debt cuts to the very core and credibility of monetary theories. If the exponential growth can be proven, then equally, Austrian and Keynesian theories are dis-proven. Economic theories hide the fact that a debt based money system is usury by definition and neither Austrian nor Keynesian theories are sustainable. Both systems create bankruptcies and defaults while enriching banks at the expense of the people.

The inherent and terminal mathematical flaw of debt based systems can be proven anecdotally. Our total money supply (M3) is around $15 trillion while our national and private debt total around $55 trillion. How do we pay an existing $55 trillion in debt with a total of $15 trillion? We are short $40 trillion, where will that money come from?

In our debt based monetary system there is only one way to add money and that is through new debt. Eventually, the $40 trillion must be borrowed. If the money is borrowed, it will add new debt of over $40 trillion (principal + interest). The debt can only grow, it can never be repaid as the gap between money and debt will continue to increase.

The two economic theories will try to explain away this reality by claiming that the velocity of money can be increased so that a given amount of money can be used for more transactions. This is true when we spend money but it is not true when we repay debt. When debt is repaid it is extinguished, that is that the money ceases to exist which means that money can only be used to repay principal debt once. Most of the interest debt returns to circulation but never the less, the gap between money and debt will still increase since only the principal is created through new debt which brings new interest.

The specie of money doesn’t matter. If our money were backed by gold, the gold would simply be transferred to those who collect the interest. We saw this in 1933 when the gold standard collapsed and we lost most of our gold.

The two prevailing economic theories give us a false sense of choice just like the two party system of Democrats and Republicans. The science of money has been replaced by a belief system just like in the dark ages when science was dominated and defined by religious beliefs. If the next renaissance is to happen, it will come when the science of money displaces unfounded beliefs.

We are suffering from an intellectual amnesia. The Babylonians of antiquity understood the destructive power of debt interest and at one time Christianity and Judaism forbid it as sinful usury. The Islamic faith still forbids debt interest and perhaps that is a reason that we are clashing.

Our debt based monetary system is a form of usury that will result in the transfer of all wealth from the many to the few. The intended outcome is debt slavery and tyranny under the cruel boots of oligarchs - a financial aristocracy.

People are becoming discontent and they sense that something is terribly awry. To rebel against the status quo invariably leads to another tyranny as we have seen through democratic elections and third world rebellions.

If a successful peoples revolution is to happen it will really be an awakening. A higher consciousness where we come to understand how and why the game has been rigged by flawed monetary theories.

Hello!

teuch — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 11:58:47 GMT

Just a brief introduction: I've been an active social democrat for about 10 years, more out of necessity than choice, working mainly in public housing advocacy and welfare rights. Stumbled across mises.org looking for works against intellectual property.

This site is opening up a whole world of thought I haven't seen before. Thanks for providing this terrific resource!

Libertarian/Anarchist Relational Chart

filc — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:34:49 GMT

I am starting this thread as inspired by Sage's comment quoted below. From this thread. You don't need to read it but if your wondering where all this started thats where.

Sage:
Excellent post.

I think another worthwhile project would be to gather all of the premises from which libertarianism follows and represent them in an argument tree/flow chart. This would be a great heuristic device, because it would show exactly how libertarian conclusions follow from our premises.

In addition to another project we are working on here, I'd also like to set something up like this.

Format

I am currently thinking of a pie like chart covering 3 topics.

Economics \\ Philosophy \\ History

Each Pie peice in their respective sections will carry the details of that section. Each detail will have a relational trace leading back to other related details. The end result will show how each peice is intertwined and important but also how certian peices directly relate to others.

For example in the Economics section there will be a box or pic-art called Business Cycle Theory. That box may have a line connecting to History's "The Great Depression" or the Depression of 2007 or whatever.

Effects of Taxation may be in the economics section and it may link to other Austrian Economic details. Taxation may also link to NAP, and NAP would like to the definition of Property. Since aggression cannot be defined without a clear definition of property, this is why IP advocates have such a hard time.

Topics

There are literally hundreds of topics and not all Austrian topics will possibly fit inside our chart. I'd like to make it poster sized. The more relevant or more important topics or details will be larger boxes or pic-arts over less important boxes. Foundational Topics especially need to be bigger, but they can then trace off to smaller more detailed topics.

Someone should literally be able to trace their finger from topic to topic and see how everything is relational. It shows how our beliefs are not made on a whim but on possibly the most comprehensive consistent moral and ethical construct mankind has ever known.

I will be the first to admit that I am not anywhere remotely well read as many here on the mises forums and History is especially my weak spot. So I will create a draft and post it here. The draft will be small but just tell me what topics to add, how relevant they are (Determine their size) and what their relationships will be. I hope to have a draft posted tonight or tomorrow.

Grandoise Vision

If we do a good job I'd like to have a professional go back over the chart and polish it up. They can add relevant pictures for each topic and make it look real good. Ultimately I think it would be an awesome idea for a poster that could be for sell at the mises store.

Even if that goal is not obtainable the project could render a seriously useful utility for many of us here as Sage has pointed out.

On a side note I need some advise for another project here.

So, I am thinking about opening a bank account...

Justin Laws — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 21:08:51 GMT

I haven't had one since, well, never. Unless you count a savings account your parents opened for you when you were a kid. Which no longer exists.

I've actually been using a Western Union Pre-Paid Visa Debit Card. I have no credit, too. Never had a credit card before. But the woman I have been livign with for years has decided she wants to buy 5 + acres of land and build a house on it... plus, I don't own my own vehicle, and now I need one.

I have never really been trusting of banks, as all the fees kind of suck to pay, and other things...

I am trying to figure out which bank would be best to use. Does anyone have any advice?

Legality of private currency in US

ClaytonB — Wed, 05 Nov 2008 00:16:19 GMT

I have a question on the legality of private currency issue in the US. There are several legal assertions I frequently read on mises.org and lewrockwell.com that I have been unable to substantiate with amateur research:

- Private coinage is illegal. When I've researched this, it appears that it's only private coinage that is similar enough to that issued by the US Mint to be potentially used as counterfeit that is illegal.

- Private issue of paper currency is illegal. There seems to be no legal basis for this assertion whatsoever. The current federal law nowhere prohibits issue of private paper currency that I can find, again, except for counterfeit money.

- Gold-denominated contracts are illegal. I don't know if this provision of the 1934 Act was ever repealed, but when I search the relevant federal statutes I can find nothing prohibiting denominating contracts in units of gold.

Now, I know that the US Treasury Dept. has been using the Secret Service as a leg-breaking service to intimidate anyone impertinent enough to issue coins or paper notes which compete with Federal Reserve Notes. But if I'm right that the above items are not actually illegal, then it should just be a matter of holding sufficient capital to fight and win the legal battles with the US Treasury monopoly in order to create a competitive private currency.

Can anyone substantiate the above assertions with a reference to the relevant federal statutes or case law? Thanks.

Clayton -

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?

Federal Reserve Notes vs Treasury Notes

philais — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:52:21 GMT

Ok, I'm new.

What terrible consequence would occur with a one to one swap? Buying off all debt? The end of the world?

Walter Block and Homesteading

Sam Armstrong — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:36:56 GMT

So I don't agree with Walter Blocks idea's on homesteading from the following paper.

http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/block-children.pdf

He states that you have to allow a path through your property in order to allow homesteading of unowned property surrounded by your property (e.g. a fence around property you don't own). Could this not be a justification for any trespass on any property? Under this theory of homesteading, people who owned roads would have to allow free travel on them if that person was going to homestead anything (extended out to homesteading your work by being employed by someone). I see this as completely undermining property ownership. Am I wrong? I do not have to allow people to enter my property in order to access unowned or even owned property. They can build a helicopter or a bridge over my fence, but I don't have to allow them to climb my fence. And if I build a bubble around it, then dig under ground. If my bubble extends below the surface, then too bad, it's my bubble, you can't dig through it.

UK, soon the EU and next the whole world takes on file-sharing

Jonathan M. F. Catalán — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:36:49 GMT

Source: http://torrentfreak.com/uks-terrifying-anti-piracy-plans-leak-091119/

Tomorrow morning Lord Mandelson will present the Digital Economy Bill to the public, which among other things is aimed at reducing illicit file-sharing. According to parts of the bill that leaked today, the legislation could lead to jail terms for file-sharers and unprecedented power for the entertainment industries.

Over the past months the UK government has tried to tackle the issue of online piracy. This has resulted in a proposal from Lord Mandelson, who plans to disconnect alleged file sharers without any judicial process.

Tomorrow the exact text of the bill is expected to be made public, but according to early reports, the legislation will open all doors for a digital police state where alleged pirates will be crucified by private companies.

Judging from some of the plans that leaked earlier today, the endless lobbying efforts of the entertainment industry by anti-piracy outfits including IFPI and the BPI have definitely paid off.

Cory Doctorow has the scoop on BoingBoing and he told TorrentFreak that the information comes from someone “very close to the Labour government” who he trusts implicitly.

If accurate, the new legislation will be a disaster for the privacy of all Internet users while giving unprecedented powers to the entertainment industry. Under the new bill the Secretary of State would be able to pass secondary legislation without Parliamentary oversight in order to protect rights holders.

Three reasons are given:

1. The Secretary of State would get the power to create new remedies for online infringements. (for example, he could authorize jail terms for file-sharing, or create a “three-strikes” plan that costs entire families their Internet access if any member stands accused of infringement)

2. The Secretary of State would get the power to create procedures to “confer rights” for the purposes of protecting rightsholders from online infringement. (for example, record labels and movie studios can be given investigative and enforcement powers that allow them to compel ISPs, libraries, companies and schools to turn over personal information about Internet users, and to order those companies to disconnect users, remove websites, block URLs, etc)

3. The Secretary of State would get the power to “impose such duties, powers or functions on any person as may be specified in connection with facilitating online infringement” (for example, ISPs could be forced to spy on their users, or to have copyright lawyers examine every piece of user-generated content before it goes live; also, copyright “militias” can be formed with the power to police copyright on the web)

The leaked information mainly shows that the Secretary of State will have the power to introduce all kinds of draconian measures without Parliamentary oversight. More details on concrete policy dealing with alleged file-sharers and the proposed three-strikes system have yet to be announced.

Legal Tender Laws

jmorris84 — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:23:19 GMT

Legal tender is currency that cannot legally be refused in payment of debt. The Coinage Act of 1965, specifically Section 31 U.S.C. 5103, defines legal tender as "United States coins and currency (including Federal reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal reserve banks and national banks) are legal tender for all debts, public charges, taxes, and dues."

This statute means that all United States money as identified above are a valid and legal offer of payment for debts when tendered to a creditor. There is, however, no federal statute requiring a private business, a person or an organization to accept currency or coins as for payment for goods and/or services. Private businesses may adopt their own policies on whether or not to accept cash as long it doesn't violate state law. For example, a business may refuses to accept payment in pennies or large denomination bills as a matter of policy.

I live in Pennsylvania and can find no law that states I can't accept or pay in gold or silver coins. If this is really the case, then what is stopping us from coming up with and using our own form of currency? I understand that federal reserve notes are deemed as legal currency but it doesn't seem like any other form of currency is being stopped from evolving and taking over either. If the market wants it, then what is stopping it from showing up?

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.

How did you become a libertarian?

RockyRaccoon — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 06:15:39 GMT

Hey all,

This question was recently raised on the Mises Institute's Facebook page and I found the responses incredibly inspiring. Most surprising to me was that most people there came from a traditionally socialist philosophy. This is encouraging. I'd love to hear how members of this forum came to be libertarians and, in particular, what were the most defining moments in their conversion. It might serve to educate us as to how others may be converted. At the least, it will no doubt serve up some very inspiring reading!

---

I'll start by sharing my personal journey. Thanks for reading!

---

For a long time, I was indifferent to politics. In 2000 (age 20), I voted for Bush, but I hadn't researched any candidate thoroughly and remember making the decision based on a single statement that he made about science policy.

After 9/11, I had a feeling that something wasn't right - the alleged terrorist motivations for the attack ("they hate democracy, our freedoms", etc) didn't make sense. During the buildup to the Iraq war, I had a bad feeling the administration was making a huge mistake, but I gave them the benefit of my doubt - after all, they have a massive intelligence network that surely knows a lot more than I do. They wouldn't be doing this if they didn't know for sure that Iraq was building WMDs - plus, they claimed to "know where they are" - and I'm sure they have our best interests in mind, right?

Shortly after the "fall of Baghdad", I become disgusted with the Bush administration. Where are these "weapons"?! Could it be that our government LIED?! I remember a particular report on Fox News. The anchorman was showing footage of some collateral damage and a reporter in the field was describing how some innocent Iraqis were killed. The anchorman stopped and explained to the audience: "We want to remind our viewers that this is not the reason we went into Iraq. It's unfortunate, of course, that innocents have lost their lives, but the United States' intention is to achieve peace and justice (blah blah blah). Remember at all times that it was Saddam Hussein that is at fault here." That really amazed me - it was the most brazen evidence that the media wasn't reporting the situation objectively.

The media couldn't be trusted. I started searching for the truth. I came across a variety of alternative websites; most of them, naturally, had a leftist slant. I had a great desire to read. For some reason, I stumbled across Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" which was a great piece of leftist historical revisionism. (Looking back, I realize that book could fit equally well into a libertarian critique of statism!) The take home message from Zinn's book was that both parties have historically combined to support war and government coercion over "the people". He mentioned that alternatives exist, such as Ralph Nader.

I started reading about Ralph and I realized his views were consistent for decades and I sensed he had an integrity that other politicians didn't. I respected him for his achievements during the 1960-1970s. I remember looking into the Libertarian party around this time. Michael Barnarik was running for president on their ticket in 2004. I was also attracted to the Green party at this same time. I had a feeling that either of these ideologies could lead to a better world. (Of course, now I realize that while socialists talk a good game, economic theory shows that it isn't possible in practice. Nor had I considered the amount of government coercion necessary to achieve it!)

In 2004, I decided the Green Party was better. By this time I had started listening to daily news casts from Democracy NOW! (Amy Goodman is legitimately a good reporter, even given her leftist stance.) My reading (especially Howard Zinn's "Passionate Declarations", which is very inspiring) was starting to lead me toward democratic socialism. My primary goals were ending the war and restoring our civil liberties. For some reason, I hadn't made the connection that economic liberty is also a civil liberty. I talked about "following the Constitution" in one sentence, and in the next I advocated single payer health care for all. Amazing that I did not recognize the contradiction. Looking back, I think the problem was that I was reading only the Bill of Rights - and even that reading was distorted. For example, whereas "free speech" really means that one may use their own property to spread whatever ideas they'd like, I interpreted it to mean that government should act to give "the people" a voice equal to that of the rich, or corporations.

I saw "pure" democracy as the ultimate goal. "The People" should be able to "rule themselves". I started advocating direct democracy - democratic control over everything. I wondered if there could be a way to have "the people" vote on every little bill, so as to abolish the legislature. I studied the best ways to achieve a "fair" voting system. I was disheartened to learn that Kenneth Arrow won a Nobel Prize in economics for proving that no such "fair" voting system exists.

What happened next was a sort of oddity. I was playing an Xbox game called "Bioshock" which is set in a dystopian anarchocapitalist world. The society's creator was "Andrew Ryan", an obvious reference to Ayn Rand. After playing the game, I was interested in reading Rand's work, so I borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library. I loved this book. The characters were disappointingly one-dimensional and I still thought that her vision of capitalism was naive, but for whatever reason I really enjoyed the story! I read about some of her views online and found them particularly interesting - in particular, her opinion that civil rights legislation is a violation of one's freedom to discriminate was shocking, yet it made sense in a way. I kept trying to think of ways to undermine her philosophy, but it was difficult.

Around this time, Ron Paul's presidential campaign became popular. He was the only vocal anti-war candidate. How could a REPUBLICAN be anti-war? His exchange with Giuliani was fantastic - and he stuck to his guns, even when under fire. But I was disappointed by Ron Paul's insistence on economic liberty. I didn't understand why he kept talking about the Fed and the gold standard. I started reading economics to see "why he is wrong". To my surprise, I realized that his argument was a very good one. Even as a leftist, I understood that printing money as a means to devalue the currency of the poor was wrong.

I read more...and more...and more. After reading Ron Paul's manifesto, I knew I had reached a tipping point. His consistency was refreshing. He opposed drug laws -- a REPUBLICAN opposing drug laws! He wanted decriminalization of prostitution and anti-homosexual laws, etc. This was radical stuff! Most importantly, he really hit home the importance of economic liberty. And he framed it in a way that made it sound important for poor people; not just the rich.

Afterwards, I read Henry Hazlitt's "Economics in One Lesson" - this was an incredible book which convinced me that the entire liberal economic platform actually achieves the EXACT OPPOSITE of its goals. Even if I still believed in the goals of the leftist position, it seemed that I STILL ought to support libertarianism.

But, I wasn't an anarchocapitalist until after I read Rothbard's "For A New Liberty". Every chapter, I said to myself -- "OK, Rothbard...I accept that we can provide service A on the market, but you are out of your mind if you think the market can provide service B!" But sure enough, he made his case time and time again.

Now I am on a path that I must complete. There are aspects of Rothbardianism that I don't accept - Rothbard appears to claim a uniform set of libertarian principles over all private court systems. I want to consider the problem of the private court system completely - what will a free society look like if courts use different sets of principles?

I don't know the perfect answer to this yet - but I think some might call it "panarchy".

I wonder if I was always a libertarian but just hadn't realized it yet. As I made the journey from ignorance & indifference to leftism to libertarianism, at each significant step there was an exciting experience of discovery, not a change of opinion.

In fact, I'd say that it feels most like an adventure of self-discovery of my own morality.

---

Most influential books:

Howard Zinn, "A People's History of the United States" (lost trust in the government)

Ralph Nader, "Crash!ng the Party" (became supporter of Nader)

Howard Zinn, "Passionate Declarations" (started to consider democratic socialism)

Ayn Rand, "Atlas Shrugged" (introduced me to libertarianism)

Ron Paul, "The Revolution: The Manifesto" (converted me to the liberty movement)

Henry Hazlitt, "Economics in One Lesson" (convinced me of free market capitalism)

Murray Rothbard, "For A New Liberty" (converted to anarchism)

Seeking Web-Development Person to get in early on a new concept in News on the Web.

JamezHenry — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:23:01 GMT

Seeking Web-Development Person to get in early on a new concept in News on the Web.

A news site is coming that brings together the best news out there with a particular attention to liberty. We are seeking web-development-competent people who are ready to assist in building a new site to bring the word of liberty to a growing audience.

Contact James Henry at james@rulesofcivility.com