liberty student: Jon Irenicus: I'm not a conspiratoid, so no. -Jon How many times do major politicians have to talk about a New World Order, or books published by high profile statists talking about a New World Order, or the policy recommendations from publoic think tanks extolling a New World Order until coincidence theorists admit that yes, there may be an agenda for a NWO in some quarters. The rampant anti-intellectualism of the libertarian movement is very disappointing at times. Everyone admits the state is evil, irrational and dangerous, but if you mention that it could be conspiratorial, well then you're the crazy, because the wonderful government would *never* do anything anti-liberty in secret... I've had enough of coincidence theorists thank you very much.
Jon Irenicus: I'm not a conspiratoid, so no. -Jon
I'm not a conspiratoid, so no.
-Jon
How many times do major politicians have to talk about a New World Order, or books published by high profile statists talking about a New World Order, or the policy recommendations from publoic think tanks extolling a New World Order until coincidence theorists admit that yes, there may be an agenda for a NWO in some quarters.
The rampant anti-intellectualism of the libertarian movement is very disappointing at times. Everyone admits the state is evil, irrational and dangerous, but if you mention that it could be conspiratorial, well then you're the crazy, because the wonderful government would *never* do anything anti-liberty in secret...
I've had enough of coincidence theorists thank you very much.
All well, and fine. However, I am sick of "The Illuminati and other Luciferian cults are going to install the anti-christ!" people as well. Really now, Mises warned about a conspiratorial view of history. You cannot on one hand say that central planning is unproductive, inefficient, and wasteful, and then on the other say that a "elite" group of people are micromanaging world affairs to the slightest detail as have managed to do so in relative secrecy. Sure, some persons may adopt the view that "they" (the satanist cult leaders) are trying to destroy the division of labour so that they can reinstall a feudal sort of rule, forcing self sufficiency and the starvation that would follow, but I have found no evidence that anyone is doing this with malice of forethought.
For myself, I think there could indeed be individuals in the state apparatus who are using their power and prestige for personal gain, big surprise there, right; but I will not take the view that there is some grand scheme to subvert humanity into Serf and Master once again, at least not maliciously. If there are people doing this, they probably believe themselves to be acting in man's best interest, I have no reason to believe that these people understand economics but still endorse counter-liberal policy for personal gain. We are all poorer, including them, for such things. --But I may be wrong. =p
<></>
http://www.myspace.com/telpeurion
intplee: There is nothing inherent to libertarianism which requires the justification of any religious beliefs.
There is nothing inherent to libertarianism which requires the justification of any religious beliefs.
Is libertarianism not a belief?
Byzantine: xSFx:Is it your view that a set of absolute rules that everyone must follow or face the consequences, instituted by a cosmic dictator called "god" by his followers is Libertarianism? How is this any different from Nature or the Market? Nature and the Market are concepts that explain aspects of reality. Supernatural beliefs do no such thing. Nature and the markets are testable, and we know their limits. God(s), however, are not; christians can interpret the "holy book" any way they want, including to justify statism, but there's no way to misread the law of gravity. While it is theoretically possible for christianity to adapt to libertarianism, historical and contemporary evidence points to the scenario that they will try to institute god's kingdom on earth, not unlike like Islam would: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
Byzantine: xSFx:Is it your view that a set of absolute rules that everyone must follow or face the consequences, instituted by a cosmic dictator called "god" by his followers is Libertarianism? How is this any different from Nature or the Market?
xSFx:Is it your view that a set of absolute rules that everyone must follow or face the consequences, instituted by a cosmic dictator called "god" by his followers is Libertarianism?
How is this any different from Nature or the Market?
Nature and the markets are testable, and we know their limits. God(s), however, are not; christians can interpret the "holy book" any way they want, including to justify statism, but there's no way to misread the law of gravity.
While it is theoretically possible for christianity to adapt to libertarianism, historical and contemporary evidence points to the scenario that they will try to institute god's kingdom on earth, not unlike like Islam would: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY
Nobody is saying such things. The phrase "New World Order" was actually coined by George Herbert Walker Bush, under which the US and its NATO allies would punish rogue nations whom they determined were a threat to a global democratic order. Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been and continue to be targets. Iran and Russia have objected to this unipolar model, and the NWO, in its foolish arrogance, is provoking war with these major powers.
The NWO is the express goal of US foreign policy. There is nothing secretive about it.
xSFx:historical and contemporary evidence points to the scenario that they will try to institute god's kingdom on earth,
This is actually a heresy, but I agree that most Christians have fallen prey to it.
Telpeurion:All well, and fine. However, I am sick of "The Illuminati and other Luciferian cults are going to install the anti-christ!" people as well. Really now, Mises warned about a conspiratorial view of history. You cannot on one hand say that central planning is unproductive, inefficient, and wasteful, and then on the other say that a "elite" group of people are micromanaging world affairs to the slightest detail as have managed to do so in relative secrecy. Sure, some persons may adopt the view that "they" (the satanist cult leaders) are trying to destroy the division of labour so that they can reinstall a feudal sort of rule, forcing self sufficiency and the starvation that would follow, but I have found no evidence that anyone is doing this with malice of forethought.
What country do you live in/Where are you from?
Telpeurion:For myself, I think there could indeed be individuals in the state apparatus who are using their power and prestige for personal gain, big surprise there, right; but I will not take the view that there is some grand scheme to subvert humanity into Serf and Master once again, at least not maliciously. If there are people doing this, they probably believe themselves to be acting in man's best interest, I have no reason to believe that these people understand economics but still endorse counter-liberal policy for personal gain. We are all poorer, including them, for such things. --But I may be wrong. =p
I don't spend all day every day walking around thinking there are massive conspiracies against mankind, but the libertarian coincidence theorist view (which you have posted) is very naive. Do we really believe that people at the highest levels, with the best advisors their resources can buy, are not aware that sound money is much more preferable to liberty than fiat? That democracy is the god the failed? Do we really believe that only us, the libertarians are so enlightened and everyone else is just misled or ignorant?
There is a saying, "Follow the money". These very UNlibertarian plans and schemes are very profitable, for a select few. And you can bet that as we know political power corrupts, so too does political and economic power combined. No, life is not one big conspiracy, but the Rockefellers and Rothschilds did not come to their wealth honestly, without manipulating political power (even at the expense of human suffering or lives). Even Rothbard chronicles the backroom deals to get America into war, to destroy it's sound currency and create a banking cartel with the FED in "The Case for the FED".
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
Byzantine: Nobody is saying such things. The phrase "New World Order" was actually coined by George Herbert Walker Bush, under which the US and its NATO allies would punish rogue nations whom they determined were a threat to a global democratic order. Serbia, Iraq and Afghanistan have all been and continue to be targets. Iran and Russia have objected to this unipolar model, and the NWO, in its foolish arrogance, is provoking war with these major powers. The NWO is the express goal of US foreign policy. There is nothing secretive about it.
You're kidding me right? The term "New World Order" has been around since the end of WWI. GHWB wasn't even born yet. People used it to refer to the new system of international cooperation after the "War to End All Wars", the League of Nations as a tool for peace among nations, and the spread of democracy around the world. Many used it in reference to the "14 points" speech given by the Woodrow Wilson. Wilson's plans weren't underground conspiracies, he talked about them openly in his public speeches.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
scineram: intplee: There is nothing inherent to libertarianism which requires the justification of any religious beliefs. Is libertarianism not a belief?
Libertarianism a belief? I honestly don't think so. The fact that it is an idea, inmaterial, doesn't mean it is not very well grounded on solid rationalism and logic. Unlike religion, which intends to go 'beyond' reason, libertarianism is NOT a supernatural belief.
I don't care about political movements that try to leverage on peoples' religious views, but I have to admit am I a bit dissapointed at the LvMI for promoting these ideas of 'christian libertarianism' or 'catholic anarchism'. These books may be very appealing to those libertairans who seem lost when first introduced to libertarianism, but the other side of the coin is that they close the door for the argument that economics is nto concerned with the content of peoples' ENDS, but with the sole fact that they ACT (human action axiom).
Instead of criticising the mainstream orthodox church for always standing besides the leaders (they did it under feudalism, constitutional monarchy, communism and now democracy), they criticise the ecumenists who "dared" to eat the Eucharist in a catholic mass.
The same church:
- denies evolution, but supports Young Earth Creationism / Geocentrism and is in favour of "teaching the controversy"
- supports confesional religion in schools (indoctrination, not history of religion)
- performs religious sermons in schools in the begining and at the end of the schoolyear
- has religious icons hung up above the blackboard in every state school
- thinks the best part of history was the Dark Ages, because everyone followed their rule
- thinks the worst thing to happen to humanity was "atheistic enlightenment
Excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of the religious in their crusade for personal liberty for all.
xSFx: Christopher hitchens argues that the New Testament view of god's kindgom is just a cosmic North Korea, with a big brother watching over you who will send you to suffer forever and ever if you don't submit to his rule.
Christopher hitchens argues that the New Testament view of god's kindgom is just a cosmic North Korea, with a big brother watching over you who will send you to suffer forever and ever if you don't submit to his rule.
Christopher Hitchens doesn't know what the F he's talking about.
The reason so many Christians write on libertarian principles is not to reconcile our beliefs with secular libertarians, but to persuade Christians that statism is contrary to the teachings of Christ. Which, if anyone cares to read the Gospels with a little knowledge of historical and cultural context (and in a reliable translation), is readily apparent.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
xSFx: Excuse me if I doubt the sincerity of the religious in their crusade for personal liberty for all.
No, I wont excuse you. In fact, I am going to accuse you of making an uninformed, collectivist judgement.
As George Bernard Shaw commented, "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means."
For the most part Christians seem to be very collectivist in general, but Jesus seems a lot like an anarchist if you read what he said (or rather what he is recorded as saying in the New Testament) and not what other people interpret him as saying.
LUCHAC: scineram: intplee: There is nothing inherent to libertarianism which requires the justification of any religious beliefs. Is libertarianism not a belief? Libertarianism a belief? I honestly don't think so. The fact that it is an idea, inmaterial, doesn't mean it is not very well grounded on solid rationalism and logic. Unlike religion, which intends to go 'beyond' reason, libertarianism is NOT a supernatural belief. I don't care about political movements that try to leverage on peoples' religious views, but I have to admit am I a bit dissapointed at the LvMI for promoting these ideas of 'christian libertarianism' or 'catholic anarchism'. These books may be very appealing to those libertairans who seem lost when first introduced to libertarianism, but the other side of the coin is that they close the door for the argument that economics is nto concerned with the content of peoples' ENDS, but with the sole fact that they ACT (human action axiom).
Of course libertarianism is a belief. It is the belief that we can and should gain the most happiness by recognizing and respecting certain rights for every individual person (i.e. liberty, hence the label). In fact, it seems to me that libertarianism is not commonly classed as a religion simply because it does not really say anything about a supreme being. It is definately, however, a belief system, of which religion is a subclass.
Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at. It is a science of means, not of ends. It applies the term happiness in a purely formal sense. In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man's unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological. It does not imply any statement about the state of affairs from which man expects happiness. -Human Action, Ch.1 Sec 2
Praxeology is indifferent to the ultimate goals of action. Its findings are valid for all kinds of action irrespective of the ends aimed at. It is a science of means, not of ends. It applies the term happiness in a purely formal sense. In the praxeological terminology the proposition: man's unique aim is to attain happiness, is tautological. It does not imply any statement about the state of affairs from which man expects happiness.
-Human Action, Ch.1 Sec 2
Mises does not pretend to argue that he can logically prove that we should take a libertarian course of action. All he hopes to do is to elucidate and compare the consequences of the libertarian course and those of other courses, in hopes of persuading people to adopt the libertarian course.
In fact, you cannot really PROVE that a course of action OUGHT to be taken at all. The word prove presupposes logical argument, and some people do not accept logical argument as a valid way of deciding what ought to be done. Logic cannot refute the choice to not believe in it.
regarding your second paragraph:
Saying that individual liberty is supported by christian doctrine (or the tenets of any other faith, for that matter) closes no door on praxeology. It is perfectly satisfactory to feel that the ideals of liberty are supported both by arguments derived from libertarian assumptions, and by the words of a divine being (or beings). It is in fact desirable for persons who believe in God to see how that belief can harmonize with their belief in liberty: it will only result in people more committed than ever to libertarian principles.
It is true that one need not be christian or religious to be libertarian. It is both true and unfortunate that individual christian libertarian writers may justify certain statist views on religious grounds. It is true that some (but certainly not all) christians understand God as the supreme dictator of the universe who imposes his arbitrary will on others through acts of violent force. I agree that this horrifying belief would tend to lead its holder to adopt more statist views. However, it does not follow, as you seem to imply, that christianity as a whole and libertarianism are mutually exclusive belief systems, nor that one necessarily undermines the other. Being both a christian and a libertarian myself, I have in fact been pleasantly surprised by the ways in which my views about God and my views about liberty reinforce one another.
Frankly, the cause of liberty needs all the help it can get. Let's not start categorically excluding each other because of other (complimentary, I would argue) belief systems to which some of us subscribe.
Well, i was not up for a theological discussion. All I said is there are a lot of connections between basic christian beliefs and libertarian positions.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
I wrote an essay in 2003 regarding the relation among Economics, Religion and Politics.
If you are interested, you can find it at the following address:
http://www.contrapeso.info/articulo-4-1796-50.html
Mainly, the Economic Theory we consider will allow us to undestand the reality in a certain way, ie to set a diagnostic of the situation. Religion will imply the adoption of certain values and values-scale which, considering the diagnostic we had made (using our Economic Theory), will in turn lead us to identify the necessities we will try to solve and the aims we will try to accomplish, through our actions. Also the diagnostic produced by our Economic Theory will be influenced by our values. And finally, the set of actions chosed will form our Politics.
Economics ==> Religion ==> Politics
[Descovering, Interpretation, Knowledge] ==> [Election, Values] ==> [Action, Means and Aims]
In my essay I also include a circular scheme based in the Caos Theory.
Unfortunately, it is written in Spanish (I am Argentinian), but I think I also have an English translation at home, if you are interested.
Regards,
Alvaro
Well, Mises was wrong in his intention of justifying libertarianism without value judges. He was a genious, but was not perfect.
Rothbard said all these very clear in this book: "The ethics of liberty".
We need to choose certain values in order to justify libertarianism, and that means we will first need a philosophy, relgion, a set of values, whatever you like.
It is a pitty that many economists get offended when somebody talk about values. They pretend to be "objective", and that can be true just when you talk about Praxeology (a science), but no when we are talking about political economy, actions, recommendations, what the government should do, what is better and what is worse, etc.
Alvaro, I would love to read your English translation if you have it. Thanks!
sthocastic said:
You are seriously wrong here, buddy. You are making a 'utilitarian' case for libertarianism and based on ETHICS (very much secular and rational), liberty is sought in spite of whatever happiness (or prosperity) it might possibly bring about.
Please do not forget that logic is a tool by which you can go from assumptions to conclusions. Logical conclusions are always dependent on their assumptions: IF you believe the assumptions and IF you are committed to your thinking being logically consistent and IF the reasoning is logically valid, THEN you must also believe the conclusions. A logical conclusion still depends on premises which ultimately are not provable. This is *why* von Mises is so adamant in Human Action that catallactics is a science which can say nothing about ends, only about whether or not a given means will achieve a given end (the human action axiom you refer to):
Still wrong here mate. You, obviously haven't read Human Action or Hans Herman-Hoppe's explanation of Praxeology as the parent of Epistemology.
Poorly presented, but I get the idea, and you should read ETHICS OF LIBERTY. Just read the first chapter and you'll see how wrong you are here too.
You can choose to believe in whatever the F you want, buddy, logic will always be logic and NOT religion.
Here is the root of the problem, I think. But let's make it very clear: LIBERTARIANISM IS NOT A RELIGION, regardless of how much you 'desire' it to justify your religious views.
liberty student: Alvaro, I would love to read your English translation if you have it. Thanks!
Liberty Student: I have got it. I need your e-mail in order to send it to you.
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap