The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Individuals who have harmed the cause of liberty.

rated by 0 users
This post has 105 Replies | 14 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,669
Points 81,345
hayekianxyz Posted: Fri, Sep 12 2008 7:38 PM

I was just wondering what people the posters here would consider to have done most harm to the liberty movement, and why.

 

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 185
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 304
Points 3,965
Solomon replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 1:39 AM

Demagogues, of course.  It's rather difficult to for statism to sustain itself when the idiot masses have no one to lie them into dependence and thinking their best opportunities lie in the state.

Diminishing Marginal Utility - IT'S THE LAW!

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP

Vanguards, pundits (offline & online), a self-reinforcing movement of general ignorance, etc.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 23
Points 415

John Stuart Mill

 

For making an apologia for empire and mass murder.

"Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces."—Étienne de la Boétie, Discourse of Voluntary Servitude
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 472
Points 8,810

I'm gonna go with JM Keynes, for obvious reasons.

Austrians do it a priori

Irish Liberty Forum 

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 369
Points 7,270
Staff
SystemAdministrator
jtucker replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 6:48 AM

The question doesn't specify intellectuals, so I think I would say, in general, Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)

Jeffrey Tucker
Editorial VP, Mises

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP

jtucker:

The question doesn't specify intellectuals, so I think I would say, in general, Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)


Speaking of intellectuals, I'm going to throw my piece of paper into the hat for "Noam Chomsky" (his contribution to linguistics being an exception, methinks).

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,497
Points 28,630
Moderator
krazy kaju replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 10:25 AM

jtucker:

The question doesn't specify intellectuals, so I think I would say, in general, Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)

I wouldn't use Nixon or Bush as examples, but Reagan is the perfect example. A so-called proponent of "free markets," he supported the War on Drugs, huge expansions in the military, and deficit spending. So much for free markets... *sighs*

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 10:35 AM

krazy kaju:

jtucker:

The question doesn't specify intellectuals, so I think I would say, in general, Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)

I wouldn't use Nixon or Bush as examples, but Reagan is the perfect example. A so-called proponent of "free markets," he supported the War on Drugs, huge expansions in the military, and deficit spending. So much for free markets... *sighs*

Moar like fee markets, amirite? 


I should have some coffee now...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,247
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Though I am a Randian, I will say Ayn Rand, as she was irrational when it came to the topic of anarchism and government. Friedman also did much to damage the cause of liberty.

-Jon

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 7,643
Points 132,720
MVP
SystemAdministrator

I think we can safely say, political opportunists, of all stripes and backgrounds.  Educators.  Clergy.

Anyone with a position of social (not necessarily economic or military) authority can be very dangerous.

I always wanted to make a rogue's gallery of bad guys to promote the other side of the story, and to pressure them to behave themselves.

If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,600

Jon Irenicus:

Though I am a Randian, I will say Ayn Rand, as she was irrational when it came to the topic of anarchism and government. Friedman also did much to damage the cause of liberty.

-Jon

I think Rand has done more good than harm. For a lot of libertarians it was her works that put them (I include myself in this) on the road to liberty. True, she was not a market-anarchist but her arguments logically lead to market anarchism. The main problem with her works is that their harsh tone is off putting to some people. Her harsh tone also is sometimes adopted (and exaggerated) by her followers - which is bad for libertarian PR at times. Politics, whether we like it or not, is a PR war. If we are right but we are unable to persuade others, being right accomplishes very little.

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,247
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Agreed - I wouldn't be a Randian otherwise. Stick out tongue

-Jon

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 229
Points 4,435
Andrew replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 11:09 AM

Alexander Hamilton, Lincoln, Keynes, the LP and Reagan

Democracy is nothing more than replacing bullets with ballots

 

If Pro is the opposite of Con. What is the opposite of Progress?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 11:41 AM

liberty student:

I think we can safely say, political opportunists, of all stripes and backgrounds.  Educators.  Clergy.

Anyone with a position of social (not necessarily economic or military) authority can be very dangerous.

I always wanted to make a rogue's gallery of bad guys to promote the other side of the story, and to pressure them to behave themselves.


Haha, I actually imagined that by now, something like that would've appeared online somewhere, in the form of printable collectable trading cards, with stats like "Coercive Power + 10" for ":insert name of politican / political opportunist/ etc.", as well some either intentionally absurd background info ("He achieved the Power of the State by throwing the ring into the volcano..."), or a randomly true fact that typical person isn't aware of (along with sources printed on the bottom of the back of the card). 

Would be a bit of fun, methinks :)

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 11:46 AM

ryanpatgray:

Jon Irenicus:

Though I am a Randian, I will say Ayn Rand, as she was irrational when it came to the topic of anarchism and government. Friedman also did much to damage the cause of liberty.

-Jon

I think Rand has done more good than harm. For a lot of libertarians it was her works that put them (I include myself in this) on the road to liberty. True, she was not a market-anarchist but her arguments logically lead to market anarchism. The main problem with her works is that their harsh tone is off putting to some people. Her harsh tone also is sometimes adopted (and exaggerated) by her followers - which is bad for libertarian PR at times. Politics, whether we like it or not, is a PR war. If we are right but we are unable to persuade others, being right accomplishes very little.

I prefer to call her "harsh tone" as elitism, but in some rare cases it was rather endearing / entertaining (such as her nickname to a younger Greenspan as "The Undertaker"; various moments in The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.). 

Her "followers" are who I would dub as the main culprit towards Objectivism being counter-productive towards liberty, especially with the recent Neo-Objectocon's clamoring for war via various rationalizations. 

With that, I would throw Lenoard Peikoff's name into the hat, and Nathaniel Branden as a victim of Ayn Rand's elitism (which was in denial of her own emotions).  It's a shame Peikoff is the one designated as the "heir", when (imo) Braden clearly was the more civilized person.

Haha, I almost sounded like a Randian using "civilized".

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 11:47 AM

Jon Irenicus:

Agreed - I wouldn't be a Randian otherwise. Stick out tongue

-Jon

Ayn Rand certaintly helped, but I have to credit Inquisitor for getting me intially interested, actually.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,247
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

I wouldn't say she's elitist. She was attacking some of the most arrogant individuals in the realm of ideas. Hoppe is similar in this regard. Both are harsh and unforgiving, but not elitist - neither alienates their readers, by keeping as much as possible to understandable English and a commonsense philosophy. If you want elitist, check out Bertrand Russell.

-Jon

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 783
Points 14,600

Nitroadict:

Haha, I actually imagined that by now, something like that would've appeared online somewhere, in the form of printable collectable trading cards, with stats like "Coercive Power + 10" for ":insert name of politican / political opportunist/ etc.", as well some either intentionally absurd background info ("He achieved the Power of the State by throwing the ring into the volcano..."), or a randomly true fact that typical person isn't aware of (along with sources printed on the bottom of the back of the card). 

Would be a bit of fun, methinks :)

Wizards of the Coast could put out a new game called Politics: The Gathering.

http://www.wizards.com/

I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.

Educational Pamphlet Mises Group

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,808
Points 27,745
Moderator
MVP
Nitroadict replied on Sat, Sep 13 2008 12:00 PM

Jon Irenicus:

I wouldn't say she's elitist. She was attacking some of the most arrogant individuals in the realm of ideas. Hoppe is similar in this regard. Both are harsh and unforgiving, but not elitist - neither alienates their readers, by keeping as much as possible to understandable English and a commonsense philosophy. If you want elitist, check out Bertrand Russell.

-Jon

I thought her attitude towards libertarians & anarchists was rather elitist & somewhat ignorant, despite her objections being based on her philosophical disagreements, honestly.  Especially when her own philosophy was one or two steps from concluding anarchism.

That being said, you are right in that there are most likley other individuals far more elitist.  Her "followers" really out did her on that, I must admit.

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 1 of 6 (106 items) 1 2 3 4 5 Next > ... Last » | RSS

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