Should anti-establishmentism be divorced from libertarianism?

The worst thing libertarians can do is look like a bunch of angry anti-establishment old men or passionate anti-establishment young hippies.

Anti-establishmentism is just another form of class warfare and class politics, and this is the worst form of politics, economics, and humanity.

Interestingly, in order to get appeal for libertarianism, libertarians would be tempted to use such passionate class warfare arguments, that this would be the ultimate way of removing the control of the exploitative elite in society, that there is a higher heirarchy of crooks and thieves who are parasites of ordinary people.

This is, as I said, bad. Bad in every way possible. For these reasons -

1) The French and Russian Revolutions and Mao's rise in China were a form of class warfare, which resulted in rich people being shot dead or being brutally mobbed in public. I don't think the people here would like to associate with a kind of belief that has been borne out of nothing but violent extremism.

2) It's an emotional argument. It's not based on proper deontological or consequential reasoning.

3) Even if you do have sound rational arguments, the moment you admit to have an emotional reason for this matter as well, you have just given the chance to people to think that all your reasoning springs from foregone conclusions and all your free market arguments are just a way of saying, "I hate that government elite and lobbying corporates which control my country so much!"

4) It is a possible sign that you think that this rich elite does not have the same moral rights as the common man, especially considering that class politics has only ended in such people being put in front of firing squads or being hanged for treason - and the worst possible thing to happen is that libertarianism gets associated with this.

Class politics is bloodshed. And thus, democracy has been bloodshed. Communism has been bloodshed. Don't make libertarianism bloodshed.

I may be generalizing, but I've only ever seen contributors at Mises.org propose the NAP and non-violence in general. Aren't these absolute core beliefs of most people here at Mises? 

About saying what a party should have, or not have, if the LP decides they are not individualists, than maybe it's time to start a new party. I guess when folks want to make guilt by association claims, it is easy to say that the party of liberty is open to any individual.

I want the LP to take a stern laissez-faire policy. I think they need to understand that the free market is a must for freedom.

Prateek Sanjay:

The worst thing libertarians can do

Maybe the worst thing the LP could do would to become generic as a mob. Just another hoard of clones trying to tell folks how go about things.

OK, I meant something else.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html

What I wanted to point out was that if we end up becoming the kind of "radicals" that Rothbard exhorts people to be, that if we adopt our perspective not from a cool logical perspective, but just plain and simple hatred of the State as a "predatory gang of thieves and criminals", we make the same mistake as what the fighters in the French Revolution, Russian Revolution, and Mao's China did. Even if we preach peace and non-violence, radical hatred of the statists serves no purpose. And if we were allied with all the left-wing or right-wing groups that want to remove the establishment from power, who have that similar radical hatred that Rothbard wishes to see, THEY might definitely move to violence, even if the libertarians don't.

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists, is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents." - Robert Kennedy

" For when you teach a man to hate and to fear his brother...then you also learn to confront others not as fellow citizens, but as enemies. To be met not with co operation but with conquest, to be subjugated, and to be mastered." - Robert Kennedy

I would not have become a libertarian if the movement was not a bit revolutionary.

And the fact that you dont like rich people in the present system, does not mean you are against rich people in general. We live in a neo-mercantilist society. Much of the big companies are big not because they have been serving the costumer but because they have political friends. And that is very un-libertarian, so it is very fair to attack them.

As for the emotional arguments... all the decisions are emotional, this is a neurobiological fact. All humans decisions are emotional, so you have to convicne peole with emotional arguments. Dont get me wrong, I am not saying having a good solid theoretical base behing is useless. I think its key. I would not have come to love this moevment so much if it would not have had a solid base behind. But for campaingning its useless, you want to go into emotional mode then.

I think you are comitting a big mistake, and its thinking that libertarians should only go one way. Whats wrong with some people researching and growing the theoretical side, while others wroking on campaigning (in general using more emotional arguments)? I think that is what is going to deliver the best results, its called division of labor. I am sure most libertarians are intelligent enough to recognize when they want serious stuff and where to go to get it, and when they want some campainging stuff.

Prateek Sanjay:

Anti-establishmentism is just another form of class warfare and class politics, and this is the worst form of politics, economics, and humanity.

So? Libertarianism is a form of class warfare between the leading elite and the masses. It just so happens that these groups are rich/poor respectively.

Prateek Sanjay:

Interestingly, in order to get appeal for libertarianism, libertarians would be tempted to use such passionate class warfare arguments, that this would be the ultimate way of removing the control of the exploitative elite in society, that there is a higher heirarchy of crooks and thieves who are parasites of ordinary people.

Well, the elitist theory of government is true. It really builds the case against the state.

Prateek Sanjay:

1) The French and Russian Revolutions and Mao's rise in China were a form of class warfare, which resulted in rich people being shot dead or being brutally mobbed in public. I don't think the people here would like to associate with a kind of belief that has been borne out of nothing but violent extremism.

Yeah it would be a really bad thing if something like that were to happen to the central bankers or the crooks at DOD. What do you think a libertarian revolution would do with these people? Oh, sorry Bernake, we're no longer going to use the federal reserve system. Ta ta! Of course not. I imagine you would want to put these people in jail, but there's nothing inherently unjust about capital punishment.

Prateek Sanjay:

2) It's an emotional argument. It's not based on proper deontological or consequential reasoning.

Actually it is reasonable. "Hey, did you know that government granted monopolies make us poor and them rich? That sucks yeah? Let's do something about it!"

Prateek Sanjay:

3) Even if you do have sound rational arguments, the moment you admit to have an emotional reason for this matter as well, you have just given the chance to people to think that all your reasoning springs from foregone conclusions and all your free market arguments are just a way of saying, "I hate that government elite and lobbying corporates which control my country so much!"

Well so far in the conversation I haven't talked about anarchism. Its preferable to build that case separately.

Prateek Sanjay:

4) It is a possible sign that you think that this rich elite does not have the same moral rights as the common man, especially considering that class politics has only ended in such people being put in front of firing squads or being hanged for treason - and the worst possible thing to happen is that libertarianism gets associated with this.

Well, a lot of them forfeited many of their rights when they used the state against us.

Libertarianism and Anarchism aren't these cozy plush ideas you can circulate at sunday school. The theoretical cases are too academic, and the empirical cases are too gritty. You have to say "Look , this is how it is. CNN and Fox have lied to you. Your history and economic teachers have lied to you. Everyone around you has been brainwashed by the propaganda. THIS is what's holding society back morally and economically."

Its all subversive politics. The establishment isn't Libertarian, so we have to be anti establishment.

 

Prateek,

 

I fully agree with your case. Any attempt to catch the “mass man” has always, in every known occasion, contributed to the distortion of the original idea. Leave the masses alone, you can’t convert them without destroying your own case. Let us seeks to talk sense into those that have the ability to grasp complex ideas.  

 

As for Rothbard, his tactical ideas stem from his deep belief that ideas could turn tables. Once you get around that, you see how destructive would his tactics have been if put to practice. Thank God Rothbard was not an outstanding public orator, or he would have attracted so many people into a pseudo-libertarian cause, that we’d have no theoretical case form anarcho-capitalism by now. The same goes for Ron Paul. With the exception of the many of us here that’s he introduced to libertarianism, the fact that we’ve a guy up there ho denounces evolution and blames Nazism on Darwin, well, it’s not very appealing, to say the least. I wonder what would Mises have to say about that.

Libertarianism is the only true anti-establishment ideology possible. It is anti-establishmentism personified. All other ideologies result in the establishment being replaced rather than eliminated.

Libertarian view of history is that of the struggle between liberty and power, which is to say the struggle between the oppressed and the oppressors. Where libertarian analysis really differs is in sincerely refusing to retard itself to the point where all people are either one or the other. A libertarian is capable of recognizing that a person may at the same time be oppressed and be an oppressor itself, or be an oppressor but be oppressed.

Libertarianism refuses to shut an eye to oppression anywhere and against anyone. It yields not an inch to it. That is why it is impossible for it to become a movement of terror. Its own radicalism makes it impossible for it to legitimize counter-oppression by the previous victims.

The worst thing libertarians can do is look like a bunch of angry anti-establishment old men or passionate anti-establishment young hippies.

No, the worst thing they can do is ally themselves with pro-establishment conservatives. People who don't have the guts to choose and support an unpopular position should not choose it.

 

Scott F:

 True.It's possible to be taxed and yet benefitting from protectionism for example.

Yeah. And the example I had in mind specifically was the ACW. CSA was opressing the slaves, but at the same time it was being opressed by the USA.

 

Juan:

The worst thing libertarians can do is look like a bunch of angry anti-establishment old men or passionate anti-establishment young hippies.

No, the worst thing they can do is ally themselves with pro-establishment conservatives. People who don't have the guts to choose and support an unpopular position should not choose it.

Is David Friedman anti-establishment?

As a libertarian, does he strike you as a pro-establishment conservative, for not hating the state radically?

Prateek Sanjay:

Is David Friedman anti-establishment?

As a libertarian, does he strike you as a pro-establishment conservative, for not hating the state radically?

Pro state conservatives generally aren't anarcho capitalists. But there is a lengthy discussion on how D Friedman seems to think that The State is okay, minarchism is better, and anarcho capitalism is the best. But I've been reading his work and he doesn't come across as a neocon. In fact, he looks exactly like Rothbard minus the Libertarianism.

Is David Friedman anti-establishment?

I don't know. Why is Friedman's position relevant at all, anyway ?