When discussing strategies to achieve an anarcho-capitalist society, discussion usually focuses on direct action: the progressive dismantling of reformism, political separation through secession, or the development of parallel markets via counter-economics. Yet all these approaches share a blind spot: they target the effects of the state rather than its causes. They serve as tools for practical engagement, yet they merely scratch the surface.
The “data-dependent” Federal Reserve will be flying blind at its next FOMC mtg on Dec 10. It will be basing its decisions on September CPI data.
Murray Rothbard had a different view of ethics from the prevailing view among mainstream economists. He advocated rights, while the mainstream favors utilitarianism. The mainstream economists will usually claim to be “value free,” but their appeal to the “social welfare function” belies this.
Almost all the rhetoric of social democracy today, especially its American version, boils down to this implicit statement: “Free market capitalism is great as long as it financially supports us and our campaigns. But for you common folks, it’s a lethal poison!”
Herbert Hoover was a progressive activist president when it came to intervention into the economy. During this period, while free market capitalism was already increasingly hampered in the US (i.e., central banking, business regulations to the benefit of politically-connected big business, the income tax, etc.), many countries were experimenting with bold new theories of central planning (e.g., socialism, communism, fascism). Herbert Hoover—before and during his presidency—was at the forefront of this progressive-interventionist paradigm.
[Editor’s note: This article was originally published by Liberalų sąjūdis (Liberals’ Movement) a center-right Lithuanian political party containing free-market and libertarian factions. In this context, “liberal” is roughly equivalent to what we call “classical liberal” in the English-speaking world.
