≡ Menu

A lot of blogposts have been flying around the libertarian blogosphere about the fall of the Berlin Wall twenty years ago. Those looking for truly thoughtful commentary should read the article by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, “De-Socialization in a United Germany,” Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (1991). Hoppe applies his unparalleled abilities at libertarian and Austrian economic analysis, informed by his own experience in West Germany (including his own family’s victimization at the hands of East German communism), to provide a fantastic overview of recent German history, an Austrian-informed explanation of exactly how the East-West Germany “experiment” illustrates economic theory, a criticism of the disastrous way re-unification was to be implemented along with an explanation of the preferred alternative:

While the course has largely been set and German reunification has proceeded through the incorporation of East Germany into the West German welfare state, an alternative existed which would have spared the Germans the economic frustrations inevitably associated with the current planned course of reunification.

At the Walll, August 1990

At the Walll, August 1990

Unfortunately, this radical alternative–the uncompromising privatization of East Germany, the adoption of a private-property constitution, and reunification through a policy of complete, unilateral free trade–has so far found practically no audience. Almost all alternatives proposed are variations of the same welfare-statist theme: either somewhat more drastic (i.e., more redistributionist), advocated mostly by Eastern economic “experts,” or somewhat more moderate, as advanced mostly by the economics establishment of West Germany.

Hoppe calls for the “complete abolition of socialism and the establishment of a pure private-property society–an anarchy of private-property owners, regulated exclusively by private-property law [, which] would be the quickest economic recovery of East Germany.”

(See also Hoppe’s discussion of East and West Germany in his A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism (1989), pp. 33-37.)

Update: from my comment to Ralph Raico’s post about his experience at Checkpoint Charlie (Ralph Raico, “My Experience at Checkpoint Charlie,” (08/15/2011); my comment)):

Wonderful recollection. I went thru Checkpoint Charlie just after the fall of the wall, in 1990–as shown in some pictures in my post Hoppe on East vs. West Germany and the Fall of the Wall, I and two buddies chipped off pieces of the wall. We went a few miles down from checkpoint charlie where the wall was still up, but softer, and used large rocks to knock pieces off. We carried them in our backpacks till we returned home and gave some of them out as gifts. Like idiots we hopped over the gate into East Germany, and when an East German patrol came by we scurried and hid behind an abandoned gate tower–three moron law students looking for trouble. [Update: I spoke recently (Aug. 2012) to my two friends—Paul Comeaux and Tony Tramontana—about this, and neither one remembers the patrol coming by, so my memory may be failing me.]

Eventually we went into East Berlin and stayed the night in some hotel that used to be nice. I remember they could not take credit card since they were not set up for that. The city was grimy and depressing. It looked like a war zone.

Checkpoint Charlie 1990

Checkpoint Charlie 1990

[Mises blog cross-post]

Tony Tramontana, Prairieville, Mar 18 2025

Archived comments:

 

The Wall, Berlin

Berlin, The Wall Summer 1990 — my piece of the Wall (my dad had this mounted for us)

Some more pix from that trip and related:

Chipping off a piece of the wall, 1990

Chipping off a piece of the wall, 1990

 

 

 

 

Share
{ 2 comments }

Machan on Rand and Objectivism

My friend Tibor Machan presents a fascinating and excellent lecture on “Thoughts on Objectivism and Ayn Rand” at the Libertarian Alliance Conference in October 2009 in London. I enjoyed in partiuclar Machan’s discussion of how many of Rand’s technical philosophical views–on volition, epistemology, and so on–were similar to perhaps more sophisticated treatments by mainstream philosophers such as Austin, Sperry, and so on.

(Tibor is introduced by my friend Sean Gabb; Gabb’s video record of the proceedings of the conference. Gabb, a regular at Hans-Hermann Hoppe‘s Property and Freedom Society meetings (see his The Third Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, Bodrum, May 2008: A Brief Record; The Second Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society; The Inaugural Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society: An Incidental Record), also contributed the chapter “Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the Political Equivalent of Nuclear Fusion” to Property, Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe.)

Share
{ 1 comment }

My Office

Someone asked me what books I had and what my office (at work) looked like. I snapped a few pix with my i-fizzy, which I put on this SmugMug gallery; a slideshow is below (and here’s a SmugMug gallery showing only my own book covers).

Here’s the little video from that gallery:

A quick tour of the laser fab:

Share
{ 0 comments }

Milton Friedman on Intolerance, Liberty, Mises, Etc.

Related:

From Mises blog; archived comments below.

In a blog post here a few years ago (Friedman and Socialism), I mentioned a July 1991 Liberty article by Friedman that I remembered where he said he was in favor of liberty and tolerance of differing views and behavior because we cannot know that the behavior we want to outlaw is really bad. In other words, the reason we should not censor dissenting ideas is not the standard libertarian idea that holding or speaking is not aggression, but because then we can’t be sure the ideas are wrong. This implies that if we could know for sure what is right and wrong, it might be okay to legislate morality, to outlaw immoral or “bad” actions.

I’ve finally located a copy of the article, “Say ‘No’ to Intolerance” (full issue here). In this article, Friedman writes: [continue reading…]

Share
{ 2 comments }

Peikoff on the Right to Act Irrationally

One of the things I have always liked about Objectivism was its moral defense of economic and personal liberty. The objection to antitrust law, for example, is based on the right to engage in non-aggressive action, including attempts at collusion and price-fixing, say. It’s not based on the economic case against antitrust law. Similarly, there is a right not to give to charity, a right to discriminate in one’s business, and so on–even if we can expect people to be charitable and for irrational discrimination to be penalized and wither away on the free market; the case for these rights is not dependent on these subsidiary observations. It’s principled, not consequentialist.

Thus I was a bit surprised to hear Leonard Peikoff, in his latest podcast (no. 87, around 9:00), provide an argument for personal liberty similar to that of Milton Friedman’s flawed rationale for being libertarian. As I noted in Friedman and Socialism (and alluded to in n. 53 of Hoppe’s “The Western State as a Paradigm: Learning from History“): [continue reading…]

Share
{ 1 comment }

[From my Webnote series]

No one knows. L. Neil Smith estimates in the piece below we’d be at least eight times richer.

Unanimous Consent and the Utopian Vision

or

I Dreamed I Was a Signatory In My Maidenform Bra

by L. Neil Smith

The relative invisibility of Libertarianism after 40 years of backbreaking, heartbreaking labor, has little to do with any lack of money, ideas, personnel, or anything else Libertarians may occasionally whine about. It isn’t the fault of an evil northeastern Liberal conspiracy. Nor, as the more timid among us often recommend, is it reason to tone down Libertarian rhetoric, to soften principle or its expression, to make it more conservative or “practical” in approach. All of that has been tried, again & again. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 8 comments }

Is “Loser Pays” Libertarian?

From Mises blog:

Is “Loser Pays” Libertarian?

October 21, 2008 2:57 PM by Stephan Kinsella (Archive)

In another thread here, a commentor asks, “What, exactly, is un-libertarian about “loser pays” laws in civil suits?” This sentiment is common among libertarians who seem to assume that the “loser pays” rule is preferable, from a libertarian point of view, to a system in which each side pays its legal costs. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 2 comments }

From a post on Jurist:

Nokia’s infringement suit against Apple illustrates need to scrap US patent system

Stephan Kinsella [General Counsel for Applied Optoelectronics and Editor of Libertarian Papers]: “A recent lawsuit filed by Nokia against Apple alleges that the iPhone infringes 10 of Nokia’s patents. Nokia is probably “seeking between $200 and $400 million in damages from Apple,” which JURIST characterizes as “a relatively low amount to seek from a company that expects revenues…of over $11 billion this year.” It doesn’t seem trivial to me, given that $400 million is a good chunk – say, 5 to 10% or so – of Apple’s profits. And Nokia’s is not the only lawsuit Apple faces. Half a billion here, half a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking real money. For other examples, see here. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 0 comments }

Latest notable terms from this week’s Slate Culture Gabfest and Slate Political Gabfest (feel free to email me suggestions or leave them in the comments to the main page): [continue reading…]

Share
{ 3 comments }

A Libertarian Take on Net Neutrality

The cool, hip techno-pundits are usually reliably Obama-liberal/libertarian-lite types. A bit California-smug, engineer-scientistic, anti-principled, anti-“extreme.” But okay overall. A soft, tolerant, whitebread bunch.

On the last This Week in Tech, I was pleasantly surprised to hear the always interesting Jason Calacanis voice support for nuclear power; and even more surprised to hear soft-liberal host Leo Laporte echo mild agreement with this. Good for them!

But then they had to revert to form when they, along with Natali Del Conte and Patrick Norton expressed unanimous disapproval of McCain’s Internet Freedom Act, since they are all–“of course”–in favor of net neutrality rules imposed by the FCC. McCain’s proposed statute would block the FCC’s proposed net neutrality rules, which would forbid network providers (e.g. cable companies, telcos, and wireless carriers) from selectively blocking certain types of Internet use. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 2 comments }

Gene Quinn: Patent Twit of the Week

Excellent post by Kevin Carson, Gene Quinn: Patent Twit of the Week, criticizing patent attorney-shill Gene Quinn‘s “arguments” for patents.

Share
{ 3 comments }

On Pushing the Button–the problem with magic

Related:

Update:  See Libertarian Button Pushers and Political Compromise, By Patrick McEwen; Robert Capozzi, Push the Button?; Comment 11684 here (the Ordeal of Hoppe); Stephan Kinsella Ought To Shut His Stupid Cake Hole; Big Government, Thy Name is Privatization (comments).

***
Posted by Stephan Kinsella on February 4, 2005 12:40 AM

Some of us “radical” (read: principled) libertarians are sometimes accused of refusing to compromise, refusing to accept incremental movements toward liberty; that we would only accept a magical “push of the button”. Of course, this is not true. I want the income tax abolished, but I would view a reduction in the marginal tax rates as an unambiguous improvement by libertarian standards.

The problem lies in reforms that do not clearly and unambiguosly improve the situation, however minutely; but that might even make things worse, at least for some people. For example, moving to a “flat tax” of 20% (with no deductions at all) would be a good thing for me, and maybe even “overall” (whatever that means), but it would amount to a punitive tax increase on people making, say, $25K a year, who pay almost no income tax now. Such a reform would decrease rights violations for some, and increase it for others. [continue reading…]

Share
{ 3 comments }
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise noted, the content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons CC0 Universal Public Domain Dedication License.