Per Christian Malloch — Again

by Stephan Kinsella on February 3, 2005

Some time ago I posted about Per Christian Malloch, a smart college kid who apparently OD’s on drugs a few years back. I had posted a few of his wacky works he had sent me, on Satanism and Amoralism. I just received a note from a friend of Per’s, Canon Pence (so-called), stumbled across my post about Per and sent me this: For Per: Collected Works of Per Malloch, compiled by Canon Pence, 10/6/2001–12/6/2001. Not necessarily recommending it, but I might as well warehouse it, as he can’t do it.

{ 2 comments }

External Post: Palmer on Federalism; more

by Stephan Kinsella on February 3, 2005

The Heroic Institute for Justice and Its Good Works, and my reply.

Palmer also posted Phony “Radicalism” from a Reactionary Confederate Revivalist (attacking his bete noire, LRC, natch), to which Daddy also replied.

***

The Heroic Institute for Justice and Its Good Works, and my reply

The Heroic Institute for Justice and Its Good Works

January 30, 2005

The Institute for Justice is one of my very favorite organizations. They litigate for liberty, for justice, for rights. The New York Times (requires simple registration) has a piece today on their work to defend the rights of property owners not to be robbed, dispossessed, and shoved out by city councils that prefer a “higher class” of subjects. The piece highlights the good work of one of my favorite warrior goddesses for liberty, Dana Berliner, shown here in a jaunty pose:

P.S. If you’ve got a few bucks after paying your taxes this year and you’re wondering where to send them….the Institute for Justice is a good place. After the Cato Institute, of course.

18 Responses to “The Heroic Institute for Justice and Its Good Works”

T. J. MadisonFebruary 1, 2005

Ah, I still remember Stossel making Donald squirm when he tried to justify getting Atlantic City to force Ms. Coking out of her house. Luckily IJ stopped Donald cold.

While we’re on the topic of people who deserve our money, let me suggest Dr. Norman Borlaug of Texas A&M University. So far he’s saved at least one billion (!) people from starvation, and he’s still at it at age 90.

I should also mention Stanislav Petrov, a former colonel in the Soviet Strategic Rocket Forces and living Avatar of Vishnu. If you can read this, it’s because Stan exercised good judgement on a tough day.
Adam W.February 1, 2005

What exactly has this Dr. Borlaug done. And what did Petrov do?
T. J. MadisonFebruary 1, 2005

Petrov was commanding a Soviet early warning radar station in 1983 when sensors indicated that five US Minutemen missiles were inbound for Moscow. It is my understanding that Col. Petrov showed an unusual (and in the Soviet hierachy, undesirable) amount of initiative in concluding that something was amiss, and chose not to initiate the doomsday machinery. It was later determined that the sensor readings were the result of flaky equipment.

Norman Borlaug has been involved in many improvements in agricultural technology and techniques, and is known as the father of the Green Revolution. It is estimated that one billion people (1/6th of the worlds population) are being kept alive as a result of Borlaug’s research and activism. (Note that this is a much stronger claim than what I made above.)

His most important single development has probably been the development of dwarf corn. Dwarf corn has a faster growing cycle than normal corn. This is important in the monsoon-prone regions of India and Bangladesh where heavy rains tended to wipe out the corn crops before they could be harvested, leading to mass starvation on the order of tens of millions of people. Borlaug not only developed dwarf corn, but he personally distributed the seeds and instuctions for their use in the affected regions after encountering resistance and apathy from the local governments.

At present he’s trying to solve the problem of starvation in Africa. His primary problem is getting the corrupt African governments to allow him to work without severe restrictions.

Each of these men have individually saved more people than were killed in all of the wars of the 20th century combined.
T. J. MadisonFebruary 1, 2005

A humorous account of Borlaug’s actvities can be found in Season of Bull!@#t with CATO fellows Penn and Teller.
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 2, 2005

The IJ does some good work, but unfortunately, they seem to endorse the idea that the federal government has somehow been empowered to strike down state laws it believes “violate rights”. For example, in this IJ case, http://www.ij.org/first_amendment/ca_internet_real_estate/11_22_04pr.html , “a federal judge in Sacramento ruled in favor of web publisher ForSaleByOwner.com and the Institute for Justice in a First Amendment lawsuit challenging California’s demand that websites obtain a real estate broker’s license to publish real estate advertising and information. The court concluded that the law, which requires websites to obtain a license but specifically exempts newspapers that publish the same information, was “wholly arbitrary” and violated the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of the press.”

But the First Amendment only prohibits “Congress” from taking certain actions; and arguments that the First Amendment’s protections are “incorporated” into the Fourteenth Amendment are, in my view, flawed and inconsistent with libertarian principles such as federalism and other structures aimed at limiting centralized power.

I cannot blame any individual victim from using whatever weapon at his disposal to protect himself from depredations of the state. I would sue a state in federal court if I thought I could use this means to vindicate my rights. Nevertheless, the federal government has no right under the Constitution to overturn such state laws, and libertarians should not refrain from recognizing this just because they like the results in particular cases.

Additionally, IJ appears to fight for vouchers, http://www.ij.org/schoolchoice/index.html , which are also problematic from a libertarian point of view, as they mean increased taxation and education-welfare expenditures and increased state control of private schools.
RJMFebruary 2, 2005

I’ve always been puzzled by the notion that libertarianism (understood broadly as a concern for human freedom) has anything to say about the level of government at which decisions are made. Federalism can be, and often has been, a useful tool for preserving freedom, but it is just that — a tool. A slavish devotion to federalism overlooks the fact that the greatest advancement of human freedom the United States has achieved in its history resulted from a federal protection of individual rights against an entirely more disturbing brand of “slavish” devotion practiced by certain States.

Further, as far as courts’ abilities to overturn state legislation, it’s completely clear that, as an original matter, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to force states to adhere to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights; as a textual matter, the Fourteenth Amendment forces states to respect certain basic freedoms (such as, in the cited California Department of Real Estate case, the ability to publish without prior government licensure); and, as a practical matter, the Constitution SHOULD require states to respect certain individual rights. The notion that individual liberty is in some way served by specifying that (all other things being equal) Group X, rather than Group Y, gets to prescribe the rules of my conduct is, frankly, absurd.
Tom G. PalmerFebruary 3, 2005

It’s worth taking a look at the Fourteenth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.amendmentxiv.html), Section 1 of which reads:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Now reasonable people may differ over precisely what that amendment requires, but it is far from obvious, as Mr. Kinsella seems to think it is, that the phrase “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” has no restrictive power over the states.

For Mr. Kinsella and his friends at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (and their little cluster of groups and publications), “federalism” (which, in any case, most of them don’t like, since they would prefer to be living under the Confederacy) means that the federal government simply has no responsibilities at all. The states can (and maybe even should) engage in all kinds of restrictions of the “rights” (the use of scare quotes by Mr. Kinsella around the phrase “violate rights” is informative) of the people living there. Yet the federal constitution not only contains the Fourteenth Amendment, but also Article IV, Second 2, Clause 1 of which reads,

“The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

Section 4 of Article IV reads,

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

So even the unamended Constitution guaranteed the rights of Americans to a republican form of government (with which, arguably, vicious forms of racial oppression were inconsistent) and to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states. Add to that the protections of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and you have a quite unmistakable role for the federal government to stop the states from infringing on rights. In a federal system, the federal government has restrictions placed on its powers, but it also has powers to protect rights. Otherwise, what justifiction could there be for it at all?
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 3, 2005

RJM: “I’ve always been puzzled by the notion that libertarianism (understood broadly as a concern for human freedom) has anything to say about the level of government at which decisions are made. Federalism can be, and often has been, a useful tool for preserving freedom, but it is just that — a tool.”

Sure. And as I said, I don’t blame individual victims today of State action from using federal courts if it works. But the idea is that centralized state power is, other things being equal, more dangerous than dispersed power.

Moreover, as a matter of fact, the federal government is the biggest danger to us, and as a matter of fact they were limited by the Constitution to enumerated powers; and when they simply ignore the limits in the document that they claim also gives them their legitimacy, they become all the more dangerous.

“Further, as far as courts’ abilities to overturn state legislation, it’s completely clear that, as an original matter, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to force states to adhere to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights”

Actually, it is not clear at all that this was what the 14th originally meant. There is, at the least, lots of debate on this. Even now, the entire Bill of Rights has not been incorporated.

“as a practical matter, the Constitution SHOULD require states to respect certain individual rights”

I don’t agree at all; any more than the federal Constitution should have a clause purporting to order, say, Indonesia to respect certain rights.

“The notion that individual liberty is in some way served by specifying that (all other things being equal) Group X, rather than Group Y, gets to prescribe the rules of my conduct is, frankly, absurd.”

Tell it to the Founders.

Palmer:

“Now reasonable people may differ over precisely what that amendment requires, but it is far from obvious, as Mr. Kinsella seems to think it is, that the phrase “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” has no restrictive power over the states.”

I don’t think this at all (unless you argue that the 14th is null and void because it was illegally ratified). Even Raoul Berger said it restricts the states in some way; and I tend to lean toward his interpretation which is that it limited the states only regarding certain narrow rights having to do with national citizenship. It seems obvious to me that if the 14th had clearly stated that it incorporates most of the rihts from the Bill of Rights and authorizes Congress to tell states what to do (e.g., to nullify Texas’ sodomy law), then it would not have been ratified. Therefore the original understanding of the 14th was NOT clearly that it empowered the feds to nullify state laws that violate the first 8 amendments.

(Further: there is the logical problem that the 14th explicitly subjected states to a due process requirement similar to that of the 5th amendment; there would be no need to do this if the P-or-I clause incorporated the 5th already!)

It seems to be very very clear that at best, the original udnerstanding of the P-or-I clause was uncertain–some thought one thing, others thoght another. Given this, it seems to me that it shoudld not be construed to grant many new powers to the feds. Just as real estate can only be sold by a written agreement, so such a fundamental change to the existing federal-states structure–espeically one that moves in the direction of greater centralization of power–should be effected only by an explicit amendment, not one that is ambiguous.

“For Mr. Kinsella and his friends at the Ludwig von Mises Institute (and their little cluster of groups and publications), “federalism” (which, in any case, most of them don’t like, since they would prefer to be living under the Confederacy)”

the pejorative “little” is cute, but out of place, distracting and insulting.

Actually I would prefer to be living under a minarchist or anarcho-capitlaist socieyt; but yes, I do believe we would be better off had the Union not prevailed in their war to prevent southern independence. We probably would not have entered WWI as we did, and Hoppe explains in his Introduction to his Democracy book how that intervention in WWI arguably helped contribute to the rise of Hitler, WWII, and Naziism, communism, and the cold war.

” means that the federal government simply has no responsibilities at all.”

Well, I don’t agree. To the extent we have a federation or union, the federal governemnt does have some duties–national defense, and even striking down internal trade barriers under the interstate commerce clause (with abuse by the feds limited by the right to exit, or secede).

“The states can (and maybe even should) engage in all kinds of restrictions of the “rights” (the use of scare quotes by Mr. Kinsella around the phrase “violate rights” is informative) of the people living there.”

Mr. Palmer, this is uncharitable and unfair, and just wrong. States should NOT violate individual rights; and in fact I support STATE judges striking these laws down, under a concurrent review theory. I would even be in favor of changing state constitutions to deny them general police power and making THEM states of enumerated powers. Etc. The quotes around “violate rights” was not scare quotes for purposes of expressing doubt about the fact that states do violate rights, but only to indicate that the feds might decree something to be a rights violation which is not.

Take the TExas sodomy case. I disagree with the Court’s reasoning in the Lawrence case (as I explained here), and also disagree that the decision is a libertarian one, because it erodes the important structural limits on central power of federalism as well as enumerated powers. But if a Justice on the highest court in Texas in criminal matters, the Court of Criminal Appeals (and I did run for this on the LP ticket a few years back, got 71,000 votes), I would have voted to acquit the defendants accused of violating the anti-sodomy law on at least 2 grounds: 1, that the law violated the STATE constitution; and 2, that the law is immoral aggression and I have a duty as a human being not to participate in enforcing aggression.

“So even the unamended Constitution guaranteed the rights of Americans to a republican form of government (with which, arguably, vicious forms of racial oppression were inconsistent) and to the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.”

Well–it depends on what you mean “guaranteed the rights” of someone. The question is whether the mention of a right confers a POWER on the feds, or a limit (or both). Clearly it’s a limit on federal action. Whether it also conveys a power on the feds to interfer with states, is another matter. It is clear for example that the mention of “rights” in the first 8 amendmnets of the Bill of Rights did not grant to Congress or the federal gov’t a power to stop the states from infringing these rights. This is not disputed by anyone serious. There were state established religions (Congregationalism in Mass., e.g.) in effect in 1791. Therefore, it’s clear to me that listing a right in the Constitution is just another way of limiting the feds from invading it; or making it clear the feds are not granted this power in the first place.

Moreover, think about this. The fed gov’t was based on enumerated powers; the ninth and tenth amendmnts make this clear. The ninth amendment makes it clear that the rights listed are not exhaustive. This is compatible with the idea that the fed gov’t only has the powers enumerated; and no otherse.

But the states had general police power. It would be confusing to say the ninth amendment applies to states (states did later adopt versinons of it in their own constitutions, but I contend this is just confusion) because the ninth amendment is compatible wiht enumerated powers, but seems to conflict with the idea of general police powers. If you read the ninth amendment literally, it would basically denude the states of their general police powers.

My point anyway, is that the recognition of a right in the Constitution is not necessarily a grant of power to the feds to regulate the states in this regard. Just as it is not a grant of power to regulate China’s affairs. I can write a private contract with my wife that says, “the right to freedom of speech is recognized” but that mere declaration does not purport to give me the authority to force China to respect those rights. Likewise with the feds and the sovereign states.

” Add to that the protections of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments and you have a quite unmistakable role for the federal government to stop the states from infringing on rights.”

No; on some rights only, not on rights in general, and not on all those listed in the Bill of Rights.

“In a federal system, the federal government has restrictions placed on its powers, but it also has powers to protect rights. Otherwise, what justifiction could there be for it at all?”

Mr. Palmer I know you are too familiar with our revolutionary history to be unfamiliar with the answer. The feds could have a role in national defense, even in ensuring internal free trade; and in settling disputes between States, or between States and other nation-states. That does not imply that they need to have the power granted to them to force states to abide by certain standards. The founders all thought of the states and the state constitutions as the primary protection of individual rights.

Do you honestly believe the founders, or even the framers of the 14th amendment, would have voted for ratification if they had thought the federal government would have the right to strike down state laws like this? I think it is clear that they would not; and this is an indication of waht the original understanding was.

Further, if there were a grant of powers, it needs to be clear and express, not just implied from a statement recognizing a given right. And as I have noted, while the 14th and other provisions do grant the the feds some additional powers over the states (undermining your other argument that the original P-I clause grants the feds powers–for if it did, why is it restated in the 14th?), these powers are limited. Where it is ambiguous or not express, we should ere on the side of less centralization of power.

What is unreasonable or racist about any of this, Mr. Palmer, even if you don’t agree with all of it?
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 3, 2005

links did not make it through: some of them are:

Hoppe’s democracy introduction: http://www.hanshoppe.com/publications.php#democracy
my article on the Lawrence sodomy case: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kinsella/kinsella11.html
my run for Texas justice: http://www.stephankinsella.com/election2002.php
Wild PegasusFebruary 3, 2005

“Further, if there were a grant of powers, it needs to be clear and express, not just implied from a statement recognizing a given right. … Where it is ambiguous or not express, we should ere on the side of less centralization of power.”

I disagree, because I put libertarian results above decentralist results. It’s a question of which construction principle ought to be used, and since I hold libertarian values in the highest regard, those ought to be used in construction.

Decentralism is not a bulwark against government wickedness, which even a cursory glance at American history reveals.

– Josh
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 3, 2005

Peg: “I disagree, because I put libertarian results above decentralist results. It’s a question of which construction principle ought to be used, and since I hold libertarian values in the highest regard, those ought to be used in construction.

“Decentralism is not a bulwark against government wickedness, which even a cursory glance at American history reveals.”

The question is whether, when *setting up* an institution, which one is more likely to generate more libertarian results. A system where the central state is limited by a written constitution to certain enumerated powers (implying that other powers are left to the states, or to the people), is one good technique, at least to the extent the central state abides by the limits set on it in its authorizing document.

What has become clear is that a written Constitution is not really a very good way of limiting the state, since it simply disregards or twists the express provisions limiting its powers. What is worse, it has taken provisions meant to limit its powers–like the listing of rights in the Bill of Rights–and now uses them as *grants* of powers. It is not surprising the state will always try to twist things in its favor, but what is surprising is to see libertarians endorsing this.

I do not say that a libertarian should oppose the result of a particular case where the federal government disregarded limits on it to nullify an unlibertarian state law; but the libertarian should also have qualms that the means used to achieve this (good) result are also harmful to rights. The libertarian who not only cheers the results of Lawrence but the Court’s reasoning and the Constitutional right to do this is basically advocating tearing down Constitutional limitations on the feds; he is advocating a rule that the central state does not need to abide by limits placed upon it.
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 3, 2005

A post I tried was for some reason rejected; I posted it offsite, here: http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/02/palmer_on_the_f.html
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 4, 2005

Interesting no one is able to refute my 14th amendment arguments.
AnonymousFebruary 4, 2005

Mr. Kinsella is wrong that vouchers would mean more money devoted to education. In fact, most studies suggest that private schools cost about half as much as public schools in tuition. In my state, that’s $9000 for the public school, and about $4500 for a private school.

I’ve got news for Mr. Kinsella. Public education is not going to be abolished any time soon. However, it could be whittled down to nothing and the states could save significant amounts of money if parents could get their children out of public schools and into private schools.

Of course, public money introduces distortions into the market. But the current system is abysmal, and there’s no reason to think that vouchers necessarily lead to more statism. That’s an open question.
Tom G. PalmerFebruary 4, 2005

I don’t know why Mr. Kinsella’s post was rejected, unless it was because of too many URLs, which the system automatically rejects. (I don’t know how to correct this, other than to go to the master page and approve the posting, which I did for Mr. Schuster.)

I’m at Duke University and just finished some hours of talking about free trade. But I wish to address one point in Mr. Kinsella’s posts above: he conflates an “original intention” approach to constitutional interpretation with an “original meaning” approach. They’re significantly different. “The Founders” (the drafters? the ratifiers? who?) may not have “intended” this or that outcome, but the “meaning” of what they wrote may encompass more than they intended. Randy Barnett treats that issue quite elegantly in his work on an “originalism for originalists” and in his book *Restoring the Lost Constitution” (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691115850/qid=1107577988/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/103-2447442-6709449 ).
Stephan KinsellaFebruary 5, 2005

In resopnse to Mr. Palmer: I did not mean to conflate original meaning from original intent, and do not believe I did so, at least not explicitly. My view is that “original understanding” (as argued persuasively by Bork, in one of his coherent arguments) is what matters. Original intent is just evidence for what the original understanding was. Of course the Founders’ and Framers’ understanding and interpretation of a provision at the time of its enactment/ratification is relevant to what they were voting on was taken to mean!

This is a question that always seems to be dodged. It is clearly relevant to understanding what a given provision is supposed to mean, that those who ratified it would NOT have dones so if they had thought it meant what is being suggested years later.

For anyone who thinks language means anything, or that contracts, agreements, treaties, Constitutions, and other binding documents have any meaning that is related to their text and purposes … then I can only think of 2 responses to an argument that the founders would have voted against it if it had stated explicitly the interpretation being urged now: (a) the original understanding does not matter, because the Constitution is a “living document”; or (b) the Framers WOULD HAVE voted for it if it had been made explicit.

I hope Mr. Palmer has not gone so far down the modernist road that he would urge (a). As for (b), it does not pass the laugh test. It is just outright stubbornness; those ignorant high school students educated on Cap’n Crunch and Saturday Morning propaganda like I’m Just A Bill, might believe Congressmen just after the War to Prevent Southern Independence would have voted for a law permitting the feds to overturn state laws prohibiting homosexual sodomy–just like they believe the Emancipation Proclamation freed the slaves, or that Women’s Suffrage is terrible and should be banned. Anyone with any sense at all knows that the 14th Amendment would have lost virtually unanimously if the ratifiers had thought it would mean this. That does not mean I agree with their unlibertarian sentiment; but it seems clear beyond cavil to me that this is so. Given this, this is mighty powerful evidence that the meaning of the words of the 14th Amendment do not and cannot mean what the Libertarian Centralists (in Gene Healy’s words) want it to mean.

What baffles me is the lack of honesty in Constitutional discourse. I personally wish the Constitution did not permit Congress to enact patent and copyrihgt laws. I wish it did not have a 14th amendment at all. I wish it listed more rights in the Bill of Rights. I wish the Ninth were clearer. I wish that income tax were not authorized. But in honesty, I have to admit that unfortunately, what I wish is not the case. The Constitution is not a perfectly libertarian document. Where it is not libertarian, I will declare it and advocate that it be either changed, or disregarded… or at least, recognized as being nonlibertarian.

The centralist libertarians WANT the feds to be able to strike down unlibertarian state laws. That is understandable (though I have qualms about this for structural reasons); but it does not mean this is what the constitution SAYS. Look, I even grant you that you guys at least do have an argument. Barnett’s arguments re the 9th amendment, Roger Pilon’s and David Mayer’s and Michael Kent Curtis pro-14th amendment arguments… are respectable, if I think incorrect (and a bit biased and nonobjective… too results-oriented, or makeweight). I think the overwhelming weight of argument lies on our side. But the pro-14th Amendment side ought to grant that the issue is not 100% clear, and that the libertarian opposition to their expansive reading of the 14th is also respectable–from both a Constitutional, AND libertarian perspective. To pretend that the “issue is settled” is either ignorant or dishonest. And to imply that opponents of the expansive reading of the 14th amendment are racists or slavery-apologists is utterly despicable and a sign of desperation. When no substantive arguments are left any more, someone cornered either admits defeat, or resorts to ad hominem or personal attacks.
straddleNovember 3, 2005

http://www.anzwers.net/hot/newmens/hqwovrym/ complimentwhosewondered
Bookmarks newestMay 28, 2008

Bookmarks newest

Tsewen, bookmarks newest and bookmarks

***

Phony “Radicalism” from a Reactionary Confederate Revivalist

February 2, 2005

It seems to me that maybe I just might be at least one of the persons that Lew Rockwell has in mind in this coy essay. Evidently, because I: A) don’t want to see American soldiers butchered by jihadis; B) don’t consider Iraqi police and soldiers to be “quislings” and “traitors”; C) don’t favor the return to power of the thugs who’ve been ruling Ukraine since the breakup of the USSR; D) believe that, having made a stupid decision to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam, the U.S. government should not announce that all U.S. troops in Iraq will henceforth be on their own and that they should make their own way back to the U.S., struggling through the Iraqi population as it is massacred by Islamic radical jihadis, fascist Ba’athists of the former security apparatus, and warring factions in an at-least-three-way-civil-war, then it must follow that I am a “moderate.” And not only that, but one who depends wholly on the state’s favor,

The radical does not seek the state’s favor. The moderate depends wholly on it.

Indeed,

The moderates always seem to come down on the side of the prison wardens. Only when the radicals have broken through the wall, and the path is perfectly clear and safe, do they grab the chance and make a run for it. In retrospect, for example, even moderate libertarians grant that the American Revolution, repealing the Corn Laws, and overthrowing Soviet central planning were wonderful things. But they know in their hearts that they would have lacked the courage to do their part.

Poor, sad Lew Rockwell, surrounded by his anti-Semitic, segregationist, and racist friends, whistling Dixie and wishing for the Confederacy to Rise Again. If he’d look into the editions of Socialism(by Ludwig von Mises), The Fatal Conceit (by F.A. Hayek), The Economic Way of Thinking (by the late Paul Heyne), and a variety of books by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, and other classical liberal anti-communists (well, certainly the ones printed in Russian in the USSR), he’d find that the title pages thank one “Tom Palmer” for having arranged for their translation and publication. What a moderate that jerk must have been! And how courageous Lew Rockwell must have been! (True, when I talked to the fellow who arranged for all those publications, he didn’t recall any “Lew Rockwell” at the time in Moscow, Budapest, Prague, Tirana, Bucharest, Warsaw, Berlin, Sofia, Zagreb, Belgrade, Krakow….or well, anywhere like that. It must have been the “radical” thing to do to stay in Alabama. And not only that, but courageous, too!)

But seriously folks, the idea that screaming from the sidelines, retreating from intelligent debate and instead scuttling under a rock to cozy up to anti-Semites and racists, and denouncing attempts to formulate strategies to disengage the state’s talons from civil society is “harder” or “courageous” is, well, laughable. Those things are actually easy. You don’t have to do any hard thinking and you don’t have to reckon with any consequences. What’s hard is to grapple with real problems, to acknowledge both the bad and the good consequences of choices, and to reject fairy tales in favor of realism. To do that you have to realize that, unlike impotent caricatures such as Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo, you have to take responsibility for what you propose. And that’s never easy.

Note: For documentation of some of the harm that Lew Rockwell does to libertarian ideas, see a number of the items under “The Fever Swamp.” I thought I’d give the issue a rest for a while, since there are actually lots of good things going on in the world on which to comment and report…but Rockwell seems deliberately to present such an easy target and his latest column was such a clear challenge. (Expect later some more material I discovered about his connections to truly spooky holocaust deniers and racists — even scarier than those documented in the entries in The Fever Swamp.)

Note: I’ve posted again a very sad posting that Mr. Stephen Kinsella had put on a rather catty web site that antiwar.com has created to post attacks on me. In any case, after I linked to it, they took it down and oddly replaced it with a colorful bit of revisionist (i.e., completely made up) history by Justin Raimondo. So here’s Mr. Kinsella’s defense of Lew Rockwell’s truly nutty belief that the black mayor of San Francisco called Condoleeza Rice before 9/11 to warn her not to fly. (My original post was here.) And here Download file is Mr. Kinsella’s rather sad response. It is truly one of the saddest pleas for understanding I’ve ever read.

Archived comments:

Comments

Rockwell: “Of course Rothbard faced a lifetime of tut-tutting from people who said his libertarianism was dangerously irresponsible. Today it is the same with this website, the Mises Institute, Antiwar.com, FFF.org, the Independent Institute, and every radical libertarian blogger, academic, or journalist who stands accused of harming the cause of reform by holding out an ideal.”

Man that’s weak. Stormfront faces a lot of tut-tutting for holding out an ideal too. It doesn’t meant they’re right about anything.

Posted by: John T. Kennedy at February 2, 2005 10:32 PM

John’s right, and BTW, how can Rockwell have his website and antiwar.com in the same category as the FFF?

Posted by: Adam W. at February 2, 2005 10:57 PM

I should add some additional background. In the background of Rockwell’s absurd claims is the challeng that Murray Rothbard used to make. (Root around the Mises web site and you’re sure to find it repeated a few times among his collected writings, if not in his essays, then in his speeches, and if not there, then among his napkin doodles.)

If there were a button on this podium, Murray would say, that would eliminate (Specified Injustice X), “I would push it.” I thought that sounded pretty exciting when I was a boy. I thought, of course, “I would push that button, too.” But then I learned….those buttons are often pretty hard to find. In all the years since, I’ve never found a podium with such a button on it.

An example of such thinking is the call for an “immediate withdrawal” from Iraq, which is a standard of “radicalism” that even Lew Rockwell and his screechy echo Justin Raimondo can’t meet, despite their insistence on it. Do they mean that an email should be sent out to all the troops saying, “You guys are on your own. Supporting you costs taxpayers’ money, and that’s collected by theft, so we’re not going to perpetuate that system of theft one moment longer! Find your own way home.”? (Even that, of course, would cost at least a little stolen money.) If they’re not totally insane, they wouldn’t insist on abandoning the troops, on the grounds that it’s not our problem that they’re over there. Any sane person would call for an orderly withdrawal. Uh, oh! *That would take time.* (My nephew’s unit, the 3rd ACR, took months to withdraw from the Sunni Triangle to Kuwait under threat from roadside bombs and snipers.) And if it took time, it wouldn’t be immediate. That would be a sell out. Where’s the button?

And if you were to consider the costs in human life of such an abandonment of the troops? Uh, oh, that’s “consequentialism.” Can’t have that. It’s a sign that you’re not a real radical.

It turns out that there are very few “buttons” that can simply eliminate injustice. Everything involves risk, strategy, tradeoffs, and the possibility of failure.

Welcome to the real world. Or even, welcome to adulthood. But, reasons Lew Rockwell and his ilk, to avoid that, how much better to wallow in the warm and fetid mud of Confederate Revivalism (little chance of that ever rising again, thank God!), being cozy with truly creepy “enemies of the state,” striking radical poses by describing the people who blow up innocent schoolchildren and threaten to wash the streets of Iraq with the blood of voters as “the Iraqi Resistance,” toasting the deaths of American soldiers, and on and on and on. If you deliberately make yourself impotent, there will be no pregnancies, no chance of miscarriage, no responsiblity for what results.

Finally, I should direct anyone who’s interested in the matter to a remarkably sad comment by Mr. Kinsella, Lew Rockwell’s most eager defender, at a little web site that they set up just to blog about me: http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/01/palmer_on_insan.html . It was in response to my blog entry on “Insanity” (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php ), on Lew Rockwell’s insistence that he had “read in the SF Examiner” that Condoleeza Rice “phoned him two weeks before 9/11 and warned him [black San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown] to take no commercial flights until further notice.” (http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/018243.php) I don’t recall ever having read a sadder — or more embarrassing — personal statement than Mr. Kinsella’s. (Addendum: Catch it while you can; it’s been taken off the main listing on antiwar.com’s catty little web site, so maybe it will be taken down entirely. It turns out that even those folks can be embarrassed by something. Amazing.)

Addendum: Anyone who’d like to cruise through the odd little site that antiwar.com has set up can find some amazing nuggets drawn from Justin Raimondo’s failing memory of events some 27 years ago, especially about how brave he was (a hero in his own mind) and how timid I allegedly was. Interestingly, I wasn’t present during the time much of what he describes as happening and the claims made are, well, how to put this….addled. But at least one was true (a pretty good record for Raimondo), which was that I objected to publishing a booklet celebrating violence that featured a photo of a burning police car on it, especially since I had been told by his associates that Raimondo was the one who set the car alight. Not the kind of thing I wanted to be associated with, it’s true. But the rest is “revisionism” in the best tradition of Raimondo’s revisionist heroes, i.e., those who make up the past.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 2, 2005 11:30 PM

Aside from the obvious, as it was best put “creepiness” do the nutjobs realize that the Examiner, like the NY Post, are not credible sources bound by journalistic ethics? They are *tabloids*– yellow journalistic nightmares that feed off the scum of reporting. I doubt he found that statement there, but if it was, he should have enough of an analytical mind to know what is and isn’t credible.

It’s I think a test of liberty’s burden not to rise up and slay these individuals.

Posted by: Brian Radzinsky at February 3, 2005 1:37 AM

I’m confused. Where do you get this idea that Rockwell is a “Reactionary Confederate Revivalist”? Sounds like an ad-hominem attack to me.
“Poor, sad Lew Rockwell, surrounded by his anti-Semitic, segregationist, and racist friends, whistling Dixie and wishing for the Confederacy to Rise Again.”
Who is this person? It certainly isn’t any Lew Rockwell I recognise.

And the straw men – “bringing the troops home” is not the same as “leaving them to find their own way back” is it? Has any columnist on Lewrockwell. com even indicated this?

If you want to criticize Rockwell, show us the great things “moderates” have been doing to slow down or reverse such things as the PATRIOT act. Use a counter-argument. All you’ve done is shown that you personally dislike some people, and what use is that?

Posted by: Nathan at February 3, 2005 4:59 AM

And don’t look now, Tom, but there are people publishing anti-Confederate material who are associated with LewRockwell.com:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/gaddy1.html
and
http://praxeology.net/unblog02-03.htm#05

Indeed, if anyone out there wants to see a rational discussion of what’s going on with all this backbiting, and actually favors the eventual triumph of Liberty (rather than death of the “‘non-libertarian libertarians’ – and ‘you know who they are'”) I suggest the following links:
http://praxeology.net/unblog10-04.htm#05
and
http://praxeology.net/unblog10-04.htm#06

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 10:51 AM

Rockwell seems to lack any sense of nuance. Some things are ripe for “radicalism”: one could immediately end, say, slavery. Although removing this and other measures immediately would involve discomfort to some individuals, the overwhelming moral concerns make it justified. However, abolishing social security TODAY, or removing
American troops from Iraq NOW might do far more harm than good. This is not to say that troops should not leave Iraq or that Social Security should not be abolished. They should. But one cannot say, “Well, there’s the top of Everest, lets get going.” Instead, you discuss, plan, and finally move swiftly, boldly, but with caution. Also, for Rockwell to write, “the only real solution is upheaval” is astounding. Maybe I’m being a tad conservative, but one never knows what will come from upheaval. I recommend he read a little closer the work of Oakeshott, Kirk and yes, even, Hayek (I’m not sure how Rockwell could include Hayek as a radical considering the Alabama crowd repeatedly refer to him as a statist. See, for example Walter Block’s “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.” in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, published by the Mises Institute:http://www.mises.org/journals/jls/12_2/12_2_6.pdf)

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 10:55 AM

Dan,

You wrote: “I’m not sure how Rockwell could include Hayek as a radical considering the Alabama crowd repeatedly refer to him as a statist. See, for example Walter Block’s “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.” in the Journal of Libertarian Studies…”

Isn’t it possible that there is NO “Alabama crowd” and that there are many and frequent differences of opinion between people who are connected with the Mises Institute? Further, the JLS is a scholarly journal, not a mouthpiece for a given cult-line, regardless of what has been said in these pages and elsewhere. A cursory reading of JLS issues plainly shows this.

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 11:05 AM

Mr. Palmer, would you care to offer us the real reason why you habitually lump together so many different individuals with quite diverse opinions who are associated with Mises Institute and refer to them as “Alabama crowd”?

As far as I know, Walter Block, Roger Garrison, Joe Salerno, Tom Dilorenzo, Guido HÃ?ÃÂ¼lsmann, David Gordon, Pascal Salin, Jesus Huerta de Soto, Josef Ã?ÃÂ Ã?ÃÂma, etc. are real scholars.

That aside, the Mises Institute website is an excellent source of economic literature; obvisously, the Cato Institute website canÃ?ÃÂ´t even remotely compare to that.

Not to mention the strange kind of “managerial” or “pragmatical” libertarianism of the CI.

I really do think that you are too bright to waste your time on posts like this. 🙂

Take care! 🙂

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 11:51 AM

I suppose there is no “Alabama Crowd” to the same extent that their is no “conservative crowd.” You will never find a group of individuals who believe exactly the same set of ideas. There will always be differing opinions among any group. This does not mean that we can’t clump together individuals who believe in roughly the same core concepts. While we speak of “Austrian Economists” you will probably find not two who believe in the exact same propositions. We use these aggregate terms to make sense of ideas. Call the “Alabama Crowd” and ideal type, if you wish. I would bet that you agree with me on this. When I address the “Alabama Crowd,” you no doubt know exactly who I’m speaking of.

As to your other point, I have attended several Mises Institute events and have heard the Hayek-as-statist remark many times from individuals affiliated with the Institute. The only time I hear Hayek referred to in this way is when I read one of their publications or attend one of their events.

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 11:53 AM

MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj,

While I donÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t pretend to speak for Dr. Palmer, it seems odd that you take to task those who use the term ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?Alabama CrowdÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ while at the same time you speak of the “the strange kind of ‘managerial’ or ‘pragmatical’ libertarianism of the [Cato Institute].ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ The individuals who you mention in your post (with the exception of de Soto, as far as I can tell) are all directly affiliated with the Mises Institute. The Mises Institute resides in Alabama, hence, the ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?Alabama Crowd.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ Certainly they have differing opinions on some points, but their brand of libertarianism is quite similarÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âa Rothbardian, anarchistic, pro-confederacy point of view.

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 12:12 PM

Dan–

If you want to engage in Platonic “ideal types,” you are perfectly free to do so, but I really think that especially when engaging in a discussion of ideas that it really does not serve us well. Further, the use of an “ideal type” is only useful when you are using it properly, that is to tie together commonalities across “real types.” For example, in saying “Austrian Economists” you are talking about the common core beliefs of Lachmann, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, and Kirzner, etc. But given their differences, a broadly sweeping statement such as “all Austrian economists believe that the central problem of socialism is the knowledge acquisition problem” would be false.

Since you have attended several Mises institute events you must know that Garrison and Klein both highly regard Hayek; I would like to see a reference to Hayek as a “statist” by either, since both Garrison and Klein are part of your “ideal type” Alabama crowd.

Further, let everyone know that even the work you cite, Walter Block’s JLS article “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom” does not even include the word “statist,” as a simple word search of the article shows. Indeed the summary of the article is as follows: “There is little doubt that Hayek deserves his reputation as a defender of economic freedomÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âbut only compared to his contemporaries who, with only a few honorable exceptions, were almost totally immersed in interventionistic philosophy. However, when compared either to some ideal standard, or to numerous modern commentators, it is clear that Hayek falls short of a clear unambiguous advocate of the free marketplace.” Hardly the same as calling Hayek a “statist.”

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 12:22 PM

Dan–

Before I’m off to class, and having noted your response to Matej, I would just like to note that “anti-Lincoln” is NOT the same as “pro-confederacy.” Please read Long’s praxeology.net blogs I referenced in my first post.

Regards,

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 12:25 PM

To the critics of Dr. Palmer’s “moderate libertarianism”, y’all are missing his main and important point: We libertarians need to engage the world, not judge it from the comfort and safety of our intellectual circle.

Libertarianism cannot capture the minds of people and thus be practiced in government if all we do is whine among ourselves about how bad our government is. That’s a self-defeating attitude and achieves nothing. And that’s what Dr. Palmer dislikes about Rockwell, antiwar.com, and the so-called “Alabama crowd”. And rightfully so.

For too long libertarians have stood on the sidelines of the real world and being the childish, smart-alecky know-it-all who gripes about the world but does nothing about it. In desiring only perfect policy solutions, good and possible solutions are never developed to the problems of our governmenmt. Plato was right. The enemy of the good is the perfect.

If we really want to get out of the mess in Iraq and change American foreign policy to our libertarian framework, then we libertarians should not shy away from engaging the world and working directly in politics, civil service, and
even the military.

Jefferson was right; the price of liberty is eternal vigilance. The problem with so-called libertarians such as Rockwell and the antiwar.com crowd is that they practice eternal whining.

Posted by: Mark Bonicillo at February 3, 2005 2:05 PM

Well, just to clarify my view:

The Mises Institute, together with the FEE, the FFF, the Independent Institute, etc. is the best source of libertarian ideas.

ItÃ?ÃÂ´s not that I fully agree with everything people from the MI say (i.e. Hans-Hermann Hoppe and his views is definitely NOT my cup of tea, so to speak)… but still, on the balance, I thank God for the Mises Institute. 🙂

The Cato Institute is, however, in my view “too mainstream”, or – rather – far too moderate and PC. For example, the so – called social security “privatization” is, IMHO, not only a step in a completely wrong direction, but it can bring about serious unintentional (?) consequences.

See i.e. this from Tyler Cowen:
“Keep in mind those “private” accounts will be regulated rather than truly private in the libertarian sense. They will channel benefits to government-approved providers, thus leading to bureaucracy, regulation, and costly commissions. And if anyone’s account goes bust, do you really think there will be no secondary safety net to bail them out? What if the whole market went bust for about ten years’ time?”
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/09/should_we_priva.html

Also, I donÃ?ÃÂ´t remember EVER reading anything from Cato that would fundamentally challenge, for instatnce, “antidiscrimination laws”.

The greatest irony is that despite all their moderation, the views of the CI are in political practice about as IRRELEVANT as the more radical and consistent views of the MI. So, Mr. Palmer, congrats – it truly is a great achievement! 🙂

BTW: sorry for my “not-very-good” English! 🙁

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 2:09 PM

Allen,

1) You have Plato’s “ideal forms” confused with Max Weber’s “ideal types.”

2) Yes, Garrison and Klein both hold Hayek in high regard. As I stated in my previous post, “There will always be differing opinions among any group. This does not mean that we can’t clump together individuals who believe in roughly the same core concepts.”

3) If you were to read Block’s article instead of simply doing a word search or reading the summary, you would see that on page pg. 365, he calls Hayek’s views “interventionistic” (which as far as I can tell is the same as statist).

Or perhaps this from Hoppe: “[Rothbard] demonstrates the moral unjustifiability of the state, and offers smashing refutations of prominent limited-statist libertarians such as L. v. Mises, F. A. Hayek, I. Berlin, and R. Nozick.” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe5.html)

Again, Hoppe: ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?Indeed, how often do we hear nowadays from statists and in defense of a statist agenda cries such as “even Hayek (Friedman) says, or, not even Hayek (Friedman) denies that such and such must be done by the state!” Personally, they may not be happy about this, but there is no denying that their work lends itself to this purpose, and hence, that they, willy-nilly, actually contributed to the continued and unabating growth of state power.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe7.html)

4) YouÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢re right; to be anti-Lincoln does not mean one is pro-confederacy. A simple browsing of RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s site, however, will convince most people that this crowd happens to be both. (Take this for example, [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson5.html]. Or just search for ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?confederacyÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ on RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s site and count how many negative references you find)

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 2:29 PM

Where, pray tell, is the *refutation* of Block’s or Hoppe’s criticisms of Hayek’s politics? Blocks lists several significant and serious non-libertarian measures supported by Hayek.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at February 3, 2005 3:05 PM

Dan writes, “4) YouÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢re right; to be anti-Lincoln does not mean one is pro-confederacy. A simple browsing of RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s site, however, will convince most people that this crowd happens to be both. (Take this for example, [http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson5.html]. Or just search for ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?confederacyÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ on RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s site and count how many negative references you find)”

I, for one, am not “pro-confederacy” at all (whatever it means) but am staunchly anti-Lincoln. No one ever caught me posting to weird conspiracy theories or rambling about Jews either.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at February 3, 2005 3:14 PM

Mr. Kinsella:

I think you missed the point of my posting the Block and Hoppe criticisms of Hayek. My first post asked why Rockwell had mentioned Hayek as one of his radicals considering that most of the Mises Institute crowd considers him a statist (as it appears you do as well). I never set out to refute their arguments. (Although for the record, I think it is absolute nonsense to argue (as does Hoppe) that Hayek increased the size of the state.)

Second, I don’t read your work, so I’ll take at face value your claim that you don’t support the Confederacy. However, I have no idea why you felt the need to share this nice piece of information. Anyone who spends any time on Rockwell’s site will find that the confederacy is celebrated to an extent that goes far, far beyond a mere distaste for Lincoln. I would suggest that if you are uncomfortable with your name being associated with the Confederacy (which appears to be the case), you might consider posting your work some place that isnÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t so closely associated with it.

BTW: I never claimed that you post ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?weird conspiracy theories or rambling about Jews either.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 3:45 PM

As for the accusation of being “pro-confederacy”, IÃ?ÃÂ´d say that the crucial issue is whether the so- called “Civil War” was a just war. Well, since to Rockwell, the right of secession is a natural part of the freedom of association, he, of course, does not consider that war just. I believe itÃ?ÃÂ´s the correct conclusion – for it directly follows from basic libertarian principles (i.e. the “non- agression” axiom). Does it make me “pro-confederacy” as well?

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 3:49 PM

You might ask whether you favored the secession by the South, which was really openly based on the hope of keeping people as slaves, since that is WHY the South seceded. (It’s a misrepresentation of history to argue that the secession “wasn’t about slavery” — every person who studies the issues knows that it was about slavery, just as Southern talk about “states rights” afterwards was about treating black people unjustly.) So you could distinguish the war from the secession. Both could be unjust or bad ideas, after all, just as the war against Iraq could be both a bad idea at the same time that the rule of Saddam Hussein was evil. The pro-Confederacy people who are promoted by Lew Rockwell think that the secession of the south was a good thing, which means that they favor keeping people as slaves. I’m sorry, but that’s what the logic dictates, since that’s why the South seceded. And for Matej, it’s not a part of the non-aggression axiom to keep people as slaves; seceding in order to keep slaves is not justified by the non-aggression axiom, any more than chaining people in your basement and then “seceding” from the country in order to avoid being stopped or punished is just.

Lew Rockwell and the things he promotes are making it hard to be a libertarian, because they are embarrassing us by associating those ideas with anti-libertarian people and positions. It’s embarrassing and a problem to run into people who have been really turned off on the ideas because of what they’ve seen from Lew Rockwell. I have run into some just on my campus and on internet sites. People who should really like von Mises, for example, are turned off because they think that he believed in the wacko ideas of LEw Rockwell. (I like Mises and have read a lot of Human Action and Theory and History and learned from him, and although I didn’t agree with some of it, I wish that others got to read him without being scared away by the weird ideas of Lew Rockwell.)

Posted by: Samuel at February 3, 2005 4:46 PM

Dan-

1) You’re correct, and I apologize for confusing ideal types with ideal forms; still the context in which I was making making my plea holds, which I am glad to see you agreed to in your point 2).

2)It seems to me that by agreeing Klein and Garrison hold Hayek in high regard, it doesn’t make sense to lump them in with the “Alabama crowd” which you previously implied they must be (being frequent contributors to Mises Institute gatherings), when they DON’T “believe in roughly the same core concepts – i.e, Hayek is a statist.” Then we must start making distinctions, shouldn’t we, and then the whole notion of a cult-like “Alabama crowd” just plainly becomes unuseful.

3) There is a difference in the notion of “interventionist” and “statist;” Mises himself makes a distinction. And your original reference to the Block piece was “the Alabama crowd repeatedly refer to him as a statist. See, for example Walter Block’s “Hayek’s Road to Serfdom.” Now either you meant that Block is a part of the Alabama crowd and the reference shows that in fact Block has so referred to Hayek as a “statist,” or the statement is meaningless. I take it that you thought the statement had meaning and proved your point. I was merely pointing out that it didn’t.

To the larger issue, my reading of the two quotes you give from Hoppe do not imply that Hayek is a statist. My reading is that Hayek’s moderation lent support, willy-nilly, to the expansion of the state. That doesn’t make one a “statist.” But then we are back to the original Rockwell article which Tom Palmer took to task, aren’t we?

As to your last point, I’ve just skimmed the Clyde Wilson article you linked to as an example to prove that the Rockwell.com is full of “pro-confederacy” material. Pray tell, it is a plea for a balanced treatment of the south and the confederacy by citing a large amount of literature, some smattering, in fact, which I have read. I miss, however, any claim by Wilson that would indicate that he is “pro-confederacy.” Could you give me a paragraph or line as a direct quote that I missed? If the answer is you can’t, but the preponderance of the cited books contradicting the conventional wisdom tells us he MUST BE pro-confederacy, then I have no answer except to say that one has already made up their mind that there is NO EVIDENCE that exists that can conflict with the moral superiority of the conventional wisdom. At which point, I believe, any useful conversation has ended, because you can offer no proof for your position, and I could offer no evidence to make you change your position, since the case has already been decided.

I hope, in the latter, I am wrong. My whole point in making my initial venture on this is that we all need to just calm down and be as charitable to our fellow libertarians as Catoites are to the establishment and Misesians are to the outsiders.

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 5:34 PM

Samuel:

Just one quote:

“Recent letters debating the causes of the Civil War have failed to distinguish the question ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?to what extent was the South’s decision to secede motivated by the desire to perpetuate slavery?ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ from the question “to what extent was the North’s decision to prevent secession motivated by the desire to end slavery?”

As J. R. Hummel shows in his book Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men, these questions have different answers: protecting slavery was central to the SouthÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s reasons for seceding, while antislavery sentiment was at best peripheral to the NorthÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s reasons for resisting secession.

To their joint discredit, both Union and Confederacy waged war against the principle of free association. Southern rebels claimed the right to exit the Union, but hypocritically denied slaves the same right to exit the plantation.

President Lincoln, for his part, stated plainly that his ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?paramount ObjectÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ was ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?to save the Union,ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ and ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?not either to save or to destroy slavery.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ If there had been no slaves, Lincoln would have sought to crush secession anyway. (And with conscripted troops!)

North and South alike, then, championed compulsory over free association. It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Civil War was an unjust war on both sides.”

(…)

“In the Civil War, both the North and the South decisively turned their backs on the ideals for which the American Revolution had been fought. The North’s drive to subjugate the South had an effect on the North analogous to the effect the SouthÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s drive to preserve slavery had on the South. More authority was centralized in Washington; civil liberties were routinely violated; income taxation and Federally administered conscription were introduced; and an ominous cult of national unity spread through the American consciousness. The result was a Federal government with vast new powers ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â a fledgling Leviathan that quickly proved too tasty a treat not to be captured by the corporate Ã?ÃÂ©lite. And so we are left, at the end of the twentieth century, with a burgeoning American police state whose primary victims, ironically, are the very blacks whose liberation was supposed to be the moral justification of Union victory.”

http://praxeology.net/unblog02-03.htm#05
————————–

So … since the North definitely didnÃ?ÃÂ´t wage this war to emancipate slaves from oppression, I would say that there was no legitimate reason to initiate force against the seceding South.

Posted by: Matej Suster at February 3, 2005 5:38 PM

Matej, I don’t understand how you can maintain your point that “To their joint discredit, both Union and Confederacy waged war against the principle of free association. Southern rebels claimed the right to exit the Union, but hypocritically denied slaves the same right to exit the plantation”. It’s just NOT free association for me and you to “secede” because we want to take other people with us and treat them like farm animals. That is NOT free association; if it was, it would be a violation of free association for the police to arrest Mafia gangsters who “freely associated” to shake people down or kidnap people and charge ransom. It’s not a violation of free association to arrest people who “associate” because their association is about stealing from other people or putting chains on them and making them plow fields.

Dr. Palmer was arguing that the Lew Rockwell movement is not about libertarianism, but about LEw Rockwell’s own agenda. For him to attack Dr. Palmer (who came to talk to our campus and did a very good job of defending free trade in front of all of the anti-globalization activists) is funny, because he says that Palmer (I assume, with Dr. Palmer, that that is who he is thinking of) lacks courage. He has done more to convince people of libertarian ideas than Lew Rockwell, who works so hard to scare them away by injecting his own creepy ideas into the discussion and using the name of Mises and others to sell them.

Posted by: Samuel at February 3, 2005 6:31 PM

Like William Garrison, I think that the separation of the US by secession would have been a great anti-slavery move. Hummel explains quite convincingly that slavery was safer under Union that out of it. The federal enforcement of slavery, the returning of slaves to their masters — which continued through the war!! — socialized the costs of slavery, of which the benefits were private. The better seccessionists in the South realized that slavery was more secure with Union, but they wished to secede anyway. Not all Southerns considered slavery to be the most significant reason to secede. The anti-slavery Robert E. Lee didn’t; he decided to defend the right of secession of his home-state for the same reason many Southerners did, including many poor Southern non-slaveholders — that is, because Union troops were invading their countryside without any constitutional legitimacy, moral high-ground, or, in many cases, respect for innocent life or the restraints of just war. Remember that it was the attempt to prohibit secession that most inspired the more northern states in the South to secede. Remember also that four Union states had slavery throughout the war.

Posted by: Anthony Gregory at February 3, 2005 6:41 PM

Allen,

1)Thank you for acknowledging that you incorrectly used “ideal type.”

2)My introduction of Hayek into this debate was in regards to RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s use of him, not Garrison’s or Klein’s. RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s outfit, the Mises Institute, has been known (as IÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢ve shown and experienced myself) to label Hayek a statist. Therefore, I questioned why Rockwell would be using Hayek as an example of a radical. You (not me) introduced Garrison and Klein into the conversation to try and prove something which is irrelevant to the argument. Once again, not everyone in a group will agree on every point–but they will still belong to a group. In this case, you named two individuals who donÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t agree that Hayek is a statist. They still, however, can be safely lumped together with a group, as a belief that Hayek is a statist is not the single defining characteristic of the Alabama Crowd. Klein is a Senior Faculty member and Garrison an Adjunct Faculty member of the Mises Institute, so even in the strictest sense, they are part of the ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?Alabama CrowdÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ (again, remembering that the Mises Institute does, in fact, reside in Alabama). I have great respect for both Garrison and Klein as scholars. I would, however, question their affiliation with that outfit.

3)I was not aware that Mises made the distinction between ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?interventionistÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ and ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?statist.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ Would you be so kind as to provide a reference? IÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢ve always used the terms with more or less interchangeability, but that in itself would not make it correct usage. IÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢ve double checked myself at dictionary.com and hereÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s what I find:

Statist: The practice of giving a centralized government control over economic planning and policy.

Interventionist: The use of government power to control or influence domestic economic activity.

Unless you want to start having an extreme semantics debate, I think we can all agree that they mean essentially the same thing.

4)I donÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t see how the two Hoppe quotes cannot convince you that he is calling Hayek a statist, considering that he writes, ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ¦prominent limited-statist libertarians such as L. v. Mises, F. A. Hayek, I. Berlin, and R. Nozick.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ Gosh, IÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢m not sure it gets any clearer.

5) Lastly, youÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢ll notice I said that one could either read the Wilson piece, or simply type ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?confederacyÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ into RockwellÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢s search engine to prove my point. You have elected to do only the former, which is fine. If you really need me to point out how having an long bibliography on ones site citing pro-south after pro-south book might indicate that one is, in fact, pro-south, then you might be rightÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â-further discourse is indeed impossible.

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 6:46 PM

For Samuel:

Tibor R. Machan – Rethinking the Civil War, http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=671&fs;=rethinking+the+civil+war

Laurence M. Vance – The Misnamed Conflict, http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1682

David Gordon – New Slavery for Old (a review of “DRAWN WITH THE SWORD” by James M. McPherson), http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=108&sortorder;=issue

David Gordon – Wither’d Garland of War (a review of “THE COSTS OF WAR: AMERICA’S PYRRHIC VICTORIES” (ed. by John V. Denson), http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=15&sortorder;=issue

David Gordon – “Adams’s Stunning Achievement” (review of “When in the Course of Human Events: Arguing the Case for Southern Secession” by Charles Adams), http://www.mises.org/misesreview_detail.asp?control=163&sortorder;=issue

Thomas DiLorenzo – The Great Centralizer: Abraham Lincoln and the War between the States, http://independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_03_2_dilorenzo.pdf

——————

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 7:11 PM

Dan,

Well, let’s go through this again to clarify our differences and maybe we’ll make progress.

You started by saying you couldn’t understand how Rockwell could cite Hayek as a radical when you claimed “the Alabama crowd” viewed Hayek as a statist. I inferred, perhaps improperly (but I don’t think so) that you thought “defining Hayek as a statist” was one of the core concepts defining the “ideal type” of a member of the “Alabama crowd.” You then cited Block’s piece (which we have since found out portrays Hayek as an inconsistent defender of the free market) as evidence for Hayek being a “statist.” That was your claim, not mine, that Block called Hayek a “statist.” Well, we found out he didn’t, but Block does call him an interventionist.

At this stage two questions arise.

First, there is the question of whether the “ideal type” of “the Alabama crowd” views Hayek as a radical, a statist, or somewhere in-between. I cite Klein and Garrison as being connected to the Mises Institute who wouldn’t agree that Hayek is a statist. So…either the statement “Hayek is a statist” is NOT a defining characteristic (core concept) of those who openly associate themselves with the Mises Institute, which I thought was the central attribute of “the Alabama crowd.” In that case, it is no longer a mystery that Lew Rockwell could regard Hayek as a radical.The alternative is that “Hayek is a statist” IS a defining characteristic of “the Alabama crowd,” and “the Alabama crowd” is not made up exclusively those who associate with the Mises Institute, but some subgroup. At which time, I would plea, that the concept of an “Alabama crowd” has lost its meaning – although the south Auburn gang might have meaning.

If you imagine my tongue has now been firmly planted in my cheek over the last part, it is because I have found so many differences between those I have encountered who associate with the Mises Institute, and that Lew Rockwell enjoys and encourages such differences. Just think, there might NOT be such a thing as the “Alabama crowd.” I wonder how our views would change if we would actually contemplate arguments rather than lumping people automatically into groups and judging on association?

The second question which arises is whether “statist” means the same as “interventionist.” I claimed Mises made a distinction, and you ask for a reference. Good! At least we can agree that might settle the matter; if I find it will you agree that they are or might be different? I’m looking, but it might take a little time – not all of Mises’ works are online and some of the copies of Mises’ works which I possess don’t have complete indices.

Well, my wife is bugging me to get off the computer so we can go out for dinner. I have more to say, but I at least hope we are setting a higher standard than some of the name-calling that has frequented both this and other websites.

Maybe we can reintroduce civility as a requirement for posting on blogs.

Regards, (and I apologize for any mistakes in my rush out the door)

Posted by: Allen Dalton at February 3, 2005 7:21 PM

Allen,

Thanks for your comments. As head of both lewrockwell.com and the Mises Institute, Rockwell holds a special place that neither Klein nor Garrison do. His point of view is more directly indicative of what the whole group thinks on this issue. I know for a fact (but cannot prove here) that Rockwell views Hayek as a middle-of-the-road statist (interventionist). I also know that two of the leading members of the Mises Institute (Block and Hoppe) also view Hayek this way. Here we have the three leading individuals from this crowd all believing that Hayek is a statist (interventionist).

While I’m glad you’re attempting to back up the assertion you made, I’m perfectly happy with the dictionary definition. That corresponds with what I’ve always believed to be their respective meanings. At this point, our discussion has lost its relevance. Your argument is similar to my stating that Jim said Frank was a murderer, but finding out instead that Jim said Frank was a killer. They mean, for our purpose, the same thing.

BTW: I think you need to read up on ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã?ideal types.ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ Specific instances donÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t disprove the effectiveness of an ideal type. For example, if we construct an ideal type of a college professor, we can assume certain things about him (lectures in a classroom, speaks in front of a black board, etc). Just because you may find a professor who does not lecture in front of a black board does not mean youÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢ve proved the ideal type to be erroneous. In fact, the ideal type was created with exactly this lack of specificity in mind. When you generalize, you lose distinction. You cannot account for all the particulars. Nonetheless, generalizations allow us to compare different phenomena.

Posted by: Dan at February 3, 2005 7:53 PM

“I donÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢t see how the two Hoppe quotes cannot convince you that he is calling Hayek a statist, considering that he writes, ‘ÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬ÃÂ¦prominent limited-statist libertarians such as L. v. Mises, F. A. Hayek, I. Berlin, and R. Nozick.’ Gosh, IÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Â¢m not sure it gets any clearer.”

Compared to anarchists, minarchists are mini-statists. But this is not necessarily to be taken as an insult. I doubt the Mises Institute is anti-Mises, though, in one loose sense, he was a statist. In the more general sense, and a more important one in the big picture, he wasn’t a statist.

Posted by: at February 3, 2005 8:09 PM

Well, I just got in from the office, myself. So what a lot of mail in the mailbag!

So much of interest..where to start? Well, first, there’s that issue of whether there is “an Alabama crowd” (or the various other terms that one might use). How about, instead, referring to that man in Alabama and the little web he has created that links together a lot of people, some of whom would be quite horrified by those links. I have in mind, say, Ludwig von Mises being linked to, um, Joe Sobran, the anti-Semitic crackpot. (Uh, oh — expect denunciations from Mr. Kinsella, who thinks that speaking at neo-Nazi “conferences” and denouncing the “Jewish Party” is no evidence of any anti-Semitism….none!) In fact, it is unfair to write about an “Alabama crowd” (or similar terms), since there are lots of nice and decent folks in Alabama who don’t share Lew Rockwell’s odd interests. (But then, I’ve heard no remarks from the people who are so upset about others using such shorthand when it comes to Lew Rockwell’s references to “Beltway libertarians,” oddly enough excluding his government-employee friends who publish on his blog, one of whom spends his time apologizing for and defending Eastern European dictators.) So, let’s leave it at this: Lew Rockwell lives in Auburn, Alabama, and — the image that comes to mind is that of a malicious spider — sits at the center of a web that connects people both geographically and, most significantly, morally and ideologically, in the sense that some of them would be horrified if they knew what the others promote and how they are being connected with them. (Again, Lew Rockwell’s friend and confederate Sam Francis comes to mind; go to his website at www.samfrancis.net and see what you find there; no libertarianism, no classical liberalism, no … decency at all. Just racism, Confederate revisionism, and ugliness.)

Next, one does wonder about people who are obsessed with sweeping the crimes of Confederate slavery under the rug. What’s the issue? What motivates such people? Why do they so eagerly sidle up to the “League of the South” (knuckle dragging Confederate wackos: check out their rather gingerly worded “core beliefs” at http://www.dixienet.org/Core.html .)

And for Allen Dalton and others, really. Do you think that denouncing Gary Becker as “an intellectual criminal” or Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase as “worse than communists” is “scholarship”? Are those the standards to which you aspire?

Finally, the core accusation that Rockwell has made, that people who propose concrete legislative plans to whittle back the state are cowardly, is so very small. Take the issue of Social Security. None of the various proposals before Congress eliminate the compulsory element of Social Security, which is most certainly a big problem for an enemy of compulsion. Yet, to move from having your money forcibly taken from you and flushed down the toilet (or “invested” in a giant pyramid scheme that has as its primary function engendering dependence on the state) to a system in which taxpayers can instead divert those taxes into individually owned investment accounts that belong to them and that they can invest, cash in upon retirement, and leave to their heirs — that is a big increase in freedom and in independence from the state, the result of which is to remove people from receiving state entitlements to living off of their own investments. The Lew Rockwell response is the response of every impotent and cowardly person. Why, that isn’t perfect and it may have unintended consequences (something that is, by the way, always true). Instead, just abolish it! Of course, since that ain’t going to happen, Lew Rockwell doesn’t have to be informed about the issue (all that hard thinking hurts, you know), he doesn’t have to take any risks (if you do nothing, you risk nothing), he doesn’t have to be taken seriously by anyone at all. Is that more courageous than grinding the numbers, assembling the accountants, the demographers, the mathematicians, the economists, the actuaries, the lawyers, and the other experts, diagnosing the problems, formulating plans for transitioning out of an unsustainable state-dispensed entitlement system to a system of ownership and independence, and then educating policymakers, journalists, and the public about the bankruptcy of the present system and the benefits of ownership? It’s not “hard” to say “Just abolish it.” It’s easy. It’s hard to propose a solution that moves us toward freedom. You have to be an adult, not a grownup child who won’t look up from his Civil War and World War II History picture books long enough to try to implement any positive changes. Lew Rockwell has an altogether different agenda. I don’t share it. And I don’t think that if other people knew what that agenda is, they would want to be involved with him, either.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 3, 2005 8:20 PM

After I linked to it, poor Mr. Kinsella’s sad post was taken down from the catty site that antiwar.com has set up to post essays on me. Fortunately, I had a copy on my computer screen, so I saved it: You can find it as an addendum to the main posting at the top of this page. Very sad, made especially so by Kinsella’s response to this comment:
—–
Rockwell blogged a kook theory based on a phantom interview. No one is going to be able to produce an interview of Brown saying Rice warned him about 9/11.

So what the hell was that about?

Posted by: John T. Kennedy | January 31, 2005 03:00 AM
—–
Mr. Kinsella posted this response:
—–
Who knows? Who cares? He heard or saw somtething potentially interesting, and blogged it. That’s what blogs are for. Relax.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | January 31, 2005 10:02 AM
—–
I winced in embarrassment for Mr. Kinsella when I read that.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 3, 2005 8:25 PM

Quote:
” Take the issue of Social Security. None of the various proposals before Congress eliminate the compulsory element of Social Security, which is most certainly a big problem for an enemy of compulsion. Yet, to move from having your money forcibly taken from you and flushed down the toilet (or “invested” in a giant pyramid scheme that has as its primary function engendering dependence on the state) to a system in which taxpayers can instead divert those taxes into individually owned investment accounts that belong to them and that they can invest, cash in upon retirement, and leave to their heirs — that is a big increase in freedom and in independence from the state, the result of which is to remove people from receiving state entitlements to living off of their own investments.”
————–

You are way too optimistic, Mr. Palmer!

Tyler Cowen, once again:
“When do the savers receive true property rights over the funds? Surely not at 65. They could then spend it all and apply for the dole. We are back to letting people starve or constructing a secondary safety net; the latter is almost certain to happen, although that was precisely what the forced saving scheme was trying to avoid. Alternatively, the government could regulate how much a person can spend from the lockbox each year (must it limit your borrowing too?). Imagine being on the verge of death and petitioning the government to spend down your account to meet your medical bills or make a large donation. The complications are not encouraging. (…) … I predict that the political pressures for public assistance will be overwhelming. We will end up with both forced savings and a welfare system.”
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/should_we_opt_f.html

Or:
“I vow to stop calling these programs “privatizations.”

The Argentine government must continue to provide benefits to workers who have retired under the old pay-as-you-go system. Meanwhile, payroll taxes are being diverted to personal retirement accounts. The government must also find some way to recognize contributions to the old system made by workers now participating in the new system. Argentina has chosen to recognize those contributions with the compensatory pension. Some analysts estimate that it will take 75 years or more to pay off the transitional obligations.

Might this soon be coming to an American screen near you? (…) No one — even among countries with weaker “welfare state” traditions — has done away with an underlying safety net, behind the private accounts. No one has avoided real and significant fiscal costs, no matter how the transition plan was structured.”
http://www.marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2004/11/argentina_and_s.html
———-

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 9:13 PM

I see, Mr. Schuster. So the answer is….don’t address the problems! I disagree with Tyler on the issue, partly because I don’t want the current system simply to continue on and rob people indefinitely into the future. As to transition costs, what are the costs of not transitioning out of the current system? The current American Social Security system has an unfunded liability in current dollars of over $11 trillion dollars. By transitioning out of the current system into one of individually owned accounts, you reduce that. Issuing recognition bonds (or retirement bonds, as they are also known) does not imply any net increase in indebtedness; it’s making explicit what has been merely unmentionable. There are transition costs, and there costs of not transitioning; the latter are enormously greater than the former. You have found one person who is pessimistic and …. he’s your only source. Unlike Lew Rockwell, Tyler has actually thought about the issues, and come to a different conclusion. His response, however, is that we’re stuck with the current system indefinitely. As he states, “I stand where I started, namely that social security should evolve into a welfare system for the elderly, but without the forced savings component.” I don’t agree and am not content with that. Such a disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with the utterly cowardly (not courageous) response of Lew Rockwell, which is to say that he’s a brave man because he refuses to submit any plan other than….Wish It Away!

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 3, 2005 9:26 PM

Well, some of the back and forth above is a bit confusing (ideal types, ideal forms, the Confederacy, various economists, blah blah), but one thing I did learn from a program put on by Rockwell and from his websites. He’s put up an embarrassing picture of some views I like and then combined them with a lot of views that have no connection with them, except in his mind. And he’s caused nothing but problems for people promoting libertarian ideas, because other people get such a strange impression from his colletion of wacko views (pro-Confederacy-a few of his defenders deny it, but the others defend him for it, an obsession with Abe Lincoln, pretty sick defenses of killing American troops, calling Milton Friedman an intellectual crimi9nal, and so forth). I visited the web sites of the people he praises (like Sam Francis) and I was worried that people were looking over my shoulder! No thanks, Mr. Rockwell. Thank you, Dr. Palmer.

Posted by: Samuel at February 3, 2005 9:45 PM

Quote no. 2:
“And for Allen Dalton and others, really. Do you think that denouncing Gary Becker as “an intellectual criminal” or Milton Friedman and Ronald Coase as “worse than communists” is “scholarship”? Are those the standards to which you aspire?”
——————————
Now, thatÃ?ÃÂ´s what Hans- Hermann Hoppe allegedly said. Hoppe = Mises Institute???

What about Joe Salerno, Jorg Guido Hulsmann, Roger Garrison, Walter Block, Jeffrey M. Herbener, Mark Thornton, David Gordon, Peter G. Klein, Roderick T. Long, Yuri N. Maltsev or Ralph Raico?

What about i.e. Dominick Armentano, Charles Baird, William Barnett, Don Bellante, Bruce Benson, Peter J. Boettke, Samuel Bostaph, Mark Brandly, John P. Cochran, Paul Cwik, Frank Shostak, Larry Sechrest, Pascal Salin, Josef Ã?ÃÂ Ã?ÃÂma, Richard Vedder, Lowell Gallaway, Hans F. Sennholz, Morgan Reynolds, Randall Holcombe, Jesus Huerta de Soto, Robert Higgs, Ronald Hamowy etc.?

What about “young Austrians” – Christopher Westley, Edward Stringham, Benjamin Powell, Robert Murphy, William L. Anderson…?

See: http://www.mises.org/faculty.asp

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 9:48 PM

Mr. Schuster,

You should be aware of a few things. 1. Hoppe is presented as the gerat modern Austrian economist. (In fact, as you must realize, he’s a great embarrassment.) 2. A number of people on the faculty list have asked to be taken off and absolutely loathe and detest the Mises Institute for what it has done. How about writing to all of them and asking? (In fact, a number have told me that they have tried to have their names taken off — they were put on without ever asking them, on the basis of their having spoken once years ago at a conference, but that nothing has ever been done.)

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 3, 2005 9:55 PM

Quote:
” Such a disagreement has absolutely nothing to do with the utterly cowardly (not courageous) response of Lew Rockwell, which is to say that he’s a brave man because he refuses to submit any plan other than….Wish It Away!”

Lew Rockwell, Save or Else, http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1695 :
————-
“More people than ever have a good reason to support the idea of letting it die or killing it. There are many ways to do this, with either big or small steps. Let people opt out completely. Cut payroll taxes. Raise the retirement age. Means test benefits. Establish a cut off for paying liabilities and end the program. Make the program part of federal budgeting so the charade will stop. Above all, tell the truth (as Hans Sennholz says). All of this would be fine. But this is not what is being discussed, despite all the talk of freedom and choice. (…)

One excuse given is that Social Security needs to be reformed and this is the only politically viable way to do it. But consider the following: if it is politically possible to fund current recipients out of something other than current receipts, why not just let people keep their own money? Why not just cut? Why not permit an expansion of tax-free savings accounts? Or best of all, why not let people use the money for whatever purpose they want? If we are willing to tolerate vast debt incurred in order to pay off current recipients, then why not just let people opt out of the system completely?

It is a disastrous decision to create an additional forced savings program that is wholly unnecessary, and will bring about vast distortions in the stock market and could very well lead to the biggest bailout in the history of the world. If the debt mongers were at least setting some current payers free from a tax burden, you could see a case for it. But to replace the current terrible system with a new system that financially destabilizes the current one plus adds a bad system on top, is a very grim prospect.

No, I’m not making the perfect the enemy of the good. If it is possible to cut the payroll tax, fine. Do it. Spending should be cut too. That is not what is going on here. Current workers will still be taxed to pay into the old system, plus they will be taxed to pay into a new system, plus they will be taxed in other ways to pay for the shortfall created during the “transition period” (estimates range from 10 to 75 years).”
——————–

Well, Mr. Palmer, you may disagree with RockwellÃ?ÃÂ´s points, but is his article really an “utterly cowardly response” as you claim? I donÃ?ÃÂ´t think so!

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 10:08 PM

In re Social Ssecurity “privatization”:
—————————————–
1. Irwin M. Stelzer – Social Security Snares & Delusions, The Weekly Standard,
From the January 17, 2005 issue: How not to squander political capital.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/005/112wkrxa.asp?pg=2

Quote:
“No one is proposing to allow participants in the current system to invest even a part of their contribution in any way they might choose. After all, individuals might make the wrong choices, and find themselves less well-off than they would wish when the time comes to lay down their tools or attend their last important meeting. So the proposal now on the table would have the government limit investment options to stock-index mutual funds, bond funds, and cash–the resulting pool to be converted into annuities upon retirement. The theory of forced conversion into annuities, rather than allowing lump-sum withdrawals, seems to be that retirees and their money might otherwise soon be parted, a folly the government is honor-bound to prevent. So much for freeing citizens from the heavy hand of the state.”

————————————–

2. Christopher Westley – Robbing Peter to Pay Peter,http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1732&id;=76

“What’s more, privatization proponents ignore the fact that bear markets can last a long time. When markets go down, will politicians legislate stock index floorsÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âeffectively socializing the stock marketÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âin response to political pressure from those concerned about retirement? Or will bear markets lead politicians to resurrect a new Social Security-like program to help out those who did not fare well with the forced saving scheme, thus defeating the purpose of the program? (…)

It doesn’t help matters that the various privatization plans being touted today have virtually no precedent in the history of the State. Chile’s much-vaunted forced savings program funnels money through government-approved pension firms that ostensibly compete with each other for the conscripted capital (and have already achieved too-big-to-fail status in that very young country). (…)

A capital market that becomes dependent on seizing money by forceÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âand there are tens and hundreds of billions at stake hereÃÂ¢Ã¢?Â¬Ã¢?Âis one that delivers distorted price and investment signals. It means a diversion of resources from where they would be more valuable (consumption, insurance, education, health, or whatever) to where they are less valued. The state will guarantee these investments at some level, introducing a moral hazard to the capital markets.

Even the political consequences could be felt as Wall Street looks to the state less as a threat and more as a benefactor. Just as the elderly once wisely eschewed statist politics due to the wisdom of age, and yet now clamor for ever more wealth transfers, so Wall Street could find itself ever more hooked into the statist apparatus of coercion and compulsion.(…)

As with the first catastrophic decision to implement Social Security, its reform could yield unexpectedly bad consequences for generations to come. Such is the nature of a reform agenda that depends on spreading and not reducing the coercion inherent in the system.”
—————————————

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 3, 2005 10:57 PM

Well, the vanishing comment thread is now here: http://ancapistan.typepad.com/the_palmer_periscope/2005/01/palmer_on_insan.html#comments

“Rockwell blogged a kook theory based on a phantom interview. No one is going to be able to produce an interview of Brown saying Rice warned him about 9/11.

So what the hell was that about?

Posted by: John T. Kennedy | January 31, 2005 03:00 AM

Who knows? Who cares? He heard or saw somtething potentially interesting, and blogged it. That’s what blogs are for. Relax.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | January 31, 2005 10:02 AM

I have no familiarity with the issue at hand, so perhaps I am mistaken, but Mr. Kinsella’s comment strikes me as quite glib. “Who knows or cares” if Rockwell has no evidence for his claims in regards to this phantom interview? Clearly Mr. Kinsella sees blogs as serving a vastly different purpose than most members of the blogosphere. As such, I don’t plan to spend time reading Mr. Kinsella’s blog.

Posted by: Jonathan Dingel | February 3, 2005 05:34 AM

What the hell is wrong with this blog? These comments were orginally to another post. Now this Gay Question thing is posted multiple times.

Posted by: John T. Kennedy | February 3, 2005 09:47 PM”

So just relax folks, nothing to see here, just a “weblog malfunction”.

Posted by: John Lopez at February 3, 2005 11:03 PM

Messr Palmer, I have no idea why my Palmer Periscope comment has moved around. Ask the webmaster. I assume it’s up again or will be soon, or can be found.

I am indeed =sob= embarrased by my post. Sooo embarrased. Like a good Randian I should exorcise any sense of humor. Luckily, being a Rockwellian High Priest, I can forgive MySelf.

I won’t respond to your repeated ridiculous comments about Rockwell etc. You PC types have shot your wad; no one listens to your shrill cries any more. They shrug them off. Too bad, for when the next real wolf really comes, no one will listen.

As for Social Security reform. Rockwell as far as I know is all in favor of improvements in liberty even if it is only incremental. For example, it’s good to lower any tax. Talk about shifting from income to VAT or sales tax is dangerous; the problem is not the form, but the level. The voucher system is problematic not because it is not a whole solution, but because it is not even moving in the direction of more liberty; it would actually expand the number of education welfare recipients, and further increase the state’s control over currently private schools.

Likewise, the primary problem with the proposed SS reform IMO is this. Both the current system and the proposed new system are going to be terrible. I don’t count on benefits from any of them; and even if I got to invest a paltry 4% of my income up to the new limit ($120K? $150K?) it’s only about $5-6K a year–in a conservative, government limited set of investments. That’s chicken shit. The price of the plan is going to be inter alia an increase in the limit of income subject to FICA. I.e., my taxes will go from 6% of $89K to 6% of say, $120K at least (for now–probably unlimited thereafter). This means at least an additional $5K or so of goddamned taxes for me. Not even enough to cancel out the stupid private account.

I would rather they just leave the current FICA tax in place; not increase it; means-test SS benefits, and label it what it is: welfare. That way at least the dreadful tax would not increase as much and working people would stop stupidly relying on SS benefits being there when they retire.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at February 3, 2005 11:28 PM

Well, this comment section is getting a bit cluttered with lots of cross talk. So…it may be time to move on to something else. (But get your post in now if there’s something that you just have to say.)

Thanks to Mr. Lopez for finding the “weblog malfunction” that the antiwar.com spinoff site “suffered.” Good to know. (And just as an aside, Mr. Raimondo is suffering from remarkable memory lapses, since his recollections correspond only to themselves, not to mine or to how things happened back so many years ago. But what should one expect of someone who was so sure that Viktor Yushchenko ate a bit of “bad sushi.”)

And for Mr. Schuster, yes, Lew Rockwell’s response is cowardly. The Cato Institute, the National Center for Policy Analysis, the Heritage Foundation, and others have proposed personal accounts as a substitute for the PAYGO scheme of Social Security. Perhaps motivated by simple jealousy, since it’s evidently not based on any knowledge of the complex functioning of the current system, Rockwell proposes instead….keeping the current system, but fiddling with it at the edges, and calling that “more radical.” Oh, the radical part is that he’s “really” for getting rid of it. But he says it’s better to fiddle at the edges and keep it forever than to phase it out in favor of personal accounts. How “principled” or “courageous” is that? At least if you’re going to propose fiddling at the edges, show some awareness of the numbers involved. What benefit cuts does he propose? What means test? (And that, by the way, would merely cement in a perpetual welfare system that would be quite hard to dislodge — where’s the principle there?) I don’t see any courage in such a thin, meager, wan effort.

As to the other links (add a few more, if you want, but please without the extensive quotations, as people can find those through a functioning link), you’re demonstrating that there are critics. And? Do you think that no one knows that? There are also proponents, and they have offered responses. The existence of a criticism is not the same as the existence of a refutation. I have a sneaky suspicion that you’re better acquainted with the critics, now that you’re looking for criticism, than with the case for personal accounts or the responses made by proponents to those critics. (You can find some at www.socialsecurity.org, www.ncpa.org, etc.) Let there be a robust debate about these issues. But it’s unconvincing to insist that the kind of impotent, limp-yet-shrill approach of Lew Rockwell qualifies as any kind of “courage.” Or … and here we see what drives a little man like Rockwell, that (since this is a wee bit personal and he certainly was referring to me) people who bust their asses to replace communism with freedom and who work with classical liberals all over the world “lacked the courage to do their part.” Should I invite the spineless creature who wrote that on my next trip to Iraq? He’ll probably be too busy posting calls for killing American soldiers, mocking Pat Tillman (yes, that does make me mad as hell), and circulating barely veiled racist claims (not suspicions) that he “read in the SF Examiner” that the black national security advisor called the black mayor of San Francisco to warn him not to fly before 9/11. What an admirable man. What a truly admirable man.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 3, 2005 11:42 PM

Tom, I’m confused by one aspect of your highly personal screeds against Lew Rockwell. On the one hand, you insist that having deep, wonkish knowledge of the minutia of a program like Social Security, and proposing very specific, incremental changes to that system, is more “courageous” that issuing broad, sweeping generalizations about abolishing the current system. But, simultaneously, you accuse Rockwell of cowardice for remaining at home while you “bust [your] ass[] to replace communism with freedom.” By this you apparently refer to your self-described efforts to make books by Mises, Hayek, Friedman, etc. available to Eastern Europeans. Well, isn’t that precisely the long-term, general strategy adopted by organizations like the Mises Institute (and, for that matter, IHS), which you relentlessly mock? Instead of distributing The Road To Serfdom, shouldn’t you have been drafting specific, technical blueprints for privatizing this or that state-owned enterprise? Indeed, making the great works of classical liberalism available to readers around the world is one of the Mises Institute’s primary activities. (Virtually all of Mises’s books are available online, free, to anyone in the world with an internet connection, thanks to. . . . Well, not thanks to Tom Palmer, but thanks to Lew Rockwell.

Posted by: George F. at February 3, 2005 11:59 PM

For George F. (whose IP also appears under a number of other posting names), you’ve raised an important issue. I think that general education is important, which is why I am happy to distribute the works of Mises, Hayek, Friedman, Bastiat, Say, Jefferson, Madison, Rand, Turgot, Constant, and many others. I also think that providing specific proposals for reality-based-reform, guided by those general principles, is necessary, or there will be no change. And indeed, in socialist countries, I worked to provide both, bringing knowledgeable experts to advise on legal reforms, economic reforms, and the like (as well as sponsoring conferences on reform of the curricula in law schools and in economics faculties and management schools). My point was that it’s not “courage” to do slag off proposing concrete policy reforms, evidently because it’s harder than just reprinting works by dead masters. I certainly am convinced that it’s important to make general works available and to teach general principles. Duh. But it’s not an example of any kind of courage to stop there and to refuse to get your hands dirty, to take risks, to ask hard questions, to evaluate tradoffs and make choices. If you want to withdraw from Iraq quickly, how are you going to do that? What are the consequences? How long will it take? If you’re going to cut back the welfare state, what is the best strategy? What will be the impact of this or that change in the laws? People who don’t ask those questions aren’t necessarily cowards. They are, however, cowardly when they present their refusal to do so as somehow more courageous or “harder.” I encourage readers to go back and re-read Rockwell’s essay that was the occasion for this posting. What kind of courage does it show? Or does it show any at all?

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 4, 2005 12:28 AM

I dunno, Tom, I suppose it depends what you mean by “courage.” If courage means effort, than you’re right: it takes less time an energy to say “abolish it all!” than it does to craft a detailed policy proposal. But if courage means a willingness to go against the flow, to be ostracized by mainstream opinion, and so on, then the former could be more courageous than the latter. For instance, I heard Dave Boaz interviewed on “All Things Considered” this afternoon. That’s great, he scored some good points. But I noticed he was also quite tactful and nuanced in what he said. He was careful to seem as “reasonable” as possible — sure, individuals should have control over their pension assets, but of course we should happily pay our taxes for homeland security and national defense. Can’t appear too radical, you see. I suspect deep down Dave has little more respect for the Department of Homeland Security than I do. But if he went ahead and said this on the air — came clean with his true, hardcore libertarian feelings — you can be sure he wouldn’t be invited back on NPR.

By the way, the reason my IP is associated with multiple posting names is because I post behind Anonymizer’s firewall, which masks my actual IP address. I suspect other posters are doing the same. The IP range you’re picking up belongs to Anonymizer.

Posted by: George F. at February 4, 2005 12:57 AM

Quote: “…and circulating barely veiled RACIST claims (…) that the BLACK national security advisor called the BLACK mayor of San Francisco to warn him not to fly before 9/11.”
————-
WTF???

Posted by: MatÃ?Ã¢?Âºj Ã?ÃÂ uster at February 4, 2005 1:02 AM

For Mr. Schuster, check out the Rockwell claim. There is no evidence for it at all. The Mayor made no such statement — ever. There was no interview in the San Francisco Examiner. The source of the malicious little rumor that Rockwell believes and has tried to propagate is the noted racist and holocaust denier David Irving. (see his posting at http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/05/Bush_knew2.html ). That’s the source and the motivation was pure racism, with a dash of utterly crazy conspiracy theory. And….Lew Rockwell believes it. (See his claim at http://blog.lewrockwell.com/lewrw/archives/007260.html .) That says a great deal about Lew Rockwell.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 4, 2005 1:08 AM

Thanks to George F. for the explanation, which was a bit perplexing. (When I caught Stephen Kinsella posting comments on my site under the names of a number of other people, including my own name, I was annoyed. I wasn’t sure in this case, since the styles were different, whether it was multiple people at the same computer. Thanks for the clarification.)

I disagree with your evaluation of David Boaz’s interview on NPR. (Earlier I posted a link to it on my main page.) If you think that you’re supposed to just flash radio listeners, then we disagree on how to do a good radio interview. David distinguished taxes that are ostensibly for public services (such as police and defense) from others. That doesn’t seem unreasonable. Hernando de Soto has done a brilliant job of promoting ownership and is quite good at picking his issues; if some extraneous issue is dangled in front of him (drug legalization or whatever), he doesn’t rise to the bait. He said, “Well, that may or may not be true, but what I’m talking about is….” That’s effective and appropriate. Those people who think that the point of an exercise in persuasion is to drop your pants and reveal everything, in the hope that your audience will be shocked, don’t understand the point of persuasion. They show that they don’t really care to persuade; what they want to do is to get attention. (Justin Raimondo is a classic example; it matters much less to him that we exit Iraq than that he gets attention and shocks at least someone.) I don’t count it courage to deliberately say, “Oh, by the way, I favor eliminating all victimles crime laws” in an interview on Social Security, and to do so because it “goes against the flow.” It is a good example of the will to failure, though. And some people do consider that courageous. I don’t.

Furthermore, it’s not just more effort to propose solutions and to check the numbers, work out the tradeoffs, and the like. It means sticking your neck out and taking risks. You might fail. That’s a risk. If you don’t even try, no risk of failure. But also, no points for courage. (That’s especially so when you have lobbed the “cowardice” grenade at others who are willing to take those risks.)

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 4, 2005 1:21 AM

I’m glad the conversation has returned to issues, not individuals. Tom, you’re a thoughtful person with lots of experience in the libertarian (small-L) movement. Perhaps sometime you could post a more systematic treatment of your approach to strategy.

Because you despise Rothbard, I suspect you aren’t familiar with his writings on strategy. He addresses these issues quite explicitly. He terms your incrementalist, non-threatening approach the “Fabian strategy.” He claims that such a strategy is fatally flawed for libertarians. It worked for the British Fabians, but only because they were gently nudging the powers-that-be toward statism — a direction the latter were happy to go. Rothbard suggests that the power elites can never be nudged gradually toward greater liberty, because that goes against everything they believe in and threatens their personal interests.

Consider this: I’d say the greatest libertarian advance in my lifetime was the collapse of the Berlin Wall and the fall of communism. Wasn’t this a quintessentially radical event? Wouldn’t the consistent Palmerian have told those East Germans, “For heaven’s sake, don’t go to the wall with your hammers and chisels. Do you want to be an extremist kook, or a real player with influence? Write some detailed policy proposals about how we can gradually, safely, increase the amount of liberty in our country by establishing private retirement accounts or school choice. This will get you an audience with the Chancellor, who I’m sure is basically a good guy who supports Communism only because he’s unaware of the general benefits of the free market.” (Note to the humorless: that was satire.)

By the way, I find it interesting that you attribute your strategic and policy differences with Rockwell, Raimondo, etc. to differences in motive or moral character, not differences in pragmatic, strategic vision. But, like Hayek and Friedman, you attribute your differences with socialists, left-liberals, neoconservatives, and other mainstream statist types to differences in information. Lew Rockwell hates Lincoln because Rockwell is a deranged racist. He couldn’t possibly have valid reasons for despising Lincoln. Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, supports the carpet bombing of Afghan and Iraqi villages, and is indirectly responsible for the killing of thousands. Yet you see him as basically a good, reasonable person, who happens to be misinformed about foreign policy and military strategy. Have you considered the possibility that Rumsfeld is really an evil man, who knows exactly what he’s doing, and wouldn’t change his approach no matter how many Cato conferences he attends and how many times he is gently rebuked by people like yourself?

You see my point. The Fabian (Catoite, Palmerian) strategy can only work if the enemies of liberty are honest, well-meaning people who are simply misinformed about the facts. If not, isn’t a more radical strategy called for?

Posted by: George F. at February 4, 2005 1:43 AM

Actually, George F., I knew Murray rather well, read his strategic writings as they appeared, discussed them with him, and even contributed an essay on the topic to the Libertarian Forum. (I was, I think, 18 or 19 at the time and I now completely disavow the ideas expressed in the essay, which reflected my chronological and intellectual adolescence, as well as Murray’s spiritual adolescence.)

You have misunderstood my approach to strategy, since you see the world in terms of “radical” vs. “non-radical.” Do you consider Raimondo to be a good persuader? Has he ever persuaded anyone? I actually doubt it. He is shrill and he gets a positive reaction from those who agree and think that the mark of conviction is the degree of shrillness, and a negative one from those who disagree, and who conclude that whatever it is that Raimondo believes, it must all be crazy.

Do you think that I am opposed to being radical? Is that what you got out of my comments? If so, then I failed miserably. I believe in radical approaches. I just don’t confuse impotence with radicalism. And please don’t lecture me on what a Palmerian would have told the East Gemans, since I was there at the time and rather involved with anti-communist groups in the Soviet bloc. As Dan (posted above at 10:55 am) noted, some issues are ripe for calling for “do it all now” and some aren’t. Tearing down the wall was a demand that had to be made. Your parody is, quite frankly, insulting. It’s neither a description of my life, nor a plausible inference from anything I’ve said or written.

It’s not an issue of radicalism vs. non radicalism. It’s an issue of whether impotence should be elevated to a virtue. I looked for a number of years for that button on the podium that Murray kept mentioning. It’s not that easy to find. If you *could* find the button that would abolish injustice, push it. When you can’t, figure out some way to accomplish the end of eliminating injustice. But don’t confuse yourself that you must be a radical because you keep repeating that if there WERE a button, you’d push it, and…there must be one here somewhere, but until you find it you you’ll be content with doing not a damn thing. Whatever that is, it isn’t courageous. It isn’t principled. It isn’t “radical.”

I should add that a number of people have complained that I have been on the stage with statists and people with bad views. Oh, my. The general name for those events is “debates.” Sometimes they’re called “roundtables” or “forums,” but the basic idea is to present views, defend them, and criticize the alternatives. And if you’re not well prepared, you don’t get to participate.

So, no, I don’t see your point, because your point is based on a complete misunderstanding.

P.S. I don’t know Donald Rumsfeld, but I do know Lew Rockwell and Justin Raimondo. And, yes, I do know something about their personalities, about Lew’s obsession with race, and so on. As such, I think I know something about their motivations. But even if I had had no previous knowledge of them, their behavior speaks volumes.

P.P.S. A note on Murray Rothbard’s strategy, which George F. finds so inspiring. It was based on — well, copied from — Lenin. The idea that Murray kept repeating was “Fewer, but better, is better,” i.e., that a small cadre of very dedicated people, committed to the principle of “democratic centralism,” would be able to achieve a revolution. But what he had in mind was not compatible with the achievement of liberty, but rather with the seizure of power, which is what Lenin had accomplished in Russia. I concluded many years ago that such a strategy would doom libertarianism to being on the margins and was, moreover, a means entirely incompatible with the achievement of libertarian ends. A small cadre ready to act in concert (and believe me, Murray was very big on “smashing” this and “crushing” that heresy, usually defined as whatever he didn’t agree with) might be able to seize power someplace, but not to achieve freedom. Murray’s attempt to create a strategy for liberty was a complete failure. I am well acquainted with it. I read his writings on the topic as he wrote them. I wrote my own minor contributions in support of it in Murray’s publications. I participated in it as a young man. I reject it wholeheartedly.

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 4, 2005 2:06 AM

Well, it’s very late, I’m still preparing my notes for my talks at Duke University tomorrow (actually, today!), so I’m going to close down this thread for now. Much has been said. If something more really has to be said here, email it to me and I’ll post it.

In the meantime, for any brave (or something like that) souls who have read to this point, go and read Lew Rockwell’s remarks and ask whether it seems a reasonable portrayal of my life or my ideas. Or whether it is a good defense of someone who thinks that the best way to get the U.S. to withdraw from Iraq is to mock the death by friendly fire of Pat Tillman or to toast the killing of American soldiers. (For documentation, visit “The Fever Swamp” at http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php and look, for example, at the posts for December 23.)

I’m off to convince people of the virtues of freedom of trade and peace at Duke University.

LATER ADDENDUM: About that “faculty list” of the Mises Institute. It’s now gotten a wee bit smaller, since some people who had been listed *without ever having been asked* have demanded that their names be taken off,and finally someone did. It seems that anyone who ever showed up at a meeting is listed; they don’t have the decency to ask if they want to be listed as “Faculty” of the Mises Institute. I wonder how many others on the list are not aware that their names are listed as “Faculty.”

Posted by: Tom G. Palmer at February 4, 2005 2:20 AM

{ 0 comments }

Horwitz et al. on Woods

by Stephan Kinsella on February 2, 2005

In my reply to the dreadful, malicious attack on Tom Woods and his new book The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History on the Is That Legal blog, the comments section cut my reply off, so I am posting it here so I can link to it from there.

***

Horwitz wrote:

I’m a long-time libertarian and I *cringe* when people who claim to be libertarians write stuff like this. The romance by some small quarters of the libertarian movement with the lovers of the Confederacy is an unmitigated disaster, both morally and strategically.

For anyone who frequents this blog who knows little of libertarians, and history done by those with libertarian leanings, do not start with this crap. There’s real scholarship out there.
[…]
my original comment was not about the book per se, but the wide variety of romances that the paleo right has with various racist, anti-Semitic, and otherwise unsavory folks, with lovers of the Confederacy being one such group. Whether this particular book is or isn’t a species of this problem is one question, but Eric’s evidence is pretty convincing. The real question for me is why people feel the need to smear shit all over the word “libertarian” by calling themselves one and then associating with the slimy folks that they do.

Steve, it is outrageous and libelous for you to smear Dr. Woods as you do, to insinuate he is racist and anti-semitic, and not a real scholar. If you’ll read him you’ll see he’s impeccable and very learned. The tactics of of the cocktail party, rehabilitated PC libertarians–resort to ad hominem, etc.–is becoming, like that of regular PC liberals, increasingly shrill. It’s as if you guys really hate the South and Southerners just like the arrogant, New York liberal intellectuals do. I believe it’s actually this smug city-boy superiority that caused Bush to win–blue collar types who would normally be democratic are sick of being condescended to by the brie cheese set who think you have to live in a rent-conrolled apartment and go see Cats and vacation in P’town or Martha’s Vineyard to really be a person worth associating with.

It is also a bit collectivist to keep lumping people together. On the one hand, you people accuse the Rockwell crowd of being almost a cult; on the other, the diversity of opinions there and the freewheeling nature of discourse and various types of people represetned there drive you batty. I am from the South and while I personally dislike the stupid Rebel Flag displaying, Lee Greenwood Proud to be an American singing, civil war reenactment bullshit, it is loathsome when the cocktail party libertarians continue to lump people together and attribute to them others’ views, and to have a hare-trigger alert for any signs of deviation from the cocktail party model of “acceptable” opinions and to accuse any deviation as being a sign of racism etc. You guys have overussed the racism, antisemitism, etc. cards to the extent where it’s now a joke. It’s almost a badge of honor to be called that now. For a perceptive column on this, see Playing the Holocaust Card. The PC types have cried wolf too many times, they’ve shot their wad. It doesn’t work any more.

You claim Eric’s evidence is convincing. It is nothing but a libelous smear attack on a fine individual and scholar, Tom Woods, whose book, yes, does support the cause of liberty by debunking liberal and government-spread propaganda and lies.

For example, this Eric character writes of Woods,

(He has also spoken at similar meetings of other organizations, like the Southern Historical Conference and Bonnie Blue Ball, where he shared the lectern with speakers on the “Myths and Realities of American Slavery” and “Why Slaves Fought for Their South.”) … And while Christianity is a necessary condition for Dr. Woods’ organization’s concern, it is not sufficient. You also need to be “Anglo-Celtic”

Now, I personally have not joined the League of the South because I don’t like all that stupid rah-rah Confederacy or Southern crap. But that’s just me. I’m from Lousiana but too much of a Randian-type individualist to want to base my worth or identity on membership in a given little group, that I didn’t even choose or earn. But that’s just me; most people are more group-related than that. Blacks do Kwanzaa and name their kids African names; Scots eat haggis; Jews do their holidays and sometimes kvetch about their kids marrying gentiles; whatever. Who gives a crap.

The point is that if some libertarian were to join a group whose goal is preserving a religion or culture or race even–Christianity or Anglo-Celtic–what in the world is wrong with this? Why single out white Christian males as the only goddamned group that is prohibited from this kind of interest in and activism about their race or heritage? It’s getting pathetically silly. Israel is explicitly religious and racist in its immigration and other policies; ACLU and hare-trigger PC libertarian types who go apeshit about a judge having a Ten Commandments statue don’t bat an eye at other nations’ even worse support of official religion or racism. Goddamned hypocrites. These double standards are just pathetic.

All this is just really stemming from sneering, arrogant, yankee superiority and disgust at what they view as “beneath them” Southerners. It’s getting old. It’s why Kerry lost, in my view. People are getting sick of being spat at and tread upon. Your average Joe Sixpack wonders why he’s racist to want his daughter to marry a white guy or even to go to school in a school that’s not in the ghetto… while in the meantime he sees public service announcements about Black History Month etc.

Note also the implicit collectivism in the comment that Woods “shared the lectern” with certain others, as if he is responsible for their views. This is just stupid. Where do you draw the line with your responsibility for others’ actions due to some kind of “association” with them? After all, I admire Woods, yet am blogging here on your site, so I guess you are 4 handshakes away from evil; oh no, you are sanctioning the sanctioner of the sanctioner of the sanctioner. This stupid Randianism is getting old. Attribute to Woods what he writes, not what others do; but to do that he’d need to read it, and would not need to waste time trying to come up with ad hominem critiques.

Further, his alleged crime is “sharing the lectern” with speakers on the “Myths and Realities of American Slavery” and “Why Slaves Fought for Their South.” What is obviously racist about these topics? This is polictal correctnes run amok.

The coctail party libertarians are so eager to hate the South and Southerners, and to pretend to wring their hands over the slavery issue–it’s long dead, people. It was over a hundred goddamned years ago, and it was none of our fault. Quit blaming the South. If you want to blame anyone, blame the idiot white Yankees who founded this country on the backbone of slaves.

The attack on Woods is groundless and I believe it is utterly immoral and wicked. Any responsible, professional libertarian who does this should be ashamed.

{ 0 comments }

Playing the Holocaust Card

by Stephan Kinsella on February 2, 2005

Great article in the NY Times by Ami Eden, on how the anti-semitism card has been overused and is now backfiring. Excerpts:

[F]or the Jews, the main targets of Nazi racism, they face a very different sort of problem today, one that is partly of their own making. Jewish organizations have pursued an effective campaign to combat bigotry through a combination of protest and education, hoping to shame wrongdoers and encourage the next generation to shed old prejudices. And yet, as they look around, they see a world increasingly hostile to them and to Israel. It is time Jews recognize that the old strategies no longer work.

Jewish organizations and advocates of Israel fail to grasp that they are no longer viewed as the voice of the disenfranchised. Rather, they are seen as a global Goliath, close to the seats of power and capable of influencing policies and damaging reputations. As such, their efforts to raise the alarm increasingly appear as bullying. […]

[T]he eagerness of Jewish civil-rights groups to play watchdog, and their tendency to err on the side of zealousness, leads them all too frequently to blur distinctions between real bigotry and the verbal blunders by well-meaning individuals.

[]For more than half a century, Auschwitz has rightly stood at the heart of virtually every moral argument put forth by spokesmen for the Jewish community, a powerful testament to the consequences of otherwise decent people remaining silent in the face of evil. Yet this legacy is in peril, threatened by an increasing reliance on raw political muscle over appeals to conscience.

As the world recalls the horrors and liberation of Auschwitz, Jewish organizations and advocates for Israel should remember that “speaking truth to power” does not work when you are seen as the powerful one.

{ 0 comments }

Objectivist Porn?

by Stephan Kinsella on February 2, 2005

I guess it was inevitable. Someone sent this link to an allegedly Objectivist nudie magazine to me on Rand’s 100th birthday. How tasteless. I suppose.

{ 0 comments }

External Posts: Libertarian Girl etc.–re libertarian activism and Confederacy Worship

by Stephan Kinsella on February 1, 2005

Sitemeter and libertarianism and Let the looting begin (my comments to both); also Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy

Sitemeter and libertarianism

« Brain immaturity | Main | Gayness is an hereditary trait »

February 01, 2005

Sitemeter and libertarianism

What does Sitemeter (the stat counter used by a lot of bloggers) have to do with libertarianism? Until a day or two ago I would have said, “absolutely nothing!” But today I see the connection.

I call myself “libertarian” because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close. Since Bush has been elected to office he has done absolutely nothing to reduce the size of government, and in fact has been pushing new big-government initiatives like Medicare drug benefits and expansion of federal involvment with education. Even his “fix” for Social Security involves a new government program.

So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn’t mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)

Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!

I’ve blogged before about problems with libertarians, but unfortunately the first post didn’t sink in.

And then two days ago,I blogged about Sitemeter, complaining about blogs that haven’t gotten with the program and put an open one on their blog.

That post too has, surprisingly, received a lot of negative comments. Looking at the referrals on my Sitemeter report (which can help you find inbound links that Technorati sometimes doesn’t find), I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn’t think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn’t care if anyone is reading his or her blog.

I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don’t care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer. It would be easier and you could save yourelf the expense of paying $90/year for Typepad. Bloggers without Sitemeters are like the libertarians who don’t care if they ever win an election or influence a single real vote.

Sitemeter provides a clue with regards to how much influence your blog has. Obviously not all hits have the same value. The Calico Cat has a post about blog traffic explaining how to identify quality vs. quantity. In addition to Sitemeter, I have also been using Technorati and the Ecosystem to check on my influence.

If you’re interested in increasing your blog’s influence, then examining from where your blog and other blogs get their traffic will help you to better understand the process. Which is why it’s annoying when other blogs don’t have Sitemeters.

Do I blog differently because of this? Yes, I put a lot of effort into making my blog interesting so people will visit, and I appreciate everyone who has visited and left comments. I even appreciate the people who write about how stupid I am, like dadahead. I know that I’ve at least helped to provide them with some sort of entertainment.

February 01, 2005 at 02:09 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1760760

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Sitemeter and libertarianism:

» Britney Spears Naked from dadahead
Lib Girl does not like when other bloggers choose the latter option. She finds the information useful, and I think she has a point. [Read More]

Tracked on February 1, 2005 03:18 PM

» Sitemeter: For good, or for ill? from The Defeatist
Without such a tracking device, I could delude myself into thinking that throngs of readers visit the site to peruse my prose and vain commentary on my existence. But, with a Sitemeter, my worst fear is confirmed: no one is reading my observations on… [Read More]

Tracked on February 1, 2005 10:16 PM

Comments

I’ve actually been surprised at how rigid some of the libertarians commenting here are…that they apparently believe there is only one approved set of views that constitutes libertarianism. It’s the kind of thing one would expect more among hard-core Marxists or extreme religious fanatics.

Maybe it’s because libertarians generally believe that their beliefs are derivable from pure deductive reasoning, and that hence and deviation is a sign of mental or moral failing…..

photoncourier.blogspot.com

Posted by: David Foster | February 1, 2005 02:22 PM

To be fair I don’t think you would have caught so much hell except for the fact that by calling yourself Libertarian Girl one would expect a cut and dried libertarian. If your blog had some other name (like “Pretty Chick Who Will Stab You”) and you simply described yourself as leaning towards libertarian views, it might have been an entirely different response.

To put it another way if I called my blog MexiMuslim I would be sure to catch hell every time I posted about drinking beer and picking up hoochies as those don’t come to mind as being very Islamic activities.

Posted by: Mexigogue | February 1, 2005 02:45 PM

I guess if you are trying to “influence” people with your blog then obsessing over your Sitemeter statistics is understandable.

I am not trying to influence anyone. I just write what pleases me and if they come, they come.

For the record, I have about 20 repeat readers, with the rest linking to me from posts I put on other blogs or from links I have had included in stories on three or four blogs like The Moderate Voice. I also get those “next blog” visits which are not “quality” but still have the potential of turning into regular readers.

Oh, and Mexigogue is right on! If you name yourself after an ideology, then you better stick very close to that ideology.

Posted by: David | February 1, 2005 02:50 PM

It’s for your own good, Libertarian Girl.

Truth be told: I was once a libertarian myself.

Eventually, however, I was swayed from the Dark Side, and it is now my duty to help sway others.

And I don’t think the Republicans actually are closer to libertarianism, BTW. Massive corporate welfare, plus the extraordinary disregard for personal liberty and privacy that is found in the Patriot Act, would seem to me to actually move the R’s further away from libertarianism than the D’s.

You have, however, convinced me to open up my site meter stats.

Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 02:53 PM

Truth be told, most people I have encountered are quite convinced that this entire blog is all part of some elaborate joke. As many of your statements are so at odds with libertarian principles.

Posted by: New Anarchist Man | February 1, 2005 03:12 PM

Hey, I just discovered something cool about sitemeter. You can set it up so that it ignores your own visits to your own site.

Maybe everyone knew that already, but for my fellow retarded people, this info might be useful.

Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 03:20 PM

There is a good essay by Anthony Gregory ,as to why Libertarians should not compromise their principles, even in the effort to “… [have] an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections.”

Trading principles for victory gets you neither

Posted by: Trubeliever | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM

LG, I understand why you use a meter and look at the statistics. Understanding the audience, and to some extent tailoring some entries to that audience makes sense. If this was a business, you would want repeaters – otherwise why blog at all? And you can also steer away from subjects that get a lot of hits from random searchers, but offer little except bots crawling to collect email addresses to spam or attack. You could pander to the meter readings by titling a few posts with popular search words and see the visits skyrocket. But don’t do it! There is some stuff out there that says the regular readers become very protective and insular against newcomers butting in on one of their “home” blogs, even to attacking the person running it. Hope those types won’t get you down. I come here to read and have enjoyed pretty much all your entries. If I don’t know about it, or don’t like it, *Gosh* I can just skip that one! Another interesting one will be up shortly.

As an audience of one, sitting in my own corner, I come back for the entertainment value, interesting posts, and some views just slightly different than my own but well enough thought out we could have great conversation in person or over dinner. At the same time, driving each other nuts wondering how anyone could believe THAT. A very good time!

Truth be told, if you spewed the standard libertarian line this would get old fast. As for the micro-examiners, well, good that they have the time to do a detailed exam. But you have a point, they will never link every libertarian leaning person into a single group by squelching all non-toe-the-line views. Not to mention no converts and driving off potential converts who cannot accept their religious fervor for a particular brand of libertarianism. Whew, talk about the worst of group-think. How dull at a party.

If I have to have a complaint, just to join the “cool kids” who comment here, okay, here it is: I wish LG would post more often! Her infrequent posting throughout the day makes me have to surf other sites for content to fill up my day! I think LG should post hourly to satisfy my audience needs. Anyone else?

Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM

Quite an Algonquin Table you got going here. Yeesh, lighten up people…

LG – All good points, I’m in full agreement (U’Oh, I guess that means I’m not a real libertarian either).

Outlaw3 – I agree.

Posted by: DC Carter | February 1, 2005 03:38 PM

I’ve posted in your comments, and on my blog, before about the stupid whinery of the Libertarians. On the blogs without sitemeter: If you don’t care if someone is reading your blog, you’re full of crap. Either you’re justifying your low traffic — becausey ou don’t care — or you’re high enough in traffic that you don’t need to count.

I think Acidman said something like, “If no one reads your blog, it’s called a diary.” He had a post not long ago about sitemeter, too, I believe.

Posted by: Adam Lawson | February 1, 2005 04:02 PM

And here I thought that libertarian ideals centered on personal freedom. I for one enjoy every post on this blog, whether or not I agree with it.

Posted by: Ben | February 1, 2005 04:13 PM

For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn’t dare pick a fight. You’re a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There’s a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist.

For another thing, you’re probably attracting a non-random sampling of the libertarian crowd. The more passionate the libertarians are, the more likely it is that they’ll be hooked into our little orbit of the blogosphere, the more likely it is they’ll find you, and–being passionate–the more likely it is that they’ll speak their minds.

One wonders if other people with “Libertarian” in their blog titles inspire this much animosity.

Regardless, all the libertarians I know love to argue. For whatever reason, it’s something one should be ready for if they propose to be a libertarian blogger. If the comments bother you too much, you can always turn off the commenting option.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 04:20 PM

Scott: “For one thing, arguing with the Mises crowd is bound to get you into trouble. I probably agree with 99% of their principles, but still I wouldn’t dare pick a fight. You’re a minarchist, and there are many anarchists over there. That can be a bitter divide. There’s a story about a Hoppe and Milton Friedman debate, where Hoppe ended up calling Friedman a socialist.”

Are you sure you aren’t thinking of Mises doing that at a Mont Pelerin Society meeting, storming out, saying, “You’re all a bunch of socialists!” (see the quotes here)

Of course, he was right. Socialism is the institutionalized interference with or aggression against private property rights. The state institutionalizes some degree of aggression by its nature, so any state is to an extent socialistic. This is just a simple matter.

That means, by anarchist lights, minarchists are a bit socialistic, not as bad as liberals, or outright commies etc., but still, advocating immoral laws. That does not mean that on balance they are not all libertarians, or our allies, for we all want to radically reduce the size of the state. But such practical considerations do not imply there is a duty to lie or refuse to name things as one sees them.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 04:37 PM

LG,
A couple of things… First you didn’t post about problems with libertarians, you posted in response to a post about problems with libertarians (mine). Gotta give credit where credit is due, right? 😉

I think you catch a lot of flack with your posts about things like taxing breast implants. My reading of that post was that you were trying to use libertarian values to support something you wanted to do. The more logical is to start with the values themselves, and then see what conclusions are supported. While you entered an argument about externalities and how a breast implant tax might have libertarian backing, most of us read it as a way to tax behavior you didn’t agree with. And despite a slight libertarian justification, it didn’t seem to really sit right with with spirit of libertarianism. I can’t think you could make that argument without expecting people to jump down your throat. I think you did it half in jest, but I can’t be too sure.

Regarding the sitemeter, I understood your point until you concluded with “I have a negative view of any blog that doesn’t have an open stat counter, preferably Sitemeter.” I personally agree that I don’t understand why someone who cares about their blog traffic, which is pretty much all bloggers, wouldn’t have a site meter of some sort. However, I like to keep an eye on who’s visiting, keep an eye on where they’re coming from, but don’t really care whether or not my readers can access all that information. I mean really, does it matter to you how many hits *I* get daily? As I’ve said before, I’m OCD and refreshing the hit page every half hour to see if anyone’s shown up, but I never even thought someone else would care… And at the same time, the “preferably Sitemeter” makes no sense. Why should it be Sitemeter? Who knows, it may be better than some of the other options, but I’m not exactly unhappy with StatCounter.

Anyway, those are just my opinions. I do think you catch a lot more flack than is warranted, especially by some of the hard-core libertarians… They expect since your site is named “Libertarian Girl” that you have to spout the party line at all times. And that’s not really all that realistic, IMHO… In other news, though, can I get a link on the blogroll? If I got half the *negative* comments you get here, that’d double how many I get now!

Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 1, 2005 04:46 PM

You may very well be right, Stephan, I’m no expert on Austrians.

As to naming–yes, to a degree minarchists are socialists, but they are not what is intended by the traditional use of the word. In a sense, though an anarcho-capitalist, you could very rightly call me a communist, since I support a type of communism–the typical family–even though I support unbridled capitalism in the larger spheres.

My objection is not that there is some duty to not call things what they are, but rather simply, that it may be impolite nevertheless, and that is a reason to refrain.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 04:49 PM

LG: “I call myself “libertarian” because I believe in smaller government, a position which neither the Republican nor Democratic parties stand for. The Republican party is libertarian to a slightly greater extent, but their positions are pretty close.”

I agree with this. You do seem to be a libertarian, but not a very consistent or principled or knowledgeable one. That’s okay, but that’s the way it seems to me–otherwise you would not endorse a utilitarian-based tax on breast implants (I think you were just trying to show off that you know a slight amount about some fancy, but elementary, economic reasoning) or state that Lochner or Roe are libertarian decisions. This is just my view…

“So I thought my moniker fit in with my political views. But since starting my blog, I have received a lot of animosity from hardcore libertarian nutcases who inspect everything I write with a magnifying glass and condemn me for every sentence that somehow doesn’t mesh with their own view of libertarianism. (And I recently had an argument with those types in the comments of a post at Mises Economics Blog.)”

LG, you are in error to refer to serious and knowledgeable libertarians such as myself as “nutcases”. Being hardcore does not make one a nutcase. I hate to make things about me but I am clearly a professional, serious libertarian; it’s possible to be principled, radical, and not a nutcase. LEt me be clear: althogh I like to be blunt and not waste bullshit time when communicating, to cut to the chase, all in all, you are clearly “libertarian” and an ally, despite some disagreements.

When I and others write to critize what you and others like you write, it is not to decree from on high some holy writ. It is because libertairans like to debate and argue. And also, in your case, b/c you state some things that seem breathtakingly oblivious to the fact that there are serious strands of thought out there (e.g., about workable anarchy) that you seem, not to dismiss for any serious reasons as if you have considered, but rejected it, but as if you are unaware of it; as if any REASONABLE libertarian “of course” realizes we have to have a state, or need “some” taxes. Or the continual implication that libertarianism judges all arguments by whether they are strategically useful or not, not whether they are true or not.

“Libertarians, if they ever hope to effect actual change, have to be inclusive and not exclusive. But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!”

I have no idea if this latter is true; I do not claim to be an expert in tactics and strategy; and I am not sure LG is either. But what is wrong with her comment here is that it assumes that all libertarians are activist types, who are in this only or primarily to “effect actual change”. Some of us have little hope of that; or specialize in other things. You are free to try to be an activist, but do NOT assume that we all are; and please do NOT make the mistake of always judging a fellow libertarian’s assertions or views by whether they are “likely to persuade” others. That is a concern only for strategy.

For example, most decent people, even non-libertarians, think outright murder is immoral, aggression, and should be outlawed. They oppose murder and think it immoral. Yet, they do not think that merely believing this, or even stating it or outlawing it, is going to actually ever eliminate all murder. Crime is wrong despite the fact that it will always be with us. Yet it is not “impractical” to condemn crime, to state and realize that crime is wrong. Likewise, I believe we will alwyas have a large state, for psychological and other reasons (most people are too stupid or ignorant or petty or partly-criminal to permit real liberty to ever be achieved, apparently), but that does not mean it is “impractical” to believe that the state is nevertheless immoral and wrong.

So while I do not condemn you and others for focusing apparently only on strategy and tactics and activism, why don’t you at least recognize the difference between an argument’s soundness, truth, or validity, and its usefuless in tactics and strategy and activism? And if you do recognize the difference, why don’t you stop objecting to an argument’s soundness on the grounds that it is not likely to persuade our opponents? Isn’t it just dishonest and disingenuous, or at least confused, to use the wrong standards like this?

“I discovered another anti-me rant by a self-proclaimed libertarian who doesn’t think I deserve to be part of his non-movement. And he brags about not having a Sitemeter on his blog as if it were a badge of honor. The implication is that a pure blogger doesn’t care if anyone is reading his or her blog.”

I have no idea what the last sentence means, but if LG is referring to me, let me be clear: I would acknowledge you are a fellow libertarian (as far as I know), but just wish all you movement/activist types would not always jugge everything by activist standards.

“I am not ashamed to say that I do care if people are reading my blog. If you don’t care about having any sort of influence, why bother to have a blog at all? You could just write stuff and save it on your computer.”

This is not an uninteresting question, but notice it is a subtle change of subject. It is sidetracking. It becomes a meta-discussion. Instead of discussing the issues, it asks why people do discuss issues. What is the point of this kind of question? Are you trying to say that just b/c someone takes the time to publish, they are trapped into the logic of admitting that everything is about strategy?? That truth does not matter? Maybe I, for example, hope to influence to a degree, sure; but given that I have integrity in my views and value truth above any very low chance we really have at “influencing” things, I choose to pursue truth. NOthing wrong w/ the other choice. But nothing wrong with us more “theory libertarians” and “activist libertarians” recognizing our different roles without disingenuously lumping them together.

I’ve posted some related and similar comments in reply to LG here.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 04:55 PM

I don’t consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don’t believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I’ve never read anything by von Mises.

But as far as I can tell, I’m still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don’t think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn’t yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she’s young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway.

Posted by: fling93 | February 1, 2005 04:58 PM

Fling: “I don’t consider myself a hard-core libertarian. I label myself a pragmatic and moderate libertarian, much like Megan McArdle, Dan Drezner, Eugene Volokh, and Tyler Cowen, and in contrast to the Libertarian Party. After all, while I support free trade, ending the drug war, and phasing out Social Security, I don’t believe in getting rid of the income tax, and I do think government should step in to address market failures (e.g. tragedy of the commons). Also, I can’t stand Ayn Rand, and while I like Friedman, I’ve never read anything by von Mises.”

I’d say these are all reasonable, except never reading Mises , and your income tax comment. Note, that before 1913 or so, many *mainstream* people had trouble with an income tax…. there was even a proposal, I believe, to include a 10% cap in the 16th amendment, but Senators were afraid to do so b/c of fear the feds would instantly go all the way to the limit. So they left it silent, thinking it would never approach 10%. This implies that even mainstreamers of just 90 or so years ago were more libertarian than YOU on the income tax issue. Doesn’t that at least give you pause?

“But as far as I can tell, I’m still far more libertarian than LG (heck, Matt Yglesias might be more libertarian than LG). I don’t think this blog is an elaborate joke, though. I think that LG just hasn’t yet put in a lot of thought into many of the issues yet. But she’s young, and I suppose blogging is an excellent way to explore such things anyway.”

Yes, I think this is correct… but then, given your income tax comments and never having read Mises, you might not be much above in having put thoguht into these issues (and I do not mean this in a snide way… I see nothing wrong w/ this, and admit that I may be wrong about you).

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 05:29 PM

Though I’m one of those Mises/No Treason/Two–Four readers who calls himself an anarchist, I have to say I’ve been enjoying the week or two I’ve been paying attention to your blog. Your posts and the reactions to them in your comments threads and on other sites have prompted a lot of get-back-to-basics, “what does it mean to call yourself ‘libertarian'” discussion that I think it’s good to see from time to time (too much navel-gazing gets counterproductive, though).

Like many of your readers, I have moved over time from Cato Institute-Beltway type “movement” libertarian to LP activist (for a short while) to non- or anti-political market anarchist. That’s why this comment of yours particularly attracts my attention:

LG: “But too many self-proclaimed libertarians would rather whine and complain about how government sucks and no one understands them instead of trying to form a movement that has an actual chance of converting people and even winning some elections. You can’t create a movement if you start by trying to exclude people from the movement!”

The difference between you and “those types” at the Mises blog is that we’re not interested in creating a movement, still less “winning some elections.” Trying to shame them (us) by saying we’re destined never to win an election makes us chuckle, at best. If you can stand to spend any more time over at No Treason, I encourage you to check out JTK’s “Rational Evangelism Won’t Work.” http://www.no-treason.com/Kennedy/2.php

There are more thoughts I could add, but this is long enough already.

Posted by: Andrew | February 1, 2005 05:32 PM

Stephan Kinsella: I do not mean this in a snide way

Oh, no worries. My whole point was that I myself am hardly much of a standard to judge libertarians (and I don’t have “libertarian” in my blog name). I should also mention my two core issues are campaign finance and electoral reform, neither of which are libertarian issues (although I think both must be addressed before libertarian ideals can be represented fairly in our government).

Posted by: fling93 | February 1, 2005 05:38 PM

Libertarian Girl,

The libertarian movement tends to be filled with the most passionate people, who thus tend to be the most outspoken. Within the broad label “libertarian”, we can include three categories. Within each category, I list the most impressive and significant member, in my opinion. I venture to say that most people would tend to agree with me on these judgement-calls:

1. Anarcho-capitalists, such as Murray N. Rothbard.

2. Minarchists, such as Ludwig von Mises.

3. Constitutinalists, such as Ron Paul.

(4. Pacifists. Tolstoy is one of the most well-known pacifists; however, I am not sure we could call him a libertarian. Prof. Robert Murphy is one of the only libertarians that I know of who is also a pacifist, and thus necessarily a pacifist.)

Stating something that catches these categories is difficult; however, broadly put, we could say that libertarians support economic and social freedom, property-rights. That is something that is broad enough to include all of these groups, to differing degrees. Those at or affiliated with Mises.org have a great deal of respect for individuals in categories other than anarcho-capitalist. Ludwig von Mises, after whom the institute was named, was a minarchist. Ron Paul is regularly cited, and writes articles for the website (and for LewRockwell.com), as well as gives speeches. However, great respect does not mean deification, or the absence of any criticism (Rothbard too is criticized).

While I agree with Stephan Kinsella on most of what he’s said, I don’t agree that we will always have a large State. I’m optimistic: there have been stateless societies in the past, and there can be the same thing again in the future.

Since you seemed to be caught by surprise that there were libertarians advocating a stateless society (anarcho-capitalism), I would suggest For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. It is a good introduction to anarcho-capitalism, and the views of anarcho-capitalist libertarians. Everyone — except for the brute — agrees that we need government. Minarchist libertarians believe that we need a State to provide government, anarchist libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) don’t.

If you’re interested in talking about this, my Yahoo! and AOL IM’s are both dh003i.

Sincerely,
David Heinrich

PS: Mises.org is a very heavily trafficked website. In fact, it consistently receives more traffic than the Libertarian Party’s homepage and CATO.org, a website focused more on what you consider practical policy issue (but what I consider less than wise suggestions).

Posted by: David Heinrich | February 1, 2005 05:41 PM

Dave, good post. I hope you are correct that I am wrong in my lack of optimism! In any event, surely there is no obligation qua libertarianism to be an activist type as opposed to a theory or academic or whatever type.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 1, 2005 05:45 PM

Some time in the future, I will pay for features that would improve my blog, such as sitemeter, but as of now, I have no inclination to do so. I do not even know which free stat-counting service is most reliable.

To not care who reads my blog, means I can say whatever I want. I’m not trying to please anybody, but here is a free soapbox, and I will stand on it.

Albert Jay Nock, one of the five or six key intellectual “Old Right” writers who shaped modern libertarianism, desired only the freedom to say exactly what he wanted, how he wanted. He knew that persuasion of the masses was a futile project. He even wrote an essay, “Isaiah’s Job” (http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig3/nock3b.html)on the subject. The prophet Isaiah was quite unpopular in his time. He is also one of the architects of modern civilization. I’m not equating myself, or any libertarian blogger who lacks sitemeter, with Isaiah. But the principle is essentially the same. Speaking the truth, as one understands it, is more powerful than concentrating on one’s temporary influence and reach.

Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 1, 2005 05:46 PM

For an alternate view, I personally think of David Friedman as the greatest of the anarcho-capitalists.

Not having read Mises, Milton Friedman would be my name for minarchists.

As to Ron Paul, I agree. I actually met him a few months ago–fantastic guy.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 05:46 PM

You asked why blog if you dont care about traffic. Here is why, my blog started because I was pissed about something and i wanted to make a point. That lasted about 15 minutes for two reasons 1. I’m not very smart so I cant really express myself in a way that holds interest 2. I got bored. Now it is just a dumping ground for stuff I find humorous or interesting. It is aimed at about 3 readers. Sometimes I get feedback sometimes I don’t no big deal either way.

I wouldn’t worry to much about what other people think of your site. Especially people who say things like I don’t find you very principled. My experience in life is that people who have the luxury of describing themselves in terms of their principles, generally have that luxury because they have no principles.

Now to the breast implant tax. (just kidding).

Finally to Fling93, thanks for showing I am not the only one who doesnt like Ayn Rand.

Posted by: chad | February 1, 2005 06:00 PM

Coincidentally, tomorrow is International Make Fun of Objectivists day–also Ayn’s birthday.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 1, 2005 06:13 PM

Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 03:21 PM

Lib Girl, I’d watch out for this one.

Posted by: dadahead | February 1, 2005 08:54 PM

Ha hahahahahahaha! Please more warning next time, dadahead! Diet coke really burns spewing out my nose! Dangerous.. HAHAHAHA! You know the old saying about never cornering an armed animal.

Posted by: Outlaw3 | February 1, 2005 10:09 PM

I think that LG is head over heals into something she doesn’t really understand. Either that or someone out there is having a lot of fun playing pretend.

Posted by: Steven Kane | February 1, 2005 10:10 PM

No-one starts out in any endeavor with a vast array of knowledge. I still don’t have much knowledge after 2-3 years of reading about Austrian economics and libertarianism.

Several years ago, when I was a quasi-libertarian, I was debating with someone on Slashdot. I kept on insisting that we needed public schooling: otherwise, how else could people possibly educate their children? I had little or not knowledge beyond that of the layman in economics, and hadn’t even considered what would happen to the cost of education if it were desocialized. I also hadn’t considered homeschooling. The person with whom I was debating stubbornly held his ground, repeatedly rebuffing me, for which I am now very thankful. He referred me to Mises.org, and the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.

With anyone who is presumeably new to something, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn’t assume that those unfamiliar with, or critical of, plum-line libertarian views are playing libertarian. Assume honesty, good-nature, and a love of liberty; assume intelligence, thoughtfulness, a thirst for knowledge, and a desire to do well. We should also assume that, having a fresh perspective, they have something original to contribute.

This follows from the golden rule.

Posted by: David Heinrich | February 1, 2005 11:26 PM

“With anyone who is presumeably new to something, we should give them the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn’t assume that those unfamiliar with, or critical of, plum-line libertarian views are playing libertarian. Assume honesty, good-nature, and a love of liberty; assume intelligence, thoughtfulness, a thirst for knowledge, and a desire to do well. We should also assume that, having a fresh perspective, they have something original to contribute.”

Agreed, Dave. Of course, those new to something usually don’t spout off posts lecturing others about it, instead they seek to learn it and discourse about it… and don’t have the chutzpah to dismiss with a waved hand the serious work of serious thinkers that they have not had time to study.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 2, 2005 01:19 AM

David,

I agree 100%. In fact, for me the process started not more than 3 years ago when I was 18. Back then I was registered as a Republican and actually voted in an election. Then, after coming across mises.org after reading Rothbard’s “The Case Against the Fed,” I began my rapid ascent to anarchist-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist. Hoppe’s ingeneous work “A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism” was one of the main works that aided in this process, even if you ignore his controversial “argumentation ethics.” I continue to read libertarian and Austrian theory almost every day (right now I am reading de Jasay’s book “Against Politics”).

However, to get to the point, prior to my libertarian transformation I did not start up a blog proclaiming to be a libertarian, and then proceed to argue with other libertarians on other blogs. This is my real point of contention with LG. She started this blog self proclaiming to be a libertarian, then she went over to the mises.org blog and tried to argue with libertarians there, whereupon it is evident to me that she did not understand their positions. After that she comes back to her blog (where I guess she feels she is in more control) and calls everyone at the mises.org blog “hardcore libertarian nutcases.” I’m not condemning her for her ignorance or her belief in minarchy, but she needs to study it more before she starts a “libertarian” blog and tries to argue with other libertarians.

My advice to her is to close down her blog and start reading up more on libertarianism. In fact, I would recommend she read some of Richard Epstein’s books.

Posted by: Steven Kane | February 2, 2005 01:54 AM

Does anyone else see the irony in a post that complains about being pushed towards some sort of libertarian orthodoxy and then maintains that not freely choosing a particular statistics program somehow violates libertarian orthodoxy?

I’d tend to agree with the first point (Torqemada had nothing on libertarians other than the support of church and state), but at the risk of being orthodox myself it seems that the libertarian position is that each blogger ought to be free to choose his stats package or lack thereof.

(BTW, I rely on my webhosting stats package and raw server logs. I added Sitemeter because the Truth Screwed Bear uses it. It uses javascript and images to count, missing 100% of RSS readers and roughly half of visitors who come to the site.)

Posted by: Tom Hanna | February 2, 2005 03:41 AM

I really do not know anything about the technical “back end” of blogging. I just enjoy reading them. I do want to let you know LG since this Sitemeter dealeo (yes that is a technical term) seems to be big and you are proud of the fact you dispay yours, I do not see any traffic stats when I view your blog. The Sitemeter shows no numbers and seems to be greyed out (technical term) and if disabled (or should I say differently abled to be PC). Could you explain this for the mentis simplis amount us in another post?

Posted by: CoolSchool | February 2, 2005 08:59 AM

Tom,
“Does anyone else see the irony in a post that complains about being pushed towards some sort of libertarian orthodoxy and then maintains that not freely choosing a particular statistics program somehow violates libertarian orthodoxy?”

Good way of putting it. To clarify my earlier post and make it more “libertarian”, I chose statcounter because it was the first thing I came across. I chose that taking the first thing I found, which meets my limited needs, is worth more in benefits than the cost of researching a bunch of different stats programs. Both in the time taken to do that research, and the opportunity cost lost not doing something else.

🙂

Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 2, 2005 01:43 PM

The Hoax

I started this blog pretending to be a gorgeous blonde “libertarian girl” who just graduated from college. The ruse worked great until someone discovered that the photo I was using was taken from a Russian brides website. Read the classic post where I admit to the hoax.

Let the looting begin

Let the Looting Begin

01/31/2005Mises WireJeffrey A. Tucker

This soak-the-rich approach will pay for the transition. This is the favorite plan of Daily Kos and many Democrats who otherwise oppose reform. We might ask how long the privatizers are going to ride this train as it plunges further and further into the abyss. My guess is all the way, since financing the reform requires “tough choices by the president and the Congress.”

(my comments to both)

January 31, 2005

Let the Looting Begin
Jeffrey Tucker

Harold Ford of Tenn., via Talking Points and Brad DeLong, points the way to a likely consensus on Social Security reform (politics being the art of a compromise to tax you more, and all that): in exchange for private accounts, the cap on FICA taxes will be lifted, so that the 20% of the population that earns more then $87,000 has to pay the 6.8%x2 tax on the full paycheck. This soak-the-rich approach will pay for the transition. This is the favorite plan of Daily Kos and many Democrats who otherwise oppose reform. We might ask how long the privatizers are going to ride this train as it plunges further and further into the abyss. My guess is all the way, since financing the reform requires “tough choices by the president and the Congress.”

Posted by Jeffrey Tucker at January 31, 2005 07:54 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blog.mises.org/mt/trackback/2898

Comments

Social Security as a separate tax should be abolished and merged in with regular income taxes. The current system is designed to hide from the voters how much tax they are really paying (because employers pay half the tax) and trick people into thinking that SS is a legitimate pension plan when actually it’s a redistribution of tax money.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 09:58 AM

“Social Security as a separate tax should be abolished and merged in with regular income taxes.”

Why should it be merged with income taxes? Why not just abolish the program completely and forever?

Posted by: Steven Kane at January 31, 2005 11:53 AM

More assertions from Libertarian Girl. Only DC Beltway types think this way. The only clear “shoulds” that apply to any tax is that it “should” be lowered, and it “should” be abolished. Everything else is just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella at January 31, 2005 11:56 AM

This issue keeps coming up over and over again at my blog. Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.

It’s not productive to accuse someone of not being libertarian because they make a practical suggestion about tax policy.

The political support to abolish SS does not exist. I offered a sensible suggestion to make the SS tax more understandable and consistent with the way the program actually works.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 01:01 PM

“Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.”

Au contraire. As long as the democratic state has the power of forced, involuntary taxation, it will always tend towards more and more oppressive taxes. I suggest reading Hoppe’s a priori arguments on the subject.

There’s no such thing as a “reasonable tax” any more than there is reasonable theft or reasonable murder.

If enough people simply withdraw their support for the tax regime, it will wither and disappear. The re-emergence of freedom will depend on common people, not politicians or political maneuvering. Advocating a new and improved tax scheme to fix things is like using matches and gasoline to control a fire. Are you going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution, Libertarian Girl?

Posted by: Paul D at January 31, 2005 02:27 PM

Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order. Capitalism requires that laws be enforced. Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.

A state, therefore, requires taxes! To suggest othewise is to be an anarchist not a libertarian.

Without a national defense, it would be not long at all before an agressor non-libertarian nation takes over the defenseless nation.

Mind you, this is not an argument for MORE spending. It may very well be that the U.S., for example, could get buy with a reduction in defense spending. But a certain level of defense spending is necessary in order for a free democratic state to exist.

If the U.S. could just cut spending by 10% it would be a huge step in the right direction. Advocating a 100% reduction in spending just makes the person advocating that someone that no one will ever pay attention to.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl at January 31, 2005 02:36 PM

“This issue keeps coming up over and over again at my blog. Taxes aren’t going to disappear. Practical libertarianism is to suggest how taxes can be improved and made more efficient, and how the overall level of taxation should be lowered.”

“Practical libertarianism” (whatever that is) has done nothing to stop or even slow down over 200 years of the growth of the mega-state.

“Paul, a state is necessary to preserve order. Capitalism requires that laws be enforced. Security requires armed forces to defend the nation.”

On the contrary, the state is nothing more than political anarchy. Market anarchy, which is anarchy of voluntary agreements and trade brings order and prosperity. Political anarchy, which is anarchy of force and fraud is what we usually define to be chaos. Saying that we need to impose a regime of chaos to have order is childishly self-contradictory.

February 01, 2005

Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy

Yesterday, Glenn Reynolds wrote:

I’ve never understood the romanticization of the Confederacy. It didn’t last very long, it was horribly run and governed, it accomplished nothing but disaster and defeat, and it existed in the service of a horrible cause.

. . .

One suspects that for a certain sort of infantile mind, pro-Confederacy statements provide the same sort of thrilling sense of nonconformity that Marxism has provided. This, I guess, explains the weird strain of pro-Confederate sympathy that one finds among a certain segment of libertarians.

Maybe he read my recent post about the Civil War and slavery, and was inspired by it.

And I agree, it’s a very weird strain of libertarianism that would glorify the Confederacy.

February 01, 2005 at 11:48 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/1763255

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glenn Reynolds on the Confederacy:

Comments

To let the South and its slavery to secede was to achieve the ambitions of true abolitionists – to separate oneself and one’s state from such barbarism like slavery. The only reason border slave states did not secede is that they were the main beneficiaries of the Fugitive Slave Law.

Yes, it is odd to defend the Constitutional/anti-tariff case from a libertarian position, for it is a de facto justification for slavery.

But it is far more odd to defend the nationalist/pro-tariff case from a libertarian position, for it is a de facto justification for conscription, which just like slavery, except that the likelihood for a bloody, violent death is far, far greater.

Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 02, 2005 at 12:34 AM

I think the whole idea of of the civil war brings up a tough point.

IMHO, part of libertarianism is self-determination. It is the idea that if a state believes that the federal government is no longer respecting their rights to self-governance, that state has the ability to remove itself from the United States.

The opposite side of the coin is that slavery, by definition, is anti-libertarian. Libertarianism is founded on the rights of individuals being paramount, and slavery cannot in any way be consistent with that philosophy.

Can a support for the right of secession be misconstrued by most folks as supporting the South and slavery? I think that’s what’s going on here.

Although I wonder how people such as the current Libertarian Party, who are opposed to the US fighting tyranny in other parts of the world, can logically oppose the right of a state to secede from the US and institute slavery. That question, I’ll have to leave to some of the isolationist libertarians here…

Posted by: Brad Warbiany | February 02, 2005 at 01:13 AM

As opposed to those strains of libertarianism that aren’t wierd?

Posted by: clark | February 02, 2005 at 07:05 AM

Yeah, it is certainly weird to think that pot-smokers ought not be imprisoned, and that Congress has the sole authority to declare war. And it is weird to be skeptical of the State and the intentions of politicians.

Libertarians are certainly weird. In other words, it is weird to have a brain.

Posted by: James Leroy Wilson | February 02, 2005 at 11:37 AM

“And I agree, it’s a very weird strain of libertarianism that would glorify the Confederacy.”

How so? The Confederacy is a symbol of a fight against a federal government trying to impose its will over the states. Certainly support for states’ rights is a mainstay of the libertarian ideology–it’s a common topic at the Cato Institute, for instance.

Yes, slavery was awful. So are tariffs and so is the centralization of power; Confederates fought against both–there’s a glory in that.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 02, 2005 at 12:49 PM

LG, this is yet another exmaple of running your mouth off spouting conventional, mainstream schlock while not knowing what you are talking about. I admit you are kinda hot, but come on, that’s not a good enough excuse. The CSA was no worse than the USA as even the USA when it was founded had slavery; would you say we had no right to rebel from England since the US has slavery at the time?

On other issues, the CSA was better than the USA. For one, it did not initiate a war of aggression against another nation. For another, it had a better Constitution. Check out for example Marshall DeRosa’s The Confederate Constitution of 1861: An Inquiry into American Constitutionalism. One need not be a rebel flag waving yahoo nor a racist nor in favor of slavery to recognize this. Why do such obvious things need to be explained to you repeatedly?

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 02:59 PM

Check out also a reply to a similar issue here: http://www.stephankinsella.com/2005/02/horwitz-et-al-on-woods.php

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 04:19 PM

LG, the issue is muddied because it is so frequently framed in such terms that any admiration for the CSA is taken as pro-slavery. To me, the CSA represents the last gasp of the original system of federalism and the last stand against overreaching centralized national government. It is also a part of my heritage since every male ancestor of mine of the right age fought for the CSA. They did so not for slavery (they did not own slaves) but to defend their homes and rights. What was the war of secession “about”? is a question that historians and pundits debate. I would argue that it was “about” something different for every single person involved in it. When it is made to be solely about slavery, I suspect that this is frequently part of the justification for the Constitutional and human damage was done.

I would like to think that slavery could have been abolished without destroying the Constitution or killing so many people.

Posted by: Dennis | February 02, 2005 at 04:29 PM

I don’t see how anyone could dispute that the South seceded because of slavery. Abraham Lincoln’s presidency meant that no more slave states would be admitted to the Union and the South correctly saw the writing on the wall that eventually slavery would be abolished entirely.

The states rights stuff sounds nice, but unfortunately it was made up after the fact, or as propaganda to get the non-slave owning majority to fight.

The North was where the action was in the 19th century, the place where the leaders of business and science made their home.

I think it’s justifiable to debate whether the North should have just let the South go its merry way, but there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl | February 02, 2005 at 05:14 PM

“I don’t see how anyone could dispute that the South seceded because of slavery.”

Because there is no single “because of”. It’s a but-for cause, but there were many others.

“The states rights stuff sounds nice, but unfortunately it was made up after the fact, or as propaganda to get the non-slave owning majority to fight.”

States rights was made up after the fact? How about in 1789?

“there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.”

It is statements like this, LG, that make you look like a complete idiot neophyte. Jesus.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 05:57 PM

“there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.”

It is statements like this, LG, that make you look like a complete idiot neophyte. Jesus.

Watch me defend Libertarian Girl!

YOu are the one who looks like an idiot, Stephan.

The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.

Very admirable.

Posted by: dadahead | February 02, 2005 at 07:03 PM

If one stops for a moment and realizes how few southerners could afford to own a slave (they weren’t exactly as inexpensive as a slurpee at the local 7-11), it becomes rather silly to argue that defending the Confederacy was about defending slavery. Does one really think that the non-slave holding majority would really be willing to fight and die so that their slave-holding minority could carry on owning slaves? People can be motivated to fight for others, but there are limits. Lincoln only spoke of preserving the Union in most of his speeches. Abolishing slavery took a back seat, after all, because he wanted to enslave the South.

Posted by: | February 02, 2005 at 11:27 PM

doodoo-head: “YOu are the one who looks like an idiot, Stephan.

The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.”

This is so asinine it’s not worth replying to. This stupid assertion is so 8th grade level as to be unbelievable.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 02, 2005 at 11:39 PM

“The defining characteristic of the Confederacy was their enthusiasm for enslaving their fellow human beings.”

Moreover, do you have any proof that this is the case, or shall we simply level our own assertions at each other?

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 12:14 AM

Googling around, from what I can tell, the Civil War was the result of a combination of factors, including slavery, tariffs, and a question as to the legality of secession.

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 12:24 AM

OK, you tell me what the defining characteristic of the Confederacy was.

And don’t say state’s rights, because that’s bullshit. States’ rights to own slaves, is more like it.

And no b.s. about “southern heritage”. Southern heritage IS racism.

And don’t call me doodoohead.

Posted by: dadahead | February 03, 2005 at 12:51 AM

I don’t recall using that particular epithet.

Slavery was of course a factor, as I said, but the Civil War was also the result of the states’ rights vs. federal power question, and the possibility of secession. There were also questions of tariffs.

Along those lines:

“We’re not fighting for slaves.
Most of us never owned slaves and never expect to,
It takes money to buy a slave and we’re most of us poor,
But we won’t lie down and let the North walk over us
About slaves or anything else.”

Confederate soldiers in John Brown’s Body, a book length poem by Stephen Vincent Benét

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 08:42 AM

The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.

They believed that their wealth was in their slaves, and secession was the only way to keep their wealth intact.

Posted by: Libertarian Girl | February 03, 2005 at 09:49 AM

Doodoohead wrote: “OK, you tell me what the defining characteristic of the Confederacy was.

“And don’t say state’s rights, because that’s bullshit. States’ rights to own slaves, is more like it.”

There IS no “defining characteristic” to the Confederacy, you dope.

“And no b.s. about “southern heritage”. Southern heritage IS racism.”

You’re a moron.

Libertarian Girl: “The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.

“They believed that their wealth was in their slaves, and secession was the only way to keep their wealth intact.”

This may be true but it does not at all imply “there is absolutely nothing about the Confederacy to admire.” Such a statement displays sheer ignorance… worse that that gleeful ignorance, an ignorance so profound it is proud of itself.

Posted by: Stephan Kinsella | February 03, 2005 at 10:30 AM

Dadahead’s assertion that southern heritage is racism is hate speech. It is one of the only kinds of hate speech that pc types such as dadahead recognize as permissible. They seek to cut off meaningful discussion by hurling anti-southern epithets because they do not know enough about history to question the conventional “wisdom” that was planted in them in their northern schools.

Posted by: Dennis | February 03, 2005 at 10:46 AM

“The men who controlled the Confederacy were rich plantation owners who owned large numbers of slaves to work the fields.”

Yes, but the men who fought for the Confederacy were by and large not slaveholders–they were too poor. Nor, I presume, were the men who fought for the North necessarily abolitionists. Is it so hard to see that libertarians might find something admirable in a people who fight against a government?

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 11:22 AM

Just to clarify, I have no doubt that a large number of Confederate soldiers were fighting in the Civil War for reasons other than slavery, just like a lot of German soldiers were fighting in WWII for reasons other than Nazism, and like American soldiers today are fighting for reasons other than US strategic power in the Middle East.

(I don’t mean the comparisons to be nasty; my point is that in all wars, even when they are a good cause, the reasons the soldiers fight are often different than the reasons heads of states go to war.)

It is obviously the wealthy slave owners who wanted to fight the Civil War, and they probably used the usual methods of whipping up the population into a frenzy: “Dem damn Yankees is comin’ ta destroy ow Southan way o’ life. Less getem.” Or whatever.

You’re a moron.

No I’m not.

Dadahead’s assertion that southern heritage is racism is hate speech.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Now conservatives are screaming “Hate Speech!”!!

Dude, white southern heritage is all about racism. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching, etc. etc. etc.

I’m not saying there wasn’t (and isn’t) racism all over the country, but nowhere was it (is it?) as prevelant as in the south.

Posted by: dadahead | February 03, 2005 at 02:41 PM

Dadahead is clearly prejudiced against southerners and has hateful ideas about southern heritage. That explains his or her take on this issue. He is an anti-southernist.

Posted by: Dennis | February 03, 2005 at 03:52 PM

“It is obviously the wealthy slave owners who wanted to fight the Civil War, and they probably used the usual methods of whipping up the population into a frenzy: “Dem damn Yankees is comin’ ta destroy ow Southan way o’ life. Less getem.” Or whatever.”

Ah, and the Southerners who they whipped were too stupid to think for themselves?

Posted by: Scott Scheule | February 03, 2005 at 03:55 PM

Dadahead, please do a study on the Black Codes. You will find that they existed in the North and during Reconstruction laws patterned after the northern Black Codes were implemented in the South. Do you know was in control in the South at the time?

Asked by a Yankee soldier a Southron POW answered “because you are here.” The question was, “whay are you fighting us?”

Posted by: Confederate_Coqui | February 07, 2005 at 11:04 AM

Sagascend would have been one nice, content house negress back in the Old Days. I would have set her sweet caramel ass up good & proper.

Posted by: Stonewall | July 19, 2005 at 06:05 PM

I do declare that would have made me a might *happy* my kind sir. lol

Posted by: sagascend | July 19, 2005 at 06:07 PM

^ Oh please. You clearly don’t have anything better to do than pretend that I would give you the time of day.

In the words of Eddie Murphy, “wuddent me” people.

Posted by: sagascend | July 19, 2005 at 06:44 PM

All this rationalising of the Confederacy’s existence is nothing more than historical revisionism. Ted Turner and the New South ilk as well as Southern politicians -both liberal and conservative- wish for the world to believe that the American Civil War had more to do with the notions of federalism, “states’ rights” and a more traditionalist way of life, this is nonsense. Slavery was the issue from the beginning to the end. Lincoln and the Republican Party were dreaded by the landed Southern gentry because Lincoln and the Republicans called for a halt to the spread of slavery in newly formed states, thereby isolating this evil practice. They feared that this isolation would lead the federal government to make bolder attacks upon the practice in the future. The right to secede was brought into question when the aristocracies of the Southern states demanded secession and independence over what they believed was their God-given right to own, buy, sell black men and women.
True, most who fought and died for the Southern cause weren’t slave owners, they were too poor (some of them were worse materially worse off than the slaves); however, they fought because they were told by the landed interests that there was an invasion of Northern professional armies, bent upon destroying their culture and way of life. Most of the enlisted rank and file who made up the bulk of the Confederate Army came from backgrounds that, in essence, were as serfs towards the gentry who became their politicians and officers. The white rural poor looked to these men of property for guidance in matters political, social and religious. In short, they were duped.

Posted by: American | July 20, 2005 at 10:26 AM

I do not understand people who support the ‘anti-slavery’ cause of the North, without bothering to research it. The emancipation proclamation was a war tactic to stir the slaves agains the south. It says specifically that only the slaves in the Confederate states were free. The neutral states slaves were not free, of which there were four slave states, and the pro-Union counties in the South were not freed either.
When the United States seceded from England they supported slavery. Slaves were improted by the shipload. When the Confederate States seceded from the Union, they outlawed the importation of slaves.
It was big government versus individualsim. States’ rights versus socialism.

Posted by: Luke Duke | November 29, 2005 at 06:46 PM

I think you all need to do a little research into the actual true history of the Confederacy before slaming it as some sort of Nazi state that advocated the enslavement of Blacks and all minorities.

Slavery in the South was not as wide spread as we have been lead to believe by the US Government, which are masters of putting there own spin on historical events.

Slavery in the Confederacy was isolated to certain states that were die hard Pro-Slavery. However a hand full of states unoffically ended slavery as early as 1861 by allowing milita commanders, and army generals the right to draft slaves, and give slaves the right to own land for farming (I.E. Florida, Louisiana, Virginia, Kentucky and Maryland).

Lousiana had as early as 1861 over a half dozen 100% Black militia units preparing to engage the Elephant (I.E. Union Forces), Florida which was the 3rd state to join the Confederacy was the most anti-Slavery in the south, and was also home to the first Black governor after the Civil War.

I know these facts to be true b/c I researched this information by reading period books written prior to 1910. All history books written prior to 1910 back up the above facts and basically contradict current modern history on the Civil War.

You see for some reason the US Dept. of Education mandated in 1910 that all history texts begin to call the “Southern Revolution” the “War of Southern Independence”, which was changed again in 1920 to “The War Between the States”, to its current title “The American Civil War” in 1942. This about the time that the US. Dept. of Education reclassified the cause of the war as slavery.
The history took an even more hardlined stance in 1933 at the hieght of the great depression.
Pro Nazi members in the US Government began trying to compare American history to the plight of the Nazi Party by officially changing all history texts to show that the South was only fightning the war to preserve slavery.

Prior to 1910 the primary causes of the war was illegal taxation of Southern shipping and interstate commerce, taxes effecting new states coming into the Union, and distribution of wealth between the states, with slavery coming in forth as the primary reason that Gerogia, Alabama, Mississippi, South & North Carolina, and Tennessee left the union.
Period texts go on to point out that the Confederacy was fightning it self over the continued legalization of slavery. Anti slave states such as Florida, Louisiana, Kentucky, Maryland, and Virginia led the anit slave charge with Arkansas, and Missouri deciding to stay out of the fight all together.

The fact is gentlemen people are pro-South b/c it is where we are from I’am proud to be a Southerner and despise the corrupt US government and thier illegal occupation of the South.
I’m not a Libertarian, but instead a Confederate and am President of my own party the Dixie Party. My party works with other Pro Sepratist / Confederate parties with the goal of organizing a unified party hopefully by 2014.

However hate groups such as the KKK & Nazi’s have hindered our goals. The Dixie Party since its formation in June 2002 has worked with State Authorities to lock up 427 KKK / Nazi members caught flying a rebel or Confederate Flag. You see under Florida State law 256.051 it is illegal to discrace the Confederate Flag by using it in hate rallies or for purposes of hate.

Attacking any and all hate groups is the secondary goal of our party, and we will not stop until it has been accomplished.

Other goals of our party besides erasing hate, and Sucsession are to erase corruption, and eliminate all corporate influences on politics. Drastically cut harmfull Green House gases, deforestation, and pollution of our oceans, if it already is not too late. Expose all US Government lies (Kennedy Assasination, 9/11, TWA Flight 600, etc.).
Also if we ever get in power we will stive to boost our tech in order to colonize the Moon and Mars before we milk Earth dry of all natural resources such as Iron, Lead, Steel, and other valuble resources.

So Libertarians, if ya’ll are interested in an alliance visit our temporary HQ at Yahoo groups, currently our party has 3,782 members through out the South.

Posted by: Boba Fett | February 15, 2006 at 11:02 AM

Posted by: AMEN! | February 16, 2006 at 01:08 AM

See Asian men vigorously fucking and pounding away at hot tight white pussies.

!!!CLICK ON THE “POSTED BY:” LINK BELOW!!!

Posted by: A RICH ASIAN GUY | March 27, 2006 at 07:38 PM

{ 0 comments }

External Post: SOLO–Rand v. Rothbard

by Stephan Kinsella on February 1, 2005

Sicking The Saddamites #2 – Rockwellians: Enemies Of Liberty

{ 0 comments }

Gmail invites

by Stephan Kinsella on February 1, 2005

Daddy has a few gmail invites if anyone wants ’em. Email me nskinsella at gmail dott com.

{ 0 comments }

External Posts: LewRockwell.com: October 2004

by Stephan Kinsella on January 31, 2005

How Stupid are Europeans? (about their failure to put an explicit right to secede in the draft EU Constitution)
Intellectual Property and Self-Ownership (about suits re Waiting for Godot play to illustrate that copyright can interfere with rights in your own body)
Libertarian and Conservative Bibliographies–Jude Blanchett, and Federalist Society
Teresa Kerry’s Taxes
Long Life Cigarettes
Randians for Bush (even though he’s anti-abortion)
Bureaucrats = Fish Food (about Veerappan, India’s Robin Hood)
Sex and Patents
Libertarian Unity (re Roderick Long’s attempts to conciliate between various Cato and Mises Institute disputes) (Horwitz’s comments)
Compulsory Retirement Savings (about Hong Kong’s system and how they take it away if you emigrate)
The Periles of Utilitarian Thinking (proposals to have government award prizes to inventors of patents to spur innovation)
Ready, Aim, Right! and Bay of One Hundred Fires
Return of the Name (FEE re-adopts The Freeman)
The Incredible Abundance of the Market (cigars, bourbon, olives, etc.)

{ 0 comments }

Texas Justice on Horse Thieves

by Stephan Kinsella on January 31, 2005

Cute story–excerpted from footnote 44 of my punishment article — This brings to mind the reported exchange “many years ago between the Chief Justice of Texas and an Illinois lawyer visiting that state. ‘Why is it,’ the visiting lawyer asked, ‘that you routinely hang horse thieves in Texas but oftentimes let murderers go free?’ ‘Because,’ replied the Chief Justice, ‘there never was a horse that needed stealin!’” Story told in People v. Skiles, 115 Ill.App.3d 816, 827, 450 N.E.2d 1212, 1220 (1983).”

{ 0 comments }

Superglue Sucks

by Stephan Kinsella on January 30, 2005

Every time I need superglue, I find a tube of it in some drawer, and it’s invariably unusable because all the glue has turned hard, or the part in the spout has hardened, etc. Apparently superglue is usable only once per tube. So you might as well keep a bunch of unopened tubes around.

{ 0 comments }

Offsite posts: Horwtiz on Feser; Palmer on Nazis

by Stephan Kinsella on January 28, 2005

Reply to Horwitz, about how conservatives are really just criminal socialists with some makeweight justification; comparing the motives of criminals to the theories of socialists. Someone sent me this email about this exchange:

Now I know why you are bald—you tore out your hair trying to debate the paleocons. Jesus **** Christ, is it so hard to admit you favor aggression? I guess it is. Try debating liberals and they will swear that taxation is not aggression because there is some “social contract” you have to obey. It’s mystical mumbo-jumbo on both sides. Perhaps this is good—maybe most people know ~deep down~ that aggression is bad and are just trying to play word games to rationalize themselves. Maybe that’s a start of some sort, although you seemed to run into a dead end with everyone. But how many criminals admit they are criminals? I’ve seen former S.S. guards at Nazi death camps say with a straight face that what they were doing was self-defense. Yes, sending children into the gas chambers was “self-defense” because they’d grow up to be nasty adult Jews.
Reply to Palmer (where he insinuates I’m a Nazi sympathizer because I made fun of the idea of “inadvertent racism”); followup reply by me posted on The Palmer Periscope.