I was discussing existentialism with others and digging through quotes by Nietzsche.
I came across this:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Nietzsche
My conception of freedom. — The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it — what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic [genüsslich] — every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization ...
You see similar remarks made by John Stuart Mill, towards the end of his life. He was originally an individualist "Classical Liberal," but by the end of his life, an avowed Socialist. And then there's John Rawls' conception of "social justice," where he takes Nietzsche's remarks above and attempted to prove them formally, using fairly basic assumptions -- something which upset economic liberals, so like reactionaries, they had to whip up a retort, which was "Anarchy, State, and Utopia," by Robert Nozick.
This demonstrates precisely what I'm talking about when I say that support or opposition to Libertarianism (especially support or opposition to Market Anarchism) is not primarily a battle of "good versus evil," as you portray it, but a battle of ideas, where some define freedom completely differently than you do.
In the past, Rothbard has tried to portray American Liberalism as a "movement hijacked by Socialists," but if that's the case, then I invite you all to explain Liberal International's manifesto:
http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=537
You think they haven't heard your ideas? A subtle, sub-conscious understanding of the failure of the economic liberal movement is why, as it seems to me, Libertarians seem to be leaning more in a direction nowadays in the same direction as Marxism when Marx's predictions about Capitalism failed to materialize: Most Marxists became "Anarchists" and started using force and propaganda to try to control people, rather than trying to make genuine, rational arguments to persuade others.
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
Nathyn:In the past, Rothbard has tried to portray American Liberalism as a "movement hijacked by Socialists," but if that's the case, then I invite you all to explain Liberal International's manifesto:
This is not an accurate summary of Rothbard's thoughts on liberalism throughout his life - see "Left and Right - The Prospects for Liberty." Rothbard held that libertarianism was a leftist position, with the natural conservative position being akin to fascism. Socialism, on the other hand, was a middle of the road movement, using conservative ends to attempt to achieve liberal means.
Socialists and libertarians have much more in common than is commonly acknowledged. In point of fact, socialists and libertarians share much the same ends. Libertarians often fail to express that, though, because of the subtle ways in which the language is tilted towards socialism. A libertarian hesitates to pronounce himself in favor of affordable, high quality health care for all, despite this being precisely what he thinks to be good, because the assumption of any listener will be that he means socialized health care.
Where the libertarian and the socialist part ways is on the means to achieve those ends. The libertarian is equipped by Austrian economics to provide the answer which is apodictically certain, the socialist has only means which seem reasonable at first glance but will not achieve the ends, ultimately. Yet there is no need for animus between them - let their anger be directed at the conservatives, who actually oppose the liberal's ends. Between men who agree on ends, there is possibility for rational discussion and persuasion - this is not the case between men with opposing ends.
Nietzsche's remarks on liberal institutions, by the way, seem identical to things Hoppe has said. Liberal institutions make society more prosperous, which offers more opportunity for tyranny.
JAlanKatz: This is not an accurate summary of Rothbard's thoughts on liberalism throughout his life - see "Left and Right - The Prospects for Liberty." Rothbard held that libertarianism was a leftist position, with the natural conservative position being akin to fascism. Socialism, on the other hand, was a middle of the road movement, using conservative ends to attempt to achieve liberal means.
I think that was just his early views. There's an article on Mises.org by Rothbard which was literally titled something to the effect of, "FASCISM = SOCIALISM."
I'll try and dig it up. Give me a minute.
Well fascism could indeed be thought of as a nationalist and conservative form of socialism, geared more towards a mixed and regulatory economy on the behalf of big buisiness (with buisiness-government collusion/patronage) then government ownership. A sort of corporatist socialism. It depends on one's definition of socialism I suppose. Even if the government is not directly taking ownership of the means of production, it is still indirectly controling it and therefore claiming and exercising partial ownership in a fascist economic system. Over time, such a system becomes more socialized. Fascism might be anti-communist, but that by no means means that it has anything to do with free market capitalism. Fascists oppose communism because of its internationalist implications, not out of any principled opposition to political power or support for economic freedom.
Fascism was named National Socialism, now wasn't it?
National Socialism and Communism are enemies because Communism is an international movement. You could make a case that either one is closer to true freedom.
Mobility for people and goods, completely free trade globaly, is a Libertarian ideal. So Libertarianism can be considered an "international" movement. However, Libertarianism believes in local control and defends property. So Libertarianism can be considered to support national sovereignty and oppose imperialism.
The reality is that, no matter what their goals, neither movement is similar to libertarianism because their means prevent ever achieving freedom. Libertarianism can be reconciled with either, assuming that the other movements accept the NAP. But National Socialism and Communism must be antagonistic.
Which is more liberal and which is more conservative? How could you decide, and why would you care?
Peace
Excellent point about the nationalist vs. internationalist antagonism between fascism and communism. You're right that both comparatively have their upsides and downsides when it comes to nationalism vs. internationalism.
JonBostwick:Fascism was named National Socialism, now wasn't it?
Now that was Nazism. Fascism was just Fascism. We refer to National Socialism as Fascism because both terms are largely synonymous. But it's a mistake to consider both "Socialist" because Fascism was considered third-way and Hitler himself regularly try to appealed to Liberals and Socialists alike.
The influence of National Socialism in America (not Nazism, but the abstract idea "National Socialism") is also unappreciated by historians, though it seems obvious enough to me: Francis Bellamy and those who put forth "Patriotism" were all National Socialists. They used the same Hitler salute as the *** and often spoke highly of the *** and Fascists. This influence affected a lot of America, particularly the American Right.
JonBostwick:National Socialism and Communism are enemies because Communism is an international movement. You could make a case that either one is closer to true freedom.Mobility for people and goods, completely free trade globaly, is a Libertarian ideal. So Libertarianism can be considered an "international" movement. However, Libertarianism believes in local control and defends property. So Libertarianism can be considered to support national sovereignty and oppose imperialism.The reality is that, no matter what their goals, neither movement is similar to libertarianism because their means prevent ever achieving freedom. Libertarianism can be reconciled with either, assuming that the other movements accept the NAP. But National Socialism and Communism must be antagonistic. Which is more liberal and which is more conservative? How could you decide, and why would you care?
Fascism, in the 30's and 40's, was international. What the hell do you think the Axis Powers were? The Super Adventure Club?
A few observations/remarks:
1) I don't see the relevance of the Nietzsche quote to the remainder of your post. Nietzsche is there criticizing liberalism for undermining the will to power, making men effete, into sheep.
2) You say "your ideas." Not our. Are you not then a libertarian? Or even a liberal? I take it by your remarks about economic liberals, libertarians, etc., here and elsewhere that you're not.
3) You remark on how Marxists became coercive anarchists after Marx's predictions failed and then try to say that libertarians will go the same way. By same way here do you mean simply becoming anarchists, adopting coercive and propagandistic methods, or rather a combination of both? I think not the first, but probably the second or third. Am I right? I note that this is the only part of your post that seems even remotely related to the Nietzsche quote, and yet if it is then it gets the quote pretty wrong. Nietzsche says in the quote that liberal institutions become the worst and most thorough injurers of freedom after they are attained. See how it doesn't apply to your arguments regarding either the Marxists or libertarians? One further point, Marxists never accepted the right to liberty; there's a key difference between Marxists and liberterians such that true Marxists don't have an absolute moral reason not to coerce whereas true libertarians do.
4) Oh wait...I see. The Nietzsche quote is supposed to demonstrate/illustrate the fact that other people have differing conceptions of freedom than do libertarians. Wow. Thanks for letting us know. We had no idea. You're hopelessly out of touch if you think many libertarians don't see this as a war of ideas too.
5) I really don't see how Rawls's conception of social justice is an attempt by him to prove Nietzsche's above quoted remarks formally. I'm pretty well familiar with both Nietzsche and Rawls and I just don't see it. Could you elaborate? You know Rawls is a liberal, right? Just the kind of social democrat that Nietzsche is criticizing above, although there are more egalitarian and therefore worse ones than Rawls in Nietzsche's eyes. If you don't see the collectivism and socialism in modern left-liberalism, you really need to go back and look at the theory and history behind the two types of liberalism and the transition in America from one to the other. Modern left-liberalism is not a thorough-going socialism, to be sure, at least not yet, and certain practical concessions have had to be made in the direction of markets...but come on, really, you don't see the essential commonalities? Also, be careful how you interpret their uses of certain key liberal buzz words like individual responsibility, liberty, free markets, etc., etc. They often don't mean the same things by them as true liberals, a.k.a. libertarians, do. Pretty much like the Republicans in that regard. It's called doublespeak, or newspeak.
6) Thanks for posting the Nietzsche quote, it gave me a good idea for an essay. Nietzsche is probably including democracy as a liberal institution (and democratic equality), institutionalized in a state, so it should be easy for most on this forum to see what is really the source of both the injuries to freedom and the turning of people into sheeple.
Yours in liberty,Geoffrey Allan Plauché, Ph.D.Adjunct Instructor, Buena Vista UniversityWebmaster, LibertarianStandard.comFounder / Executive Editor, Prometheusreview.com
Nathyn:This influence affected a lot of America, particularly the American Right.
You sure have a lot of hate for those people on the "Right", forgetting that FDR admired Mussolini.
Nathyn:Fascism, in the 30's and 40's, was international. What the hell do you think the Axis Powers were? The Super Adventure Club?
You've purposefully misrepresented how I meant the word. I meant international as global, not international as in composed of 2. You really think that German or Italian nationalism is international? Laugh.
JonBostwick: Nathyn:This influence affected a lot of America, particularly the American Right. You sure have a lot of hate for those people on the "Right", forgetting that FDR admired Mussolini.
Such a great admirer and a "kindred spirit" that they want to war.
JonBostwick: Nathyn:Fascism, in the 30's and 40's, was international. What the hell do you think the Axis Powers were? The Super Adventure Club? You've purposefully misrepresented how I meant the word. I meant international as global, not international as in composed of 2. You really think that German or Italian nationalism is international? Laugh.
You accuse the majority of the western world (including FDR) of being Fascist, while simultaneously trying to be apologetic by marginalizing the influence of Fascism by suggesting Fascism was only German and Italian or only fell under the name "Fascism" and "Nazism," only being motivated by German and Italian nationalism. Nice contradiction there. Also, Mises was a supporter of the Italian and German nationalists -- and by that, I mean he was a supporter of the Fascists and the ***.
And why bring that up, Nathyn? Is this the argument that Mises was sympathetic to fascism from the other thread, i.e. the one in which you had no real argument to offer other than unwarranted inferences, devoid of any logic whatsoever (not unusual for you)? What a stupid thing to say, given how much Mises despised the ***. I love how he's become a supporter of theirs now.
Nathyn:http://www.liberal-international.org/editorial.asp?ia_id=537You think they haven't heard your ideas?
You think they haven't heard your ideas?
I think you need to read some Bryan Caplan. While I don't agree with all his points, his main thesis is spot-on: voters hold incorrect opinions because the cost of their doing so is basically zero (ironically I think he could have supported his conclusion more strongly using praxeology, but thats a bit off-topic). They have no incentives to make rational choices. Ideas in politics, while they can have significant effects, have little bearing on reality. Liberal International has little reason to accept rational views, just like you, me, Nietzsche and John Stuart Mill. The popularity of any political assertion (such as immigrating causing unemployment) has little to do with its correctness. The only people who can be trusted to hold correct opinions are those who have incentives to do so. This is precisely why prediction markets work, and precisely why markets of all sorts aggregate information.
Just as prices are incentives which guide action in market economies, incentives guide the ideas people hold as well. Those in power are always shielded from the effects of their ideas, meaning they have little incentives to adopt good ones. Voters don't either, because the power of their vote effects others more than themselves. Liberty is a "commons" which gets trampled as a result.
In arguing for more government, you aren't arguing for a rational system capable of solving problems. You are arguing for a system which simply cannot function as advertised.
Another related point: the information problem applies to voting and political representation itself. So the problem is not just on the voter's end. On the end of the "representatives", it is impossible to actually represent let alone ascertain or predict what the voters want to begin with. The mere conflict of interests among the voters makes adequate representation simply impossible, even if a politician tried their hardest to reflect their desires. In short, if voters are to be thought of as political consumers, there is no way for a political representative to accurately appease their demand. Genuinely direct and/or participatatory democracy is impossible within the context of the state. The market, on the other hand, is a form of it (as Mises tended to hint at).
Nathyn:You accuse the majority of the western world (including FDR) of being Fascist, while simultaneously trying to be apologetic by marginalizing the influence of Fascism by suggesting Fascism was only German and Italian or only fell under the name "Fascism" and "Nazism," only being motivated by German and Italian nationalism.
Obviously not.
Every nation in the world could practice national socialism, but that still would not make National Socialism a global movement in nature. German nationalism, Italian nationalism, American nationalism, or Iraqi nationalism are parallel movements. Communism was singular movement, that intended to bring all nations into a single "administration" of affairs, it was the enemy all nationalism.
I'm not sure what you have invested in socialism that prevents you from seeing that for the simple, factual critique that it is.
Inquisitor:And why bring that up, Nathyn? Is this the argument that Mises was sympathetic to fascism from the other thread, i.e. the one in which you had no real argument to offer other than unwarranted inferences, devoid of any logic whatsoever (not unusual for you)? What a stupid thing to say, given how much Mises despised the ***. I love how he's become a supporter of theirs now.
If they despised the ***, why did they re-publish Omnipotent Government in 1969 and then again in the late 90's and 2000, when it was re-published on Mises.org?
The relevance being what?
...grumble grumble...
Okay, Nathyn is correct, Nazism and Fascism are not identical:The party was the Nationalist Socialist party, or in German "der Nationalsozialistisch" usually shortened simply to "Nazi." The beliefs of the Nazi Party differed from Fascism in Ideology. Whilst Fascism tends to be more locally-oriented, i.e. "Italy for Italians," Nazism was very expansionist seeking to push a belief in the Aryan Destiny (even though not one German is actually Aryan...if you want to look at an Aryan, go look at the Iyatollah of Iran or a bust of Iulius Gaius) to rule the world (the Third Reich). Fascism, conversely, is a Nationalist form which presses individual national identity. The big similarity is that both are forms of socialism which stress collective mind, military might, and police authority over the masses. The government in the graphic novel "V for Vendetta", though cited as a branch-off of a Neo-Nazi movement had much more in common with Fascism than Nazism.
HOWEVER, not all the Axis Powers were fascist. The Japanese militarist government, though comparable in many respects to fascism and nazism - Japan for Japanese, racism, belief in the need to "purge", the need for religious and ethnic purity, the need for military might, et cetera - it lacked the heavily socialist bent of the prior. It was, in fact, much more a return to the old Japanese bakufu governemt (sometimes referred to as "shogunate") than it was a fascist or socialist movement. Furthermore, Spain, Argentina, and others, although Fascist countries did NOT join the Axis Powers, nor the World War. Calling Italy under Benito Mussolini "fascist" is also a major misnomer. Mussolini was nothing more than Hitler's puppet, regardless of claims to the contrary.
Edit:By the way, I'm quite sure what you're getting at in your post. Are you trying to assert that the Libertarian Movement is actually Communist? If so, you are truly an ignorant soul and I pity you. If not, please explain what you are really getting at.