A curious phenomenon occurs with the candidacy of Ron Paul. On one side, we have his natural supporters -- minarchists, small-government conservatives -- who are an integral part of the electoral campaign. Added to the first group there are a number of those disillusioned with government (Democrats, other Republicans), generally miscelaneous. On the other side we have the anarchists, a sizable number, who advocate Ron Paul's policies, but _won't_ vote for him.
Ron Paul is problematic for an anarchist because he, the anarchist, does not believe in democracy. In fact, the process is seen as supporting a status quo, a recognition of authority. That's why an anarchist will generally not vote. Yet, an anarchist can still be part of the Ron Paul campaign, not in supporting his election (though many would not object to him getting elected), rather to bring out the ideas to a general public.
So what do you think about it? If you are an anarchist, would you vote or tell people to vote?
Yes, two sides. Side 1, if Paul is elected its very good for Libertarianism, America and the world. Side 2, if Paul is not elected its probably the last time any near-Libertarian with any chance of winning will run before America and the world sinks into the final morass of Clinton/Putin collectivism.
Can those of you describing yourself as anarchists admit that you wouldn't be rooting for one side or the other in a Paul-Clinton election? And if you were rooting for one side over the other, shouldn't you vote to fulfill this value-tendency in yourself? Personally, I feel one should employ every legal, non-violent tactic to overthrow this curse of collectivism that has ruled virtually all the world since the time of the Romans, and probably before. Rothbard would have voted, and did.
We must? Really? Because get this... I'm not and I don't feel I need to, in fact I think I could find about anything more worthwhile doing than voting for a guy that makes his living off of blood money.
Washing my car in the rain, for example.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Paul Grad:Yes, two sides. Side 1, if Paul is elected its very good for Libertarianism, America and the world. Side 2, if Paul is not elected its probably the last time any near-Libertarian with any chance of winning will run before America and the world sinks into the final morass of Clinton/Putin collectivism. Can those of you describing yourself as anarchists admit that you wouldn't be rooting for one side or the other in a Paul-Clinton election? And if you were rooting for one side over the other, shouldn't you vote to fulfill this value-tendency in yourself? Personally, I feel one should employ every legal, non-violent tactic to overthrow this curse of collectivism that has ruled virtually all the world since the time of the Romans, and probably before. Rothbard would have voted, and did.
Paul, despite statist fantasies about Ron Paul "saving America" there's nothing the man can do, even if he would do it. The same stuff was said for Reagan, same stuff was said for Goldwater, the same stuff is being said for Paul. How many times do you people have to be fooled till you wise up? Politicians are dirty, rotten, sub-human entities.Whether you agree with 100% of what they say or not. The fact is, this state, the state, its inevitable, but it is as inevitable as its final collapse. Personally, I'm ready for the last day of judgment against the state. Bring it on before technology makes it impossible to piss without the state knowing you've become dehydrated.
I'm an anarchists and I'll be voting for Ron Paul.
And I'm not alone.
So the Libertarian Party is vital if not necessary to repealing statism. And contrary to Konkin’s suggested timetable of a millennium, a militant and abolitionist LP in control of Congress could wipe out all the laws overnight. All that would be needed is the will. No other strategy for liberty can work. And yet, all this pales before the most important problem: Is a Libertarian Party evil per se? Is voting evil per se? My answer is no. The State is a Moloch that surrounds us, and it would be grotesque and literally impossible to function if we refused it our “sanction” across the board. I don’t think I am committing aggression when I walk on a government-owned and government-subsidized street, drive on a government-owned and subsidized highway, or fly on a government regulated airline. It would be participating in aggression if I lobbied for these institutions to continue. I didn’t ask for these institutions, dammit, and so don’t consider myself responsible if I am forced to use them. In the same way, if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a periodic choice between two or more masters, I don’t believe we are aggressors if we participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters, or to vote in people who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think that we owe it to our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause. Let’s put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master, but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil, but in such a case less effective than the protest.
So the Libertarian Party is vital if not necessary to repealing statism. And contrary to Konkin’s suggested timetable of a millennium, a militant and abolitionist LP in control of Congress could wipe out all the laws overnight. All that would be needed is the will. No other strategy for liberty can work. And yet, all this pales before the most important problem: Is a Libertarian Party evil per se? Is voting evil per se? My answer is no. The State is a Moloch that surrounds us, and it would be grotesque and literally impossible to function if we refused it our “sanction” across the board. I don’t think I am committing aggression when I walk on a government-owned and government-subsidized street, drive on a government-owned and subsidized highway, or fly on a government regulated airline. It would be participating in aggression if I lobbied for these institutions to continue. I didn’t ask for these institutions, dammit, and so don’t consider myself responsible if I am forced to use them. In the same way, if the State, for reasons of its own, allows us a periodic choice between two or more masters, I don’t believe we are aggressors if we participate in order to vote ourselves more kindly masters, or to vote in people who will abolish or repeal the oppression. In fact, I think that we owe it to our own liberty to use such opportunities to advance the cause.
Let’s put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice? Suppose one master was a monster who systematically tortured all the slaves, while the other one was kindly, enforced almost no work rules, freed one slave a year, or whatever. It would seem to me not only not aggression to vote for the kinder master, but idiotic if we failed to do so. Of course, there might well be circumstances—say when both masters are similar—where the slaves would be better off not voting in order to make a visible protest—but this is a tactical not a moral consideration. Voting would not be evil, but in such a case less effective than the protest.
Peace
Ron Paul may be a politician, but he's hardly comparable to Regan. The fact that he does take some money from the feds I don't find all that immoral, since it he wasn't in office someone else in his place would be taking much, much more money. In any case, he's introducing a lot of people to the ideas of Austrian economics. Hell, the guy even mentioned Spooner as a model for peaceful civil disobedience on national TV, and all but suggested that such actions are justified against unjust taxation.
Niccolò:The fact is, this state, the state, its inevitable, but it is as inevitable as its final collapse.
It will just be replaced by another one, unless the conditions are right. Americans are heavily indoctrinated to respect the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Ironically, I believe the Constitution is used as a tool to legitimize government, even though an actual education of it would delegitimize government. I think American's respect for their founders (and I think they do deserve respect, we all stand on the shoulders of giants) is the only way libertarian ideas can be introduced and become popular, as Ron Paul is showing us.
Comparing Ron Paul to statists like Reagan and Goldwater is dramatically unfair to Paul. Reagan and Goldwater were part of the New Right, that accepted the government's place in society and its responsibilities to uphold the welfare of its citizens, but also believed that the free market was often the best way to do that. Ron Paul rejects the state's authority in many of these matters. Reagan and Goldwater failed because they did not want to reduce government authority, only the form of exercising that authority. Ron Paul seeks to undermine the actual authority of the state.
Webster wrote, "Comparing Ron Paul to statists like Reagan and Goldwater is dramatically unfair to Paul."
I fully concur. Reagan was probably the biggest state-spender since Papa Joe Stalin (Truman's buddy). Goldwater was closer to Libertarianism, but was a militarist. Rothbard was so convinced he would drop the bomb, he voted for Johnson I believe---a real Hobson's choice. Frankly, I don't think Dr. Paul is such a great Libertarian. His views on abortion, prayer in schools, his support for the death penalty as being constitutional which it obviously isnt, make him far from someone who "seeks to undermine the actual authority of the state." The state can still arrest you, frame you, and murder you under his philosophy. It can force agnostics and atheists to pay taxes to support religious activity. (Who's paying for the lights while class is reciting its prayer? Who pays for the janitor to sweep up after the "Bible Club" leaves the classroom a mess? It's theft of taxes.) But does anyone in either party come anywhere close to Libertarianism, or constantly stressing the Constitution and free-markets? To my mind, Dr. Paul is the first politician with any "huevos" to run for the Presidency since George McGovern (though I dont agree with George's programs). His integrity shines through in contrast to all the other canditates, the Caitiffs of Collectivism.
Let’s put it this way: Suppose we were slaves in the Old South, and that for some reason, each plantation had a system where the slaves were allowed to choose every four years between two alternative masters. Would it be evil, and sanctioning slavery, to participate in such a choice?
Ah, yes, it's much better to be beaten with the golden bat.
The slaves aren't consenting to be ruled by voting but merely allowed to chose the brand of chains they wear. What would happen if they all voted for a 'write-in' candidate who promised to free them all?
Even if the Libertarian Party managed to gain control of all three branches of government they would still not be able to repeal all the laws because they derive their power from the constitution and would be bound by the restrictions it placed upon them. Without 100% support of the citizenry they would be legally bound to hear all cases in opposition to their plans and would be just as legally bound to judge them from within the guidelines of the current system. If they chose to ignore the opposition because they had the support of the 'moral majority' they would lose their powers to rule and would in effect be consenting to be removed by force of violence.
First of all, abortion should be left out of libertarianism because to those who oppose abortion, it falls under the same principals of natural law as murder. Very few people believe that abortion should be illegal who do not believe that it is murder, and believing that an infant's humanity is not decided by its location is not a direct reflection on one's views on the power of civil government. Likewise, to claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional is quite absurd given that to my knowledge not one person who attended the Constitutional Convention objected to the death penalty (and it was in place at the time). Prayer in schools is not a matter of Bible class; it is a matter ofbeing permitted to say private prayers when on school property that cost no other anything. Yes, having a Bible class in school would be theft, but then again so is having a physics class in school.
JonBostwick, perhaps Konkin's reply shall answer Rothbard's misguided thoughts.
Reply to Rothbard Samuel Edward Konkin III Murray N. Rothbard’s vigorous assault is refreshing; I’m not sure even I would have taken my first major theoretical attempt seriously if it had not evoked Dr. Rothbard at his trenchant top-of-form. After all, Rothbard and his neo-Romantic view of Ideas as almost clashing super-heroes and villains inspired and maintained many, if not most, of us libertarian activists, most assuredly myself. Having been offered a field of honour, Rothbard throws the gauntlet down swiftly: “I believe Konkin’s agorism to be a total failure.” From then on, it’s lunge, parry and slash. In fine form, Rothbard, alas, is decidedly short of actual weapons. His accusation of a fatal flaw—seemingly the fatal flaw—of gorism is so irrelevant to the basis of agorism that it is barely mentioned en passant and in a footnote of the New Libertarian Movement (footnote * p. 21) Before I dismiss it as criticism of agorism, let me point out that a real debate is justified here between Rothbard (and many, many others, to be sure) and myself (and quite a few) on the validity of hiring oneself out. The necessity of it is in question (cybernetics and robotics increasingly replace drudgery—up to and including management activity); the psychology of it is in question (selling one’s personal activity under another’s direction and supervision encourages dependency and authoritarian relationships); and the profit in it is open to question (only the rarest skills—acting, art, superscience—command anywhere near the market reward of even low-level entrepreneurship). Having said that, it remains that this debate is irrelevant in the context of the validity of agorism. Surely, both Rothbard and I would agree on the desirability of increase of entrepreneurs in our society; surely we would both desire more entrepreneurs of libertarianism. Rothbard would simply “let it happen” (laisser passer), finding the origins of entrepreneurs mysterious. My own experience is that entrepreneurs are made, not born, and not with that great a difficulty, so that “entrepreneurizing (the production of) entrepreneurs” is a profitable activity. But ceteris paribus, as the Maestro says, and let us hold the number of entrepreneurs constant. How does that affect agorism? It makes it difficult to convert libentarians to counter-economic entrepreneurism, but they still can (and ought) to become counter-economic capitalists and workers—even academics! (George H. Smith has blazed trails in becoming a largely counter-economic philosopher!) But when we’re talking about converting maybe two million libertarians (at present) to counter-economics and forty million or so counter-economists (already proven to have a strong entrepreneurial component) to libertarianism, the loss of a few thousand extra entrepreneurs seems less than crucial. Moreover, a degree of overlap exists between libertarians and counter-economists-a high degree in my associations. Again, in passing only, my own observations are that independent contracting lowers transactions costs—in fact, nearly eliminates them relative to boss/worker relationships running the gamut from casual labor with annoying paperwork and records to full-scale Krupp worker welfarism. But this is an empirical question, one, as Mises would say, not even for economists but economic historians. Why my Austrian credentials should be called into question over such an observation is inexplicable—save as an act of verbal intimidation. En garde, then. And wage-labor’s historical benefit may have been as great as the invention of the diaper—but surely toilet-training (in this case, entrepreneurialization) is even a more significant advance? With the side-excursion over, we turn to Counter-Economics, admittedly the basis of agorism and the New Libertarian Strategy. Rothbard finds NLM neglecting the “white market”—yet there is one crucial point on which it is most definitely not neglected, here or in my other Counter-Economic writing. The agorist imperative is to transform the White into Black. Nothing could be clearer. To do so is to create a libertarian society. What else can a libertarian society mean in economic terms but removing market activity from the control of the State? Market activity not under control of the State is black market. Market activity under the control of the State is white market and we are against it. To illustrate, slaves building pyramids are white market. Slaves who run away, deal on the side stones and tools they ripped off, and otherwise engage in non-slave activity are black market—and free to that extent. What should the libertarian view be toward white-market pyramid building? Or, if you think pyramids would not exist in a free society but aqueducts might, what should our new be toward aqueduct building on the white market vs. black-market water smuggling? New Libertarians urge the slaves to screw the aqueduct and go for their private buckets until such time as aqueducts can be built under voluntary arrangements. Would Rothbard suggest anything else? Gradual phasing out of aqueduct construction and hence gradual phasing out of slavery? Rothbard’s abolitionist credentials are not challenged, though my own treatment on such matters may impel me otherwise, But a mainly innocent businessman who pays taxes is enslaved to that extent and surely his going black by dodging or defying the taxes (whichever works best) is the immediate emancipation of this slave? How can Rothbard reject any counter-economic moves by a white marketeer that has less than 100% risk of apprehension without yielding his abolitionist bona fides? Rothbard’s listing of counter-economic services and goods are interesting in one respect: of “jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc,” only one—drugs—is mentioned in the Manifesto. True, Counter-Economic is only now being published chapter by chapter, but even so, the few examples I gave were anything but a few service industries or easily concealed goods. Here is a list, sifted from pages 16 and 17, which were mentioned: “food to television repair;” an entire country “Burma is almost a total black market”—this does include heavy industry, although Burma has less than the heavy industry of India which is mostly black; the large “black labor” force of Western Europe; housing in the Netherlands; tax evasion in Denmark; currency control evasion in France; “underground economy” tax-free exchanges in the U.S.; “drugs including laetrile and forbidden medical material;” “prostitution, pornography, bootlegging, false identification papers, gambling, and proscribed sexual conduct between consenting adults;” trucking (the majority, by the way); smuggling at all levels; and misdirection of government regulators. All of these are not petty but, consciously or otherwise, aggregate big businesses! Automobiles are made counter-economically. Let me count the ways: shipping them across borders and evading taxes or controls—whether physically or on paper; illegal alien labor for assembly-line production; skimming of parts by management, labor, or even with knowledge of the owners, which then go to produce custom cars; auto plant executives hired as “independent consultants”; design, research, engineering, executive and computer “consultants” all paid in partial or full counter-economic terms; union “corruption” to make sweetheart deals to avoid labor (State) regulations; OSHA and other inspectors bought off or misdirected; “unsold” product written off inventory and taxes and then sold; . . . forget it, I cannot possibly count all the ways. And next to autos, steel and cement have positively unsavory reputations—when it comes to “white collar” crime. But there is a problem of scale here. Large, cartelized industries can buy politicians and gain their advantages from the State directly. True, anyone about to be apprehended by the State, can, should, and does payoff, bribe, and apply “grease” to the State’s enforcers. But what highly competitive industry with a large number of producers can effectively buy votes and politicians—and hence be tempted into using their political clout offensively? Big industry in the cartelized sense is no breeding ground for libertarian support but rather for the State’s vested interests. However, there is no need to confuse large scale of production with oligopolist characteristics, as Rothbard seems to be doing here. Finally, as we close out this area, Rothbard accuses me of ignoring the working class. Considering how often he’s had the charge leveled at him, one might expect a bit more perceptivity if not sensitivity. What are plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, welders, drivers, farm workers, pilots, actors, accountants, engineers, technicians, lab assistants, computer programmers and just keypunch operators, nurses, midwives, paramedics and orthomedics (doctors), salesmen, public relations people, bartenders, waitresses, writers, factory workers, lawyers, executives, and all types of repairmen if not workers, covering the entire spectrum of proletarianism? All of that list are at least 20% counter-economic and many are over 50%. If they do not take the first step by becoming independent contractors toward economic liberty, then their employer does (tax-free tips for waitresses, off-the-book illegal alien factory workers, agents handling it for actors, writers, and so on). I challenge Dr. Rothbard to find any legitimate economic field (not serving the State) that cannot be counter-economized, ten that cannot be counter-economized without organizational or technological innovation, or a hundred that cannot be counter-economized without significant gain in organizational efficiency and profit. “Konkinism” has plenty to say to everyone who is not a statist. Rothbard’s claim that political action is superior and preferable to civil disobedience in the lightening of the levy is an incredible distortion of history coming from the one who converted me to revisionism. There has never been a single repeal of taxation or significant cut (save a few minor ones in recent years for purposes of Keynesian tinkering and now Lafferite “less gets more”) that did not result from mass refusal to pay or the threat of such disobedience. Furthermore, political action has resulted in shifts in the tax base and higher total plunder—such as the famously spectacular debacle of Proposition 13 here in California. Rothbard’s agreement with Pyro Egon is ungraciously spurned by Mr. Egon who informs me that what he sees as my “political-like actiny” (NLA, MLL) will not generate more entrepreneurs but that entrepreneurs are indeed “make-able.” Rothbard, in subsequent correspondence, added that he believes entrepreneurs are born and not made—or at least not make-able. “Successful entrepreneurs are not going to be agoric theoreticians like Mr. Konkin but successful entrepreneurs period. What do they need with Konkin and his group?” How about, “Successful businessmen are not going to be economic theoreticians like Dr. Rothbard but successful businessmen period. What do they need of Dr. Rothbard ?” Or “successful engineers are not going to be physics theoreticians like Dr. Einstein, . .” Or, “successful writers are not going to be English instructors like Professor Strunk . . .” Need I belablor the Rothbard fallacv? Rothbard’s position on libertarians being dichotomized from entrepreneurs is absolutely monstrous to me. “Libertarian” has nothing to do with what one says but with what one does. Hence a libertarian must be more trustworthy and have a more rational understanding of the market or he/she is not a libertarian regardless of what they beguilingly profess. This is the basis for my muckraking for which Dr. Rothbard commends me. And, on the whole, I find the same lack of black-colored glasses in him, I hasten to add. And what personal experience or academic study leads Rothbard to conclude that pre-libertarian counter-economists do just fine without agorists “to cheer them on and free them from guilt.” My personal experience leads me to precisely the opposite conclusion—and I have cancelled cheques of contribution and letters of gratitude to prove it. Inshort, whatever planet that the good doctor is describing in contradistinction to my counter-economy sure isn’t Earth. Rothbard’s statement that violent revolution (what other kind is there against a ruling class—would he like to mention an Establishment that stepped down peacefully?) never succeeded in history distorts either the language or history. Either he is saying that no revolution has been libertarian enough to triumph without its contradictions bringing it down (true, but then irrelevant to bring it up as precedent) or he is saying that no group overthrew a ruling class using democratic means of oppression. The latter is not only false but a direct reversal of history. Nearly all somewhat successful revolutions in recent history have overthrown precisely democratic trappings: American Revolutionaries vs. the democratic British Imperialists; Jacobin Revolutionaries vs. the bourgeous assemblee; Liberal Revolutionaries against the Czar’s Duma (March 1917) and the Bolshevik revolution against the Liberals and Social Democrats (November 1917); the falange against the Spanish Republic (1936); Peron’s shirtless ones against the Argentine parliament; the National Liberation Front of Vietnam vs. the South Vietnamese parliament (at least until near the end); the popular overthrow of Allende’s democratically-elected regime (with Pinochet co-opting the revolution for the military); and the recent overthrow of the democratically elected but right-wing president of El Salvador by a centrist “popular” junta. This list is not exhaustive. A claim that “violent revolution” has only succeeded in “democratic countries with free elections” would be nearer the mark, and is often used by Latin American as justification for preventive coups. All of the above revolutionary groups have their credentials open to libertarian question, to be sure—but who has not so far? To close up this side issue, either Rothbard is saying that all “violent” overthrows of States were not revolution because they were not libertarian (in which case the libertarian case is untried) or he is historically wrong. Rothbard has chutzpah:jJah to demand I separate libertarianism from counter-economists because the latter don’t need it—and then turn around and ask why the Russian counter-economists have not condensed into agoras. Human action is willed action; without entrepreneurs of libertarianism, it will not be sold. Even so, my estimation of the Soviet scene matches that of several Russian dissidents that Russia is a powderkeg waiting to go up. The Polish situation, of course, fits the agorist paradigm perfectly, right down to the counter-economic workers being co-opted by the partyarch-like Solidarity union. Rothbard thus fails to make any substantive case against counter-economics and hence agorist strategy. He shoots at peripherals and warps either language or history to make his case. Still, our disagreement seems to me largely one of misunderstanding, and misunderstanding of verifiable facts, not speculative theory. This is hardly surprising since—to my knowledge—we share the same premise and analytic methods. Considering that I adopted mine from him, it’s even less surprising. Rothbard’s critique of New Libertarianism seems to rest on seeing tips of icebergs and dismissing the vast bases. He sees only the one percent of the economy thought of as “black market” and not the 20-40% of the economy the IRS(!) sees as “underground” and double that to make up the whole Counter-Economy which the IRS ignores as irrelevant to taxation. It takes a libertarian, educated by Rothbard and others, to perceive a common characteristic and sum the anti-statist whole. And the same can be said of Rothbard’s view of my activities and the hundreds of other New Libertarian Allies around the world. The small but warranted attention we pay to his few deviations seem prominent to him and understandably so. The somewhat larger amount of public criticism we have of the LP and other activities he is most interested in whether in our publications or at public forums are most of what interests him and remains with him. The 10,000 people I conservatively estimate that have called themselves libertarians after primary or secondary contact with me and my hard-core allies he never met and hence they are invisible. The network of counter-economic businesses that we are painstakingly nurturing and the millions of dollars cumulatively exchanged “invisibly” are again understandably invisible to him as well. I for one see no real barrier to re-convergence (“regroupment” a the Marxists would say) between Rothbard and his “sane, sober, anarchist center” and us “ultra-left deviationists.” Rothbard’s remaining criticism is really not that germane to the Manifesto itself, though it makes up the majority of his article. Yet in some ways it is the most telling criticism of me personally in that it vitiates his compliment to my writing ability, when I must have obviously failed to communicate effectively. Most of his criticisms of me are misreadings in the latter part, and I will but list and deny them where urgent. Of course, the Party Question is another problem entirely. New Libertarianism does have an organizational preference. Other forms of organization might then be considered non-New Libertarian but not necessarily “unlibertarian” or non-agorist. What the New Libertarian Strategy seeks is to optimalize action to lead to a New Libertarian society as quickly and cleanly as possible. Activities that lead to authoritarian dependency and passive acceptance of the State are sub-optimal and frowned on; action that is individualistic, entrepreneurial and market-organized are seen as optimal. With that constantly in the reader’s awareness (pages 22, 23, and 24 of NLM are a long disclaimer to this very point!), it is obvious that there are no moral (other than individual self-worth) questions involved in organization and hierarchy. (My “lumping them all together” that Rothbard decries might be considered integration of concepts by others.) Nowhere have I ever opposed joint-stock companies (see page 23 again where they are specifically affirmed). After I penned NLM I set up precisely that to own New Libertarian magazine. I assume we both continue to oppose the statist perversion of joint-stock companies into limited-liability corporations. I have never suggested “floating affinity groups,” Should Dr. Rothbard set up a general Libertanan Alliance which runs no candidates and engages in no statism, I will take out a hundred-year membership immediately, 1 urge him to “call me out” on this point. I see fewer problems in orgauization than Rothbard does and can easily see some organizations not haying any. There is a bit or irony in Rothbard’s spirited defense of the “Kochtopus” since his own defection but I’ll let that pass. I have to mention his secession from and opposition to it because that, effectively, ends my major objection to it and I find it relatively harmless and conceivably needing my defense in the near future as the chorus of opposition swells. To the extent that my early attacks are responsible for the demonopolization of the Movement I am thankful. For the record, my aim in as spectacularly drawing attention to the monocentrism around Koch’s money as I did was a warning. Too many neo-libertarians think only taking money from the State leads to dependency and control. True, it is not immoral in a libertarian sense to become a billionaire’s kept writer or lap-activist but it hardly serves the movement’s image or substance and hence is un-New-Libertarian. I knew the rest of the Left would attack libertarians for being a plutocrat’s tool (as Mother Jones eventually did) and took action to show the existence of diversity and independence. Off-hand, I’d say it worked. I agree with all of Rothbard’s defense of millionaire libertarians and have a few (not multi-millionaires to be sure) in alliance with me. His solution to increase competition in the Movement is and was my solution. I doubt that having Koch compete with himself is a viable answer, though; even Rothbard seems hesitant about suggesting it. My being “unfair to Charles Koch” requires a bit of semantic care. I have never implied that Charles Koch personally was motivated to do anything. Anybody’ who threw millions into the Movement with a bit of judgment in buying up institutions would have produced the same results. I’ll take Rothbard’s and LeFevre’s—who know him personally—word that Koch is a great guy. May he profit richly and evade the State forever! (But may he never buy another politician.) And may he contribute to his heart’s content to any Libertarian or Libertarian organization (save the LP). Gee, what a great movement when a poor activist like me can be so generous to an oil billionaire! But I’ll go further than Rothbard in my willing recognition of the positive personal characteristics of the Kochtopus. Roy Childs may be cranky and unforgiving at times but he’s a fun, erudite person of superior taste, no more deviationist than Dr. Rothbard. Jeff Riggenbach remains a friend, associate and sometime ally even working full-time for Koch’s Libertarian Review. Joan Kennedy Taylor, Victoria Vargas, Milton Mueller—whom did I leave out?—I’ve had nothing but enjoyable contacts with them all. Even Ed Crane(Rothbard’s—ahem—bête noire) is a laugh a minute with a ready handshake and a fast quip who serves Liberty as he sees best for him and the Movement. May none of us ever sink to ad hominem. Finally, the Libertarian Party. Rothbard says he will “assume for the moment that a libertarian political party . . . is not evil per se.” I wonder how open he would be to assuming the State is not evil per se and then continuing the discussion of some legislation, let us see where it leads him. It seems to lead to the wonder of repeal of laws. Now Rothbard’s historical acumen seems to have failed him again. Since when did the State repeal anything from the Corn Laws to suburban property tax unless it had authority to maintain that law? First comes counter-economic scofflawing, then mass civil disobedience, then the threat of insurrection, and only then repeal. No, I don’t agree with LeFevre that it is immoral to repeal the draft (assuming LeFevre would say precisely that) but it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve one oppression. For all the money, time and energy that needs to go into electing a politician good on one or a few issues, how many could be directly freed and their risk of apprehension reduced in tax evading, draft evading, regulation evading, and so on? Nor do you need exhort the evaders to contribute to a noble cause but simply offer—and some sell this for exorbitant fees! —instruction on how to do beat detection and watch them go for it. . . . freeing themselves, not being freed by someone else. Votes are the “profits” of a political party. A party is an organ of the State whose overt purpose is to vie for control of the State and whose covert one is to co-opt support—sanction of the victim. The number of votes dictates the number of successfully elected officials and their share of power and plunder and the number of those still accepting the State’s legitimacy and possible usefulness. Crane and the Clark Campaign were only acting in accordance with their nature qua partyarch. As Frank Chodorov might have said, “The way to get rid of sell-outs in LP jobs is to get rid of LP jobs.” Let’s take up those political parties Rothbard finds admirable. It is clear that the Democrats were not so lovable in Conceived in Liberty when, as Jefferson Republicans, they fought the Anti-Federalists and co-opted opposition to the Constitution. Did Jackson, the agent of Nullification’s defeat; Van Buren, the archetype of boss politics; Polk, the anti-Mexican imperialist; or Pierce and Buchanan, the defenders of vlavery: redeem this tainted beginning? And the British Liberals were condemned by Rothbard for leading Liberty’s advocates into defense of Empire and World War. Nor did the moderate minarchists—let alone alone the many anarchists even then—of the time have any use for Democrats or Liberals. Those minarchist reformers were then in the Free Soil Party in the U.S. and the Philosophic Radical Party in Britain, respectively. It would be gauche of me to remind Dr. Rothbard who invented the Radical Caucus and then discarded it when it served nothing but “objectively counter-revolutionary” ends so I’ll pass this section up. “A militant and abolitionist LP in control of Congress” begs the question—how did it get there? How could it get there? (George Smith’s scenario seems far more plausible. In fact, the LP will be in power during the final stages of agorist revolution tolure awary our marginal allies and ensnare the unwary with “libertarian” newspeak. The LP will be put in power as soon as the Higher Circles need it there. I have no doubt that Dr. Rothbard will be the first to notice and denounce the collaboration. Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected. Rothbard’s characterizing me as a “wrecker” is truly surprising to me considering all the libertarian organizations and publications I have built up and supported—more than anyone else save Dr. Rothbard himself, from Wisconsin to New York to California, and in nearly every state, province and country on this globe. Am I supposed to list all the libertarian groups which have not been subjected to moral attacks by me? How about every libertarian supper club in Los Angeles and New York? The Society for lndividual Liberty, Society for Libertarian Life, the old California Libertarian Alliance and Texas Libertarian Alliance, the British Libertarian Alliance, the Future of Freedom annual conference, the Southern Libertarian Conference. Oh, this is ridiculous. Yes, I stopped beating my wife—even if I’m not married. The only things I’ve wrecked are the wreckers of our once party-free movement, defence of partyarchy and compromise of libertarianism in general. Is Rothbard claiming that he averted his eyes from those leaving “The Plumb Line” because they might otherwise be doing good work? In conclusion, Rothbard and I continue to fight for the same things—and against the same things. Hopefully we will continue to fight in our own ways, reaching those the other missed. And most hopefully may we reduce our time and energy spent on fighting each other to free resources against the common enemy. I shall let no outstretched hand be passed up. If the New Libertarians and the Rothbardian Centrists must devote some time to our differences (“engage in Revolutionary Dialogue”), let it be devoted first to understanding each other—as this exchange is devoted to—and then resolving the differences. Ah, then let the State and its power elite quake! http://www.anthonyflood.com/konkinreplytorothbard.htm
Reply to Rothbard
Samuel Edward Konkin III
Murray N. Rothbard’s vigorous assault is refreshing; I’m not sure even I would have taken my first major theoretical attempt seriously if it had not evoked Dr. Rothbard at his trenchant top-of-form. After all, Rothbard and his neo-Romantic view of Ideas as almost clashing super-heroes and villains inspired and maintained many, if not most, of us libertarian activists, most assuredly myself.
Having been offered a field of honour, Rothbard throws the gauntlet down swiftly: “I believe Konkin’s agorism to be a total failure.” From then on, it’s lunge, parry and slash.
In fine form, Rothbard, alas, is decidedly short of actual weapons. His accusation of a fatal flaw—seemingly the fatal flaw—of gorism is so irrelevant to the basis of agorism that it is barely mentioned en passant and in a footnote of the New Libertarian Movement (footnote * p. 21)
Before I dismiss it as criticism of agorism, let me point out that a real debate is justified here between Rothbard (and many, many others, to be sure) and myself (and quite a few) on the validity of hiring oneself out. The necessity of it is in question (cybernetics and robotics increasingly replace drudgery—up to and including management activity); the psychology of it is in question (selling one’s personal activity under another’s direction and supervision encourages dependency and authoritarian relationships); and the profit in it is open to question (only the rarest skills—acting, art, superscience—command anywhere near the market reward of even low-level entrepreneurship).
Having said that, it remains that this debate is irrelevant in the context of the validity of agorism. Surely, both Rothbard and I would agree on the desirability of increase of entrepreneurs in our society; surely we would both desire more entrepreneurs of libertarianism. Rothbard would simply “let it happen” (laisser passer), finding the origins of entrepreneurs mysterious. My own experience is that entrepreneurs are made, not born, and not with that great a difficulty, so that “entrepreneurizing (the production of) entrepreneurs” is a profitable activity.
But ceteris paribus, as the Maestro says, and let us hold the number of entrepreneurs constant. How does that affect agorism? It makes it difficult to convert libentarians to counter-economic entrepreneurism, but they still can (and ought) to become counter-economic capitalists and workers—even academics! (George H. Smith has blazed trails in becoming a largely counter-economic philosopher!) But when we’re talking about converting maybe two million libertarians (at present) to counter-economics and forty million or so counter-economists (already proven to have a strong entrepreneurial component) to libertarianism, the loss of a few thousand extra entrepreneurs seems less than crucial. Moreover, a degree of overlap exists between libertarians and counter-economists-a high degree in my associations.
Again, in passing only, my own observations are that independent contracting lowers transactions costs—in fact, nearly eliminates them relative to boss/worker relationships running the gamut from casual labor with annoying paperwork and records to full-scale Krupp worker welfarism. But this is an empirical question, one, as Mises would say, not even for economists but economic historians. Why my Austrian credentials should be called into question over such an observation is inexplicable—save as an act of verbal intimidation. En garde, then.
And wage-labor’s historical benefit may have been as great as the invention of the diaper—but surely toilet-training (in this case, entrepreneurialization) is even a more significant advance?
With the side-excursion over, we turn to Counter-Economics, admittedly the basis of agorism and the New Libertarian Strategy. Rothbard finds NLM neglecting the “white market”—yet there is one crucial point on which it is most definitely not neglected, here or in my other Counter-Economic writing. The agorist imperative is to transform the White into Black. Nothing could be clearer. To do so is to create a libertarian society. What else can a libertarian society mean in economic terms but removing market activity from the control of the State? Market activity not under control of the State is black market. Market activity under the control of the State is white market and we are against it.
To illustrate, slaves building pyramids are white market. Slaves who run away, deal on the side stones and tools they ripped off, and otherwise engage in non-slave activity are black market—and free to that extent. What should the libertarian view be toward white-market pyramid building? Or, if you think pyramids would not exist in a free society but aqueducts might, what should our new be toward aqueduct building on the white market vs. black-market water smuggling? New Libertarians urge the slaves to screw the aqueduct and go for their private buckets until such time as aqueducts can be built under voluntary arrangements. Would Rothbard suggest anything else? Gradual phasing out of aqueduct construction and hence gradual phasing out of slavery?
Rothbard’s abolitionist credentials are not challenged, though my own treatment on such matters may impel me otherwise, But a mainly innocent businessman who pays taxes is enslaved to that extent and surely his going black by dodging or defying the taxes (whichever works best) is the immediate emancipation of this slave? How can Rothbard reject any counter-economic moves by a white marketeer that has less than 100% risk of apprehension without yielding his abolitionist bona fides?
Rothbard’s listing of counter-economic services and goods are interesting in one respect: of “jewels, gold, drugs, candy bars, stockings, etc,” only one—drugs—is mentioned in the Manifesto. True, Counter-Economic is only now being published chapter by chapter, but even so, the few examples I gave were anything but a few service industries or easily concealed goods. Here is a list, sifted from pages 16 and 17, which were mentioned: “food to television repair;” an entire country “Burma is almost a total black market”—this does include heavy industry, although Burma has less than the heavy industry of India which is mostly black; the large “black labor” force of Western Europe; housing in the Netherlands; tax evasion in Denmark; currency control evasion in France; “underground economy” tax-free exchanges in the U.S.; “drugs including laetrile and forbidden medical material;” “prostitution, pornography, bootlegging, false identification papers, gambling, and proscribed sexual conduct between consenting adults;” trucking (the majority, by the way); smuggling at all levels; and misdirection of government regulators. All of these are not petty but, consciously or otherwise, aggregate big businesses!
Automobiles are made counter-economically. Let me count the ways: shipping them across borders and evading taxes or controls—whether physically or on paper; illegal alien labor for assembly-line production; skimming of parts by management, labor, or even with knowledge of the owners, which then go to produce custom cars; auto plant executives hired as “independent consultants”; design, research, engineering, executive and computer “consultants” all paid in partial or full counter-economic terms; union “corruption” to make sweetheart deals to avoid labor (State) regulations; OSHA and other inspectors bought off or misdirected; “unsold” product written off inventory and taxes and then sold; . . . forget it, I cannot possibly count all the ways. And next to autos, steel and cement have positively unsavory reputations—when it comes to “white collar” crime.
But there is a problem of scale here. Large, cartelized industries can buy politicians and gain their advantages from the State directly. True, anyone about to be apprehended by the State, can, should, and does payoff, bribe, and apply “grease” to the State’s enforcers. But what highly competitive industry with a large number of producers can effectively buy votes and politicians—and hence be tempted into using their political clout offensively? Big industry in the cartelized sense is no breeding ground for libertarian support but rather for the State’s vested interests. However, there is no need to confuse large scale of production with oligopolist characteristics, as Rothbard seems to be doing here.
Finally, as we close out this area, Rothbard accuses me of ignoring the working class. Considering how often he’s had the charge leveled at him, one might expect a bit more perceptivity if not sensitivity. What are plumbers, mechanics, carpenters, welders, drivers, farm workers, pilots, actors, accountants, engineers, technicians, lab assistants, computer programmers and just keypunch operators, nurses, midwives, paramedics and orthomedics (doctors), salesmen, public relations people, bartenders, waitresses, writers, factory workers, lawyers, executives, and all types of repairmen if not workers, covering the entire spectrum of proletarianism?
All of that list are at least 20% counter-economic and many are over 50%. If they do not take the first step by becoming independent contractors toward economic liberty, then their employer does (tax-free tips for waitresses, off-the-book illegal alien factory workers, agents handling it for actors, writers, and so on). I challenge Dr. Rothbard to find any legitimate economic field (not serving the State) that cannot be counter-economized, ten that cannot be counter-economized without organizational or technological innovation, or a hundred that cannot be counter-economized without significant gain in organizational efficiency and profit. “Konkinism” has plenty to say to everyone who is not a statist.
Rothbard’s claim that political action is superior and preferable to civil disobedience in the lightening of the levy is an incredible distortion of history coming from the one who converted me to revisionism. There has never been a single repeal of taxation or significant cut (save a few minor ones in recent years for purposes of Keynesian tinkering and now Lafferite “less gets more”) that did not result from mass refusal to pay or the threat of such disobedience. Furthermore, political action has resulted in shifts in the tax base and higher total plunder—such as the famously spectacular debacle of Proposition 13 here in California.
Rothbard’s agreement with Pyro Egon is ungraciously spurned by Mr. Egon who informs me that what he sees as my “political-like actiny” (NLA, MLL) will not generate more entrepreneurs but that entrepreneurs are indeed “make-able.” Rothbard, in subsequent correspondence, added that he believes entrepreneurs are born and not made—or at least not make-able.
“Successful entrepreneurs are not going to be agoric theoreticians like Mr. Konkin but successful entrepreneurs period. What do they need with Konkin and his group?” How about, “Successful businessmen are not going to be economic theoreticians like Dr. Rothbard but successful businessmen period. What do they need of Dr. Rothbard ?” Or “successful engineers are not going to be physics theoreticians like Dr. Einstein, . .” Or, “successful writers are not going to be English instructors like Professor Strunk . . .” Need I belablor the Rothbard fallacv?
Rothbard’s position on libertarians being dichotomized from entrepreneurs is absolutely monstrous to me. “Libertarian” has nothing to do with what one says but with what one does. Hence a libertarian must be more trustworthy and have a more rational understanding of the market or he/she is not a libertarian regardless of what they beguilingly profess. This is the basis for my muckraking for which Dr. Rothbard commends me. And, on the whole, I find the same lack of black-colored glasses in him, I hasten to add.
And what personal experience or academic study leads Rothbard to conclude that pre-libertarian counter-economists do just fine without agorists “to cheer them on and free them from guilt.” My personal experience leads me to precisely the opposite conclusion—and I have cancelled cheques of contribution and letters of gratitude to prove it.
Inshort, whatever planet that the good doctor is describing in contradistinction to my counter-economy sure isn’t Earth.
Rothbard’s statement that violent revolution (what other kind is there against a ruling class—would he like to mention an Establishment that stepped down peacefully?) never succeeded in history distorts either the language or history.
Either he is saying that no revolution has been libertarian enough to triumph without its contradictions bringing it down (true, but then irrelevant to bring it up as precedent) or he is saying that no group overthrew a ruling class using democratic means of oppression. The latter is not only false but a direct reversal of history. Nearly all somewhat successful revolutions in recent history have overthrown precisely democratic trappings: American Revolutionaries vs. the democratic British Imperialists; Jacobin Revolutionaries vs. the bourgeous assemblee; Liberal Revolutionaries against the Czar’s Duma (March 1917) and the Bolshevik revolution against the Liberals and Social Democrats (November 1917); the falange against the Spanish Republic (1936); Peron’s shirtless ones against the Argentine parliament; the National Liberation Front of Vietnam vs. the South Vietnamese parliament (at least until near the end); the popular overthrow of Allende’s democratically-elected regime (with Pinochet co-opting the revolution for the military); and the recent overthrow of the democratically elected but right-wing president of El Salvador by a centrist “popular” junta. This list is not exhaustive. A claim that “violent revolution” has only succeeded in “democratic countries with free elections” would be nearer the mark, and is often used by Latin American as justification for preventive coups.
All of the above revolutionary groups have their credentials open to libertarian question, to be sure—but who has not so far? To close up this side issue, either Rothbard is saying that all “violent” overthrows of States were not revolution because they were not libertarian (in which case the libertarian case is untried) or he is historically wrong.
Rothbard has chutzpah:jJah to demand I separate libertarianism from counter-economists because the latter don’t need it—and then turn around and ask why the Russian counter-economists have not condensed into agoras. Human action is willed action; without entrepreneurs of libertarianism, it will not be sold. Even so, my estimation of the Soviet scene matches that of several Russian dissidents that Russia is a powderkeg waiting to go up. The Polish situation, of course, fits the agorist paradigm perfectly, right down to the counter-economic workers being co-opted by the partyarch-like Solidarity union.
Rothbard thus fails to make any substantive case against counter-economics and hence agorist strategy. He shoots at peripherals and warps either language or history to make his case. Still, our disagreement seems to me largely one of misunderstanding, and misunderstanding of verifiable facts, not speculative theory. This is hardly surprising since—to my knowledge—we share the same premise and analytic methods. Considering that I adopted mine from him, it’s even less surprising.
Rothbard’s critique of New Libertarianism seems to rest on seeing tips of icebergs and dismissing the vast bases. He sees only the one percent of the economy thought of as “black market” and not the 20-40% of the economy the IRS(!) sees as “underground” and double that to make up the whole Counter-Economy which the IRS ignores as irrelevant to taxation. It takes a libertarian, educated by Rothbard and others, to perceive a common characteristic and sum the anti-statist whole.
And the same can be said of Rothbard’s view of my activities and the hundreds of other New Libertarian Allies around the world. The small but warranted attention we pay to his few deviations seem prominent to him and understandably so. The somewhat larger amount of public criticism we have of the LP and other activities he is most interested in whether in our publications or at public forums are most of what interests him and remains with him. The 10,000 people I conservatively estimate that have called themselves libertarians after primary or secondary contact with me and my hard-core allies he never met and hence they are invisible. The network of counter-economic businesses that we are painstakingly nurturing and the millions of dollars cumulatively exchanged “invisibly” are again understandably invisible to him as well.
I for one see no real barrier to re-convergence (“regroupment” a the Marxists would say) between Rothbard and his “sane, sober, anarchist center” and us “ultra-left deviationists.” Rothbard’s remaining criticism is really not that germane to the Manifesto itself, though it makes up the majority of his article. Yet in some ways it is the most telling criticism of me personally in that it vitiates his compliment to my writing ability, when I must have obviously failed to communicate effectively. Most of his criticisms of me are misreadings in the latter part, and I will but list and deny them where urgent. Of course, the Party Question is another problem entirely.
New Libertarianism does have an organizational preference. Other forms of organization might then be considered non-New Libertarian but not necessarily “unlibertarian” or non-agorist. What the New Libertarian Strategy seeks is to optimalize action to lead to a New Libertarian society as quickly and cleanly as possible. Activities that lead to authoritarian dependency and passive acceptance of the State are sub-optimal and frowned on; action that is individualistic, entrepreneurial and market-organized are seen as optimal.
With that constantly in the reader’s awareness (pages 22, 23, and 24 of NLM are a long disclaimer to this very point!), it is obvious that there are no moral (other than individual self-worth) questions involved in organization and hierarchy. (My “lumping them all together” that Rothbard decries might be considered integration of concepts by others.)
Nowhere have I ever opposed joint-stock companies (see page 23 again where they are specifically affirmed). After I penned NLM I set up precisely that to own New Libertarian magazine. I assume we both continue to oppose the statist perversion of joint-stock companies into limited-liability corporations.
I have never suggested “floating affinity groups,” Should Dr. Rothbard set up a general Libertanan Alliance which runs no candidates and engages in no statism, I will take out a hundred-year membership immediately, 1 urge him to “call me out” on this point.
I see fewer problems in orgauization than Rothbard does and can easily see some organizations not haying any.
There is a bit or irony in Rothbard’s spirited defense of the “Kochtopus” since his own defection but I’ll let that pass. I have to mention his secession from and opposition to it because that, effectively, ends my major objection to it and I find it relatively harmless and conceivably needing my defense in the near future as the chorus of opposition swells. To the extent that my early attacks are responsible for the demonopolization of the Movement I am thankful.
For the record, my aim in as spectacularly drawing attention to the monocentrism around Koch’s money as I did was a warning. Too many neo-libertarians think only taking money from the State leads to dependency and control. True, it is not immoral in a libertarian sense to become a billionaire’s kept writer or lap-activist but it hardly serves the movement’s image or substance and hence is un-New-Libertarian. I knew the rest of the Left would attack libertarians for being a plutocrat’s tool (as Mother Jones eventually did) and took action to show the existence of diversity and independence. Off-hand, I’d say it worked.
I agree with all of Rothbard’s defense of millionaire libertarians and have a few (not multi-millionaires to be sure) in alliance with me. His solution to increase competition in the Movement is and was my solution. I doubt that having Koch compete with himself is a viable answer, though; even Rothbard seems hesitant about suggesting it.
My being “unfair to Charles Koch” requires a bit of semantic care. I have never implied that Charles Koch personally was motivated to do anything. Anybody’ who threw millions into the Movement with a bit of judgment in buying up institutions would have produced the same results.
I’ll take Rothbard’s and LeFevre’s—who know him personally—word that Koch is a great guy. May he profit richly and evade the State forever! (But may he never buy another politician.) And may he contribute to his heart’s content to any Libertarian or Libertarian organization (save the LP). Gee, what a great movement when a poor activist like me can be so generous to an oil billionaire!
But I’ll go further than Rothbard in my willing recognition of the positive personal characteristics of the Kochtopus. Roy Childs may be cranky and unforgiving at times but he’s a fun, erudite person of superior taste, no more deviationist than Dr. Rothbard. Jeff Riggenbach remains a friend, associate and sometime ally even working full-time for Koch’s Libertarian Review. Joan Kennedy Taylor, Victoria Vargas, Milton Mueller—whom did I leave out?—I’ve had nothing but enjoyable contacts with them all. Even Ed Crane(Rothbard’s—ahem—bête noire) is a laugh a minute with a ready handshake and a fast quip who serves Liberty as he sees best for him and the Movement.
May none of us ever sink to ad hominem.
Finally, the Libertarian Party. Rothbard says he will “assume for the moment that a libertarian political party . . . is not evil per se.” I wonder how open he would be to assuming the State is not evil per se and then continuing the discussion of some legislation, let us see where it leads him. It seems to lead to the wonder of repeal of laws.
Now Rothbard’s historical acumen seems to have failed him again. Since when did the State repeal anything from the Corn Laws to suburban property tax unless it had authority to maintain that law? First comes counter-economic scofflawing, then mass civil disobedience, then the threat of insurrection, and only then repeal. No, I don’t agree with LeFevre that it is immoral to repeal the draft (assuming LeFevre would say precisely that) but it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve one oppression. For all the money, time and energy that needs to go into electing a politician good on one or a few issues, how many could be directly freed and their risk of apprehension reduced in tax evading, draft evading, regulation evading, and so on? Nor do you need exhort the evaders to contribute to a noble cause but simply offer—and some sell this for exorbitant fees! —instruction on how to do beat detection and watch them go for it. . . . freeing themselves, not being freed by someone else.
Votes are the “profits” of a political party. A party is an organ of the State whose overt purpose is to vie for control of the State and whose covert one is to co-opt support—sanction of the victim. The number of votes dictates the number of successfully elected officials and their share of power and plunder and the number of those still accepting the State’s legitimacy and possible usefulness. Crane and the Clark Campaign were only acting in accordance with their nature qua partyarch. As Frank Chodorov might have said, “The way to get rid of sell-outs in LP jobs is to get rid of LP jobs.”
Let’s take up those political parties Rothbard finds admirable. It is clear that the Democrats were not so lovable in Conceived in Liberty when, as Jefferson Republicans, they fought the Anti-Federalists and co-opted opposition to the Constitution. Did Jackson, the agent of Nullification’s defeat; Van Buren, the archetype of boss politics; Polk, the anti-Mexican imperialist; or Pierce and Buchanan, the defenders of vlavery: redeem this tainted beginning?
And the British Liberals were condemned by Rothbard for leading Liberty’s advocates into defense of Empire and World War. Nor did the moderate minarchists—let alone alone the many anarchists even then—of the time have any use for Democrats or Liberals. Those minarchist reformers were then in the Free Soil Party in the U.S. and the Philosophic Radical Party in Britain, respectively.
It would be gauche of me to remind Dr. Rothbard who invented the Radical Caucus and then discarded it when it served nothing but “objectively counter-revolutionary” ends so I’ll pass this section up.
“A militant and abolitionist LP in control of Congress” begs the question—how did it get there? How could it get there? (George Smith’s scenario seems far more plausible. In fact, the LP will be in power during the final stages of agorist revolution tolure awary our marginal allies and ensnare the unwary with “libertarian” newspeak. The LP will be put in power as soon as the Higher Circles need it there. I have no doubt that Dr. Rothbard will be the first to notice and denounce the collaboration.
Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the “underground railway?” Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected.
Rothbard’s characterizing me as a “wrecker” is truly surprising to me considering all the libertarian organizations and publications I have built up and supported—more than anyone else save Dr. Rothbard himself, from Wisconsin to New York to California, and in nearly every state, province and country on this globe. Am I supposed to list all the libertarian groups which have not been subjected to moral attacks by me? How about every libertarian supper club in Los Angeles and New York? The Society for lndividual Liberty, Society for Libertarian Life, the old California Libertarian Alliance and Texas Libertarian Alliance, the British Libertarian Alliance, the Future of Freedom annual conference, the Southern Libertarian Conference. Oh, this is ridiculous. Yes, I stopped beating my wife—even if I’m not married.
The only things I’ve wrecked are the wreckers of our once party-free movement, defence of partyarchy and compromise of libertarianism in general. Is Rothbard claiming that he averted his eyes from those leaving “The Plumb Line” because they might otherwise be doing good work?
In conclusion, Rothbard and I continue to fight for the same things—and against the same things. Hopefully we will continue to fight in our own ways, reaching those the other missed. And most hopefully may we reduce our time and energy spent on fighting each other to free resources against the common enemy. I shall let no outstretched hand be passed up.
If the New Libertarians and the Rothbardian Centrists must devote some time to our differences (“engage in Revolutionary Dialogue”), let it be devoted first to understanding each other—as this exchange is devoted to—and then resolving the differences. Ah, then let the State and its power elite quake!
http://www.anthonyflood.com/konkinreplytorothbard.htm
And for anecdotal evidence. Were the people of Italia to be more informed and enthused about a world of Anarchy, the state would surely be dispelled with little to no resistance.The Italian government is weak, the Italian police are weaker.If you find an Italian that actually pays all of his taxes you'll be the first. If you take 100 Italians aside, chances are 20 of them are already counter-economists. Its not a hard thing to do, to thwart the government, it merely requires more people.
Grant:Ron Paul may be a politician, but he's hardly comparable to Regan. Contrary to earlier GOP debates... The fact that he does take some money from the feds I don't find all that immoral, since it he wasn't in office someone else in his place would be taking much, much more money. Well, if morality is now quantifiable by the amount of immoral acts you do... Then COUNT ME IN THE PAUL [R]EVOLUTION! In any case, he's introducing a lot of people to the ideas of Austrian economics. Hell, the guy even mentioned Spooner as a model for peaceful civil disobedience on national TV, and all but suggested that such actions are justified against unjust taxation. Well that's swell! But then again, doing one thing while doing another doesn't negate the fact that he still did both. It will just be replaced by another one, unless the conditions are right. Americans are heavily indoctrinated to respect the US Constitution and the Founding Fathers. Ironically, I believe the Constitution is used as a tool to legitimize government, even though an actual education of it would delegitimize government. I think American's respect for their founders (and I think they do deserve respect, we all stand on the shoulders of giants) is the only way libertarian ideas can be introduced and become popular, as Ron Paul is showing us. From what I can tell, the manuscript of the yanks is magnificently statist. The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Blah blah blah As for the "founders" they seem to be extraordinary liars, deceivers, and jerks.Then again, what do you expect when your nation is founded upon an aristocrat's coup?
Ron Paul may be a politician, but he's hardly comparable to Regan.
Contrary to earlier GOP debates...
The fact that he does take some money from the feds I don't find all that immoral, since it he wasn't in office someone else in his place would be taking much, much more money.
Well, if morality is now quantifiable by the amount of immoral acts you do... Then COUNT ME IN THE PAUL [R]EVOLUTION!
In any case, he's introducing a lot of people to the ideas of Austrian economics. Hell, the guy even mentioned Spooner as a model for peaceful civil disobedience on national TV, and all but suggested that such actions are justified against unjust taxation.
Well that's swell! But then again, doing one thing while doing another doesn't negate the fact that he still did both.
From what I can tell, the manuscript of the yanks is magnificently statist.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; To borrow money on the credit of the United States; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States; To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures; To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States; Blah blah blah
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
To borrow money on the credit of the United States;
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Blah blah blah
As for the "founders" they seem to be extraordinary liars, deceivers, and jerks.Then again, what do you expect when your nation is founded upon an aristocrat's coup?
Webster:Comparing Ron Paul to statists like Reagan and Goldwater is dramatically unfair to Paul. Reagan and Goldwater were part of the New Right, that accepted the government's place in society and its responsibilities to uphold the welfare of its citizens, but also believed that the free market was often the best way to do that. Ron Paul rejects the state's authority in many of these matters. Reagan and Goldwater failed because they did not want to reduce government authority, only the form of exercising that authority. Ron Paul seeks to undermine the actual authority of the state.
" Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them. "
What a statist!
Its mostly a defense of agorism and an attack on political parties. I have yet to attack agorism or defend political parties.
How do you perform civil disobedience against the Iraq war?
Neither your nor Konkin have realized that politicing is a forum to convert people away from the state. But you have to remember, we are only opposed to the State because it is violent. We are anti-crime. Our goal is abolish all aggression that we have power to abolish. The State makes an obvious target, it commits most of the violence and relies on our money to do it.
Suppose your idea that the State is absolute, unassailable is true(it's not), then we must still abolish as much of its aggression as is in our power. If we can abolish only half of the State, we must still invest ourselves.
JonBostwick:Its mostly a defense of agorism and an attack on political parties. I have yet to attack agorism or defend political parties.How do you perform civil disobedience against the Iraq war? What does the Iraq war have to do with anything? Jesus Christ! You people and your red herrings! Just a question, is that an American thing? I say one thing, but then another is brought up out of the blue! Neither your nor Konkin have realized that politicing is a forum to convert people away from the state. But you have to remember, we are only opposed to the State because it is violent. We are anti-crime. Our goal is abolish all aggression that we have power to abolish. The State makes an obvious target, it commits most of the violence and relies on our money to do it. Using the state attracts people away from the state... Well, only if you use the state against the people in the body-politic, but I don't think thats what you're getting at... At least I hope not! Suppose your idea that the State is absolute, unassailable is true(it's not), then we must still abolish as much of its aggression as is in our power. If we can abolish only half of the State, we must still invest ourselves. Why?
What does the Iraq war have to do with anything? Jesus Christ! You people and your red herrings! Just a question, is that an American thing? I say one thing, but then another is brought up out of the blue!
Using the state attracts people away from the state... Well, only if you use the state against the people in the body-politic, but I don't think thats what you're getting at... At least I hope not!
Why?
It would seem you introduced civil disobiedence into the discussion and that was a direct example to further their point. Are ad hominem attacks an Italian thing since you enjoy throwing them around so much?
Rothbard’s claim that political action is superior and preferable to civil disobedience in the lightening of the levy is an incredible distortion of history coming from the one who converted me to revisionism.
Niccolò:Well, if morality is now quantifiable by the amount of immoral acts you do... Then COUNT ME IN THE PAUL [R]EVOLUTION!
He's clearly better than the alternatives. Thats all I ment.
Niccolò:From what I can tell, the manuscript of the yanks is magnificently statist. As for the "founders" they seem to be extraordinary liars, deceivers, and jerks.Then again, what do you expect when your nation is founded upon an aristocrat's coup?
It is, they were (although to much less a degree than any other politicians I've heard about), and honestly I think we are pretty lucky we got what we did. For the record, Jefferson did wish for a completely voluntary society (where everyone would agree to the US Constitution), but he didn't see any viable way to achieve that (and he was also a slave-owner). In any case, in most people's minds the choice between a state and anarchy was a choice between a bit of coercion and a massive amount of coercion. They picked what they saw as the lesser of the evils. Unless I'm mistaken, the idea that anarchy can really work is relatively new.
But as far as Ron Paul goes, please point to a more viable option to spread the ideas of liberty in America, and I'll concede.
Webster: First of all, abortion should be left out of libertarianism because to those who oppose abortion, it falls under the same principals of natural law as murder. Very few people believe that abortion should be illegal who do not believe that it is murder, and believing that an infant's humanity is not decided by its location is not a direct reflection on one's views on the power of civil government. Likewise, to claim that the death penalty is unconstitutional is quite absurd given that to my knowledge not one person who attended the Constitutional Convention objected to the death penalty (and it was in place at the time). Prayer in schools is not a matter of Bible class; it is a matter ofbeing permitted to say private prayers when on school property that cost no other anything. Yes, having a Bible class in school would be theft, but then again so is having a physics class in school.
The unconstitutionality of the death penalty is not "quite absurd" but obvious. If one accepts the principles enunciated in the Declaration as being axiomatic and inherent in the specific clauses of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, then it's quite clear. If we accept your assertion (which I don't) that those who attended the Constitutional Convention didn't object to the death penalty because they didn't speak out against it, and thus its constitutional, I would reply that what they thought was immaterial to what they wrote into law. The Declaration states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, they they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable Rights, among these are Life.......That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men..." Therefore, since all men have a Creator-endowed unalienable Right to Life, the State cannot alienate that Right by killing them. Plain as day. In fact, one of the functions of Government is to protect us against the supporters of Capital Punishment. Let's remember that many at the Constitutional Convention owned slaves which is an infringement of the Right to Liberty. They were hypocrites who wrote the truth.
I would argue, though, that the fact that Jefferson tried to introduce a bill ending capital punishment in Virginia, and that Madison said,"I should not regret a fair and full trial of the entire abolition of capital punishment." would indicate that they opposed it, and since they both attended the Constitutional Convention, your assertion is false. In my view, the death penalty is one of the cornerstones of fascism, and must be abolished if we are to have a libertarian society in America.
Grant, how about a new movement? How about something that does not merely work within the status quo but instead attempts to overthrow it?
Prove you can't do both.
Webster ---I would agree, and I think you put it very well when you say,"Prayer in schools....is a matter of being permitted to say private prayers when on school property that cost no other anything." I don't think I would object to the Bible class if it were after school, used no lights or chalk, left the room exactly as it was before the class, etc. Some might object that there was wear on the desks. The problem will arrive though when there are 20 classrooms and 21 sects demand use of them under the equal protection clause. Nor would I have any problem with silent or mumbled prayer during recess on the quad. This is the right of the student. Moreover, I'd argue that after school hours, the school is no longer a school, but a public building similar to the lobby of city hall. One has the right to say a prayer there or vigorously discuss the theology of the gods of Vallhalla with impassioned Norwegians, as long as the noise doesn't interfere with the clerks carrying out their job functions.
However, before we carve rules in stone on school prayer, I think we need to consider several other factors that would affect those rules. 1) Does the state demand and enforce compulsory education? 2) Is home schooling permitted by the state in fulfillment of that demand? 3)Does attendance at a religious or parochial school fulfill the requirement? If home and parochial school are not permitted, and the student must attend public schools, then what happens when the student's religion requires loud verbal prayer or physical prostration so frequently that the student can't listen uninterruptedly to a 50 minute lecture? Or what happens if parochial and domestic schooling is permitted, but the student can't afford the parochial school,or his parents don't have the time to educate him domestically because they have to work 2 jobs 7 days a week to pay taxes to the Clintons? In this case the student is forced unwillingly to attend public school, and if his religious duties require, as above, loud verbal prayer and physical prostration so frequently that it disrupts class, then what is to be done? I don't know.
I'm puzzled by your argument that "Yes, having a Bible class in school would be theft, but then again so is having a physics class in school." As I argued above, the Bible class would be permitted under the circumstances I mentioned, but how is having a physics class theft? The function of the public school is secular education on a wide variety of subjects, so a physics class seems to me perfectly legitimate, unless you refer to a religious person who would claim, "All physical laws are subject to the will of G-d, or gods, and to teach them as immutable laws is blasphemy (a view I'd sympathize with). Therefore, forcing me to attend and pay taxes for the support of these public schools is theft." Again, this is a situation I don't know how to deal with. I'd be very interested to hear your views on this seeming dilemma
Niccolò:Grant, how about a new movement? How about something that does not merely work within the status quo but instead attempts to overthrow it?
I'd love that, but I think it will only become a viable option when the old televised and print media has been almost completely replaced by the internet. I also think libertarians need to restructure some of their arguments, and stress how freedom allows people to organize their own societies to live the way they want to, instead of stressing libertarian societies (which scare a lot of people).
Getting government the hell out of education (using vouchers, or whatever) might help, and that can be done through the political process.
Grant --- Niccolo speaks of a movement, and you endorse it, but it seems to me a "movement" is a collectivist concept. Libertarianism isn't a movement. It's the free activity of individuals in relationship to other free individuals and insensate objects. Austrian economics, (as well as Sartrean existentialism) says there is only the actions of individuals; indeed, we need only speak of actions since "individual" is a mental concept based on the past and its memories. "Movements" imply mass consent, whereas libertarianism is the constant clash of individual's free actions and thoughts against each other and the world of objects. The Mises Institute and the debates on these forums and blogs virtually prove that.
Paul Grad:Grant --- Niccolo speaks of a movement, and you endorse it, but it seems to me a "movement" is a collectivist concept. Libertarianism isn't a movement. It's the free activity of individuals in relationship to other free individuals and insensate objects. Austrian economics, (as well as Sartrean existentialism) says there is only the actions of individuals; indeed, we need only speak of actions since "individual" is a mental concept based on the past and its memories. "Movements" imply mass consent, whereas libertarianism is the constant clash of individual's free actions and thoughts against each other and the world of objects. The Mises Institute and the debates on these forums and blogs virtually prove that.
Yes, and there are no forests either, but its easier to call something a forest than to say "the group of trees enclosed by these long. and lat. coordinates". Its a useful abstraction. I agree its silly to base political or economic theories on abstractions if you can possible help it. But sometimes its not an abstraction. Sometimes people DO join groups formally. Contracts are signed with businesses, memberships in clubs are purchased. Yes those are individual actions, but individuals can choose to sacrifice for the good of some group. In my opinion the problem with collective groups comes when people abandon the idea that a group is an aggregate of individuals, and start seeing it as an entity unto itself, which is clearly a mistake.
I don't have a problem with collectivism so long as its not forced on anyone. I wouldn't want individualism to be forced on anyone either. I think if libertarianism is going to succeed, it has to stress that it will not force any ideology on anyone. If people want to be collectivist, more power to them, but leave me out of it.
Grant: Paul Grad:Grant --- Niccolo speaks of a movement, and you endorse it, but it seems to me a "movement" is a collectivist concept. Libertarianism isn't a movement. It's the free activity of individuals in relationship to other free individuals and insensate objects. Austrian economics, (as well as Sartrean existentialism) says there is only the actions of individuals; indeed, we need only speak of actions since "individual" is a mental concept based on the past and its memories. "Movements" imply mass consent, whereas libertarianism is the constant clash of individual's free actions and thoughts against each other and the world of objects. The Mises Institute and the debates on these forums and blogs virtually prove that. Yes, and there are no forests either, but its easier to call something a forest than to say "the group of trees enclosed by these long. and lat. coordinates". Its a useful abstraction. I agree its silly to base political or economic theories on abstractions if you can possible help it. But sometimes its not an abstraction. Sometimes people DO join groups formally. Contracts are signed with businesses, memberships in clubs are purchased. Yes those are individual actions, but individuals can choose to sacrifice for the good of some group. In my opinion the problem with collective groups comes when people abandon the idea that a group is an aggregate of individuals, and start seeing it as an entity unto itself, which is clearly a mistake. I don't have a problem with collectivism so long as its not forced on anyone. I wouldn't want individualism to be forced on anyone either. I think if libertarianism is going to succeed, it has to stress that it will not force any ideology on anyone. If people want to be collectivist, more power to them, but leave me out of it.
Grant --- A very thought provoking answer, and well thought out. However, I must disagree with you on several points.
First of all, a very pickayune but necessary observation. You refer to the forest as "the group of tree enclosed..." but I'm afraid you betray collectivist tendencies here, for actually there are only "the individual trees enclosed...," and also the soil, leaves on ground, etc. That is, there are only specifics. However, a much more important consideration is this: trees are not individuals like humans in that they have no free action (who knows, perhaps they can squirm around a little), but compared to the free action of a human individual, they have nil. So, one could speak of a forest for convenience, but to speak of a "movement" or collective group is impossible; because there are only individuals with their own individual freedoms, and it really distorts clear thinking in Libertarianism to even begin to start thinking of such monstrosities as "movements". What unites us are broadly shared philosophical ideas that we wish to introduce into society so that life gets better for people. Instead of the universal idea of "doing something", which all past movements have, we have in Libertarianism for the first time the idea of turning back this "doing something" and dismantling virtually everything that is wrecked, while retaining certain basic necessities (police) that still have to be worked out in this ongoing dialogue. Probably it would lead to a radical free-market capitalism, with minarchist gradualism making it palatable to the vast majority of Americans. So first, let's make sure we never muddy the waters of Libertarianism with all this fustian about "movements".
But I aim this criticism much more at Niccolo that at you, for the examples you give of people forming voluntary groups without it compromising there free will are in most cases valid. But for Niccolo, who seems to me to put forth an admiration for anarchism, to speak of a "movement "seems ludicrous. I do not see how anarchists could ever have or form a movement. Let's say they had a meeting. The first speaker begins, and after a minute someone in the audience gets up and starts to speak loudly, then a second, then a third, each proclaiming his free will to do what he wants. Now, you might say, they all agreed beforehand to certain terms, like "no one can interupt a speaker until he finishes or 5 minutes elapse and we agree to this of our own free will". But once the meeting starts, someone jumps up a minute into the first speech and starts speaking loudly. If they are true anarchists, they couldn't stop him or a second from speaking.
People like movements because it makes them feel good; it makes them expand their egos. But they have to give up there freedom and compromise. However, Libertarianism differs; it's more like a group of anarchistic freedom-loving individuals seeing a problem and its solution spontaneously, and acting coincidentally to solve the problem. Then they retreat into their own free individualism again. Frankly, I think that will make people a lot happier and there will be a lot less frustration in the land. But maybe I'm wrong.
Grant --- What I find doubly strange, though, about Niccolo's suggestion for a movement is that he refers to himself, by implication in his motto, as a Disciple of G-d. Now it seems to me if you are a Disciple of G-d, then you are in an I-Thou "movement" with G-d, and since the mainstream gods tend to be pretty jealous gods, you certainly aren't going to be allowed to shift your alligence to any entity outside of G-d, and this fact further precludes Niccolo from ever being in a "movement." I'm afraid he will have to remain an "individual".
As far as how all this "movement theory" fits in with the theme of this forum, I'd say the Ron Paul campaign will have a very positive influence on Libertarianism because to get elected and to get his programs through, he is going to need a Libertarian Congress. That means not only Dr. Paul, but also hundreds of Libertarian senators and representatives, have to be elected. And as we can see from the debate facilitated by this website, there is such a broad catholicity of views on every topic that Libertarianism is just being formed. The current situation is amorphous and fluid, and, unfortunately, this may be exacerbated greatly if the likely economic chaos caused by more massive deficit spending occurs. In a few years, there may be well be Libertarian wings in Congress, and the Rothbardians will be screaming at the Hayekians, ----but in a friendly, civil way of course.
First of all, a very pickayune but necessary observation. You refer to the forest as "the group of tree enclosed..." but I'm afraid you betray collectivist tendencies here, for actually there are only "the individual trees enclosed...," and also the soil, leaves on ground, etc. That is, there are only specifics.
Well, maybe the language I should have used is "the set of trees enclosed". A set is a collection of distinct objects, i.e. unique individual trees. Technically a group is a type of set which supports some sort of binary operation, but for the purposes of this post the word I should have used, if I wanted to be technical, was "set" (since I did not supply any operation, like the number of leaves must be greater than 50).
However, a much more important consideration is this: trees are not individuals like humans in that they have no free action (who knows, perhaps they can squirm around a little), but compared to the free action of a human individual, they have nil. So, one could speak of a forest for convenience, but to speak of a "movement" or collective group is impossible; because there are only individuals with their own individual freedoms, and it really distorts clear thinking in Libertarianism to even begin to start thinking of such monstrosities as "movements". What unites us are broadly shared philosophical ideas that we wish to introduce into society so that life gets better for people. Instead of the universal idea of "doing something", which all past movements have, we have in Libertarianism for the first time the idea of turning back this "doing something" and dismantling virtually everything that is wrecked, while retaining certain basic necessities (police) that still have to be worked out in this ongoing dialogue. Probably it would lead to a radical free-market capitalism, with minarchist gradualism making it palatable to the vast majority of Americans. So first, let's make sure we never muddy the waters of Libertarianism with all this fustian about "movements".
But the thing is, you can put individuals into sets or groups. To deny that would remove credibility from whatever point you are trying to make. The problem isn't that people are lumped together into groups, the problem is that the statistics from those groups are misused. The process of removing irrelevant details from a group is called abstraction. The libertarian "movement" is an abstraction of individuals who demonstrate a preference for libertarian politics by their actions. Yes the libertarians are more than their political beliefs, but abstractions are useful things for things like political polling, advertisement demographics, etc. Not only are they useful, but abstractions are a requirement for thought, computation, and many other things.
I think the problem comes when people move from demonstrated preference through action to implied preference through action. To say that everyone who votes GOP supports the GOP is false. Preference can only be ordinally demonstrated through action, so anyone who votes for a GOP candidate simply demonstrates his preference over other candidates, but not for the GOP itself. A similar mistake occurs when a Marxist says, "capitalists work for money, therefore capitalists are greedy and only want money". The capitalist has demonstrated a preference for money, but thats all. No cardinal relationship can be found which can label the capitalists as being more greedy than others because they make more money. I think this sort of error also abounds in egalitarian calculations of social equality. Egalitarians often assume that because people work for money (which provides social status), they must be demonstrating a preference for a higher social status (which likely only exists in the mind of the egalitarian). Of course that is not true, all that is being demonstrated is that people will accept money in return for labor over other methods of payment. But this isn't an abstraction; its a mistake and a fallacy.
If they were market anarchists, they could. Property rights (whether explicit or implicit) are a requirement of all purposeful cooperative action. Any market anarchist meeting would have either explicit or implicit rules (I'd bet more implicit, because most market anarchists don't need to be reminded of basic property rights), and such a meeting would likely be treated as the property of those who organized the meeting.
Maybe it will, but if people are happy in their "movements", who are we to criticize, so long as their movements are peaceful?
"If they were market anarchists, they could."
Yes, I can see that might be possible.
"Maybe it will, but if people are happy in their "movements", who are we to criticize, so long as their movements are peaceful?"
Oh, I'm not criticizing. Just that I don't believe it's possible to have a Libertarian movement. If people think it is, and their agenda is congruent, or nearly so, with my political agenda, that's fine with me. It's a minor peccadillo in comparison to the big government expansionists on the other side of the aisle. And also I think we should warmly embrace any movement if it staunchly backs the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Many on the Left understand the Libertarian values inherent in the Declaration/Constitution/Bill of Rights, and those Supreme Court Justices who have ruled in a Libertarian manner (like O.W.Holmes ruling against wiretaps when the prohibitionist-collectivists tried to bust the alcohol free-traders ---where are men like that now?), but the Left doesn't have a clue on economics; they fail to see how their policies violate human rights. In most cases, because they've never been exposed, or never pondered on economic issues. Doesn't mean I can't stand shoulder-to-shoulder on Bill of Rights issues with them as long as they're not violent or racist? Someone like Sen. Feingold whose got enough sand in his veins to vote against the Patriot Act I can live with, and even greatly admire, even if I disagreed with him on his social legislation and economic philosophy.
And thanks for the clarification on sets and groups.
Niccolò:Then again, what do you expect when your nation is founded upon an aristocrat's coup?
Maybe you should check your history. The aristocrats were mostly loyalists. I think someone is bitter that europe is a socialist wasteland that hasn't had a good idea since the 1800s.
Paul Grad:I strongly disagree that abortion should be left out of libertarianism, any more than the death penalty, drug laws, the draft, and being forced to serve on juries deciding corporate civil cases, should be left out. These all involve the question of the sovereignty of the individual over his body, and seem axiomatic to me to any discussion of libertarian doctrine. You refer to the infant's humanity, but the infant only exists after birth; before birth it is a fetus.
What you don't seem to understand is that the distinction between "fetus" and "infant" is completely arbitrary, a human invention. Just because you don't consider a fetus to be a human doesn't mean that it isn't one. I, and most other pro-lifers out there, believe that a fetus is in fact a human. It has a heart, brain, stomache, lungs, human dna, and human features. It even has a free will. It moves around and makes itself comfortable, and it's obviously aware in there, because when you take it out, it senses the change and begins to cry.
ContumacySince87: Niccolò:Then again, what do you expect when your nation is founded upon an aristocrat's coup? Maybe you should check your history. The aristocrats were mostly loyalists. I think someone is bitter that europe is a socialist wasteland that hasn't had a good idea since the 1800s.
"A socialist wasteland that hasn't had a good idea since the 1800's?" What about very capitalist England, a nation of small shopkeepers, which wouldn't be a bad formula for America? Or the Netherlands --- pretty capitalistic place historically I'd say, and Libertarian too compared to anything to the east of it. You're also missing the very obvious example of Mises, Hayek and the intellectual lights of the Austrian school in Vienna, which this site is all about? Sloganeering seems popular when collectivism stifles freedom. But what about the abolition of Capital Punishment? They are way ahead of us on that one. Europe would probably collapse, though, if they weren't sucking $100+ Billion a year out of the American taxpayer in defence spending welfare, which nonsense President Paul will put a stop to.
Contumacy --- On abortion : I understand completely that it is a distinction of medical terminology, but I meant that an infant is one who can survive outside of the womb; I would consider a fetus to mean at least someone who could not exist outside the womb. I would consider an infant a lot closer to an individual than a 3-day old fetus.
You also jump to the conclusion that I don't consider a fetus to be a human --- quite a leap. In point of fact I tend to agree with Dr. Paul that the human does come into being at moment of conception in some mystical sense because G-d is outside the realm of time. You could also say the person is already on their deathbed at moment of conception. But to me there is quite a qualitative difference between a woman with a 3-day old fetus aborting, and a completely healthy woman demanding a partial-birth abortion the day before because 1)she's a sadist, 2)she's mentally ill, 3) she's suddenly terrified at going through the birth process or 4) she wants a test case to bring before the supreme court. But since I'm a man, its comfortably not my body that being legislated over, like the hippie girls that slept with draft resisters but still didn't have to put their ass on the line in Vietnam. We men are in a similar situation when we pontificate on abortion. There would be enough Libertarian states in America under a Paul sweep to victory, that it might mean a bus ride to Nevada, or just across the border of the neighboring states to get one.
Personally, I think it is a very negative process in many or most cases, but as a philosophical Libertarian I feel it is the woman's body and we should tend to side with her self-soverignty.
One case, which I have never heard mentioned, where I think a virtual blanket abortion ban might be legal would be if the human race was declining so rapidly due to a drop in male fertility from environmental pollution, that the it was in danger of dying out.
Jim OConnor -----Excellent comments. I couldn't concur more. When former Libertarian presidential candidate and cannabis-warrior Steve Kubby endorsed Rep. Paul and urged his supporters and the party in general to support him as a practical matter, I wrote a comment in support, saying we were getting 90% of the pie and we should take it. But after hearing Dr. Paul, more closely investigating his votes, and judging his character, now I'd say we're getting 98% of the pie. Take your profits, man, we're really lucky to have this gentleman running. Once Libertarians get into Congress, I suspect they will become as schismatic as Protestants in America have been historically.
But there's a "third" "second side" to Ron Paul's campaign that I don't hear emphasized enough, and that's his whole approach to the medical system which must be looked at and revised and reformed. And only a physician can understand this. Dr. Paul can see how socialized medicine has led to the treatment of patients like cattle, with incredible indifference, disrespect and callousness, especially under the mis-management of the giant HMO-megacorporations and the insurance companies. The small town GP, whose cheering smile, words of reassurance, and slow bedside manner, spoke of a caring that sadly is long gone, and is now replaced by the pill dispenser who rushes you out of the office. And the dedicated nurse, for whom the paycheck was nothing compared to the patient --- she is sadly gone too, and we have the mega-corp and the uncaring nurses and technicians, the incredible inefficiencies, and the life -costing and frequent mistakes. Care for all, not for some at the expense of millions of capitalists who don't qualify because they work hard, or succeed in business, must be dealt with, and terminal arrangements for all, which so far no one individual has figured out how to avoid. This issue alone, if no other, screams for the election of Dr. Paul, not Clinton/Putin collectivism. And Clinton's corporate "healthcare" will bankrupt us just as surely as Bush's corporate militarism. Corporate communists are sucking us dry.
Paul Grad:His views on abortion
His stance on abortion is that the states not the federal government should make this decision. Ultimately he appears to hold that abortion violates a babies right to life.
Paul Grad:his support for the death penalty as being constitutional which it obviously isnt
He does not support the death penalty at the federal level. Watch the PBS forum: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ex-yp10yLvs
Niccolò:I think I could find about anything more worthwhile doing than voting for a guy that makes his living off of blood money. Washing my car in the rain, for example.
I find it interesting that you have a car, in that, some of the gas you put in your car was stolen from other countries at gun point. It is also worth noting that the roads you drive on are also paid for with blood money. Do you drive your car on public roads?
I assert that the use of a public resource is a form of voting. Attending a public school is a vote for the existence of that school. Driving on a public road is a vote for that road. Yes you were forced to support that school and road, but you should opt out for consistency sake. Not voting in a public election and not driving on a public road are essentially the same thing. The state developed both systems and pays for them with blood money.
Ultimately, forced taxation is the real problem here. This system creates a dilemma because it assumes that you have a right to lay claim to the fruits of my labor. Why not vote to change the system?