Well, are they?
Nah, they're not hiding. :P
The workmen desire to get as much, the master to give as little as possible...It is not difficult to foresee which of the two parties must force the other into a compliance with their terms. -Adam Smith
CrazyCoot: Well, are they?
Are Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, Frank Chodorov and Henry Hazlitt closet apologists for Stalin?
Nope.
Nice troll thread>?
You should probably realise making it all the way to anarchism, isn't everything. Do you Hate the State?
Conza88:You should probably realise making it all the way to anarchism, isn't everything. Do you Hate the State?
My opinion of that article is pretty much summed up by LibertyStudent:
liberty student:One of my least favorite Rothbard articles. I'm very sympathetic to Friedman's arguments because they don't rest on emotionalism.
Leftism rests on emotionalist arguments ("Without government, who will X!!!!"). You can't beat them at their own game. It's a hell of a lot more persuasive to hear, rather than "Government policy X is bad because it is coercive", "Government policy X does not accomplish it's intended objectives and the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation because [A, B, C]".
Praetyre: Conza88:You should probably realise making it all the way to anarchism, isn't everything. Do you Hate the State? My opinion of that article is pretty much summed up by LibertyStudent: liberty student:One of my least favorite Rothbard articles. I'm very sympathetic to Friedman's arguments because they don't rest on emotionalism. Leftism rests on emotionalist arguments ("Without government, who will X!!!!"). You can't beat them at their own game. It's a hell of a lot more persuasive to hear, rather than "Government policy X is bad because it is coercive", "Government policy X does not accomplish it's intended objectives and the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation because [A, B, C]".
Let me guess. You don`t hate the state.
Praetyre:Leftism rests on emotionalist arguments ("Without government, who will X!!!!"). You can't beat them at their own game.
That they do and so does the Right. And that's a non sequitur. Socialists of all stripes constantly make the claim for the moral high-ground, people like you give it to them. That's why they win.
Can't beat them? Tell that to Thomas Paine & Ron Paul.
Praetyre:It's a hell of a lot more persuasive to hear, rather than "Government policy X is bad because it is coercive", "Government policy X does not accomplish it's intended objectives and the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation because [A, B, C]".
No, it's not. I guess you wouldn't push the button?
What would your platform have been for slavery? Gradualism? Economic arguments?
And what are your objections when government policy DOES accomplish it's intended objectives? Let's say "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, Section 1-7" your argument would be that the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation?
Marko:Let me guess. You don`t hate the state.
I'll take that bet.
Marko: Let me guess. You don`t hate the state.
Was that a serious question or a humorous rhetorical one? Sarcasm is difficult to determine on the Internet.
If it was meant to be serious then.. I think your question is a red herring. I was pointing out that utilitarian arguments are much more effective, not that ethical statements are deficient in and of themselves. For example, saying "Mandatory health insurance is slavery" and "Mandatory health insurance will result in malinvestment and malallocation of resources, as the result of government interfering with price signalling from consumers via the introduction of artificial demand". Both are true, but one is much more detailed and much more likely to be convincing to most people.
Humorous yes. Rhetorical no.
Praetyre:one is much more detailed
It's easy to remove detail, when you're the one doing so.
More to the point - what's so good about detail? You think more details would help at convincing the masses? rofl.
Praetyre:much more likely to be convincing to most people.
I guess you're just not very good at using the Socratic method?
Conza88: Can't beat them? Tell that to Thomas Paine & Ron Paul.
Why are Ron Paul's idea's taking hold? Because evidence for them is rapidly piling up before the masses very eyes with the current economic recession and the effects of Federal Reserve action. It is not moralism or Constitutionalism that is raising his ideas up into the fold, it is a combination of dissastisfaction with the existing political mainstream in US politics and the utilitarian demonstrations of recessions, such as those done by George Reisman or that late great utilitarian, Ludwig von Mises himself. See my response to slavery in regards to Thomas Paine.
Conza88: Praetyre:It's a hell of a lot more persuasive to hear, rather than "Government policy X is bad because it is coercive", "Government policy X does not accomplish it's intended objectives and the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation because [A, B, C]". No, it's not. I guess you wouldn't push the button? What would your platform have been for slavery? Gradualism? Economic arguments?
Can you actually give any response other than "No, it's not" to my point on persuasiveness? What would you be more convinced by if you were, say, a smoker, a priest telling you it was a sin against God or a person with a hole in their neck telling you what smoking does to your life?
In response to your first point, at what point in time would I push this hypothetical button? I'm on the fence regarding minarchy\anarchy in any case.
In response to your point regarding slavery, these were different times. Modern Westerners live in a secular age where moral relativism is, unfortunately pervasive in our culture. In the times of the abolitionists, America and the world was far more religious and culturally grounded than it is today. These days, arguing it's "morally wrong" will get most people rolling their eyes at you like a Christian evangelist at an atheist convention. Modern economic arguments are made primarily on the basis of utilitarian benefit, of net benefit to the group, not on the basis of moral argument.
Conza88:And what are your objections when government policy DOES accomplish it's intended objectives? Let's say "The Laws for the Protection of German Blood and German Honour, Section 1-7" your argument would be that the private sector is better equipped to handle this situation?
That's just silly. The Nuremberg Laws were enacted for the purpose of satisfying the Nazi racial ideology. Modern issues are over things like rent and wage controls which are (ostensibly) enacted to enable access to a basic level of income and housing for all citizens, which is not a bad thing. Nazis have a mix of good (opposing communism and providing prosperity for Germany) and bad ends (eliminating people of certain races) and bad means. Leftists have bad means and a mix of good and bad ends
In fact, you can even make some way with those types, by arguing that current anti discrimination laws would be removed under your political system, enabling them to set up their silly White's Only clubs and monoracial communes. You probably shouldn't for public relations reasons (look at the smears against Ron Paul on much thinner ground with Stormfront), but that's not to say even these people have their avenue utitilarianly.
You can argue with socialists till you are blue in the face as to whether the ends justify the means, especially if their beliefs are religiously rooted. Take a look at what Tom Woods is doing in regards to Catholic social teaching. He's arguing that the best way to achieve the means proscribed by it is through free market capitalism, not that the Church are a bunch of Marxists for wanting to help the poor.
Honestly, this whole "Anyone who isn't a Rothbardian natural rights adherent is a Keynesian commie socialist statist fascist" screda reminds me of Christian fundamentalists who insist anyone who isn't a member of their sect is a devil worshipper. If you can accept minarchists, why can't you accept utilitarians (which I am not among, incidentally)?
Emotional arguments are way more effective at convincing people.
People don't care and they don't have time to listen.
So how the f*ck are you going to convince someone that don't listen to you by using logic? You have to make them care first and that is done by emotional arguments.
Escaping Leviathan - regardless of public opinion
"Democracy is the road to socialism." - Karl Marx
My guess is, most emotional arguments go like this:
Socialist (S): We need rent control to provide the BASIC RIGHT of housing, especially to the CHILDREN!
Liberal (L): You commie fascist, rent control is coercion. Down with you and your statist comrades!
S: It is for the GREATER GOOD! All is justified by the GREATER GOOD!
L: The greater good can bite me. I'm an individual, not a slave of some imaginary collective.
S: You are just an antisocial selfish loner who doesn't pay his fair share. You should be grateful government provides you with a retirement and a plethora of social rights!
*Cue 5 hours of endless unproductive arguments as to whether the ends justify the means*
Ehm, emotional arguments is not the same thing as moral/ethical arguments. You can still be very logical and analytical about ethics, simply pointing out that something is coercion is not an emotional plea.
The best libertarian emotional arguments usually have to do with pleas for people to reclaim there sense of pride and dignity.
You can also use emotional arguments very effectively to debunk animal rights people, especially when they oppose hunting of predatory animals.There was an outcry over wolf hunting here and starting to cry about poor Bambi that shouldn't have to live in fear of wolves was far more effective then cold analytical arguments on why ethics don't apply to animals. Ofc the latter is alot of fun cause they people get so upset and can't counter it logically so they just get even more upset and start calling you the worst human being on the planet...
Praetyre:Why are Ron Paul's idea's taking hold?
Because he's a radical & told it like it was. He uses both natural rights and utilitarian arguments (since natural law, i.e absence of initiation of violence - lines up with good consequences) you on the other hand want to dismiss the most important part.
Praetyre:Can you actually give any response other than "No, it's not" to my point on persuasiveness?
It didn't require any more than that. It first requires you provide justification for it.
Praetyre:What would you be more convinced by if you were, say, a smoker, a priest telling you it was a sin against God or a person with a hole in their neck telling you what smoking does to your life?
Smoking is voluntary. Time to come up with a non-fallacious analogy.
Praetyre:In response to your first point, at what point in time would I push this hypothetical button? I'm on the fence regarding minarchy\anarchy in any case.
So you're a still a statist? haha... that figures. That'd be forgivable if you were a radical, but you are clearly not. Now, how exactly can you be on the fence - what is holding you up, you wanting to be value free? Here is what is meant by pushing the button:
"If liberty is to be the highest political end, then this implies that liberty is to be pursued by the most efficacious means, i.e., those means which will most speedily and thoroughly arrive at the goal. This means that the libertarian must be an “ abolitionist,” i.e., he must wish to achieve the goal of liberty as rapidly as possible. If he balks at abolitionism, then he is no longer holding liberty as the highest political end. The libertarian, then, should be an abolitionist who would, if he could, abolish instantaneously all invasions of liberty. Following the classical liberal Leonard Read, who advocated immediate and total abolition of price-and-wage controls after World War II, we might refer to this as the “button-pushing” criterion. Thus, Read declared that “If there were a button on this rostrum, the pressing of which would release all wage-and-price controls instantaneously I would put my finger on it and push!” The libertarian, then, should be a person who would push a button, if it existed, for the instantaneous abolition of all invasions of liberty—not something, by the way, that any utilitarian would ever be likely to do.5
Anti-libertarians, and anti-radicals generally, characteristically make the point that such abolitionism is “unrealistic”; by making such a charge they hopelessly confuse the desired goal with a strategic estimate of the probable path toward that goal. It is essential to make a clear-cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and the strategic estimate of how to reach that goal; in short, the goal must be formulated before questions of strategy or “realism” enter the scene. The fact that such a magic button does not and is not likely to exist has no relevance to the desirability of abolitionism itself. We might agree, for example, on the goal of liberty and the desirability of abolitionism in liberty’s behalf. But this does not mean that we believe that abolition will in fact be attainable in the near or far future.
The libertarian goals—including immediate abolition of invasions of liberty—are “realistic” in the sense that they could be achieved if enough people agreed on them, and that, if achieved, the resulting libertarian system would be viable. The goal of immediate liberty is not unrealistic or “Utopian” because—in contrast to such goals as the “elimination of poverty”—its achievement is entirely dependent on man’s will. If, for example, everyone suddenly and immediately agreed on the overriding desirability of liberty, then total liberty would be immediately achieved.6 The strategic estimate of how the path toward liberty is likely to be achieved is, of course, an entirely separate question.7
Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emandpation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”8 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”
Praetyre:In response to your point regarding slavery, these were different times.
No, they're not. These times are right here, right now.
Why We Couldn't Abolish Slavery Then and Can't Abolish Government Now by Robert Higgs
Praetyre:Modern economic arguments are made primarily on the basis of utilitarian benefit, of net benefit to the group, not on the basis of moral argument.
You can't have a free market without a theory of property rights. And for that my utilitarian friend, the economist cannot escape a judgment on.
Justice & Property Rights - Chapter 4 | Egalitarianism Revolt Against Nature
Praetyre:That's just silly.
No. It's deadly serious. Millions of lives kind of serious.
Praetyre:The Nuremberg Laws were enacted for the purpose of satisfying the Nazi racial ideology. Modern issues are over things like rent and wage controls which are (ostensibly) enacted to enable access to a basic level of income and housing for all citizens, which is not a bad thing. Nazis have a mix of good (opposing communism and providing prosperity for Germany) and bad ends (eliminating people of certain races) and bad means. Leftists have bad means and a mix of good and bad ends
The Nuremberg Laws - initiation of aggression, like all state policies. Modern issues involve - the initiation of aggression, like all state policies.
Praetyre:Honestly, this whole "Anyone who isn't a Rothbardian natural rights adherent is a Keynesian commie socialist statist fascist" screda reminds me of Christian fundamentalists who insist anyone who isn't a member of their sect is a devil worshipper.
Nice strawman.
Praetyre:If you can accept minarchists, why can't you accept utilitarians (which I am not among, incidentally)?
I accept minarchists who are radical abolitionists. Those who hate the State, who want to abolish - not reform. CATO, Republican lites and the beltway like Bobb Barr don't get any support or respect, nor acceptance from me.
Praetyre:You can argue with socialists till you are blue in the face as to whether the ends justify the means
Egalitarianism is a Revolt Against Nature. The calculation argument isn't the only one that shows socialism is impossible.
Praetyre:My guess is, most emotional arguments go like this
That's great. And totally irrelevant. So when are you going to address axiomatic-deductive objective ethics?
Praetyre:*Cue 5 hours of endless unproductive arguments as to whether the ends justify the means*
I didn't think you were good at the socratic method. I guess this confirms it?
A Handout For Statists - Stefan Molyneux
Did that take 5 hours? ;p Also what happened to your platform on slavery? Would you support socialism if it was more efficient?
Not trying to troll. Point is how can one really be an effective proponent of the free market while accepting that the government ought to take care of some services. I mean if you're a you're a minarchist and believe that defense is the responsibility of a minimal state then why shouldn't the state take care of other services such as health care, or highways?
Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were both anarchists.
CrazyCoot: Point is how can one really be an effective proponent of the free market while accepting that the government ought to take care of some services. I mean if you're a you're a minarchist and believe that defense is the responsibility of a minimal state then why shouldn't the state take care of other services such as health care, or highways?
Point is how can one really be an effective proponent of the free market while accepting that the government ought to take care of some services. I mean if you're a you're a minarchist and believe that defense is the responsibility of a minimal state then why shouldn't the state take care of other services such as health care, or highways?
I think that for the most part minarchists believe that government must exist to maintain rule of law, and as such although they are proponents of the free-market they believe there are limitations. Take the Rahn Curve as an example; without some taxation, economic productivity reaches "zero"—that's the belief. It probably has to do with the limitation of foresight. That is, the inability to see how such systems would work in a private market, and therefore the opinion to not give the free-market the benefit of the doubt. We all know, for example, that health care could work in a free-market (well, obviously not everybody, but at least most minarchists), but something as extreme as the rule of law ( which nobody today has ever experienced a free-market in, really) is more difficult to imagine.
Praetyre: liberty student:One of my least favorite Rothbard articles. I'm very sympathetic to Friedman's arguments because they don't rest on emotionalism.
I also dislike that article, but because Rothbard fails to apply his own criteria for radicalism. He writes that being a radical means "being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself." But somehow he goes on to label our "classical liberal forbears" ("the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden") as "genuinely radical".
Hold up! Minarchists cannot be genuinely radical, because they only oppose the branches of government, and not the root. Minarchists support a monopolistic legal system, and so can only qualify as branch-strikers. Striking the root means being an anarchist.
Rothbard writes: "Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism."
Really? I'd say Molinari is far more important to libertarianism than Paine, because Molinari identified the root problem. Since minarchism is branch-striking, it is strategically bankrupt; addressing the root problem is the most important step in bringing about a libertarian society.
On the issue of visceral vs cerebral libertarianism: Obviously there's something right about both positions. A libertarian shouldn't rely solely on gut instinct and emotions; nor should they rely solely on cost-benefit calculations. So we don't have to choose between emotional and analytical arguments (which are not the same as moral and utilitarian arguments); we can use both.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
Sage: On the issue of visceral vs cerebral libertarianism: Obviously there's something right about both positions. A libertarian shouldn't rely solely on gut instinct and emotions; nor should they rely solely on cost-benefit calculations. So we don't have to choose between emotional and analytical arguments (which are not the same as moral and utilitarian arguments); we can use both.
That is not what Rothbard says. The state is to be hated not because our gut tells us so. The state should be opposed because it is immoral and stands in defiance of a rights based order. But once an individual has established that the (existing) state is immoral (or at least inefficient for utilitarians) then a radical libertarian can not help himself but to deeply hate it, for a radical libertarian is someone who has a deeply ingrained regard for justice (or efficiency for utilitarians) and can not stand injustice.
Obviously we can see there must be a great divide between those who identify injustice and hate the fact that it forms the basis of the established order, and those who identify injustice (or inefficiency) but stay more lukewarm about it. The latter will proceed to in action and in style of writing accept the status quo to a much greater degree than the former thus they are much less likely to influence changes in the status quo for the better. (And also we can see that it is far more easier for a natural rights libertarian to be a radical, than for a utilitarian.)
In short Radicalism is not about why you oppose the status quo (instinct vs analysis). Radicalism is about to what extent are you up in arms against the status quo (absolutely bloody hate it vs oppose it merely as a form of mental exercise).
Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:The best libertarian emotional arguments usually have to do with pleas for people to reclaim there sense of pride and dignity.
I think the best one is "So if I oppose X(welfare,etc) I should be shot?"
Håkan Kindström Arnoldson:You can also use emotional arguments very effectively to debunk animal rights people, especially when they oppose hunting of predatory animals.
Hunting wolves creates problems. Pragmatic evidence: when wolves were reintroduced to yellowstone. Hunting deer doesn't make these problems. The wolf population is derived from the deer population, and they are the only thing that keeps the deer from overeating and then dying of starvation.
Was Stalin a minarchist?
what a loaded question.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
The answer is no.
Defense and law are still services, so even though it might be harder for some to see how they would work in a free-market because of lack of experience I still don't see how agreeing that the state should be responsible for them doesn't lead down a slippery slope towards advocating the state's involvement in other services. How does one deal with such a logical consistency when debating policy with someone who does believe in government run healthcare, government run schools, or even government run grocery stores with a statist. How do you argue that the state should provide an important service; such as law and order, but not provide an important service such as healthcare?
Minarchism does leave a logical gap which can allow Stalinism to creep in slowly but surely. I can't think of any classical liberal movement or party that didn't eventually succumb to statism, i.e. the Lib Dems in the UK, due to the logical inconsistencies of classical liberalism/minarchism.
Stalin didn't care about healthcare. He cared about control. You're assuming that his motives were the same as modern progressives. I don't think they were.
Additionally, slippery slope arguments and false continuum and dichotomy arguments are supposed to be logical fallacies.
CrazyCoot:Minarchism does leave a logical gap which can allow Stalinism to creep in slowly but surely. I can't think of any classical liberal movement or party that didn't eventually succumb to statism, i.e. the Lib Dems in the UK, due to the logical inconsistencies of classical liberalism/minarchism.
How do inconsistencies make them apologists for Stalin?
Why am I responding to a troll thread? I always fall for this.
CrazyCoot:Point is how can one really be an effective proponent of the free market while accepting that the government ought to take care of some services.
Are you implying that you yourself are a more effective (not more consistent, but more effective) proponent of the free market than F.A. Hayek was?
CrazyCoot:Are Minarchists closet apologists for Stalin?
A Stalinist might also ask, "Are unionists closet apologists for Rothbard? How can one really be an effective proponent of central planning while accepting that the market ought to take care of some services?"
There is a difference between principle and Manichaeanism.
Yes, because in this case I'd argue that consistency and efficiency are mutually dependent upon one another. If someone like Hayek agrees that government should take care of certain services then he leaves himself open to the argument of ' ah ha, so you believe that there is are arguments for the government running things so how are you going to argue against the government running other services as well?' Still haven't heard a good argument of how allowing for the validity of government, and to be more specific government handling certain services, doesn't leave the door open for the expansion of statism. In this case the issue does seem to be black and white; if it's in government's nature to expand then giving an inch will result in the opposition taking a mile, then another mile, and then another mile until eventually there is the possibility that the justifiable role for the state might possibly expand to something similar to that in Stalinist Russia.
A Stalinist could argue that, and from his perspective he would have a point. I could look at unionists and few them as closet Stalinists, and I would have a point from my perspective.
They plan on making a quick buck.
CrazyCoot:If someone like Hayek agrees that government should take care of certain services then he leaves himself open to the argument of ' ah ha, so you believe that there is are arguments for the government running things so how are you going to argue against the government running other services as well?'
"You believe government should do some specific things. Therefore, you should believe government should do other specific things." is an invalid syllogism, and thus a weak "argument" to say the least. So I don't think Hayek would mind being left open to it.
CrazyCoot:Still haven't heard a good argument of how allowing for the validity of government, and to be more specific government handling certain services, doesn't leave the door open for the expansion of statism.
I haven't heard a good (or any) argument from you that the reverse is the case.
CrazyCoot:In this case the issue does seem to be black and white; if it's in government's nature to expand then giving an inch will result in the opposition taking a mile, then another mile, and then another mile until eventually there is the possibility that the justifiable role for the state might possibly expand to something similar to that in Stalinist Russia.
That's a big presupposition on your part. Someone else might just as blithely make an opposite presupposition: that any completely anarchist state of affairs will in practice only be temporary, and will be ripe for a totalitarian takeover, and that only under at least a night watchman state can a market economy survive for any significant length of time.
I'm not at all saying that I believe that that is the case. I'm just saying that you have in no way proven the premise for your sweeping (and inflammatory) conclusion.
CrazyCoot:A Stalinist could argue that, and from his perspective he would have a point. I could look at unionists and few them as closet Stalinists, and I would have a point from my perspective.
What's the point in making a point that can only be thought valid from your own perspective, and from the perspective of people who agree with you anyway?
I am not sure since I am not a minarchist but I haven't heard a any even half-decent agument from them yet.
A few of my minarchist friends used an argument where they invented a third category of violence out of the blue and said this is special and the state must do this. The third category was self-defence that happens when the aggression is no longer in progress. Claiming back stolen property and the likles is apperently not aggression or defence but something completley different ... yeah right.
I don't really have that much of a problem with having a final arbitrator in society that is guaranteed to always be libertarian. It is just of course that minarchism is a utopia and it will never work. They seem incapabale of understanding the nature of government and power and somehow think they can rule better then everybody else. Who rules is not really the issue we need to worry ourselves with cause it makes no difference..
VanDoodah: Albert Jay Nock and H.L. Mencken were both anarchists.
That's what I thought. But nay, although he did like to refer to himself as a philosophical anarchist. It's pretty clear reading Chapter 2, of Our Enemy the State - that he is for government, just not the State. I'm not going to quote it, because I don't want to. He was so radical people mistake him for an anarchist and that's good enough with me. His was one of the first Liberty books I bought too and it radicalized me to a big extent.
Marko: Sage: On the issue of visceral vs cerebral libertarianism: Obviously there's something right about both positions. A libertarian shouldn't rely solely on gut instinct and emotions; nor should they rely solely on cost-benefit calculations. So we don't have to choose between emotional and analytical arguments (which are not the same as moral and utilitarian arguments); we can use both. That is not what Rothbard says. The state is to be hated not because our gut tells us so. The state should be opposed because it is immoral and stands in defiance of a rights based order. But once an individual has established that the (existing) state is immoral (or at least inefficient for utilitarians) then a radical libertarian can not help himself but to deeply hate it, for a radical libertarian is someone who has a deeply ingrained regard for justice (or efficiency for utilitarians) and can not stand injustice. Obviously we can see there must be a great divide between those who identify injustice and hate the fact that it forms the basis of the established order, and those who identify injustice (or inefficiency) but stay more lukewarm about it. The latter will proceed to in action and in style of writing accept the status quo to a much greater degree than the former thus they are much less likely to influence changes in the status quo for the better. (And also we can see that it is far more easier for a natural rights libertarian to be a radical, than for a utilitarian.) In short Radicalism is not about why you oppose the status quo (instinct vs analysis). Radicalism is about to what extent are you up in arms against the status quo (absolutely bloody hate it vs oppose it merely as a form of mental exercise).
Well said indeed.
Marko:Obviously we can see there must be a great divide between those who identify injustice and hate the fact that it forms the basis of the established order, and those who identify injustice (or inefficiency) but stay more lukewarm about it.
So you think Rothbard is criticizing D. Friedman for not taking efficiency seriously enough? If so, I disagree.
Rothbard writes:
In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.
Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.
It seems to me the best way to interpret Rothbard's criticism of Friedman is visceral/emotional vs cerebral/analytical. Rothbard is criticizing Friedman for not having an emotional opposition to the State. This also seems to be how Friedman saw the issue:
Rothbard has a piece, webbed somewhere, in which he criticizes me for not hating the state. In his terms, he was correct. In my view, the fundamental conflict is not between bad men and good men but between mistaken beliefs and correct beliefs.
So I'm inclined to disagree with your interpretation.
Marko: (And also we can see that it is far more easier for a natural rights libertarian to be a radical, than for a utilitarian.) In short Radicalism is not about why you oppose the status quo (instinct vs analysis). Radicalism is about to what extent are you up in arms against the status quo (absolutely bloody hate it vs oppose it merely as a form of mental exercise).
(And also we can see that it is far more easier for a natural rights libertarian to be a radical, than for a utilitarian.)
I would contend it is the consistent natural rights libertarian who would oppose the state as a mental exercise, as opposed to hating it. For the consistent natural rights libertarian, right or wrong is not about love and hate (that would be "emotivist yaying and booing" as G.A. Plauche says). For the consistent natural rights libertarian, right or wrong is a scientific question, the answer of which is to be deduced logically from certain premises. If the consistent natural rights libertarian were confronted with some master logician, and was was shown using formal logic, that the state was right, in spite of his bloody hate for it, he would be impelled as a scientist to drop his libertarian stance. But most natural rights libertarians are probably not that consistent; they would never accept such a conclusion, and would rationalize away any inferences that led to it. I think this is because the hate for state is actually the deeper cause of their libertarianism, and natural rights philosophizing is an intellectual super-structure erected around it and for the sake of it.
J. Grayson Lilburne:For the consistent natural rights libertarian, right or wrong is a scientific question, the answer of which is to be deduced logically from certain premises. If the consistent natural rights libertarian were confronted with some master logician, and was was shown using formal logic, that the state was right, in spite of his bloody hate for it, he would be impelled as a scientist to drop his libertarian stance. But most natural rights libertarians are probably not that consistent; they would never accept such a conclusion, and would rationalize away any inferences that led to it. I think this is because the hate for state is actually the deeper cause of their libertarianism, and natural rights philosophizing is an intellectual super-structure erected around it and for the sake of it.
Well, if you come across a logical proof that contradicts all of your intuitions, that's a very good reason to be skeptical. That's how reflective equilibration works.
Moreover, how is this any different for a consequentialist? If they were shown that Keynesian economics was right, wouldn't they likewise have to abandon libertarianism, but "would never accept such a conclusion"?
Sage: Moreover, how is this any different for a consequentialist? If they were shown that Keynesian economics was right, wouldn't they likewise have to abandon libertarianism, but "would never accept such a conclusion"?
I don't personally think Keynesian economics was wrong in the sense that spending can probably end recessions and/or depressions. It's been done. The problem with Keynesian economics is that it seems to ignore the consequences for doing so. In particular, the consequences for doing so while the country is running a massive cyclical and structural deficit. As if spending all that money wouldn't have any negative side effects at all. The basic economic rule Keynesian economics seems to overlook is the rule that "you can't do just one thing." Now, I'm no expert on Keynes but I can't imagine that he would've advised us to take the course we did and are continuing to take under past and current conditions. I think that any tool has to come with a set of caveats and because Keynes' didn't, they've been used inappropriately by people who don't seem to understand that everything has consequences.
I don't think one has to abandon libertarianism just because one thinks Keynes was right under certain circumstances. Not only that but I think rigidly adhering to a certain set of beliefs in the face of contradictory facts and information is not...reasonable.
J. Grayson Lilburne:But most natural rights libertarians are probably not that consistent; they would never accept such a conclusion, and would rationalize away any inferences that led to it. I think this is because the hate for state is actually the deeper cause of their libertarianism, and natural rights philosophizing is an intellectual super-structure erected around it and for the sake of it.
My impression too. Few people are that intellectually honest.