The need for pragmatic policy prescriptions

That is all very well Anenome, but it is idealism. I don't have anything against this picture you're painting but I'm coming at this from more an an economic and pragmatic perspective.

The idea that the private sector can't heal itself if left to it's own devices is a growing consensus and the idea that we need the government to step in and sort it  is out  is growing in popularity. It is a common (mis)conception (here in the UK) that our government has rolled back back public spending ("austerity" policy) and just hoped that the private sector would start to grow by itself and that this "hands off" policy hasn't worked. Many are claiming that we need a "growth" policy which basically means some form of fiscal stimulous aimed at "kick starting" the private sector.

I believe Austrian economics has a lot to say about this even if no kind of anarchist utopian society is imminent.

Fried Egg:

Look, we need somebody to counter the prattling of Paul Krugman whos running commentry on our economic policy is most annoying. He's even coming to the UK next week to try and ram home his message that we shouldn't be trying to balance the books and should spend like crazy to get ourselves out of recession.

Are you talking about something like this?

Fried Egg:

Look, we need somebody to counter the prattling of Paul Krugman whos running commentry on our economic policy is most annoying.

and I'm so confused as to what the organization that runs the website you're posting this on is dedicated to...

 

The idea that the private sector can't heal itself if left to it's own devices is a growing consensus and the idea that we need the government to step in and sort it  is out  is growing in popularity

So is the opposite.

 

Autolykos:

Are you talking about something like this?

I would think he was talking about something more like this.  But then again, we're dealing with a request that's pretty much a non-starter.

 

Fried Egg:

That is all very well Anenome, but it is idealism. I don't have anything against this picture you're painting but I'm coming at this from more an an economic and pragmatic perspective.

Perhaps it is idealist, but should that really mean it is unobtainable? True, such a society does not yet exist, but I'd rather spend my time and energy trying to bring one about than trying to fix this society.

Ultimately, individual-secession is the only answer. You've got to walk away, because what chance do you have of turning things around when the deck is so massively stacked in the opposition's favor as long as the principle of collectivism is literally written into our laws?

It's right out of Atlas Shrugged--if such an individualist society did exist, it would inevitably draw the most productive, freedom-loving people from around the world. And by its example of success, assuming it succeeds, that would be a far better argument to the world than anything that words can achieve in the present political climate or any that could be imagined.

I see no historical precedent for turning around a society in the way that the right and libertarians think would be necessary for the populace to turn towards our ideas. My conclusion is that societies change primarily when the contradictions of the ideas they rest upon finally lead to literally unavoidable consequences.

The housing crash of '08 was one such unavoidable consequence. However, predictably, those most responsible for the policies that created it have successfully argued that their policies were the only thing that made it tolerable and have painted the other side with blame for it. We whom rely on reality to argue will not win that fight, that's playing by their rules.

The next gigantic consequence may well be the crash / default of the US dollar. It will probably happen within our lifetimes at the present rate of debt accumulation (where each household would have to put up some $500k+ to retire current debt and unfunded obligations).

What will be important is to have a viable system in place which can weather than storm, which can serve as an example, and I want to create that place. An oasis of freedom in this planetary desert of tyranny.

Fried Egg:

The idea that the private sector can't heal itself if left to it's own devices is a growing consensus and the idea that we need the government to step in and sort it  is out  is growing in popularity.

See what I mean. Those who've captured the organs of communication and public discussion simply use it to condition the masses into the conclusion they desire. In any republic where the masses will overrules the will of the individual, the most powerful organization in that republic is the one that controls the intellectual climate and discussions. The left long ago realized this and took over the schools and news. That done, how will any counter message have any chance of reaching a popular understanding? I wouldn't bet on it happening in our lifetime. Only, only, a crash can lead to change. And, unfortunately, crashes of some sort are near always used by the left to achieve change they desire.

Fried Egg:

It is a common (mis)conception (here in the UK) that our government has rolled back back public spending ("austerity" policy) and just hoped that the private sector would start to grow by itself and that this "hands off" policy hasn't worked. Many are claiming that we need a "growth" policy which basically means some form of fiscal stimulous aimed at "kick starting" the private sector.

I believe Austrian economics has a lot to say about this even if no kind of anarchist utopian society is imminent.

It does, but it will not be accepted because it's just words.

If we showed them a society predicated on Austrian economics in action, a society which included a constitutional separation of economy and state, then you would have something to say, and it would be little more than, "Look at this new country of Austrian individualists, they have no stimulus, and their economy is kicking our ass."

Anenome:

Perhaps it is idealist, but should that really mean it is unobtainable?

I'm not saying it's unobtainable in the longer term, nor that it shouldn't be amply discussed. But I just think that a commentary on current events now is just as important.

If we showed them a society predicated on Austrian economics in action...

I don't think there is any such thing. Economics strictly speaking is about means and not ends. We cannot infer from economics what kind of society we should have or what value system we should adopt. We may or may not ever get our anarchist utopia but there is always a need for the Austrian economic analysis.

Sure, I misspoke a bit there. You couldn't predicate a society in toto on Austrian economics. But rather, a free market, the goal of Austrian economics, requires protection of invididual rights to achieve, and it's that to which I was referring, if obliquely.

This is precisely the kind of thing I'd really like to see.

I'd like to hear detailed proposition from Austrian economists (or people well read in them) about questions such as: how would you "reduce" the weigh of the State in a given country or how to deal with the unrest that would follow dramatic budget cuts. While I can sympathize with those saying "Abolish this and that and let the market sort it out" I also understand it wouldn't work that way. Very few drug addicts get through their addiction in one neat jump. Our society, at all levels, is addicted to State intervention. It's worse than heroin.

For example Austrians could start by suggesting cures for the EU and, beyond that, for the European Nation-States. I know Hoppe suggested replacing the present XIX century creatures with "hundreds of Lichtenstein and Singapore". It's not much but it's a start. And beyond that how to deal with the huge debts piled up by France, Italy and even Germany, debts that will never be repayed? How to overhaul the present banking system to allow for a smooth transition towards a truly free banking market?

Those are questions I'd like to hear answered and debated. To be completely honest I am a bit too old and disillusioned to hear the thousandth debate about "How would an An-Cap society deal with...?". We need to get there first, then we'll think about it.

Kakugo:

This is precisely the kind of thing I'd really like to see.

I'd like to hear detailed proposition from Austrian economists (or people well read in them) about questions such as: how would you "reduce" the weigh of the State in a given country or how to deal with the unrest that would follow dramatic budget cuts.

That's putting the cart before the horse, in a sense, because we don't even have the power to enact dramatic budget cuts.

The cuts will come when they are forced upon a society when it has made it to the end of the rope and contradictions crash together into real world consequences.

History has shown that, at that point, those with political power, who put those foolish policies in place, will use the crisis to further their agenda, for crises create political will. This then makes the crisis worse, shortening periods between crises of all manner and sort until the society itself fails one way or the other, either from foreign invasion and war such as the case of the Byzantines, or the inability to feed themselves, as with Spain after the Saracens.

The only historical example of a country actually repealing laws and dealing with the fallout was when the newly created United States invented the clipper ships and began monopolizing trade, taking large amounts of business from the far more regulated, lethargic British ships. At first the British wanted to resort to war to protect trade, however, a few bright individuals in Britain convinced them to deregulate their shipping. They did so, opened British trade to the world, free trade at every British port.

The result was disastrous, at first, for the British, American ships now owned most trade in British ports as well. Then the British created their own Abderdeen clipper ships, began competing, while the Americans put in place protectionist laws, and the British kept free trade, resulting in the British regaining their trading strength and building the resulting British Empire.

What worked, in that case, was the example of another nation showing the British another way, and forcing reality on the British by outcompeting them.

As long as all nations in the world keep the playing level roughly equal by all restraining their trade and industry via taxation and regulation, no one particularly hurts.

But create a new state, one unburdened with regulation, founded upon free markets, free trade, and individual rights, and it will take the world by storm.

That's what I'm trying to achieve. It's only become (technologically) possible within the last few decades, which is why no one's seriously tried it, for it was unimagineable until recently, in the same way that the internet was unimaginable to the Victorians.

Kakugo:

While I can sympathize with those saying "Abolish this and that and let the market sort it out" I also understand it wouldn't work that way. Very few drug addicts get through their addiction in one neat jump. Our society, at all levels, is addicted to State intervention. It's worse than heroin.

You're right. The consequences of deregulation would initially make things worse. And worse still, you'd never be able to achieve a pure policy for opposition would prevent it.

To my mind, the only way a libertarian can take in his hand enough political power to reshape a nation is to be on the founding side of a nation, to write the constitution itself. That is my intention.

Kakugo:

For example Austrians could start by suggesting cures for the EU and, beyond that, for the European Nation-States.

We have, they don't listen. The things we would suggest are not politically popular, do not jibe with their Bismarckian ideas of how to run a society. You have politicians who predicate their power on trading promises of favors and security to the masses in exchange for political power.

Kakugo:

I know Hoppe suggested replacing the present XIX century creatures with "hundreds of Lichtenstein and Singapore". It's not much but it's a start. And beyond that how to deal with the huge debts piled up by France, Italy and even Germany, debts that will never be repayed? How to overhaul the present banking system to allow for a smooth transition towards a truly free banking market?

Simple, walk away. Provide a true alternative, a place for investment money to flow into when those sick systems fail.

Chances are we cannot stop the momentum behind the debt in the US and Western Europe. The true answer was not to get in debt in the first place.

But neither are we individually responsible for that debt. The politicians did it against our will. There's one US state that has no state debt, they constitutionally prohibit it. It can be done.

Kakugo:

Those are questions I'd like to hear answered and debated. To be completely honest I am a bit too old and disillusioned to hear the thousandth debate about "How would an An-Cap society deal with...?". We need to get there first, then we'll think about it.

I'm fairly young still, I think the best way I could change the world would be to found this min-cap society so that these debates we have are no longer purely academic but experiments in the real world.

How upsetting it is to have many answers to the world's economic and political problems, to know we do, and have them ignored by those in power because of twisted political incentives.

Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, etc., brought you Austrianism in words, I will translate it into deeds.  A truly free voluntary society, with a truly free market has never existed. I will see it exist.

Sorry for taking so much time to answer but for whatever reasons I have had issues accessing the website. I am even having minor issues right now.

My point is pretty simple and it's based on marketing: unless people know you are there, they won't buy from you.

People, even well educated, mostly ignores the existence of the Austrian School of Economics. Many even ignore the more mainstream Chicago School. When it come to economical politics they are stuck in the mud: not knowing there are alternatives all they have available is the present claptrap and the usually vociferous Leftists. Now, Leftists, whatever they are traditional Socialists, Maoists, Trotzkysts or whatever, stand zero chance of implementing their visions: people accustomed to Western prosperity won't accept a return to Mao's China or North Korean standards of living (or so I hope). But this doesn't stop them from keep hammering their points home. And in these dire times they are making headways: Nea Demokratia will probably win the next Greek elections and Leftists are making huge gains in countries such as France and Italy with their promises of "soak the rich" and "social justice". 

Conspiciously absent in all these debates are the pro-free market, pro-individual freedom types. They aren't being censored, they just are not there. The few are on the Internet preaching to the faithful instead of trying to convert the heathens. They mostly keep to themselves, perhaps afraid Champagne Socialists will insult them with their 1969 rhetoric or discouraged by the fact you cannot win a debate with a Leftist because they are right especially when they are dead wrong.

There's also a fundamental problem with marketing. Pro-Austrian types tend to be a bit too enthusiastic and tell people "Abolish the government and we'll be better off" not realizing most people have been trained to conform and obey and hence will think "This chap's a crackpot" and move on. You have to take small steps, find an opening and work slowly from there. When you cannot use coercion you have to use your brains.

Conservatives have been talking about pragmatic action for ages.  Meanwhile, all we've gotten are a bunch of people we once upon a time had something in common with living on cushy jobs in capital cities and a system that is the same as it ever was or worse.  If those same people had instead pursued a life of honest expression and entrepreneurship, worst case scenario, the ominous cloud over statism would be a little darker.