Who do people consider to be real life manifestations or exemplars of Austrian or libertarian ideals? I don't mean theorists or thinkers, more doers.
Also, what groups of people in history are closest to being societies which conform to libertarian or Austrian ideals?
Walter Block examines several here: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf
He's planning a follow-up I understand. Personally, I consider illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal. They live and work where they want, regardless of what the government says is okay.
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
Lysander Spooner is a historical example of both a theorist and a doer. His courageous fight against the US Postal Service is one such example.
Henry Hazlitt.
They're probably not perfect, but for a fairly famous movement historically, how about Cobden, Bright and the Anti-Corn law league. I actually even think Gandhi could be considered one in the practices and tactics he used to oppose the British State, if one ignores his confused socio-economic views (I think it is a little unfair to caricature him as just a typical socialist, he was definitely not in favour of the from of central planning espoused by Nehru).
"When the King is far the people are happy." Chinese proverb
For Alexander Zinoviev and the free market there is a shared delight:
"Where there are problems there is life."
Walter Block examines several here: http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf He's planning a follow-up I understand. Personally, I consider illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal. They live and work where they want, regardless of what the government says is okay.
Ditto that. I hope he includes so-called "illegal immigrants" in his next one.
Lew Rockwell. Doug Casey. Jim Rogers. Peter Schiff.
@Aquila, he asked for suggestions through the Mises Scholars list a while back. I just recently suggested it to him though. Not sure if he liked the idea.
Don't forget Peter's father, Irwin. He was willing to go to jail for his principles.
Also authored the wonderful How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't.
Personally, I consider illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal. They live and work where they want, regardless of what the government says is okay.
I don't know if I'd personally go that far. I have infinite pride in being a citizen of the United States. I can see what you mean in general though.
Where did you find that quite Brian? I googled it and couldn't find a source. I am surprised Paul said that, as I understand he is something of an immigration restrictionist.
I have infinite pride in being a citizen of the United States.
Why?
Aquilla
I see you are a huge supporter of any and all immigration. I see a lot of people espousing this belief. however rarely do I see people acknowledge that this is not possible without dismantling the welfare state. or do you believe it is ok for them to use all the recourses of a "citizen" who pays 1/2 their labor in taxes
BTW - i may not be overly proud of being a US citizen, but I am dam sure glad I was lucky enough to be born here.
Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.
We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!
@Aquila, I said that right after the OP above. Not sure why he put Ron Paul above it. I'm not Ron Paul. ^_^.
Aquilla I see you are a huge supporter of any and all immigration. I see a lot of people espousing this belief. however rarely do I see people acknowledge that this is not possible without dismantling the welfare state. or do you believe it is ok for them to use all the recourses of a "citizen" who pays 1/2 their labor in taxes
Point of information: I do not support any and all immigration. I merely do not support the use of force against individuals on the grounds that they've crossed a border without licking the appropriate bureaucrats boots. For instance, I do not support the immigration of individuals desirous of leeching off of the welfare state. This, however, is not an argument against immigration, it is an argument against welfare, which should be abolished, root and branch.
See Walter Block, A Libertarian Case for Free Immigration, pages 13-17 for a complete rebuttal of the "We can't have free immigration while welfare, min. wages, etc. are in place" argument.
Well for what it's worth, I wish you were. At least in regards to the immigration issue.
The URL tags didn't work two posts up. I meant to link to the article:
https://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf
Zerubbabel: I thought libertarianism had embraced a sort-of ideologylessness. Where do heroes fit in? Heroes are romanticized exemplars of ideals.
Not really, many forms (the vast majority?) of libertarianism is Enlightenmentesque in its idealogy. Max Stirner is certainly heterodox to most libertarian thought. Nice pic though, I haven't seen that one yet. As far as what "true libertarinaism" is, the word can be used in a plethora of often contradictory ways. The political use of the term was first used to describe left wing anarchists.
EDIT
@Aquila:
Sorry about that. I was going to type something about Ron Paul above the quotation and then decided not to, but I forgot to delete it. The quotation I used was from someone earlier in this thread.
I don't think I could explain every reason within this post, but basically for the freedom it represented when our Founding Fathers drafted the Constitution. I put myself between the conservative and libertarian spectrum. I hold a lot of the anarcho-capitalist beliefs that I read about on this website, but I also believe a limited government is important as well. I definitely wouldn't say I'm an anarchist. In essence, I love that the United States started with the transcendence of a few men's dreams into action and formed the greatest country in the world.
Mises and Hoppe.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
If Joe the Plumber claims to be a libertarian and yet is licensed by the state and therefore charges higher fees for his licit status; he is not a true libertarian and shouldn't be included on the list of libertarian heroes.
He is just participating in the unfree society out of self-defense. By this type of reasoning, any true libertarian would have to curl up in a fetal position and die since states claim ownership of 100% of the Earth's landmass. The price of dealing with regulation is passed on to the consumer. Regulations serve as a barrier to entry to smaller competitors, so larger companies can not be bothered to deal with the regulation as long as they gain from the margin of being insulated from competition. They will also lobby for such things as tariffs on foreign goods, like why most American sodas have HFCS but would have sugar if trade barriers were removed. Again, the price is just passed onto the consumer.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
There is a high correlation with egoism and libertarianism, however libertarianism =/= egoism. There are, in fact, strains of egoistic communism (including Stirnerites) for example/
I forgot to mention someone important.
Jeffrey Tucker has had the most profound effect on my intellectual development of anyone associated with LvMI not named Ron Paul. As time progresses, I am less interested in political, legal or economic theory, and much more concerned with applying the ideas of liberty to living well and thriving in the marketplace. His enthusiasm and support, his thoughtfulness and prudence has helped me imagine a standard for the type of Austro-Libertarian I want to be.
While he has not perhaps advanced science as far as Mises or Hoppe have, he has certainly helped significantly advance society through entrepreneurship and pedagogy, two activities I value above most others.
If you want to observe someone who is breathlessly enthusiastic about what he does, believes in the rightness of both the work and how he should pursue it, while providing leadership without the slightest hint of ego or paternalism, then Jeffrey Tucker is your man.
Jeffrey Tucker is defenitely up there on the list of heroes. I couldn't believe the amount of free material he made availabe when I first discovered this website. Not too mention Jeffrey also writes some of the most intersting articles on this site.
I agree with this one.
I agree that it is more important to be applying the knowledge that you have learned than it is to be ever searching and never applying any knowledge.
"Personally, I consider illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal. They live and work where they want, regardless of what the government says is okay."
Certainly, you mean some particular individual immigrants, as I've never met a person who hasn't broken the law.
"I actually even think Gandhi could be considered one in the practices and tactics he used to oppose the British State, if one ignores his confused socio-economic views (I think it is a little unfair to caricature him as just a typical socialist, he was definitely not in favour of the from of central planning espoused by Nehru)."
Gandhi was rad! Did some epic tax protesting against the British~!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_Satyagraha
"No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." ~ Karl Hess
"look, property is theft, right? Therefore theft is property. Therefore this ship is mine, OK?" ~Zaphod Beeblebrox
I am less interested in political, legal or economic theory, and much more concerned with applying the ideas of liberty to living well and thriving in the marketplace.
This is why I come here - to the LVMI website and the forums.
There are ample resources here at LVMI dispel (my) ignorance.
What to do with that information, to communicate that information in ways that are readily understood and acceptable to others? - To teach, strike the spark, pass the torch, inspire.
Examples inspire.
From here in the peanut gallery I have to say that it has been an inspiration to see young men like LS and Grayson become that kind of example here on the LVMI forums.
They are not the only ones and there will be others - I know that there is much work that goes on behind the scenes, without which none of this would be possible.
Posting as you guys have done - and again, I don't intentionally exclude others that my feeble recall currently omits - are an example of the learning process. Gaining knowledge and then demonstrating ways to communicate knowledge to others. That is an inspiration.
These forums are an asset for which we can be thankful.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
The context was the illegal immigrant as exemplar libertarian. Perhaps not by choice, but the illegal opts out of State control. Joe the Plumber could do likewise. He could opt out of licensing, risk the law and charge his customers less and build his illicit business larger. Yet that doesn't sound like such a great deal to one whom the local building inspector mandates gets the work. The paradigm shift will be difficult because many people have their own little statist/corporate perks that they enjoy.
So I could cooperate with the thug pointing his gun at me or "risk it". The state is still the aggressor in either case. I'm not sure what you mean by everyone getting statist perks. States do accomplish things which would be otherwise legitimate in a free society like building roads or delivering mail, but they accomplish nothing without first initiating aggression (taxation, conquest, etc.) It's like the hostage taker feeding you some apple slices. It seems like you are saying I should choose to starve instead.
Because opting-out is the equivalent of martyrdom among self-interested people, it seems that the only hope is to impose libertarian ideology in unison. Which just doesn't sound very liberal to me. It sounds like the imposition of communism upon a society ... except that this ideology is finally the correct one.
Unison with regards to what? Punishing criminals seems "liberal" to me. Many leftist anarchists seem to feel that a shift in Man's character will allow them to live in prosperity and pleasure without the need to use coercion to defend property (see the Zeitgeist thread for such fairy tales). I'm just talking about the balance of power shifting, for at least some portion of the world, to where statism is abolished and people go on with their lives.
@Angurse, everyone breaks some law every day. And I did qualify illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal.
I think that assertion is fine Skyler. Doesn't the whole thing of people breaking laws every day point to the fact that current laws are irrational? Under libertarian law, we'd say that most people do not break the law every day.
"@Angurse, everyone breaks some law every day. And I did qualify illegal immigrants as partial-exemplars of the libertarian ideal."
I'm don't really understand what that qualifier does, why stop at immigrants? If everyone breaks some law every day, then isn't everyone a "partial-exemplar"?
@Angurse, you could say that, sure. Most people interact and cooperate with others on a voluntary basis. Anarchy is all around us, and what people do most in their lives are anarchistic actions. The illegal immigrant puts himself above the state and it's laws, and takes great risks to live, work, and raise his family wherever he chooses.
Hazlitt, Peter Schiff, Doug Casey, Jim Rogers, and Marc Faber. But, I think this have all been mentioned along with many other Austrians who have also proven to be exceptional as well.
EDIT: Would Nassim Nicholas Taleb be able to be included here as well? How about Richard Daughty?
I know this question wasn't directed at me, but I would love to have a crack at it.
It seems to me that you are attempting a reductio ad absurdum of civil disobedience. Namely, that if we are to praise illegal immigrants for violating immigration law, then why not praise thieves and murderers for violating other laws?
The answer lies with the nature of the law itself. As Bastiat pointed out in The Law, the only just law is that which protects life, liberty, and property. SInce no form of migration does not violate the Non-Aggresion Principle (NAP), using force against migrants of any sort (emigrants or immigrants) is a violation of the NAP.
Let me throw a reductio right back at you:
If following the law is everywhere and always the right thing to do, then was it right for people in 1850's America to follow the Fugitive Slave Act? Was it right for people in NAZI Germany to rat out their neighbor who was hiding Jews in his basement?
Of course not. You are a good person, you know that there is such a thing as bad law, and that resisting bad law--far from being bad itself--is heroic. Morality always trumps the statutes of fallible legislators.
"The illegal immigrant puts himself above the state and it's laws, and takes great risks to live, work, and raise his family wherever he chooses."
Thats true for some, definitely not all. Many also receive food stamps, medical care, housing subsidies, and other forms of welfare. Personally, I think, this use of the term hero (even that of Block) or ideal is completely mistaken (hence its practical incorporation of just about everyone!) and actions as well as motives are key to what makes a hero.