I think this period in history is a perfect opportunity to spread the ideas of the Austrian School. I would like to make this thread one to invite members to share ideas on how best to seize this opportunity and educate the public about the dangers of allowing government to manipulate the economy.
I have recently gone to OfficeMax and had made a rubber stamp that reads "What has government done to our money?" and "http://mises.org" underneath. I have been stamping FRNs with this stamp. It is a tactic used by many, many groups including the Free State Project, local Libertarian Parties, gay activists and people who support the decriminalization of marijuana. The advantage of this sort of advertising is that because money has value (with or without a stamp) people are not likely to throw it away even if they disagree with the message. Money also reaches people of all demographic groups.
So, what are your ideas? What have you done? What do you think people should be doing more of (or, less of)?. What works? What doesn't? Are there things we Austrians can learn from other groups?
Что делать?
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
What do gays stamp on their FRNs?
liberty student: What do gays stamp on their FRNs?
I found a website by someone who collects stamped bills. Some gay people stamp it with the words GAY MONEY. Here is the site:
http://www.cruelty.com/money/
Well I think on the intellectual scale we should develop a philosophy based on Rothbard's works. We should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't evolve into a closed system like objectivism. My first arguement for us developing "Rothbardianism"; hell if a fourth rate philosoper like Marx can philosopy named after him, why not a man of Murray's intellect?
It seems to me that Agorism is derived from Rothabrds works and many agorists, like Murray, subscribe to natural law, virtue ethics, and rothbards reflectionist approach to economics. All of which Mises did not hold. I think what was lacking from Rothbards works was a fully flshed out theory of class and I believe Konkin and Long have done much to advance one from his works and others. So i think that Rothbardianism may already loosely exist. I myself consider my beliefs extreme Rothbardian.
But then again, it might NEVER exist, and for good a reason that I am quite proud of... getting libertarians to herd together is like trying to herd cats. Its just not in our nature
The state is a disease and Liberty is the both the victim and the only means to a lasting cure.
to the OP:
what if you used this whole URL?: http://mises.org/money.asp to link them directly to Rothbards piece?
I very much like your idea. I might have to steal it and add strike-the-root.com and a few others to a stamp collection :-P
Reflectionist? Do you mean epistemologically?
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Nick. B: Well I think on the intellectual scale we should develop a philosophy based on Rothbard's works. We should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't evolve into a closed system like objectivism. My first arguement for us developing "Rothbardianism"; hell if a fourth rate philosoper like Marx can philosopy named after him, why not a man of Murray's intellect?
I've always thought of Rothbard as a less confused, 20th century, less charismatic, Anti-Marx.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Seasteading.
If austrian economics is correct a seasteading community based on it should eventually out compete other nations for drawing smart people. I envision a seasteading university that starts attracting more and more bright minds from around the globe who then leave to start businesses. these businesses should out-compete others.
this should be a self-sustaining process unless the universalists/collectivists see what we are doing and declare us terrorists.
ThorsMitersaw: to the OP: what if you used this whole URL?: http://mises.org/money.asp to link them directly to Rothbards piece? I very much like your idea. I might have to steal it and add strike-the-root.com and a few others to a stamp collection :-P
Feel free to steal it. I hereby place that idea into the public domain :) It isn't really mine originally. Others at the Free State Project had a stamp long before I had one made. It could give the whole URL but I guess my thinking was that the question had a double meaning. If people wanted to know what happened to thier money they could find out what was going on right now through the main page and if they wanted to read the famous Rothbard work they could do that as well.
Jon Irenicus: Reflectionist? Do you mean epistemologically?
I'm pretty sure he does. Rothbard does take a reflectionist position, if I recall correctly, although I think Long is correct in instead transcending the reflectionist-impositionist dichotomy.
Market anarchist, Linux geek, aspiring Perl hacker, and student of the neo-Aristotelians, the classical individualist anarchists, and the Austrian school.
nazgulnarsil: Seasteading. If austrian economics is correct a seasteading community based on it should eventually out compete other nations for drawing smart people. I envision a seasteading university that starts attracting more and more bright minds from around the globe who then leave to start businesses. these businesses should out-compete others. this should be a self-sustaining process unless the universalists/collectivists see what we are doing and declare us terrorists.
Artificial island or cruise ship? They are building artificial islands in the Middle East (UAE?) With enough cash we could hire those contracters when they get done perhaps. Cruise ships would take less money up front but more money long term.
nazgulnarsil:this should be a self-sustaining process unless the universalists/collectivists see what we are doing and declare us terrorists.
Wouldn't take long I guess :-)
Yet, a good idea worth putting some thought into.
In the begining there was nothing, and it exploded.
Terry Pratchett (on the big bang theory)
ThorsMitersaw: It seems to me that Agorism is derived from Rothabrds works and many agorists, like Murray, subscribe to natural law, virtue ethics, and rothbards reflectionist approach to economics. All of which Mises did not hold. I think what was lacking from Rothbards works was a fully flshed out theory of class and I believe Konkin and Long have done much to advance one from his works and others. So i think that Rothbardianism may already loosely exist. I myself consider my beliefs extreme Rothbardian. But then again, it might NEVER exist, and for good a reason that I am quite proud of... getting libertarians to herd together is like trying to herd cats. Its just not in our nature
We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why. And also it would get some of these academics off their obsession over Marxism. The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.
Solid_Choke: Nick. B: Well I think on the intellectual scale we should develop a philosophy based on Rothbard's works. We should do everything in our power to make sure it doesn't evolve into a closed system like objectivism. My first arguement for us developing "Rothbardianism"; hell if a fourth rate philosoper like Marx can philosopy named after him, why not a man of Murray's intellect? I've always thought of Rothbard as a less confused, 20th century, less charismatic, Anti-Marx.
Exactly, we need an anti-marx. We need a powerful idealolagy for the intelluctauls to be happy. So they'll be happy to give up their precious Marxism in the name of a new god to worship. A new far reaching Libertarian idealogical philsophy.
Nick. B: We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why. And also it would get some of these academics off their obsession over Marxism. The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.
As I recall, the obsession over Marxism began as a reaction to the Cold War. There is a certain type of intellectual who reacts against their own society for the sake of reacting against their own society. Perhaps we simply need to emphasize just how against our current paradigm anarco-capitalism really is. Then we might attract the type of intellectual who was once starry-eyed over Marx.
Nick. B:We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why.
Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.
This brings me onto the second part of your post.
Nick. B:The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence.
No we don't need sheep, we need a small group of libertarian intellectuals with a radical message to focus on a few key areas in order to promote secession. We also need entrepreneurs willing to put the words of these intellectuals into practise, this means forming PDAs and free banks instead of merely talking about it.
Sheep don't do anything, the masses never have and never will. Relying on them is silly. The libertarian movement needs to purge various factions, continue to purify and extend it's theories and to combine them. Libertarians spend far too much time attacking each other to do anything to challenge the state.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Sheep don't do anything, the masses never have and never will. Relying on them is silly. The libertarian movement needs to purge various factions, continue to purify and extend it's theories and to combine them. Libertarians spend far too much time attacking each other to do anything to challenge the state. We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.
Libertarian is ugly.
Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.
Mises was indeed the better economist, and I think also philosopher. And so with Hayek. And so with Hoppe. And so with Reisman. Rothbard, on the other hand, was a system-builder. He integrated Aristotelian views on ethics and epistemology with Misesian economics, which is a great project. It needs to be taken forward though and given a more powerful defence, which I think Long and Plauche have begun doing in the realm of epistemology. I agree by the way on the labels "libertarian" (I hate it) &c. They are in need of replacement.
GilesStratton: Nick. B:We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why. Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him. This brings me onto the second part of your post. Nick. B:The fact is we're gonna need a couple sheep if we want political influence. No we don't need sheep, we need a small group of libertarian intellectuals with a radical message to focus on a few key areas in order to promote secession. We also need entrepreneurs willing to put the words of these intellectuals into practise, this means forming PDAs and free banks instead of merely talking about it. Sheep don't do anything, the masses never have and never will. Relying on them is silly. The libertarian movement needs to purge various factions, continue to purify and extend it's theories and to combine them. Libertarians spend far too much time attacking each other to do anything to challenge the state. We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist. Libertarian is ugly. Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.
I agree that we don't need to convert all the "sheep", which is a mathematical impossibility, anyway. We need to concentrate on converting a few of them, & try to create more small groups of intellectuals, so that in the grand scheme, we do not have a centralized tier of "elites", but rather co-operating & competing groups of intellectuals that both represent a movement, but by no means monopolize a voice over it.I also agree on the new label; the utilization of a new, existing label, or the creation of an entirely new one, might help further the change in tactics that will be required (as well as possibly reduce infighting), so as the reduce the probability of people reverting to the same old ways (and subsequently, falling to the will of the elites) due to the oncoming series of changes (collapse of USA economy, the arrival of newer superpowers "policing" the world, further steps towards a global government, etc.).
"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict
GilesStratton: Nick. B:We need a Rothbard "Rothbardianism". It's more for the intellectuals; for some reason they flock to things with isms, anity, or ology, don't ask me why. Or alternatively we need to move forward. Rothbard was wonderful don't get me wrong, he's done more for the libertarian movement than anybody else, he practically founded the modern libertarian movement. Granted, I think Mises was a better economist, but I don't really know since I've not read HA, or even a lot by either of them. In any case despite the contributions made by Rothbard, which were numerous, we need to build on that and move forward, much as Hoppe has done. Hoppe is moving libertarianism forward from Rothbard. With D:TGTF, he brilliantly extends praxeology to anaylse the state and compare democracy and monarchy, and is correct where Rothbard was wrong in terms of democracy as a step up from monarchy. I've still yet to read The Ethics and Economics of Private Property, but from what I understand Rothbard thought very highly of Hoppe's attempt to extend praxeology into the field of ethics. In any case, all I am saying is that it isn't necessary to make a cult out of him.
Can we at least agree to use Rothbard's system as the skeletal frame for this hypothetical ism?
GilesStratton: We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist. Libertarian is ugly. Whereas the other two are only ever going to get negative emotional reactions. Anarchism is associated with leftist thugs who do nothing other than throw bricks and bombs throught windows, at best people think of angsty teenagers who listen to punk when they hear the word. Capitalism apparently represents the status quo. The truth is libertarians don't want to abolish the government, we want to establish competing providers of defence, which thankfully is far more palatable.
We also need to drop the words libertarian, anarchist and capitalist.
How about Voluntaryist?
Jon Irenicus: Mises was indeed the better economist, and I think also philosopher. And so with Hayek. And so with Hoppe. And so with Reisman. Rothbard, on the other hand, was a system-builder. He integrated Aristotelian views on ethics and epistemology with Misesian economics, which is a great project. It needs to be taken forward though and given a more powerful defence, which I think Long and Plauche have begun doing in the realm of epistemology. I agree by the way on the labels "libertarian" (I hate it) &c. They are in need of replacement.
Well I've still to read a lot of Mises. I intend to getting around to Human Action sooner or later. Although from what I understand Rothbard's improved the Austrian theory of monopoly, Rothbard was also far better at putting his arguments more clearly than Mises. Nonetheless from what I know Mises was the better economist and philosophy (not read any of his works on epistemology mind).
As for Hayek, as far as I know his major contribution to Austrian theory was building on Mises business cycle theory so as to incorperate the theory of capital structure. I'm not sure if that's correct though. I've only really read Individualism and Economic Order by Hayek, as well as some articles on here so I can't say I know much about him. Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?
Hoppe is wonderful and I'm looking forward to reading The Ethics and Economics of Private Property and A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism. D:TGTF is an absolutely brilliant book and by far my favourite piece of libertarian literature, I also need to reread his Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which I read a while ago and didn't understand completely but nonetheless found very informative. I'm also very fond of his writing style. In regards to his epistemology, as I understand he is a Kantian like Mises, how do you view that in regard to Rothbard's attempt to integrate Aristotlean views on ethics and epistemology that you mentioned?
As for Reisman, I know very little about him, his work on exploitation seems very interesting so I think I'll read that soon. I have to say he is extremely obnoxious though, which whilst amusing at time grows old.
Nitroadict:I agree that we don't need to convert all the "sheep", which is a mathematical impossibility, anyway. We need to concentrate on converting a few of them, & try to create more small groups of intellectuals, so that in the grand scheme, we do not have a centralized tier of "elites", but rather co-operating & competing groups of intellectuals that both represent a movement, but by no means monopolize a voice over it.I also agree on the new label; the utilization of a new, existing label, or the creation of an entirely new one, might help further the change in tactics that will be required (as well as possibly reduce infighting), so as the reduce the probability of people reverting to the same old ways (and subsequently, falling to the will of the elites) due to the oncoming series of changes (collapse of USA economy, the arrival of newer superpowers "policing" the world, further steps towards a global government, etc.).
I think libertarianisms biggest problem is that it has always been dominated by those it has chosen to form alliances with and has really failed to distinguish itself. Most people see libertarians as socially liberal and leftist and fiscally conservative, most of its mainstream proponents say just that. They claim that it is the best of Republicans and the best of the Democrats, which is simply not true. Libertarianism rightly understood is radically different from anything else out there. Most people aren't even aware that libertarianism actually entails anarchism.
In this I think that the adoption of a new lable and new tactics would do wonders. Unfortunately libertarians have no natural allies, there may be some groups that will be more prone to libertarian ideas than others but this doesn't mean they can be trusted to be our allies. It merely means we need to focus on converting them whilst being wary of being coopted by them.Most of all we need the stay the away from the LP and anything associated with mainstream libertarianism. We are far more radical than anything else out there. I've always been in favour of Ron Paul, but I think it was luck, and the political process will only ever corrupt the movement.
I definately agree with what you said in terms of US economy collapsing, it would be greatly helpful for libertarians to distance themself from the "free markets" of the Republicans etc. The great depression helped the spread of Austrian ideas, unfortunately the Keynesian revolution made all the progress disappear, but I don't see there being another one of those.
I like what you said about small groups of intellectuals. I think there needs to be an emphasis on radicalism, ultimately radical ideas will create an emotional response that moderate ideas just won't get, combined with the dying of the US economy I think it could advance the movement. I think small groups will also have the advantage of being difficult to co-opt and relatively focused. Especially if the small groups choose to focus on specific geographical areas leading to secession, since there wouldn't be the need for as great a number of people to participate as there would in anything national and these groups would focus on areas that agree with them in terms of culture.
Anyway, I'm sure I missed a lot out and this was a rather incoherent post, so, sorry.
GilesStratton:I think libertarianisms biggest problem is that it has always been dominated by those it has chosen to form alliances with and has really failed to distinguish itself. Most people see libertarians as socially liberal and leftist and fiscally conservative, most of its mainstream proponents say just that. They claim that it is the best of Republicans and the best of the Democrats, which is simply not true. Libertarianism rightly understood is radically different from anything else out there. Most people aren't even aware that libertarianism actually entails anarchism.
I think this is (depending on how we use it) potentially a blessing. One of the most effective tools in the libertarian toolbox is the World's Smallest Political Quiz. You can criticize its accuracy if you like but the World's Smallest Political Quiz is an excellent recruitment tool in my experience. Once people realize they fall somewhere within the libertarian quadrant, in my experience, they tend to gradually drift northward within that quadrant as they start interacting with other libertarians and reading libertarian books. There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself as a libertarian if you are an an-cap. If you are an an-cap you are a far-north libertarian according to the Advocates for Self Government. It is a tool that has brought many, many, many libertarians into the libertarian movement.
Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?
There are samples taken from it on the Mises website. It's generally very accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by scientism and the mentality that inheres in it. Apparently Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty (I think that's the title) is his superior work, whereas the Constitution of Liberty is manifestly inferior. As for Hoppe, he is a Kantian but many of his arguments stand regardless as far as methodology goes. I think the Kantian framework is misleading and makes Austrianism sound too idealist (in the ontological/epistemological sense.) If you read Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and praxeology you should get an idea of what I mean.
Jon Irenicus: Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I've read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like? There are samples taken from it on the Mises website. It's generally very accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by scientism and the mentality that inheres in it. Apparently Hayek's Law, Legislation and Liberty (I think that's the title) is his superior work, whereas the Constitution of Liberty is manifestly inferior. As for Hoppe, he is a Kantian but many of his arguments stand regardless as far as methodology goes. I think the Kantian framework is misleading and makes Austrianism sound too idealist (in the ontological/epistemological sense.) If you read Plauche's paper on Aristotelianism and praxeology you should get an idea of what I mean.
Ok thanks for the advice.
wombatron: Jon Irenicus: Reflectionist? Do you mean epistemologically? I'm pretty sure he does. Rothbard does take a reflectionist position, if I recall correctly, although I think Long is correct in instead transcending the reflectionist-impositionist dichotomy.
can you tell me more?
ThorsMitersaw:can you tell me more?
Long goes into detail in Chapter 8 of Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action. To summarize, logic is not something that we constrain on the world (impositionism), or that the world constrains on us (reflectionism), because to think of logic as a constraint is to imply that one could imagine either an illogical world or illogical thought, both of which are impossible. Logic simply is.