If Austrian Economics is correct then the state is inefficient, any state activity will lead to a decrease in utility, moreover without the ability to calculate, provision of services by the state will always be inferior to the provision of services by private, voluntarily funded, competing businesses.
If libertarian philosophy is correct the state lacks any legitimacy and the very nature of the state violates the rights of those that live within the territory it claims to own. This occurs through systematic theft and even murder.
I believe both of these beliefs to be justified, nonetheless libertarianism seems to be somewhat ignored. I have two comments regarding this. The first is that I am not of the belief that it is wise to rely on "mass enlightenment" in order to abolish the state. The second is that this is to be expected, since if we are correct then the state, and its historical allies the intellectuals will no doubt go out of their way to dismiss and attempt to refute libertarian theory.
In spite of this, I believe that libertarians tend to be very poor when it comes to expressing themselves, and that there are numerous ways that libertarians could improve the image of libertarianism and their beliefs. Normally I would remark upon the horrible name libertarians have done in labelling themselves, the word libertarian having been stolen from communitarians and "anarcho capitalist" being the two worst words that could possibly go together. However, there has been discussion of this recently so I will not make any further comments.
My first point to make is that the all too often heard libertarian claims about the government being criminals and taxation being theft is unwise. This line is most certainly going to alienate many individuals who seem to view to government in a positive light, and regard the state as entirely indispensable. Moreover this emphasis the fact that libertarians are on the fringe and perhaps even lead to the situation in which libertarianism is associated with conspiracy theories, which once again are often seen in a negative light.
In fact, it seems to me that philosophy is a dead end. The people on these forums tend to be smarter than the average person. Indeed, many individuals on these forums are inclined towards philosophy and find the subject interesting, I would include myself in this group. The average person, however, cares not for philosophy. Especially in regards to the state, I daresay 95% of the population, myself more than likely included, would be willing to steal if it meant not letting their children go hungry. It is this sort of belief that the government is founded upon. Most individuals consider the government to be necessary to acheive the ends they desire. Their ends are usually to get rid of poverty and to bring safety and security. Indeed one will have a difficult time in convincing people that they should opposed taxation if it will come at the cost of the death of the poor due to starvation.
It would appear that using economic reasoning to convince people will be far more effective. Since we do not have to convince them about the ends, only that the means they wish to use to attain these ends will not bring about the results they wish for. Hence the emotional reaction from the statist will not be as pronounced as it would be if one had tried to convince them that the state is "evil", which is essentially meaningless, and perhaps even insulting, to the average person.
Moreover, it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights, moreover it is far more real to most people. My final point is that culture has the potential to be far more effective in bringing statists around to the anarchist point of view than philosophy. For the conservative this means explaining that upon abolishing the state we are likely to see a stronger family structure amongst other results and to the liberal this could take a number of forms such as lower income inequality.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I fully agree. Economic arguments have been far more effective in convincing people for me than ethical arguments.
Another thing that I would like to add is that libertarian philosophy lacks quite a bit of fictional literature. Ayn Rand's writing is distasteful to many because of its melodramatic nature. What libertarians need is fictional literature that appeals to quite a few people and more discretely gets the message across, unlike Rand's works of fiction. I think a great fictional work that I described would be a breakthrough for libertarianism.
Where I come from, the women don't glow, but the men definitely plunder.
revolutionist: I fully agree. Economic arguments have been far more effective in convincing people for me than ethical arguments. Another thing that I would like to add is that libertarian philosophy lacks quite a bit of fictional literature. Ayn Rand's writing is distasteful to many because of its melodramatic nature. What libertarians need is fictional literature that appeals to quite a few people and more discretely gets the message across, unlike Rand's works of fiction. I think a great fictional work that I described would be a breakthrough for libertarianism.
I discovered Rand before I read anything by Robert Heinlein. Looking back I think Heinlein could be even more effective for most people. I think his two best works for this are The Moon is a Harsh Mistress and Time Enough for Love. But all of his works are great although he was not yet libertarian when he wrote some of his early and Posthumous novels.
I am an eklektarchist not an anarchist.
Educational Pamphlet Mises Group
Well, this came up in a topic not long ago, and I disagreed. Don't get me wrong I don't think there is anything wrong with a "libertarian" novel, I just think it's no use aiming for it. The problem is that libertarians don't strike me as the literary type, especially since 99% of libertarians are very interest in sci -fi and the like, which I don't consider to be the makings of great literature.
I think a far more interesting idea would be drawing out libertarian themes in novels that aren't necessarily written. I can think of one example off of the top of my head which would be the way government fiat money and inflation causes decadance and moral decay, as captured in The Great Gatsby (a wonderful book in my opinion), of course Fitzgerald was a leftist so I don't know if there's anything more to say about The Great Gatsby but it was merely an example. I think a libertarian equivelant of Marxist literary analysis would be great.
By the way, Rand is a terrible writer.
I was delighted to read your post. It was exactly something I was thinking about for the past few days, but in a different context.
As I peruse the pages here and try to discover the libertarian and AnCap philosophies, I noticed something striking.
I notice a very large similarity between Austrian arguments and Communist arguments. It seems, thus far on the surface, that they are identical in many regards with only their 'good guys' and their 'boogy men' being slightly different.
In libertarianism, the bad guy is the State and the good guy is the capitalist. If you could only remove the State, the capitalists would create a near utopian society, where free markets solve all problems. Crime? check. Waste of resources? check. Oppression? check. Freedom? check.
Every single problem or question to its legitimacy and 'workability' is always easily explained by a market force.
In Communism, the bad guy is the Bourgeois, and the good guy is the proletariat. If you could only remove the Bourgeois, the prol's would create a near utopian society where communist forces solve all problems. Crime? check. Waste of resources? check. Oppression? check Freedom? check.
Every single problem or question to its legitimacy and 'workability' is always easily explained by a communist force.
For me the problem with both ideologies (I think both can offer useful and informative analysis and lessons) is that they are both unrealisitc and far over optimistic. Now for the record I am FAR more in favor of libertarian ideology and think it is a more 'moral' and more realistic approach. But when the hard core lib's and AnCaps start stating that all the problems of man's seemingly unendless capacity to commit horror and selfishness on man will magically go away and easily be conquered by market forces, I think they have gone from the realm of realism to utopianism.
So to answer your question: Why isn't libertarianism taken credibley? I think the answer is that it is unrealistic and too idealic in the utopian sense. Its propants refuse to accept that perhaps it won't lead to utopia and that maybe, just maybe, people with guns will mess it all up.
Ixtellor
Ixtellor: I think the answer is that it is unrealistic and too idealic in the utopian sense. Its propants refuse to accept that perhaps it won't lead to utopia and that maybe, just maybe, people with guns will mess it all up.
I think the answer is that it is unrealistic and too idealic in the utopian sense. Its propants refuse to accept that perhaps it won't lead to utopia and that maybe, just maybe, people with guns will mess it all up.
Well golly gee, it sure is a mighty good thing we have our Keynesian overlords to look after us; overlords you fully support.
Ixtellor:In libertarianism, the bad guy is the State and the good guy is the capitalist. If you could only remove the State, the capitalists would create a near utopian society, where free markets solve all problems. Crime? check. Waste of resources? check. Oppression? check. Freedom? check.
This is false.
Ixtellor:I think the answer is that it is unrealistic and too idealic in the utopian sense.
This is a poor conclusion, given that I don't think you understand libertarianism.
Ixtellor:Its propants refuse to accept that perhaps it won't lead to utopia and that maybe, just maybe, people with guns will mess it all up.
That is a very real possibility. Sure, there are some who keep insisting that the market will produce utopian outcomes, or rather that it MUST because otherwise it is not TRUE LIBERTARIANISM but many of us understand that the market is neutral.
Ixtellor:So to answer your question: Why isn't libertarianism taken credibley? I think the answer is that it is unrealistic and too idealic in the utopian sense. Its propants refuse to accept that perhaps it won't lead to utopia and that maybe, just maybe, people with guns will mess it all up.
That's not really what I was saying...
i agree that some ancaps are entirely unrealistic, optimistic and utopian to be taken seriously. but i think the majority of ancaps dont think a utopia would arise in the absence of the state. they just think that market forces can handle any problem better than a monopolistic state. thats not to say all social problems would disappear, but just wouldn't be as prevalent. ancaps just hate the state so much they sometimes neglect other bad guys.
crimes like rape and robbery would still be extremely difficult to bring down in an ancap system. ancaps just believe though that these problems would be handled at least somewhat better by free market forces. the same goes with market regulation. of course there will still be fraud and embezzlement in a free market, but these occurances would at least be somewhat less likely in a free market.
remember, ancaps do not want zero regulations, just competitive and accountable regulatory bodies where consumers and laborers think they are needed.
Your analysis has broached new levels of profundity...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
I hate trying to persuade leftists, because it just takes too much effort (and it upsets the emotional little buggers rather quickly). I've personally had far, far more success converting conservatives, because I don't have to completely restructure their entire worldview. I can persuade a conservative to legalize drugs without a significant amount of effort. But trying to explain to a leftist the negative effects of all their sacred cows (minimum wage, unions, public schools, child labor laws, anti-trust laws, etc) is exhausting and often futile.
Giles is right about the natural rights thing--it's not always the best way to persuade people. The reason people advocate state intervention is precisely because they think things will go wrong otherwise, so it often helps to explain the specific negative effects that take place in each case.
Someone wrote here recently that if a leftist or conservative doesn't already feel that something is wrong, in other words, if they are a true believer, then it is a waste of time. I know one guy on another forum, he's a very key guy there, and he's very intelligent, but he is a true believer in the state, in progressive liberalism etc, and there is just no way he will not spin the discussion back to market bad, government good.
I've had to give up.
I don't do much recruiting anymore, I'm more interested in finding ways to better empower the people who are already with me.
It is interesting to see this, because I just spent most the day in a long email discussion with some friends of a friend of mine. Believe it or not, by the end of the day, I got one of them, who had started by calling my friend (a minarchist) a nutcase, to agree that it would be better to live in a society in which government was limited in the same way libertarians think everyone should be limited. In other words, something like Ireland before the British ruined things. He still refuses to call this anarchy, and I wound up inventing Dr. Seuss terms for things just to avoid using tainted words. He insists that that the Irish had a government, but that their style of government would be better than ours.
Anyway, the point I would like to make is that I did not make any economic arguments. Just philosophical ones.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
Straw man, and a poor, beaten, trite, overused, cliched... use your own adjective... one at that.
I've never met a libertarian who thinks problems will magically go away in an AnCap society.
Cork,
With leftists, use philosophy. With rightists, use economics. Works best for me.
I think the most compelling approach is a combination of both morality and practicality. Why do we have to choose between the two?
In my case, economics got me most of the way there, but it was the moral arguments that pushed me to anarchism.
AnalyticalAnarchism.net - The Positive Political Economy of Anarchism
gocrew:With leftists, use philosophy. With rightists, use economics. Works best for me.
As a general rule, this is pretty good.
Same. Hoppe convinced me of the economics, Rand of the morality of anarcho-capitalism.
Interesting, I had to retrace this. Ron Paul got me going economically, then Lew Rockwell got me going philosophically.
Along the way, there was Rothbard who explained STV, the fallacies of Marxism (I already knew it wasn't quite right). Hoppe gave me a proper sense of class conflict and he always frames things as the ugly naked truths they are.
Rod Long for polycentric order.
For as long as I can remember being politically aware, I have supported the Libertarian party above all others. I became very apathetic towards politics and the like for a while, and then Ron Paul started creating a stir and peaked my interest again. Soon I delved deeper into Libertarian philosophy and found Rothbard, which pretty much sealed the deal for me. From there I found things that just solidified the framework I got from him (Hoppe, Long, Block, etc). What a fun intellectual journey.
Nerditarian:The wikipedia page of them talked about AnCap but I reflexively gravitated towards mutualism after comparing their wikipages. I stayed this way for 3 days. I can't stress this enough but while I was at all these choices I was never quite at home. Never quite impassioned about the philosophy as a whole. Then I saw the JLS PDF blowing Carsons arguments right open. Anarcho-Capitalism ever since. And it actually feels like home.
That JLS issue is indeed amazing, and it played a large role in affirming my ancapism as well. I also flirted with classical individualist anarchism a bit, back in the day. Ancap is just...well...better. It's a modernized, upgraded, superior form of individualist anarchism without all the crappy parts and anachronistic baggage. I figured, why settle for anything less?
Block's response was brilliant. Reisman's article was not just a critique; it was a slaughter. I don't think I've ever seen a political philosophy torn to shreds so mercilessly (or masterfully). Carson did the best he could, but I don't think he got out of the choke hold.
Mises and Rothbard made me an Austrian. Rothbard, Murphy, Hoppe and the Tannehills made me an anarcho-capitalist. Rand made me a rational egoist.
Cork:Reisman's article was not just a critique; it was a slaughter. I don't think I've ever seen a political philosophy torn to shreds so mercilessly (or masterfully).
You are right! It was a great critique that totally cruches mutualism.
C.H. Hellstrom:Rand made me a rational egoist.
Oddly, Rand convinced me to be an Agorist, and Heinlein convinced me to be an egoist (more or less from the consequentialist point of view).
"The power of liberty going forward is in decentralization. Not in leaders, but in decentralized activism. In a market process." -- liberty student
Jon Irenicus:Rand of the morality of anarcho-capitalism.
That was hilarious.
Cork:That JLS issue is indeed amazing
Link?
Cork:Block's response was brilliant. Reisman's article was not just a critique; it was a slaughter. I don't think I've ever seen a political philosophy torn to shreds so mercilessly (or masterfully). Carson did the best he could, but I don't think he got out of the choke hold.
ladyattis:Oddly, Rand convinced me to be an Agorist, and Heinlein convinced me to be an egoist (more or less from the consequentialist point of view).
Mazel tov!
It is counter to her own intentions, but only fitting. With the notion of positive rights out of the way, any objections to anarcho-capitalism withered in turn too, including her own.
Utilitarian economics and ethics are not mutually exclusive.
As Mises pointed out, the many different causal factors in a given economic situation cannot be disentangled. Which is one of the problems of showing cause and effect in economics. And in general why economic argument often times fails to convince anyone. For instance, statists often think about policy based on "growth" (though not compared to anything, since they advocate monopolies) -- which they attribute to public schools, universities, public roads, union control by state, city planning boards, subsidies, etc. instead of to free markets that lower prices, make quality goods, that hire university students, that train people who've wasted their time in public schools, etc. All the while, in the Hazlitt sense, ignoring some of the bad effects of these "public goods": like what their costs were to possible competition for schools, roads, wages, etc. that could have been far better (but that we can't really measure just how different even if all other things were equal).
I think it's a personal preference. Some people are bothered by fiat currency and inflation (and think the Fed is the sole evil). While others may be more shocked about the shere number of individuals murdered by the state. The former you may not even need a deep knowledge of economics to understand and the latter you don't need a PhD in philosophy to know is perhaps beneath human dignity or most people's ethical standards. You may notice that lewrockwell.com has people in both camps. The state is generally a mix of evil and bad economic thinking, so there's room for both arguments.
Ixtellor: In libertarianism, the bad guy is the State and the good guy is the capitalist. If you could only remove the State, the capitalists would create a near utopian society, where free markets solve all problems. Crime? check. Waste of resources? check. Oppression? check. Freedom? check. Every single problem or question to its legitimacy and 'workability' is always easily explained by a market force.
I had a feeling that you might be starting to feel that way. Keep in mind that there are three kinds of people in this forum, anarchists, minarchists, and those of us who choose not to participate in the debate. My personal opinion is that no political or economic system can solve all the world's problems. I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity. I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals. Resources are certainly wasted in free markets but, perhaps counter-intuitvely, more resources are wasted in any other economic system. I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.
You're comment kinda reminds me of the public choice argument, where the loudest voices take precedence over the majority.
justinx0r: Cork:That JLS issue is indeed amazing Link?
http://blog.mises.org/archives/004869.asp
DougM: I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity.
I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity.
No Austrian worth his salt would ever claim this. Scarcity is a condition of the universe we live in. It is the very reason we must act and why a science studying and explaining this action exists.
DougM: I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals.
I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals.
This issue is how best to deal with problems, whether they get solved or not.
DougM: I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.
I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.
AnCap will not change human nature. Of course there will be people who beat their spouses. How is this to be dealt with best is the question we need to ask.
GilesStratton: It would appear that using economic reasoning to convince people will be far more effective. Since we do not have to convince them about the ends, only that the means they wish to use to attain these ends will not bring about the results they wish for. Hence the emotional reaction from the statist will not be as pronounced as it would be if one had tried to convince them that the state is "evil", which is essentially meaningless, and perhaps even insulting, to the average person. Moreover, it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights, moreover it is far more real to most people. My final point is that culture has the potential to be far more effective in bringing statists around to the anarchist point of view than philosophy. For the conservative this means explaining that upon abolishing the state we are likely to see a stronger family structure amongst other results and to the liberal this could take a number of forms such as lower income inequality.
Well, in my experience most converts to libertarianism have heard a mixture of both moral and economic arguments, and I don’t think there is any reason to exclusively focus on one of them. And I don’t think that it’s the case that only one of them have merit (though I’m not saying that you think so!).
You are correct that “it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights…”, but the argument from effect, i.e. that capitalism/the free market is more efficient, may not always be the most effective argument. Capitalism, in order to become accepted by a majority of people, must be founded on morality. If not people may accept that capitalism is more effective, but that it’s immoral or amoral. As long as socialism/egalitarianism and closely related ideologies are viewed as the more moral social systems capitalism will never triumph. In many debates I have had with center-left people they have agreed that capitalism is effective, but that it’s unfair, and as long as they think that how are they going to be converted?
There are also groups that won’t accept the economic argument at all, just because of the argument itself. I am of course talking about environmentalists. They are against capitalism because it’s effective, and they regard that as immoral. So I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to them the economic argument won’t work at all.
C.H. Hellstrom:Well, in my experience most converts to libertarianism have heard a mixture of both moral and economic arguments, and I don’t think there is any reason to exclusively focus on one of them. And I don’t think that it’s the case that only one of them have merit (though I’m not saying that you think so!)
I don't think it is wise to limit oneself to either of the choices. I merely pointed out that philosophy tends to be a deeper subject. If you're speaking to somebody educated about philosophy (and I mean, educated) by all means adopt the appropriate angle. However, most people you speak to don't care for your natural rights, whether or not they're correct. They'd rather a system that prevents widespread poverty and unemployment than anything else.
C.H. Hellstrom:So I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to them the economic argument won’t work at all.
Why? One might say capitalism will cause less destruction to the enviromnent. I wouldn't advise even talking to those people about these issues though...
Sage:I think the most compelling approach is a combination of both morality and practicality. Why do we have to choose between the two?
Because time is scarce and there are better things to do. Actually I think this is one of the greatest contribution of Professor Hoppe. Most people are convinced of the omnipotence of democracy. Monarchy, dictatorship or whatever else one can think of are, correctly, understood to be flawed. Whereas most individuals worship democracy to the extent that it is seen as the institutionalization of freedom. Now it is merely necessary to prove that the incentive structure of democracy is inferior to that of monarchy and from then proceed to the conclusion, applying the same logic, that the natural order is superior to both.
Ron Paul and Gene Callahan did everything for me. Then came Rothbard and finally, and most importantly, Hoppe.