Mises Institute vs. Cato Institute

JAlanKatz:

I'd argue that, while Mises certainly did not consider himself an an-cap, his ideas logically lead to anarcho-capitalism.  Mises describes an ideal state as recognizing a universal right to secession down to the individual level - can something with this property even be properly called a state?

As I understand it, Mises believed that the State is uniquely qualified to provide protection of persons and their property, but believed that people should nonetheless be free not to accept that service. That's not opposed to Rothbardian anarchism in ethical principle.

Regarding the OP: Cato is primarily a "political" or "right" libertarian organization, whereas the Mises Institute is non-political and tends toward left-libertarianism (where the word left means "radical" - not "Marxist").

MacFall:

Regarding the OP: Cato is primarily a "political" or "right" libertarian organization, whereas the Mises Institute is non-political and tends toward left-libertarianism (where the word left means "radical" - not "Marxist").

If you define left and right as you do, then you are correct, but in light of recent controversies I think these definitions are a bit misleading. Many of the scholars at Mises are culturally conservative, while the people at Cato tend to be more culturally liberal. Also, many at Mises revere the "Old Right," making pinning the label of left-libertarianism on the Misesians more problematic. So looking at the institutes from this angle, Mises would be the right-libertarian one and Cato would be the left-libertarian one. Walter Block, however, has criticized the division of the libertarian movement into "left" and "right" camps, and has argued for a "plumb-line" libertarianism instead, calling for movement away from cultural questions and instead focusing on strict application of the Rothbardian non-aggression axiom.

McFall, I would encourage you to read "Mises: The Last Knight of Liberalism" if you have not yet. Mises was not a fan of anarchism nor secession. In 1953 letter to Salvador de Madariaga, Mises wrote, "Liberals have always maintained that it does not matter for the people as a whole and for individual citizens whether their own state's sovereignty streches over a large or smaller territory. The size of the relam........concerns only royalty and aristocracy." Likewise, even a casual read of Mises denotes that he favored a nightwatchmen state and believed taxes were necessary. In fact on page 282 of "Human Action", he supported conscription. Rothbard built on Mises, but Mises would not be happy today with what passes for "Austrian" economics today in many cases.

MVPT,

Mises clearly supported secession. In the quote you refer to, Mises is specifically talking about how empire-building (expanding a states' borders) confers no benefit on anyone except the state, which can expand its taxing authority. Otherwise people have to buy and sell everything they need, just like before. Politically, however, he supported the right of self-determination.

Here are some quotes:

No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want. (Nation, State, and Economy, p.34)

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. (Liberalism, p. 109)

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. (Liberalism, p. 109)

So Mises did support a nightwatchman state, but he theorectially support individual secession. I would have to say, therefore, that McFall is right--Mises's theory doesn't necessarily contradict Rothbardian ethics, even if Mises didn't buy all of Rothbard's specific anarchist arguments.

True, Mises did write about self-determination. Hulsmann address this is in his biography of Mises but as Hulsmann points out, How should secessionist movements be handled at a time when no great overarching ideology exists?(page 1027). Self-determination is usually offered as an answer but during his letters with de Madariga, when the American Civil War is brought up as an example of self-determination, Mises was sympathtic to the Union cause, not the Confederacy. Mises wrote, "The real issue is not self-determination, but slavery. In fact, most of the contemporary European liberals argued this way and sympathized with the Unionists." When de Madariga continued to press Mises to support his cause of seccession ideologically, Mises abruptly said de Madariaga's postion was "the most anti-liberal propostion I have ever heard."(page 1029)

I don't know.   Didn't Mises have a close relationship with Rothbard and positivly review his books?

ryanpatgray:

Secrecy in terms of the military is the norm. It is expected. He could just as reasonably call for the release of information on all of our military's secret training maneuvers and weapons systems. He could call for the release of the nuclear launch codes.

 

So you have no trouble with the existence of a secret government, but only so long as the secrets involve mass murder? 

Its so perfectly poetic that in your defense of cato you are echoing its cheerleading for the State.

Nitroadict:

 

I've never really checked out Cato before, mainly due to being informed Cato weren't really Libertarian, but this thread has made it apparent that this is a generalization.  As of late, I've been noticing the types of divisions the Libertarian movement seems to have.  I can't help but think that this is partially why we aren't making more inroads to mainstream politics. 

Divide and conquer, comes to mind.  While I don't think Libertarians should compromise on their principles, I also think that Libertarians should try to find common ground to get behind with.  The two Statist parties do it, why not us?  I might be a little new to all of this, but I think it's a valid point nonetheless.

 

The problem with libertarians is we resist authority, it's our nature.  Most libertarians are individualist.  I've heard it said that "getting libertarians together is like herding cats."  But we all share common ideas and goals.  I'd think we have more in common than the socialist or the neo-cons do but it seems like getting us to work together is quite difficult because not a one of us wants to be told we have to do this or we have to do that.  I think that's the biggest problem with the Libertarian Party.  What we should focus on, I guess, is converting more people to think like us.  The more there is the better chance we stand on getting rid of this damn monkey on our backs.

JonBostwick:

ryanpatgray:

Secrecy in terms of the military is the norm. It is expected. He could just as reasonably call for the release of information on all of our military's secret training maneuvers and weapons systems. He could call for the release of the nuclear launch codes.

 

So you have no trouble with the existence of a secret government, but only so long as the secrets involve mass murder? 

Its so perfectly poetic that in your defense of cato you are echoing its cheerleading for the State.

No, that is not what I said.

I am not cheerleading for the state. I am saying that to make a call to end ALL secrets would be more consistant than to only pick a topic such as UFOs.

I notice you left out my next line: "At least that would be consistant."

Extremism - That is the primary difference between Mises and Cato. We Misesians at Mises.org are extremists for capitalism; the bulk of us advocate some form of capitalist anarchism. Sometimes I think Austrians don't know how radical they are. Private security agencies, roads, utilities, full natural rights - these are radical and revolutionary ideas and concepts. Cato represents the core mainstream libertarianism. Mises represents the fringe, anarchist libertarians.