A great many people have learned from Mises and Rothbard, but Lew Rockwell belongs to a much more select class: he has developed their thought in an original way. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/10706/truth-to-power/
Truth to Power
Previous post: Is Emergency Care a Failed Market?
Next post: Free Economy and Social Order
{ 23 comments }
In an otherwise fine article, David Gordon quotes Llew Rockwell as writing: “The right response to September 11 would have been for government’s entire security apparatus to be dismantled, and to allow the airlines and other firms to provide their own security. But, of course, it had all the earmarks of a crisis, and history shows that crises are great opportunities for the State.”
Note that this is a purely defensive action, which permits no counter-attack for dealing with a continuing threat to America. When libertarians mitigate attacks on America, attributing blame solely to our government, they lose the potential support of our public. This is reminiscent of when Rothbard sided with the Black Panthers, so as to attack our government. If one seeks to find why libertarians do not win the support of patriotic Americans for their valuable precepts & programs, they need look no further.
“And if there was a constant strain in Kirkian conservatism, it was opposition to ideology, a word that Kirk demonized”
What Kirk failed to realize, as all anti-ideology people do, is that being “anti-ideology” is itself an ideology. So even nihilists subscribe to an objective ideological view of the world. Everyone holds an ideology whether they’re Karl Marx or a couch potato who doesn’t do a day’s work in his life.
Crises also put tremendous pressure on governments to do something and act as if they control the situation and to justify their power and presence.
If governments would have done nothing after 911, they would have lost power, credibility, influence, legitimacy.
Not only would it have been difficult for them to gain those back, but such shrinking in government would have gained momentum.
Government dynamics are: Grow or Shrink, there is no stability.
Since governments don’t want to shrink, especially not catastrophically in times of crises, then they choose to grow catastrophically by exploiting the full extent of the crises opportunities.
It is also sad that Bush’s popularity ratings increased right after the attacks. We can see that the vast majority of the American voters are emotional and irrational sheeps.
The fact that America was attacked did not change the fact about Bush being a good or bad president. Yet his popularity ratings increased.
Weingarten,
Excellent post. I was going to write something similar.
You have hit on what I believe is anti-libertarian about the Libertarian movement. Libertarian by its very nature defines rights as ending when they violate the rights of another. Too many Libertarians resist any police or defense action that will secure rights.
In the case of any organized group that will indiscriminately bring death and destruction aggressive enforcement against the group to secure libertarian rights is an important principle.
On this point Libertarians seem to naively rely on the myth of the basic goodness of men.
But this protection of rights by a violation of rights should only come when someone rejects his or her libertarian rights by violating the rights of another.
Dick Fox,
“On this point Libertarians seem to naively rely on the myth of the basic goodness of men.”
It is precisely because Libertarians understand than evil exist that they would rather not see it concentrate and expand at the hands of powerful central governments.
They also know that equally divided among many free individuals, evil is much less dangerous than when it is granted the institutional powers of absolute ruler.
If man is not basically good, let’s make it difficult for him to become powerful and rule others.
Dick Fox writes “Libertarians seem to naively rely on the myth of the basic goodness of men.” I concur, and appreciate his stating the source of their error.
He also writes “this protection of rights by a violation of rights should only come when someone rejects his or her libertarian rights by violating the rights of another.” This is reminiscent of Ayn Rand’s principle of the non-initiation of force, which I would write as ‘None has the right to initiate force, but the obligation to counter it.’
John Mac counters Dick Fox, by writing “It is precisely because Libertarians understand tha(t) evil exist that they would rather not see it concentrate and expand at the hands of powerful central governments.”
Unfortunately many Libertarians fail to notice this when powerful central governments threaten or attack America.
Weingarten,
“Unfortunately many Libertarians fail to notice this when powerful central governments threaten or attack America.”
Or could it be that, because of their small numbers and the fact that they are diluted in the masses, their voices are not heard ?
So I wonder how you actually succeeded at surveying what “many” Libertarians noticed or failed to notice.
I can tell you what I notice, but I could never tell you what “many” Libertarians notice. Unlike you, I can’t measure this.
Please reveal us your secret.
John Mac, you question how I can estimate the positions that are held by Libertarians. There are Libertarian publications, websites, blogs (including the Mises Economics Blog), as well as mailings that provide them. Sometimes polls are taken. We also had the campaign of Ron Paul. Over the years, those of us who have attended Libertarian meetings have obtained additional data points.
The two examples that I gave in my initial letter, were typical of the lack of concern that Libertarians have regarding the threats by enemies of America.
Perhaps you could provide examples of where the Libertarian position has advocated fighting governments that are hostile to America? Will you start with fascist Germany, the USSR, and the Arab-Muslim world?
Weingarten,
I’m a libertarian and I have no doubt that there are many millions of people who wish the utmost harm to your government and to those who support it. There are many millions of your government’s victims who have many millions of living widows, orphans, relatives and friends. The majority of Latin Americans hate your government with a righteous rage. Those who hate it are within, too. Besides the disgusting treatment of the Mexicans who have been so crucial for the labor they provide (mainly due to your government’s moronic labor laws); besides the average Americans whose lives have been ruined by your IRS, the rest of the alphabet soup and militarized local police agencies; besides the growing army of men unemployed because of your government’s insanely idiotic economic policies; there are entire peoples wiped out or who have scattered, devastated survivors such as the remaining Aboriginal American tribes who rightly place most of their woes at your government’s doorstep. Also, there are billions still more throughout the world who, while they are not such direct victims, have not enjoyed our American government brainwashing program in what you may call “public school”. They do not share your fantasies about all the good your government has done. Most of them will probably give great cheers when your government is toppled, as all empires have been toppled by their own crimes and hubris.
You are completely right to be scared, I am too. I think such a mass of crimes are bound to come back on your government, on all those who support it and me too, born in the land your government stole. So, out of my own sense of self-preservation, I call on all to demand that the U.S. Government disband themselves. The American experiment has proved to be a colossal failure, if the present course continues, it will prove to be an apocalyptic failure. They can sell off all their holdings for reparations (beginning with those for the descendants of the Aboriginal Americans your government committed genocide against,) and beg for forgiveness and mercy from their many millions of victims. At that point you would be free to start another government since you feel you need it, but this time one ACTUALLY based on the consent of the governed.
“naively rely on the myth of the basic goodness of men”
I most certainly do not generally rely on the basic goodness of non-Americans, Americans or you.
Mpolzkil, my position was that libertarians are quite good at criticizing our government, but poor at dealing with threats by enemies of America. You respond that my government has many faults, in foreign and domestic affairs. You also say that I have “fantasies about all the good your government has done.â€
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You not only show that you are able to criticize our government, but make no mention of any wrong on the part of any of the enemies of America. If anything, you leave the impression that all attacks on America are justified. Finally, you engage in a personal attack upon myself (who happens to be quite critical of much of our government’s policies).
I hope that John Mac has read your letter, for you demonstrate far better than I, the perspective of most libertarians that I attempted to describe. In sum, in contrast to American exceptionalism, you appear to view the American government as the main villain in the world.
Weingarten,
Your government is not your country. You have been mislead. Of course libertarians are as passionate and intelligent about defending their country as anyone, that’s why they oppose this government.
Where was the personal attack? Because I said I don’t rely on your goodness? I attacked you no more than you were attacking libertarians and no more than you have now attacked me.
Why would should I be expected to be good at dealing with your enemies?
Statists think they can divorce themselves from the things they don’t like about their government. This is where they are very naive. You get the whole package and you are a fool to think that you have any influence on them as an individual. Only stupid mobs can have any influence. Learn your government’s crimes, withdraw consent, or you are a party to those crimes.
The main? The biggest. The biggest government with a military about as big as all other military forces combined. All states are bands of criminals, this is the biggest band of criminals in the history of the world. You must have fantasies, you don’t consider yourself evil do you? Then why do you support the greatest criminal organization in all of history? Don’t forget I suggested you were brainwashed. I fully understand that I may as well be speaking Swahili to you. Brainwashed is a silly and crude word I shouldn’t have used. What they really did to you is teach you your slave language. You can not understand the language of a free man.
I barely scratched the surface of their crimes. I also wanted to say: puppet governments, puppet governments, puppet governments. Tell me about all the other countries with as extensive a clientele of butchering thugs posing as democratically elected leaders.
Many of your enemies are also very bad guys. Millions of them like Mutadhar al-Zaidi are decidedly not evil men.
The widespread false belief in American exceptionalism, is THE main reason the gang of criminals who call themselves the American government IS the worst villain in the world.
Oh yeah, one more:
“If anything, you leave the impression that all attacks on America are justified”
To quote Clint Eastwood: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
That is rich. By giving a short list of their crimes! They provided the impression. You create millions of desperate criminals and when they come after you and your government, and I call it like I see it, you think I’m justifying it. Ridiculous! I mourn for what is going to happen to you and me, all of us AND for the citizens of your main client, Israel. If people don’t wake up, to what they support, quickly, they are headed to the inevitable place your government is.
* Why should I be expected to be good at dealing with your enemies?
Get that clear: I haven’t done anything to anyone, I have no enemies. There is a government that steals from me and uses the proceeds to wreak havoc, thus endangering me. I call for them to disband and pay reparations. I’m prepared to be way far back in the line.
I also wanted to make it clear when I say “the worst”: effectively the worst. I believe that many members of the American government have good intentions. Good intentions forced on people are just as disastrous as bad, and this gang does more forcing than anyone. Hence…
I thank mpozkill once again for referring to the American government as “the biggest band of criminals in the history of the world.” This demonstrates my point of the prevalent view of most libertarians toward our enemies (although most are not as extreme as he is).
As an aside, he also illustrates a belief in the goodness of man, by not noticing any aggression on the part of our enemies, but only justified grievances.
And I thank you for using such blatantly false propaganda and such weak arguments. And I thank you for admitting millions have justified grievances. This is why your criminal organization should disband, the jig is up,
I said that there are bad guys (unjustified criminals not affiliated with your government) out there. So what you’ve said is incorrect. Some of them may be your enemies – I don’t know – you have so many and your government has committed such an uncountable number of crimes it’s hard to sort it out. It is actually impossible to sort out with your CIA (and god knows what other sub-gangs and secret sub-gangs) and their secret slush funds and black budgets, buying god knows who and doing god knows what.
I professed a belief in the good intentions of MOST men. This is a far cry from “the goodness of man”, and I thank you again for demonstrating either your blatant dishonesty or your naivete and inability to get the simplest concepts straight. Open your eyes and you’ll join the tiny minority; then you will have by definition become “extreme.”
Now you’ve got me talking in your garbled propaganda language:
“unjustified criminals”
Crime is never justified. The enraged cousins of American puppets who attacked the WTC were not justified, for instance. “Criminals who have not been aggrieved by your government” is what I should have said. Independent, small time criminals not motivated by your big, big time criminals: it is conceivable that they exist, I don’t know how you would prove it. I can’t fathom how stupid they would have to be to take on Murder Inc., there must be greener pastures.
Read Macbeth again, that’s where your government is at.
Dick Fox said: “Too many Libertarians resist any police or defense action that will secure rights. In the case of any organized group that will indiscriminately bring death and destruction aggressive enforcement against the group to secure libertarian rights is an important principle.”
Mr Fox, I consider any plans for the violent overthrow of the United States government to be a foolhardy proposition (and in the execution it would prove most certainly criminal). You are very irresponsible to call for it.
“Mr Fox, I consider any plans for the violent overthrow of the United States government to be a foolhardy proposition (and in the execution it would prove most certainly criminal). You are very irresponsible to call for it.”
Why all of a sudden are you wimping out mpolz? Suppose an overthrow was possible would it not make sense to do so?
The awful results of 100% of the violent revolutions recorded by history tells me it makes no sense. As I suggested, crime begets crime. We’ve given yours and Weingarten’s philosophies a good run, something else needs to figured out. Herbert Spenser was on the right track, I believe. All non-criminals: ignore the State.
I also do not base my philosophy or any decisions by gauging a scale of wimpy to macho.
Your ‘philosophy’ sounds more like wishful thinking.
I have no hopes that more than the tiniest fraction of humans have the ability to understand and/or the courage to follow Spenser’s ideas. Hell, Spenser gave up on it himself.
Your philosophy of gaining righteous power for yourself is wishful thinking AND repugnant. Nice combo. Almost everyone agrees with you and in seeking strong arms (“representatives”, gangsters) in an eternal war by all against all. That your philosophy writ large could ever produce anything other than the disaster of a world we have is the wildest of wishful thinking.
Until enough humans give up on trying to force their myriad different philosophies on others, we will have what we’ve got. And things don’t have to work out. I’m inclined to partly agree with “fundamentalist”, most people are just not equipped with the tools to figure it out. It would probably take some alien race to make us all get along. I don’t think there is one anywhere near here, so we will probably exterminate ourselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Pa34orcwwA
“Everyone holds an ideology whether they’re Karl Marx or a couch potato who doesn’t do a day’s work in his life”
Isn’t that the same person?
Comments on this entry are closed.