This time it is Reuters.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/11012/mises-in-the-news-yet-again/
Mises in the news yet again
Previous post: Menger the Revolutionary
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 27 comments }
I wonder if it might be about time for the big guns in the Austrian and Chicago school to organize a counter-petition in favour of Ron Paul’s “Audit the Fed” bill. The pro-Fed economists have found 400 to support their side. Surely there are at least 400 libertarian economists arguing the other side? If the petition was circulated by the Campaign for Liberty, some generous individual would probably even pay for a full-page ad in the New York Times.
I only raise this because the bill is now being watered down and subjected to attacks in the opinion pages of the WSJ.
Why should it really be important to preserve the “Audit the Fed” bill? The fraudulent stuff is all the stuff that is considered legal and necessary anyway.
Also, there is a far better chance of the Fed destroying itself rather then you or anybody else destroying it by legislation. In fact, the idea itself is an embarrassment to the libertarian movement. it shows that libertarians don’t understand the beast they are fighting; The system CANNOT be reformed! IT MUST be made irrelevant by ignoring it.
DD gets it.
Bravo!
It’s pretty tough to ignore something that can imprision and kill you for doing so.
DD sure ignoring the problem will eventually lead to the Fed making a big mess. But every time the Fed makes a huge mess the blame gets shifted to the market and we get a stronger Fed and more regulation that further undermines the market and further cripples the US economy.
Jeffersonians and libertarians have been trying to make government go away for the last 100+ years by ignoring the problem. From what I have seen it hasn’t been working all that well. Why not try a new approach? What is the worse that could happen? The government might get bigger? That will happen either way.
In my opinion everyone should be in favor of legislation that will open the eyes of the voting public to what the Fed does behind closed doors. What better way to force a correction and get rid of intrusive government programs then proving to the world that the US government can’t afford to pay anyone and that the current Treasuries market is a giant ponzi scheme.
Too bad that the author of the article, like so many others, misconstrues a “totally free market” as one that has no protections against fraud whatsoever (see the comments in the linked article.) Trade would break down? I hardly think this is an area where Mises “got it wrong.”
Still, maybe they will keep learning and see the light.
I did not mean to ignore the problem!
I was referring to the idea of withdrawing support from the government. I was refereeing to disengaging from the government instead of trying to reform it. This is the only practical means of attaining freedom.
@DD: I agree that it won’t be possible to reform the Fed, the State or any political organization for that matter. I also agree that they will destroy themselves in the long run.
But it is important to explain again and again that it’s NOT laissez-faire capitalism that is failing. Otherwise the only thing that will rise from the ashes of our current system will be an even more oppressive one.
“In my opinion everyone should be in favor of legislation that will open the eyes of the voting public to ”
The public? You want to rely on the public to secure your freedom? You need their approval? That’s not freedom! When are you “limited government” people going to understand this simple fact; Freedom is absolute. If you need the approval of the public, then, by definition, you are not free!
You’re only legitimizing Democracy as a valid tool to achieve one’s goals. That doesn’t make any sense. At the end, what are you going to do? have a final vote to dissolve Democracy itself?
To all,
Rolfe Winkler is a crypto-Marxist, as I exposed here: http://n-k-1.blogspot.com/2009/06/social-armageddon.html
It’s no surprise, then, that he is so confused about economic ideas that he puts Mises on the same pedestal as Minsky while mentioning him in the same breath that he decries the failure of “laissez faire economics”.
This guy is a majorly egotistical, comment-deleting tool. I’ve engaged him on economic and financial subjects, particularly reformatory regulation, numerous times on his blog and he absolutely refuses to concede a point because he can’t believe someone without a famous blog might know a bit more about what he talks about than he does. If you try to explain in a principled, concise fashion, the nature and operation of free markets he’ll refer you to some pop-economic history book on financial panics, tell you to read it and assume that this will shut you up and strike down your point.
Sukrit,
Why you think Austrians would find Fed-auditing allies in anyone from the monetary crankism-Chicago school is beyond me. You do realize they are not free market economists and support the idea of central planning of the economy via Fed-targeted steady, annual inflation, right?
Well, really, there’s no reason to support ANYTHING the crooked politicians do, unless it’s quit and go Rogue, but even THEN they face assassination.
Wake up, pals.
And swine flu? Sounds like AIDS all over again.
Only thing is, they have the cure for AIDS.
Look at it from a business perspective.
“Why should it really be important to preserve the “Audit the Fed” bill? The fraudulent stuff is all the stuff that is considered legal and necessary anyway.”
Ron Paul is clearly “anti Fed” and not “reform the Fed”. I think that the purpose of the audit is to expose its fundamentally corrupt and fraudulent business practices and bring it into such disrepute that it will be abolished at best, or have its powers drastically curtailed at worst.
“there is a far better chance of the Fed destroying itself rather then you or anybody else destroying it by legislation.”
Probably correct. This is where Alan Greenspan came in. Upon retirement he assured Ron Paul that he very much stood by his assertions in the essay “Gold and Economic Freedom.” If so then at some point when under political pressure to inflate, he probably decided that while the Fed would obviously destroy itself eventually, it would be useful to help it along by removing practically all restraints on its money creation and by allowing money creation to run away unchecked outside of the Fed through derivative instruments (by not commenting on or criticizing these practices).
Taylor,
I must agree. He seems desperate to justify a “third way”, between total control and laissez faire, without ever noticing that every government has been doing that since governments were invented.
Were I Reuters, I’d fire him right now. He brings down the Reuters name with his ignorance.
DD wrote:
“I was refereeing to disengaging from the government instead of trying to reform it.”
That’s a great idea. You got a way of doing that without moving into Ted Kaczynski’s old shack or moving to Costa Rica? Otherwise, we still feed the beast through taxes.
(The way things are currently going, the parasite might kill itself by killing the host, but since I’m part of the host, I don’t exactly relish that possibility.)
I started reading the article with high hopes. As I read the article (and his one comment ) my heart sank.
Austrians do not need the approval of this ignoramus.
Russ,
Yes I do!
Please read:
http://mises.org/daily/2874
or listen to audio:
http://media.mises.org/mp3/audioarticles/2874_Hoppe.mp3
DD, I completely understand what you are saying about supporting political systems, but I have come to the conclusion that I can vote on certain issues, and petition the tax-feeders to vote similarly. I am against the aggressive use of violence, but if someone came into my home with the intent to kill or harm me, I believe I am fully justified in shooting them as an act of self defense. Similarly I will vote in self defense, and petition congress to vote in my defense. And this legislation adds nothing new to the law code, it only removes parts of it. It only helps to remove the power of the State, and enhance the liberty of everyone.
While I agree that the FED will probably destroy itself, I see no reason to squander the wealth of society on a hyper-inflation. This is a perfectly avoidable crisis.
As anarcho-capitalists we must always push the most radical ideas about the market, but we must also support the least interventionist policies possible.
t3hsauce,
Why waste time mobilizing so many people to vote when you can simply mobilize them to ignore the State?
It seems to me that it is wiser to use our scarce resources in educating and mobilizing (peacefully) for the rejection of the system as a whole.
You need numbers anyway! But here is the thing; you need much fewer people to simply ignore the State then to pass legislation that will give you a few bread crumbs.
There is no reason to compromise your non aggression principle and work inside the system. On the contrary, if we can get just a few million people to realize what I am telling you, we will achieve our freedom!
DD,
So, secession is your big solution? Secession of any geographical area of the US is not likely. “Secession” of individuals without them leaving the US is practically impossible unless they drop out of everyday life and live in a box.
Ignoring the system is a nice dream, but the fact of the matter is that we can’t ignore the system, because the system won’t ignore us. Closing our eyes and pretending that our money is not being stolen won’t do a damned thing.
Russ,
Perhaps you should reconsider who is living in a dream; me or you. Listen or read the links I have posted above.
I am clearly not ignoring the money that is being stolen from us. On the contrary, I think that it is a dream (as you put it) to think you can reform the system.
The solution of secession may seem radical, but it is I believe the only practical solution. Secession is not so hard to achieve once you realize that the power of the Government is derived from your support, no matter how passive it is. The minute you withdraw your support, it will all collapse. I am actually realistic, which is why I said that it only requires a small minority to achieve this goal. I don’t count on persuading the majority.
DD,
Again, how does one ignore the State when the State can (through its agents) imprision and kill you for doing so?
Let’s say I own a business. I run a pub. I ignore (and subsequently break) some absurd state law/regulation. I say “I’ll sell alcohol to whomever I want. And yeah, that includes some people who are under 21. Also, I think I’ll allow smoking in my fine establishment. And not just tobacco products. My customers are welcome to smoke marijuana in my pub too.” How am I to ignore the State created and enforced consequences of this?
Instead saying “ignore the State” and getting involved in the inevitable language game, why not just say “secede from the State/Union” and get to the heart of your argument right off the bat?
DD wrote:
“On the contrary, I think that it is a dream (as you put it) to think you can reform the system.”
I’m not sure it can be reformed. Certainly I don’t believe in a reform that would be permanent.
“The solution of secession may seem radical, but it is I believe the only practical solution.”
It’s not the radicalism that bothers me, so much as the complete impracticality. Course-grained secessionism is not going to happen. Fine-grained secessionism will do absolutely nothing, unless it’s supported on a massive scale, in which case course-grained secession would be more likely.
“Secession is not so hard to achieve once you realize that the power of the Government is derived from your support, no matter how passive it is. The minute you withdraw your support, it will all collapse.”
Codswallop, poppycock and flapdoodle. The power of the government derives from the consent of *millions* of people. If *I* “secede”, there will still be millions who have not, and thus my secession will mean absolutely nothing.
“I am actually realistic, which is why I said that it only requires a small minority to achieve this goal. I don’t count on persuading the majority.”
You are completely unrealistic. When you and other “secessionists” try not to pay your taxes, you may get away with it for a while simply due to bureaucratic incompetence (i.e. you’ll fall through the cracks), but eventually, there will be a reckoning where you will find out why you can’t just ignore the government. And if you still pay your taxes like a good little subject, then all your talk means nothing. You’re just another solipsistic dreamer who thinks you can make the bad men go away by the power of positive thinking. Unless you manage to start the next major world religion and get on the order of hundreds of millions to follow your lead, your “plan” is a joke.
The only joke here is to think that you can achive freedom by Democracy. If by means of secession is extremly difficult, then by means of Democracy is impossible. YOu might as well give it up now and join the collectivist mob.
Some good stuff, DD. Have you read Tolstoy’s “Letter to Russian Liberals”? It is just about the most effective demolishing of Classical Liberals’ and minimal statists’ tired codswallop, poppycock and flapdoodle that I’ve read and an awesome affirmation of what I think your general point is (or should be):
http://sniggle.net/Experiment/index.php?entry=l2l
mpolzkill,
I just read the Tolstoy letter. It was brilliant, thanks for the link. (Tolstoy’s simple but profound solution reminded me of Ayn Rand’s Howard Roark)
DD,
Same applies to the great article by Hoppe that you pointed out. What you’ve been saying is, of course, true.
Good people who compromise, or try to “work within the system” shoulder the most blame for so-called government, as they are the element that lends it it’s perceived legitimacy.
You bet, Jesse
Comments on this entry are closed.