It’s easy to think of ways the federal government could be reduced right now, and a recent book from the Cato Institute catalogs many of them in the hopes that lawmakers will see the light.
The question is, why would politicians ever reduce the power they’ve worked so hard to seize? The only reason would be because the people whose votes they need are demanding more liberty — which mostly people aren’t, at present. As a result, I suggest in my review of the book for The Freeman, projects such as Cato’s are well-meaning, but misguided. Education — for the Remnant, not politicians — is liberty’s, and civilization’s, only hope.
{ 17 comments }
The Remnant will always be a remnant and will never accomplish anything. It is no hope at all. You can either despair that the promised land will never arrive or take small epicurean-style pleasure in serving a monkey-wrench in the monstrous gears of statism and getting your kicks here and there.
Once you have the remnant, then what? The remnant have to act, to make a stand. Reform is hopeless, of course, but you can resist power, defy the false gods, and thus bring their fall.
Reform is hopeless, of course, but you can resist power, defy the false gods, and thus bring their fall.
I believe internal reform is impossible, yes, and is only likely to happen as the result of a major crisis.
Nevertheless, our defiance is not what will bring about the fall of the State. It is self-destructive, and thus needs no help from us to collapse.
“Nevertheless, our defiance is not what will bring about the fall of the State. It is self-destructive, and thus needs no help from us to collapse. ”
Sadly that’s wrong. History is filled with examples of states that drove their parasitism to a total collapse of civilization without being challenged. (Zimbabwe gives us such an example this day.) If a catastrophe is to be avoided, the remnant must be organized and prepared to be mobilized for action.
Although states are highly destructive of their hosts, they are quite constructive and resourceful when it comes to ideological propagation.
This is a wonderful book. I enjoyed every chapter.
Now, to the author’s review of it.
Yes, perhaps some of the policy proposals contained in the book do not go far enough to satisfy even the most radical of libertarians, but for the most par the book is thoroughly Austro-libertarian. Edwards has a wonderful chapter on the Great Depression. His analysis of the real causes of taxation is superb as well. In fact, Huebert’s criticism of the author’s advocacy of government provision of public goods is itself somewhat misplaced. He only mentions this in passing after his brilliant critique of taxation, perhaps to take care not to scare away the squeamish too early (this occurs on page 34). Moreover, his brilliany analysis of government waste in chapter 5 can easily be applied to the theory of public goods. Just to list a few in bullet form, as is found in the book:
- No possibility of bankruptcy
- Face no profit incentive
- No incentive to innovate
- No labor discipline
- Too much regulation
- No set or established plans due to frequent turnovers of political appointees
- Problem of special interest groups
- Coordination problems (Hayekian)
- The multi-layered process of bureaucratic organization which leads to frequent delays
- Vulnerability to fraud and abuse
The list goes on and on. Murray Rothbard could hardly have done it better himself. After reading this, would anybody really think that this author is in favor of some government regulation rather than none? I doubt it. If not, thanks to all this information supplied by the author, a strong case can indeed be made in favor of the latter.
Among other things, this book supports federalism, market efficiency, the constitution, the abolition of government privlege, privatization, individual freedom, term limits, etc.
This post troubled me. And this is nothing new. I experienced the same thing at the March Mises Scholar’s Conference. I happened to speak quite favorably of a recent book published by the Cato Institute, and a Mises senior fellow (whose name I will not mention) shot back, “Ah, they are just a bunch of socialists!” This sort of attitude makes me at times question the fecundity of our own movement.
Cato puts out some amazing stuff. And this book is no exception.
I have the book and thoroughly enjoyed it. I patronize both Mises and Cato, both are wonderful organizations, obviously Mises is a lot more “purist”, but Cato serves a purpose as well.
While I am closer to the “purist” ideology, I think it is unwise to belittle the pragmatics among us. The Cato guys do good work and do not deserve to be belittled. Should deficiencies in their positions be pointed out, most certainly, but it should be done professionally and not with a belittling tone or ad hominems.
you can resist power, defy the false gods, and thus bring their fall.
Doubtful. The Whiskey and Shay’s rebellion failed. The southern secession failed. American independence did succeed, but sure didn’t cause the british state to “fall” and empowered local government in their place. Tax protesters fail. Libertarians in the United States have been on a losing streak for how long now?
Nevertheless, our defiance is not what will bring about the fall of the State. It is self-destructive, and thus needs no help from us to collapse.
What is necessary is to co-opt the elites. The Soviet Union fell because the elites came to believe the West had beat them and change was necessary. Reformists within the government took over, embarrassed themselves and were replaced by autocrats. North Korea has kept its elites sheltered and so has maintained stability despite possibly the worst government of all time except for that of Pol Pot (who was driven out by a Vietnamese military invasion). Bryan Caplan discusses this in The Totalitarian Threat. Is does not imply ought and the awfulness of government does not indicate that it will fall.
Oops, I meant to write “ought does not imply is”. I think that Humean point is very important and helps explain why I don’t believe in objective “oughts”.
This thread sux, is that intelligent and comprehensive enough? (uhhh, yeahhh.)
Guess it’s alwayZ been that way since LVM died, meh, age sux 4 U I guess. And … And, it’s embarassing! Nobody w/ even remote “proof”, no wonder I’m ‘tolerated’.
So who want’s their nose to be dragged through … bleh. /wave. Well … alow Me to Humiliat3e re3tort!
Hahq. Ain’t gonna happen/ Line, behind you, get in it,. Fuck off. Oh, let us be so appreciative for the sacrifice the generations before us left. Yeah, maybe that’s what YOU need? Keep begging and scraping for me to just post, “Hi!”.
Please don’t forget to deduct, you suk, legally, morally, and philosophically/epistemologically.
Well said, rtr, at least if crude unintelligability is your goal.
As for the fate of the (US) state, its demise is only a matter of time, as the US-led fiat fraud is doomed to collapse under its own weight(lessness).
Yes, we will likely have to endure an even more oppressive interlude than what now confronts us — http://www.thought-criminal.org/2007/02/09/the-north-american-union-exposed-a-presentation-on-the-destruction-of-america — propped up by the papering over of the soon-to-be-worthless dollar — http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=15017 — and, yes, these will likely be forced down our throats when the engineered crisis in the Middle East has reached the point (following an attack on Iran) when a “national emergency” paves the way for martial law.
But at some point reality will finallly set in (as Ayn Rand rightly said, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”), and with the return of sound money, the welfare-warfare state will pass into history, ushering in The Great Devolution.
Mises 101: The (US) State does not even Act. To keep it Crude and Unintelligible, ceteris paribus.
N/M that *CREDIT* has already replaced the “fiat dolla dolla bill y’all” as the de facto (c)unit.
David White: “But at some point reality will finally set in (as Ayn Rand rightly said, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”),”
That’s so deterministically SAD. That’s why I always insisted upon proving my point to the likes of Ayn Rand in the nude. All Marxist and Catholic delusions aside.
David White: “But at some point reality will finallly set in (as Ayn Rand rightly said, “You can avoid reality, but you cannot avoid the consequences of avoiding reality”),”.
So “reality” is always a future thang? Reality is existential from present tense, en francais? Unless in the meantime, we are all still alive, by definition of the alleged unavoidability of reality. /slap
David White: “and with the return of sound money, the welfare-warfare state will pass into history, ushering in The Great Devolution.”
Mayan mythology, friend. The Universe was destroyed three times already. Flood >>> Trees >>> Fire >>> Hills >>> Earthquake. But then I’ve only disproved the ABCT to you explicitly three or four times… But yet you can retype the same crap over and over. It’s more fun when it’s an a new thread invoking the ABCT; I lay the smack down with a ‘lil tartar sauce for academia.
Credit is worthless? No I.D. was ever stolen?
Crude unintelligibility of the ABCT … “goal” … , no, a previously *proved* Nobel Prize caliber proof. Mises was awarded the N.P. for the ABCT right? Hey, jist a matter of time b/f “rtr” can be searched on this site in the same manner as “Mises”, “Rothbard”, or “Menger”.
k, Davy? Take better notes next time and last time.
I think I was banned for much less than rtr here. Even if I was a dick, at least you could understand the dickish things I was saying. I have no idea why rtr posts here nor what he is getting at.
Me neither.
someones mommy didn’t pay enough attention to them when they were little, so let’s all stop and look at rtr
I’m not sure whether it’s some mental issues or whether he posts while he’s drugged or what.
I know the CIA is not popular at Mises, but one can’t be amazed at how it has become like the State Department, generating its own foreign policy in opposition to the White House, especially if it is Republican.
Libertarians should work to form a new federal agency. It will be a self-replicating agency just like the CIA and State, weeding out ideological enemies with great efficiency. The role of this agency will be to conduct cost benefit analysis on every single regulation, and make recommendations to Congress, just like CBO.
RTR-
“But then I’ve only disproved the ABCT to you explicitly three or four times… ”
I think its going to take just a bit more than three or four blog posts to disprove ABCT. Would you care to provide links to published papers or books?
“Mayan mythology”
A two line paraphrase of a dead religon is not citing source material.
CC
Comments on this entry are closed.