“I found this today and I must say that this is very shocking from the libertarian point of view:

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773

I showed someone the article, and their response was, “Well, they finally accomplished what Napoleon and Hitler could not.”

“It is one thing to show a man that he is in error, and another to put him in possession of truth.” –John Locke

The first, most damaging fundamental assumption is that the world is a battle between big business – who wants unbridled, free market, brutal, darwinian competetion so that it can screw the public at large – vs. government – who wants to protect the public from the evils of big businesses by restraining their behavior and regulating the inherently unstable free market to protect the citizens from businesses who are trying to accululate all the wealth of society through unbridled greed.

The other major assumption is that the history of the world has been one of continual “progress” to the current statist world we live in. The story goes like this: once upon a time people lived in an unregulated world with no laws or government. There were enormous problems in this world like poverty, disease, war, crime, prejudice. At each step along the way the “people” “decided” that government was needed to fix each of these problems.

Most knowledgeable libertarians know that these are ridiculous assumptions, but the vast majority of the public “knows” these things so inherently that they are not up for debate.

There is no way to have a debate about privatizing the money supply, eliminating he welfare state, reducing taxes, how best to build infrastructure or any other issue until these assumptions are questioned and corrected. Focusing on anything else is pointless.

Well I am a genuine sort. I crush falsehoods.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2773

Politics implies “state” for most folks, so by king let us assume you mean private owner of a state. But politics does not have to mean “state”, as what free-market society shows. e.g. A shareholder meeting is loaded with private politics. “Public”, using its governmental connotations, implies folks being subject to the will of others. There are many forms. Kingship implies one will privilege over subjects. Socialism and democracy can have myriad numbers of wills coercing others. All three imply government.

Kings deny, to one degree or another, the opportunity for private ownership of the means of production to their subjects (this may vary greatly). Privatizing politics banishes government and raises the possibility of capitalism farther. This order is very different than private government!

What is a king without government? The likelihood of a king emerging from a private society based on individual property rights (private politics)is less likely than in a private society based on government(public politics). Of course, no society lasts without general cohesion on the ideological underpinnings.

How can there be a capitalist society without an emphasis on private politics rightly understood?

If this is not so, then are we to believe that ‘political considerations come first’, in other words, that folks have to decide politically that capital production is OK/Not OK? If this were the case, then is the private sphere naturally subordinated to the public realm (or vice-versa)?

Either way, things social need not be public. Political considerations, as an inherent social concern, can be confined to the private sphere- shareholders, members, teammates etc.

Ultimately, does the idea of privatizing politics violate the implications of Aristotle’s ‘man is a political animal’ observation? If not, then like separation of church and state- where it is now time to nullify the state, there should also be a separation of politics and public.

After some much-deserved ranting about the legal system, Farmer responds with “we have laws to protect us from other laws.”

This is what the focus of the battle for freedom is. Instead of spreading our energy fighting a million little battles on all fronts, we focus everything on the point where our enemies are weakest. We need to be activist in order to pass into law new rights that will destroy bad laws. Give people new liberties and let the courts take away their privileges.

Despite what The Clash used to say, you can fight the law and win, if the law is on your side.

Finally I can get on to Henry Hazlitt:

Yes he made wonderful points – as normal.

It is remarkable that he once wrote a regular column in “Newsweek”.

First they had Hazlitt, then they had Milton Friedman (“balanced” by some leftist writing stuff in line with what their journalists were taught in college), now they have…..

This is called “cultural decline”.

Sadly little good has happened in the United States since Henry Hazlitt wrote Man versus the Welfare State back in 1969.

Certainly military spending takes up a much smaller share of the economy than it did then (or did in 1959 for that matter) – a fact that some libertarians forget. But “entitlement program” share of the economy has increased much more than military spending’s share of the economy has declined.

So the situation is WORSE not BETTER.

Regulations?

Well people can own a bar of gold now. But in most other ways regulations are vastly worse – although at least conscription is gone.

And the “defenders of free enterprise”?

Mostly the same confused, compromising wastes-of-space that they were then.

Back then Richard Nixon had just been elected – he had not yet put into effect his wild increases in welfare state spending or his wage and price conrols (or all the other regulations), but it was to come.

These days there is George Walker Bush and “No-Child-Left-Behind” and the Medicare extention (plus wildly expensive ideas like war in Iraq from 2003).

And this cycle?

Mitt Romney used to get a “C” from the Cato Institute when he was Governor of Mass, and also left them with “universal health care” – the bills for this government backing will go into the higher atmosphere in time.

And, of course, Governor Huckabee – a “F” grade from Cato.

A man whose only problem with the Welfare State is that it is not big enough.

And business?

Wall Street puts 60% of its campaign contributions into the hands of Democrats who want to INCREASE Capital Gains Tax (and all other taxes on business and investment).

Why?

Partly because “if we do not give them money they will hit us harder – the Senior Senator for New York told us so” (why is this not extortion?).

But mostly business (and not just Wall Street – Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Marc Cuban, Peter Lewis…. and on and on) hand over money to leftist causes because they have been taught (by the “education system” and the media) that this is the moral thing to do. That “redistribution” is good – and so on.

In forty years we have got nowhere – if anything attitudes are worse now than they were back then.

The honest word would be counterfeiting,which is legalized theft.
The real issue is a matter of Ethics. If theft in the name of public welfare is ‘good’ then anything goes, that is why we are where we are.

And when Bismark was removed by the Emperor (partly for not being statist enough) the extra statism of the new governments also saw the socialists going from strength to strength.

True it was Russia not Germany that had a Marxist revolution (although Russian policy was harldy free market either), but Germany came close in 1919.

Bismark’s statism was not just the small start of the welfare state – it was also a moderate police state (yes there is such a thing as moderate version of this).

As Hayek (along with many others) was fond of pointing out – ideas for a “police state” and a “welfare state” are very close in German, and the terms were even used back in the 1700′s.

M.J. Oakeshott’s “On Human Conduct” (1975) should also be read on all of these matters. Especially the last essay – “On the Character of Modern European State”.

As Ludwig Von Mises and others were fond of pointing out, socialist support was so weak in Prussia when Bismark started in politics that he actually had socialist activists subsidized – as a way of undermining Classical Liberals. Later the socialist movement got out of control and Bismark became very concerned about it – but that was not the real motivation for the welfare programs (whatever the college history textbooks say).

The welfare programs that Bismark created (which started off very small – as such progams normally do), were a matter of him putting into practice his basic ideas for an active government (ideas he had when he was still a long haired student reading Hegel.

Although the statist tradition in German thought goes back long before this (and there were a lot worse practical advisers than Hegel)the “Cameralists” go back as far as the 1600′s.

The German “historical school” (the “socialists [or at least statists] of the chair”) that Carl Menger opposed in the war of method, can be seen as a throw back to Cameralists.

See the first and second volumes of Murry Rothbard’s history of economics for these people – I do not believe the third volume was ever written (which is unfortunate).

Right. “Middle of the Road” policy always works… err, wait, this site is full of literature dating a history of hundreds of years showing precisely the opposite.

As for becoming “Inquisitor”…I have always thought of Inquisitors as those who try to impose THEIR truth upon others. You, however, appear to be someone who is in search of and wishes to defend THE truth. Does there not exist a name that represents those qualities??

There already exists a group of pragmatic Libertarians. They are called Neo-Libertarians who believe that one can have limited government coexisting with a warfare state. Isn’t that what one would call “cognitive dissonance”?

PS: I’ll be changing to Inquisitor from Anthony. Fundamentalist will appreciate the company.

Nope, we merely correct misconceptions as to what capitalism was, is and will be. We have no time for ‘middle of the road’ nonsense because it is only a quick fix.

One thing is for certain. Other than Ron Paul, we cannot depend upon Libertarians who are part of the political machine to do the job. It’s up to libertarians to talk to people, hand out copies of “Economics in One Lesson” or refer them to the literature available here as Mises.

I’ve sometimes toyed with the idea of starting up small groups that would focus on readings in Austrian Economics and libertarian philosophy, so that beginners wouldn’t feel like they were on their own. It would be wonderful if the beginners would advance to the point where they would be willing to mentor other newcomers.

It is important, for those of us who are willing, to ensure the survival of libertarian philosophy and principles.