Ye Olde Libertarian Pub

[Izdaari Eristikon]

There is no universally agreed upon set of libertarian founders... though I could make a case for both Lao Tzu and Jesus Christ as early libertarians.

Libertarian ethics? No, I don't buy that. The only person I know of who promulgated a distinctive libertarian ethics, i.e., distinct from the common ethics of Western Civilization, was Ayn Rand... and her ethics based on rational self-interest, and which assumed atheism and reductionist materialism, was antithetical to Christianity. (Btw, former Ayn Rand follower here. ) What makes libertarianism different from other political philosophies is its politics, not its ethics. We don't have to agree on ethics to agree on the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and free market economics. Christians, Objectivists and Satanists can all be libertarians, despite our ethical and philosophical differences. All we have to agree on is politics.

Am I a real libertarian? Not by some purist definitions, no, though I have been a member of the Libertarian Party since it was first on the ballot, in 1972, the first year I was eligible to vote. I am, like Milton Friedman, fairly pragmatic and utilitarian. And I identify with F.A. Hayek, who called himself a classical liberal. But Friedman and Hayek, both Nobel prize winners, have been very influential thinkers within the libertarian movement, and rightly so.

 

[MacFall]

From wikipedia: "Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] David Boaz writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]"

You can find out who the founders of the ideology were by finding out who first used the term. As the Wikipedia article notes, the French anarcho-communists actually first used the word libertaire in a political sense. But the first English use of "libertarian" as describing a belief in individual liberty can be traced to Leonard Read of the Foundation for Economic Education, who was a radical proponent of free markets. One of his contemporaries, Murray Rothbard (who co-founded the Libertarian Party and was called "the father of American libertarianism" by many of his contemporaries), wrote two books that defined the philosophy to its logical conclusions: For a New Liberty - The Libertarian Manifesto and The Ethics of Liberty. Rothbard didn't do anything new in definitive terms; he only described the logical implications of what were already regarded as the core principles of libertarian philosophy.

Many people who are today described as libertarian are in fact classical liberals, or paleo-conservatives, or Constitutional absolutists, and even to some extent neoliberals, or other related - but distinct - ideologies. Ayn Rand actually despised libertarianism, calling it "Objectivism with its teeth pulled". Hayek could be considered a classical liberal, but even he departed substantially from his staunchly classical liberal mentor, Ludwig von Mises. Milton Friedman was closer to neoliberalism than Hayek was. All of these people certainly contributed to libertarian thought - but so have others of viewpoints that are wildly divergent from libertarianism. And what is the point of having the word "libertarian" in the first place if it is to be conflated with half a dozen other ideologies covering a wide range of similarity and disparity?

At its core, libertarianism is a distinctly anti-political philosophy. Its political recommendations, such as they are, are informed by its ethics. Libertarian ethics affirm self-ownership and non-aggression. When you have those, you have a free market. When you have a free market, you have the smallest state possible - which some would say means replacing the state entirely with contractual law.

BTW, just to be clear, I never said that one has to be entirely opposed to the state to be a libertarian. But because libertarianism implies things like the right of secession and the possibility of polycentric legal orders, it is quite possible to be both - and a libertarian would at least have to admit the justice, if not the possibility, of a society defined by absolute recognition of individual self-ownership and law based upon the non-aggression principle.

 

[LordTimothytheWise]

Alex Jones anyone? Thoughts? opinions?

 

[Izdaari Eristikon]

Alex Jones anyone? Thoughts? opinions?

I hadn't heard of him until this post. So I read the Wiki article about him. He sounds interesting, someone I might enjoy listening to, though I'd probably disagree on some things... especially on the conspiracy stuff, most of which I don't buy at all. I'll see if I can find him on the radio anywhere.

 

[MacFall]

Alex Jones anyone? Thoughts? opinions?

He does a good job reporting on the rise of the police state (militarization, surveillance, unconstitutional powers, and police abuse in general).

But I don't like the whole conspiracy angle - not because I believe conspiracy theories to be categorically wrong, but because I think it's a waste of time to go chasing them down rabbit holes. Who cares whether the government actually blew up the twin towers, or merely failed to guard the American people from the consequences of U.S. foreign policy? Either way, the state is evil, and there is sufficient proof of that without resorting to conspiracy theory.

I also don't like the constant stream of anger that he projects. I understand that anger can be justified, but that doesn't mean it's wise to be angry. There's always something to be angry about. But most of the time, being angry doesn't help you do anything about those things, and it damages your soul in the meantime.

I think Jones is a good guy. We have enough shared goals and ideas for me to consider him an ally. But I don't listen to his show, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone who is new to the ideas of liberty. I believe there are healthier ways to approach the issues he addresses than that which he takes.

 

[mcswan]

Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » The Left’s Power of Self-Delusion

"The single most dangerous thing about leftists is their capacity for self-delusion. Most leftists really do believe that they personally know what is best for everyone."

"Beyond their personal intellectual and moral hubris, leftists think they know best because they believe themselves to belong to a line of ideological descent which has always been altruistic, benevolent and always proven correct in the long run. The reason they believe that is because leftists know nothing of their own history. Instead, they take a simplified, cartoonish view of their ideological predecessors that can only be described as hagiographic. Any mistakes or evils perpetrated by anyone that leftists identify with are simply written out of leftists’ history."

Ouch! That' gonna leave a mark! And I thought I was tough on the lefties!!

 

[MacFall]

Good quote, but replace the word "left" with "state" to make it more accurate. Left and Right are meaningless distinctions. There is tyranny on one side, and liberty on the other. It doesn't matter which hand you name them after. The original terms were taken from the parliament of the French republic, where the reformers sat on the left and the conservatives (in the classical sense rather than the modern one) sat on the right. Among the reformers was Frederic Bastiat. That makes one of the greatest free market thinkers of all time a "leftist". But apparently, so was Stalin. That makes the left-right scale sort of pointless, doesn't it?

 

[ScottBot]

Wow, not alot of movement in my 2 year absence. Need to get this joint moving again.

 

[MacFall]

So... David Nolan died today.

 

[brindisi]

My nightmare:


"I'm going to marry your daughter."

 

[MacFall]

I wouldn't want to hear that from a neoconservative, either.

 

[Moncus]

Granted, its more diverse and complex than this, as there are socially conservative libertarians who embrace a curtailment of abortion, and certainly abhor the fact that it is federally funded. There are "liberal" libertarians who strongly advocate for legalization of marijuana. (Note that these are only two small representative examples).

Actually... It's pretty widespread that most libertarians don't just advocate for marijuana legalization, they also advocate for the end of all drug prohibition. It's one of the few key differences between libertarians and conservatives. Liberals don't advocate for legalization at all, so dubbing it a "liberal libertarian" philosophy is very off. A "liberal libertarian" would be better described as a pro choice libertarian.

Also being conservative by it's true definition would be pretty close to being a libertarian. Conservatives used to believe in live and let live, limited government, and non interventionist foreign policy. Now the closest thing to describe republicans/conservatives would be a Natzi, the worst of both worlds: socially neoconservative and fiscally liberal with an aggressive control the rest of the world foreign policy. Gigantic government all across the board, very china-like. I swear man i watched a debate when john mccain was running for senator of arizona just a few months ago and one of the founders of the libertarian party the late David Nolan (RIP) was also participating. John McCain is sitting there saying "I'm going to propose tax cuts of up to 20 billion which we can redirect to our public schools"---...... When David Nolan had a chance to talk to pretty much sum it up he said "Ok, 7 trillion minus 20 billion is still pretty much 7 trillion. The only way to end the deficit is to stop spending, plain and simple." And all republicans do this! And they LOVE public education! What a monster!

 

[Moncus]

People like Beck use the term "libertarian" to attempt to distinguish themselves from neoconservative Republicans, but libertarianism isn't the same thing as "Old Right" conservatism or even classical liberalism. Libertarianism is a distinct ethical philosophy, and Beck doesn't subscribe to it. He's better than most of the talking heads, and he certainly has some good things to say (especially regarding the Federal Reserve), but I don't agree with him on enough of the issues to watch or listen to his show. I used to, but I stopped when he was part of the establishment Republican gang-up against Ron Paul during the Republican primary. And even though I guess they're on friendly terms now, I'm still not a fan.

I will watch if he has any people on of whom I am a fan, though. I'd love to see him and Andrew Napolitano talk about civil rights. That would be an interesting discussion.

Libertarianism is classical liberalism. If there are any differences please explain : o I'de love to learn more!

 

[ScottBot]

Libertarianism is classical liberalism. If there are any differences please explain : o I'de love to learn more!

There really are none. If you want to read up on the current American disposition of libertarianism, go to www.lewrockwell.com

 

[MacFall]

Classical liberalism is the political doctrine that the state should be limited to a few functions, but those functions were never agreed upon by its adherents. The "protection of natural rights" school of Locke (and later Jefferson) ran up sharply against the social welfare school of people like John Stuart Mill, and the industrial and financial mercantilism of Alexander Hamilton. But all of those people were classical liberals by virtue of the fact that they believed in limiting the power of the state to their respective favorite functions, and that any activity not governed explicitly by those functions must be regarded as legally permissible.

Libertarianism, by contrast, is not a political doctrine. Rather, it is an ethical proposition with political consequences, the ethics in question being that of the moral impermissibility of initiatory force. And that principle, applied to politics, results in a much more radical opposition to state power than even the rights-theorist classical liberals would have tolerated.

However, the emergence of libertarianism did have a radicalizing influence on the remnants of classical liberalism in the early 20th century. Classical liberals like Leonard Read, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Herbert Spencer, and Ludwig von Mises, while never embracing a wholly anti-political social worldview, admitted the moral necessity of such libertarian ideas as the right of secession and disobedience to the state. And those things, in practice, would result in a form of governance that would scarcely resemble the political state at all.

 

[Moncus]

However, the emergence of libertarianism did have a radicalizing influence on the remnants of classical liberalism in the early 20th century. Classical liberals like Leonard Read, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Herbert Spencer, and Ludwig von Mises, while never embracing a wholly anti-political social worldview, admitted the moral necessity of such libertarian ideas as the right of secession and disobedience to the state. And those things, in practice, would result in a form of governance that would scarcely resemble the political state at all.

Even so, it may seem that cynicism towards government is a big time libertarian thing but it's really an American thing. Even republicans and democrats from 100 years ago would have one or two things they thought the government should be involved in, and 100% everything else was the libertarian platform.

 

[ScottBot]

Classical liberalism is the political doctrine that the state should be limited to a few functions, but those functions were never agreed upon by its adherents. The "protection of natural rights" school of Locke (and later Jefferson) ran up sharply against the social welfare school of people like John Stuart Mill, and the industrial and financial mercantilism of Alexander Hamilton. But all of those people were classical liberals by virtue of the fact that they believed in limiting the power of the state to their respective favorite functions, and that any activity not governed explicitly by those functions must be regarded as legally permissible.

Libertarianism, by contrast, is not a political doctrine. Rather, it is an ethical proposition with political consequences, the ethics in question being that of the moral impermissibility of initiatory force. And that principle, applied to politics, results in a much more radical opposition to state power than even the rights-theorist classical liberals would have tolerated.

However, the emergence of libertarianism did have a radicalizing influence on the remnants of classical liberalism in the early 20th century. Classical liberals like Leonard Read, Albert Jay Nock, H.L. Mencken, Herbert Spencer, and Ludwig von Mises, while never embracing a wholly anti-political social worldview, admitted the moral necessity of such libertarian ideas as the right of secession and disobedience to the state. And those things, in practice, would result in a form of governance that would scarcely resemble the political state at all.

Right. The primary ethical principle of libertarianism is the principle of non-aggression. This is not pacifism. It means that one's life is guided by the principle of doing no harm to another (physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually, or financially), but if one is transgressed upon, you may defend yourself in whatever means you believe just.

 

[callmeMurph]

Why did I not see this pub before? I'm glad I found it.

Anyways I had a question or two I was hoping some people could answer.

Whats the difference between the Austrian and Chicago Schools of Economics? I've heard some people say that the Chicago School is libertarian but I've never actually met a libertarian from the Chicago School. Is it libertarian? Why or why not?

Thanks

 

[callmeMurph]

Alex Jones anyone? Thoughts? opinions?

I'm not really sure what to think of him either. What he says makes sense but I think most people would consider his ideas conspiracy theories.

What do you think, is it mostly a load of crap? Or can we trust the majority of what he says?

 

[MacFall]

Why did I not see this pub before? I'm glad I found it.

Anyways I had a question or two I was hoping some people could answer.

Whats the difference between the Austrian and Chicago Schools of Economics? I've heard some people say that the Chicago School is libertarian but I've never actually met a libertarian from the Chicago School. Is it libertarian? Why or why not?

Thanks

Strictly speaking, no school of economics is libertarian or otherwise. Economics is wertfreiheit--a value-free science; it tells people what the consequences of certain actions will be, and explains why those consequences happen. It does not say whether people should do something or shouldn't. Libertarianism, on the other hand, does propose a moral "ought"; that people should prefer liberty to control, choice to monopoly, and peaceful association to violence. However, free-market economics is essential to libertarian thought because it shows that libertarian values such as peace, personal property rights, and voluntary exchange result in more good things for everybody, which is to say that libertarian ethics work in practice.

The Chicago school is not really a free-market school of economics. It makes recommendations that would maintain the government's socialistic monopoly on money production and valuation, as well as certain "public goods". Although it calls for more "freedom" (defined as the availability of choice; not really as an ethical standard against political force interfering with voluntary human action) than its rival Keynesian economics, it is not free-market in principle, because a free market, by definition, would be a market unaffected by such political monopolies as central banks, which the Chicago school unfortunately defends.

Epistemologically, it differs from Austrianism in that the Chicago school is largely empirical and positivist: they rely on mathematical predictive models to form their theories of how markets will act. But in contrast to Austrian economics, they lack a theoretical framework to explain why those models work, or why they don't. Austrian economics, as developed by Ludwig von Mises, is a purely logical science, based upon irrefutable axioms. Namely, that "man acts", and that in acting he expresses preference. So then, all conscience human action is performed with the expectation that it will meet the most urgent need that can be met through action at that particular instant. These principles cannot be refuted, because in the very act of attempting to refute them, a person acts, expressing preference, and proving the very things he means to refute.

This axiomatic science is referred to as "praxeology", the study of conscious human action. All the basic laws of microeconomics, such as supply and demand, marginal utility, and so forth, can be easily inferred from praxeology. The rest of economic science is developed by further application of the same principles, rigorously drawing out the implications of praxeological axioms to their furthest possible logical conclusions. So then when the other economic schools' predictions turn out to be false, while they adjust their models over and over again and still never quite get it right, the Austrians can explain why they were wrong in the first place by pointing out how the predictions violate axiomatic truths about human action.