You can’t have a limited, libertarian government at home if that same government pursues interventionist policies abroad. From Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. at lewrockwell.com:
This talk was delivered at the Ron Paul Institute’s Conference on Breaking Washington’s Addiction to War.
Murray Rothbard was the creator of the modern libertarian movement and a close friend of both Ron Paul and me. His legacy was a great one, and at the Mises Institute I try every day to live up to his hopes for us.
One issue was the most important to him, of all the many issues that concerned him. This was the issue of war and peace. Because of his support for a peaceful, noninterventionist foreign policy for America, the CIA agent William F. Buckley blacklisted him from National Review and tried, fortunately without success, to silence his voice.
During the 1950’s, Murray worked for the Volker Fund, and in a letter to Ken Templeton in 1959, he complained about the situation: “I can think of no other magazine which might publish this, though I might fix it up a bit and try one of the leftist-pacifist publications. The thing is that I am getting more and more convinced that the war-peace question is the key to the whole libertarian business, and that we will never get anywhere in this great intellectual counterrevolution (or revolution) unless we can end this . . . cold war-a war for which I believe our tough policy is largely responsible.”
Posted in Business, Capitalism, Civil Liberties, Crime, Cronyism, Debt, Economics, Economy, Government, Imperialism, Military, Philosophy, War
Tagged libertarianism, Murray Rothbard, Peace
The current paradigm, promoted by both parties, is more government. We need a new paradigm. From Jacob G. Hornberger at fff.org:
From the Democratic Party debates, it’s not difficult to see that there really isn’t any difference in principle between any of the Democratic presidential candidates and, for that matter, between Republicans and Democrats.
Oh, yes, I know how the mainstream media is portraying the “big” differences between the Democrats and President Trump but that’s just because their mindsets are stuck in the statist paradigm. For a person whose mind is stuck in the statist paradigm, the various candidates within the paradigm appear to have monumental differences. But once a person breaks out of the statist paradigm, he realizes that the differences between the various Democratic and Republicans candidates are minor and really go to degree, not principle.
Consider healthcare. The Democrats favor Medicare for All. Trump and his fellow Republicans favor Medicare for Some.
Now, that’s obviously a big difference to the mainstream media because they are operating within the statist paradigm.
From a libertarian perspective, my reaction is, big deal. There is no difference in principle between Medicare for All and Medicare for Some. The only difference is in degree. The point is that they all support government involvement in healthcare because that’s a core feature of the statist paradigm, just like it is in Cuba.
Does libertarianism need more than the nonagression principle? From Daniel Ajamian at lewrockwell.com:
I would like to thank Joe for the introduction and invitation, Lew for his leadership of and vision for the Institute, the supporters and friends of the Mises Institute for helping to make it the premier source on economics and liberty in the tradition of Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard, and I especially would like to thank The Lou Church Foundation for annually sponsoring this lecture.
It is broadly accepted that out of Enlightenment thinking came many of the “goods” of our society; goods economic, political, and social. Goods ranging from the material wealth and the technology we enjoy to classical liberalism and libertarianism. It is on the latter that I will focus.
An exhaustive discussion of the connection of Enlightenment thought to Classical liberalism and libertarianism is not necessary for this audience, so I will summarize: reason, the individual, equality, property rights, the separation of church and state, and science and politics freed from religious dogma. These pillars underlie the classical liberalism that many point to and exclaim: here, we finally found freedom! Instead, what if these have cost us our freedom?
What is Enlightenment? Immanuel Kant gave his answer:
Enlightenment is man’s release from his self-incurred immaturity. Immaturity is man’s inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another….”Have courage to use your own reason!” That is the motto of enlightenment.
There is Diderot’s Encyclopedia, considered one of the greatest cultural and intellectual achievements of the Enlightenment; a 20 million word man-made blueprint for the creation of a rational, improving and cultivated society.
Libertarianism is a political philosophy that deals with the proper use of force in a society, by government and everyone else. It can’t be criticized for not dealing with issues outside that essential but not all encompassing question. From Jeff Deist at mises.org:
Daniel McCarthy, editor of Modern Age and editor at large for The American Conservative, recently published an essay on the Spectator USA site titled “Why Libertarians are Wrong.” It merits a response because Mr. McCarthy is friendly and sympathetic toward libertarianism, and despite the infirmities of his article ought to be seen as a fellow traveler.
The title misleads us a bit from the beginning, because McCarthy is sound on the single most important libertarian political issue: war and peace. He objected to George W. Bush’s foray into Iraq, he attacks the permanent-war complex and its funding, and he consistently advocates a reasonably non-interventionist US foreign policy far closer to Ron Paul than John Bolton. He also has read Mises and Hayek, and unlike many intellectual conservatives (a dwindling group) McCarthy is not mired in Burke or Buckley or Reagan. He even blogged for the 2008 Paul presidential campaign and has spoken at the Mises Institute on foreign policy. So unlike a Bill Kristol or Sean Hannity, his conservative critique comes without ignorance or malice.
One town in Mexico is making something that looks suspiciously like libertarianism work. From Jeff Thomas at internationalman.com:
The sign above is located in the state of Chiapas in Mexico. In English, it says, “You are in the territory of Zapatista in Rebellion. Here, the people give the orders and the government obeys.”
Well, of course, what that really means is that the Zapatistas give the orders, not the people as a whole. Still, the people generally regard the Zapatistas as being more representative of their wishes (and less parasitical) than the government.
The government can do most anything it wants, as long as it proclaims it’s doing it for our safety, but only liberty keeps us safe from the most dangerous and deadly institution ever established: government. From Eric Peters at theburningplatform.com:
The obvious is often the hardest to understand . . . and to accept.
For example, the very strange idea that we are “safer” the more our liberties are infringed upon. If so, then inmates in solitary confinement are safest of all.
It’s absurd, obviously. And yet this idea – the fundamental idea – is accepted by what seems to be a working majority of the populace. Which suggests either an incapacity to reason or a general lowering of intelligence.
The “safety” (and “security”) argument is based on an obvious logical contradiction: How can one be “safe” or “secure” when there is no limit to what government may do to anyone, so long as it is asserted that whatever is done is necessary to keep everyone “safe”?
It amounts to a lettre de chachet, for those up on their French history – the history of the Bourbon absolute monarchy in particular. The lettreempowered its holder with arbitrary power to do whatever to whomever. Just because. No burden of proof, no presentation of evidence subject to cross-examination; most of all, no presumption of innocence – and certainly no restraint of punishment prior to guilt established by due process of law.
We find ourselves living in a security state – not a free one. There is literally nothing – in principle and almost in fact – that the government may not do to us, or order us not to do. Always in the name of “keeping us safe.” Or for reasons of “security.” We are subject to punishment for affronting statutes; for what a supposed “someone” might do that could (so it is asserted) result in harm.
There is no end to it. No line in the sand beyond which the government’s boots may not tread.
To continue reading: The Libertarian Standard