Back in September, Mises Community member “Esuric” started a thread encouraging other members to complete the sentence,
“You know you’re an Austrian when…” (“Austrian” of course meaning an adherent of the Austrian tradition of scholarship as developed by Carl Menger, Ludwig von Mises, and others). His own completion was:
Esuric: your professors generally don’t know what you’re talking about.
Jeff Tucker, who frequently stops by the Forums, agreed whole-heartedly:
The point about saying things your prof can’t understand is important. Austrians have a huge advantage over other students. In class after class, in nearly every discipline, an Austrian can add unique insights from history and theory. Profs are often astounded at the brilliant young student in the class, throwing out names of thinkers like Spooner or Etiene de la Boetie or points about the methodenstreit – stuff that no one else knows about.. Austrians can appear to be the most erudite student the prof has ever had. It provides endless sources for topics of papers, with arguments to please either a right wing or left wing teacher. It’s like magic. Profs are often astounded and thrilled, while having no clue about the source of all this stuff.
This is true outside of the classroom as well as in. Back in, December 2008, Community member Steve Bachman shared with us a correspondence he had with a local economist. Mr. Bachman, who, like many do, taught himself Austrian economics, was nonetheless able to more than hold his own with an expert on monetary history whose expertise didn’t extend to realizing that Gresham’s Law only applies to bimetallism under a regime of artifically fixed exchange ratios between the two metals.
On the political theory side of things, Community member Spideynw wrote to a local politician, not asking for handouts or special favors, but for freedom:
The cry of the revolutionaries of this country was, “no taxation without representation”. Well, I did not vote for any of those on the city council nor the mayor, and as such I do not have representation, yet I still have to pay taxes or be put in jail. I would consider this theft. Don’t you?
Click here to read the politician’s predictable response, and Spidey’s counter-thrust.
And here is a heroic letter written by Edmund Carlyle (and shared on the Forum), resisting attempts to indoctrinate ESL students:
To Whom It May Concern:
It recently came to my attention while reading some course material for the high school government classes that some of it was of a questionable nature, especially as regards its apparent intent to bias young students minds into accepting certain dogmas and ideological prescriptions uncritically. What I will cite is hardly the only example of the matter, but it is illustrative:
From ‘Review for Government‘ questions:
5. How does the government help you live a better life? Explain at least 10 things that government does for the public.
It is presumptuous, and hardly apolitical, to automatically assume that the Federal Government does provide a better life for its citizens than they would have without it, or under some other arrangement of governance. This is not a foregone conclusion in either the realms of political philosophy or everyday political debate (simply tune into anything relating to Representative Ron Paul). One might consider revising the content of questions which have a logical form similar to “When did you stop beating your wife?” I would hope that the ideological independence of students, and intellectual objectivity in general, would get more attention if the goal is to educate them, rather than indoctrinate them. I only mention it because I have worked with students who could not truthfully answer this question because they deny its premises. I will not repeat myself as to the nature of question six, but will only comment that it is hard to imagine that everyone would feel they have duties to a political agency that they may viably consider unjust, murderous, tyrannical, inept or all of the above.
As much as it may surprise some, to stridently assume things like the benevolence of the United States government or the efficacy of its form of government, would be as inappropriate and even offensive as trying to inculcate a belief in a particular religion. To some people, especially of foreign descent (i.e., Vietnam), it is akin to claiming the automatic benevolence of Bolshevik regime of the USSR. If this seems hyperbolic, one need only mention that the United States is the only government to ever use a nuclear weapon against human beings; moreover against a densely populated civilian target. Even if one thinks this is justified, it is certainly not something that ought to be assumed without argument. Nor is the undeniable fact of the existence and power of the US Federal Government somehow a ticket to legitimacy, for as Aristotle pointed out, just because something is so, does not make it right.
Sincerely,
Edmund Carlyle
Tu ne cede malis sed contra audentior it
Are these fellows too big for their britches? Should these autodidacts just leave matters to the self-styled experts?
Ludwig von Mises wouldn’t have thought so: (Emphasis added.)
“Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us.“
{ 3 comments }
This reminds me of something in my discussions with statists and marxists that makes me piping hot mad. I’ll be pointing out the harm that some kind of state intervention can cause, and then they retort ‘prove it’.
Well, prove that it’s safe to give people freedom of speech and religion. Prove that the negros on the plantation without a master to guide them, won’t become violent beasts. Maybe if I make an assertion, it’s on me to back it up. But when they say ‘prove it’, it makes me furious. I have never seen in my life a formal proof that state intervention works. I’ve seen lots of theories, lots of stories, lots of social and political pressure, a few fleeting examples of a system that appears to be stable for now, some pumped up use of statistics, but never ever once a real formal proof. Since they’re the ones imposing the state on me, I would assume that the burden of proof would be on them, but most are rather indignant when I shove it back in their face and say “you prove it otherwise”. A funny reaction, considering that they are forcing me to pay for their plans. I’m the one that should be indignant.
I laud each correspondant’s desire to think critically and independently, to challenge traditional modes of thinking, and to take a stand for greater freedom and independence in their immediate circles. I think we need more of this.
However, I find a constitutional discussion about taxation preposterously off-the-mark in a letter to city council. As we all know, the US Constitution has no jurisdiction at the municipal level (and thank heavens for that!). I also find that correspondant’s insistence that his not having consented to the US Constitution a very poor way to affect change in his local government.
At times, libertarians need to learn when to invoke constitutional arguments and when not to. I assume the goal of political discourse is to stand up for what you believe to be right and to win others to one’s side?
When people make such caustic, abrasive, over-blown arguments in the context of school curricula or City Council decisions, they *are not* talking over the heads of their opponents – they *are not* making arguments people don’t understand – they *are not* helping the cause of freedom or liberty. What they are doing is undermining every libertarian argument made by reasonable people that could actually win support from others.
When one reads “The Road to Serfdom,” one is struck by Friedrich Hayek’s approachable, sensible, open-hearted method of persuasion. He didn’t waste his time complaining about “not being represented because he didn’t vote for the winning candidate.” He called all people to action under the belief that simply explaining the truth in a way everyone understands is enough to win support for a good cause.
Sometimes I wish modern-day libertarians could approach their problems more sensibly. I, too, would like more essential liberty in my life. How likely is it that my taxes will go down as a result of the cited discourse above? Not very. On the other hand, how likely is it that non-libertarians, having been exposed to this nonsense, will soon stop taking libertarian arguments seriously at all? Quite likely.
It’s a shame.
Earlier that day I told my professor (who’s a Post-Keynesian) that savings not equaling investment ex ante, in a monetary economy with a central bank manipulating the money supply, does not, in anyway, invalidate Say’s law. He didn’t know what I was talking about, nor has he ever head of the Salamanca school of economics. It’s pretty obvious that the mainstream is playing with half a deck of cards (and they don’t even know it).
Thank god for the Mises institute.
Comments on this entry are closed.