Here is Murray N. Rothbard’s 1968 demolition of trends in conservative thought, as printed in Ramparts magazine. Rothbard writes that it was not he who had changed but the American right wing, which had previously supported liberty but which had embraced militarism, police power, and the corporate state. This article’s relevance in our own time hardly needs to be explained, given the record of the Republican president, congress, and judiciary, to say nothing of conservative and right-wing media. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/3698/confessions-of-a-right-wing-liberal/
Confessions of a Right-Wing Liberal
Previous post: Regulatory Scheme Protects Investors by Curtailing Stock Research
Next post: Fighting back against anti-driving mania
{ 47 comments }
Right-wing media?!?
Hello? Rathergate? Easongate? etc…
Please…
Thanks so much for making this article available. I have come across references to it a number of times, but could not obtain a copy of the article since I do not have easy access to Ramparts magazine. And as you mentioned, the article is certainly relevant to current times.
Thanks again.
Though I do not think Rothbard’s apparent belief in the “innocence” of Soviet-style communism can be supported by the weight of history, I find much to sympathize with in this 37 year old essay, especially in light of the complete abandonment of any respect for limited government by the current Republican Party and Administration. I vote Republican, but I do not do it happily, and I wish I had a realistic alternative.
I do not believe that Rothbard moved from “extreme right” to “extreme left” by standing in one place. While it is true that conservatives became more statist, Rothbard became more of an anarchist. Most conservatives supported America during WWII, whereas Rothbard gives the impression that they were pacifists.
I agree with Rothbard that America cannot police the world, and should not try. This is in keeping with conservative doctrine, and goes back at least as far as John Quincy Adams. Moreover, the view that “the function of the state [should be] to impose and enforce moral and religious principles” is disastrous, and counters the Declaration of Independence. Here, Rothbard is on solid ground when criticizing the changes among conservatives.
However, I strongly disagree that “the United States was solely at fault in the Cold War, and that Russia was the aggrieved party.” Nor does his defense of Rap Brown and SNCC hang together as advocates of Negro self-reliance, for their thrust was hatred of America and whites, while advocating and inciting force & violence. (Isn’t it interesting how the anarchists begin by criticizing the State for being violent, and end up condoning the most violent parties?)
There is an imbalance in the anarchists as they fight America for infractions of liberty, while justifying and condoning far greater infractions by our enemies. It is akin to those who call Abu Ghraib the Gulag of our day. To them, imprisoning those who take military action against America, is worse than tyrannies that murder innocent people. I do not doubt that Rothbard would be allied with those who do so today.
Except for the support of communism in the Soviet Union as a counterweight to the US unabashed expansion, the article is excellent. I am of the opinion that the Soviet Union was obviously extremely Statist and WAS expansionary on its own account. Despite official party rhetoric of the Soviets, by the time of Stalin the “new boss” was the same as the “old boss” and the old needs still existed. Of course history documents that a great deal of deadly Statist force was used internally, the ‘national’ needs for ports and avenues of ‘trade’ still were the order of the day, and use of, or threat of, force externally was used and the threat of more always existed. Apologists have contrived that the Soviets had no choice but to attack Poland. Imperialism is basically all about taking the fight for resources and internal ‘peace’ elsewhere. A good defense is a good offense. The Soviet Statists knew this and practiced it.
But the question still remains to what extent did we need to involve ourselves so soon, if at all, in the affairs of the Soviet Union and its unfortunate satellites (or potential satellites). I do believe our ‘national interests’ that led to the ramping up of the Cold War was due to our own Grand Statist mechanisms in place at that time and since. So it’s a matter of recognizing that Soviet Statism (just as any form of Statism) is a potential threat, the million dollar question just how much liberty did we need to sacrifice in the face of it? It is obvious to me that we have come very close to that which supposedly fought against for the few decades of the Cold War.
Also, this is really is a study that every person has to ultimately take their own course in life and the realizations they come to. It’s disconcerting that articles such as this existed since the year of my birth and yet it took me until my mid thirties to be saddened by the ‘right’ of today. I believed the rhetoric still infested in the right even today going on about small government and the individual. I cut my teeth on Reagan (another former Democrat) and the suppositions thrown around in those eight years so I held onto the belief that the right/Republicans still had a vestige of individualism at its core. Bush II and the Houses have all but caved that belief.
And lastly, it is so disconcerting too that being truly, consistently, anti-statist puts one on the fringe, and always appears to have been that way. Spooner is hardly a household word, nor is Rothbard for that matter.
At the end of the day the people get the government they deserve, and it appears that here, just as in the old Soviet Union and Europe, the majority will turn their lives over to the State which will eventually reign from on high, the question is will it be a slow or quick demise.
And we are left with a two party system that bicker in a manner similar to the Homoousion/Homoiousion controversies with little more than an ‘i’ and a holy ghost to account for the differences. It is clear that the political wars fought in the US are between entrenched Statists and every “victory” by either is a loss for individualism and freedom. Either of the lesser of two evils isn’t less enough. And adherents to either side fight tooth and nail, and when I intrude with real thoughts on freedom, prosperity, and peace I’m the nutcase.
This amazing article helps explain the confusion i’ve had for so long over right and left and how socialism seems to pervade the entire spectrum.
I would never, by myself, have landed on the view of “…socialism as a confused middle-of-the-road movement, influenced historically by both the libertarian left and the conservative right. From the individualist left the socialists took the goals of freedom: the withering away of the state, the replacement of the governing of men by the administration of things, opposition to the ruling class and a search for its overthrow, the desire to establish international peace, an advanced industrial economy and a high standard of living for the mass of the people. From the right the socialists adopted the means to achieve these goals—collectivism, state planning, community control of the individual. This put socialism in the middle of the ideological spectrum. It also meant that socialism was an unstable, self-contradictory doctrine bound to fly apart in the inner contradiction between its means and ends.”
What a great article.
While I love Austrian economics, I can’t go along with the absolute anti-state positions of Rothbard and Hoppe. I recently read both of their books on liberty and found their arguments too utopian. With Austrian economics, we can look to history to see the dynamics of theories play out. But when in history has any society ever existed without government? Socialism was a utopian idea until the advent of the USSR and China, which became the test of the idea and a demonstration of it’s failure. Do we want to risk another utopian experiment?
Neither author addresses the problem of free riders, or who would judge the innocense or guilt of someone accused by an insurance provider of a crime. Also, I’m afraid the societies closest to what they describe are the gangs of large cities of Somalia, for I don’t know why one would expect the insurance companies we’re supposed to hire would act differently. For all their appeasing of the left, I’ll have to stick with conservatives until I see a better reason to give up on government all together.
First, we restudied the origins of the Cold War, we read our D.F. Fleming and we concluded, to our considerable surprise, that the United States was solely at fault in the Cold War, and that Russia was the aggrieved party. And this meant that the great danger to the peace and freedom of the world came not from Moscow or “international communism,” but from the U.S. and its Empire stretching across and dominating the world.
I’ve read this over and over again, used as criticism by conservatives and others to reject Rothbard’s writings and positions. I have yet to read an actual article or paper of his that explicitly stakes this stance out. Can anyone point me to some of them? I’d really appreciate it.
Mr. McKinney:
But when in history has any society ever existed without government?
You haven’t read enough of Rothbard’s writing if you’re asking this question. As for Hoppe, I’m far more ignorant.
Do we want to risk another utopian experiment?
The biggest risks I’d expect to encounter in an anarcho-capitalist society are 1) personally failing to earn the resources (or friendship of those who own them) necessary to survive and 2) attacks on person and property by criminals and criminal gangs. The first is prevalent in even the most communistic societies. The second is dealt with by actively protecting and contracting to protect said persons and property. The kind of risk involved with the collectivist utopias is of a far, far greater degree and kind.
The rest of your comment also belies a rather incomplete reading of Rothbard (and company’s) work. Perhaps you should spend more time on them? For example, he discusses a significant amount of your concerns in The Ethics of Liberty and his fellow travellers do the same in the beginning volumes of The Journal of Libertarian Studies, both of which are available to read freely on this website. It is incorrect to say he (and they) avoided the subjects altogether.
Roger: I recommend Rothbard’s “For a New Liberty”, assuming you still have a sincere interest in seeing something more practical and better than what we have today. Also, one response to the free rider question is presented in Hoppe’s “Fallacies of the Public Goods Theory and the Production of Security”.
Even if you remain unconvinced, i think you’ll still find these readings very interesting. Also, take note of the references in these works; the work done in this area is more prolific than one might expect.
STRAW ROTHBARD
WHAT THE … ?!
Did you guys read the same article that I did? Where oh where do you see anything remotely pro-Communist or pro-Soviet? Where did he suggest that the Soviets were “innocent” or not really oppressive statist or anything other than well-armed thugs?
Rothbard was against foreign intervention. The only just wars are defensive wars. Opposing American involvement in WWII isn’t pro-Nazi and opposing the US role in the Cold War isn’t pro-Communist. Come on, these distinctions don’t require huge intellectual efforts. Just play fair and be honest. If you’re going to disagree with the man, disagree with the real man and not just your straw-man version of him.
For Mr. McKinney:
For an historical example of a stateless society, I recommend you read “Viking Age Iceland” published by Penguin (I’m afraid I can’t remember the author’s name or locate my copy). Although the question of state-less-ness is not the author’s purpose, his description of that society is very informative. And his account of how state-like structures grew up in Viking Iceland is also pertinent.
In stateless Iceland, natural elites in the Hoppeian sense grew up among the people as mediators, judges of disputes and even protectors of the weak. There was no territorial component to their influence; anyone anywhere on the island could associate himself with one of the elites. Nor did an elite have a monopoly; any common man could change his association whenever he pleased. The transition occurred with the advent of Christianity on the island. This is no slam against Christianity; the simple fact is that the physical churches tended to be located on lands owned by the elites, who could see to their upkeep, etc., but could also use that “territorial asset” as a springboard to acquiring territorial influence, and hence a geographical monopoly on the provision of “security” or “arbitration/judgmental power” in the island. This is crucial because the two characteristics of the state are that it is a territorial monopolist of the production of security, as Hoppe states in many places in his writings.
Understood in this way, the “state” is largely a modern (since the 15th or 16th century) phenomenon. Every statesman, lawgiver, or political philosopher since Hobbes (except for anarcho-capitalists like Rothbard and Hoppe) has taken it as a given that government should have a territorial monopoly of the production of security and justice. Even Jefferson: “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men,” something impossible to conceive if competing governments could offer competing practical conceptions of “securing rights” to people in the same territory, or if governments allowed other institutions to define other rights for some but not all people in a given territory. However, “state” is not equivalent to “government” or even “national government” in all historical eras. As Hoppe himself points out in his “Economy, Society & History” lectures, feudal government had many key points of difference with the modern state, for example, “contractual” obligations that ran in both directions between King and noble, lord and vassal.
The critical and emphatically not utopian question then becomes, since we know that monopolies deliver horrible services at ever increasing prices, why cannot the market provide the services that the state claims to provide at lower cost and with greater customer satisfaction? Is there anything the state provides that the market cannot provide?
Every human community has some sort of government: families, corporations, clubs, churches. All of these exists to realize common purposes, yet have in common a certain freedom to leave (I speak not of divorce, but of an adult child ostracizing himself from his parents if he can no longer get along with them). I think defenders of the idea of the state need to justify the notion that mere territorial proximity implies some common purpose that can only be realized by institutions of civil government, which, because they do not admit the possibility of individual secession, tend to become state-like (monopolistic).
It’s also worth considering that probably no state has yet to achieve a total monopoly of the production of security and justice. Anything that tends to break the monopoly, whether a black market in a socialist economy, or private courts of arbitration or jury nullification, moves us in the desirable direction of a “more stateless” society. What institutions that will actually come to pass and when, to take us to a stateless society, is anyone’s guess.
Bkmarkus asks “Where oh where do you see anything remotely pro-Communist or pro-Soviet? Where did he suggest that the Soviets were “innocent” or not really oppressive statist or anything other than well-armed thugs?”
Of course Rothbard attacks communism as well as fascism. The issue is what happens when there is a conflict between us and them. Does he in effect help us or them? In other words, the anarchists say that all sides are bad, or even that the other side is worse than ours. Yet operationally they advocate policies that give aid and comfort to the enemy, while hampering any defense on our part.
He asks “who is being referred to when saying that conservatives supported America in WWII. I was referring to the very same people Rothbard referred to when he wrote “the right-wing Republicans were major opponents of the Cold War.” During WWII virtually all right-wing Republicans supported the War effort. (As an aside, even the German Bund ceased criticism of fighting Hitler once America was involved in the war.)
BK correctly says that opposing the Cold War does not make anyone a pacifist. However, Rothbard’s logic amounts to rejecting any war that our government declares, which is the sole operational issue. In other words, when America seeks to defend herself against the aggression of fascists, communists, or Islamists, the logic of his approach is to deny that there is any threat. If his logic were applied to crime, it would be that no crime has ever been committed, so we should abrogate the criminal justice system (followed by mentioning a plethora of crimes committed by the system).
Let us note that America in the 60′s was hit by a barrage of attacks by people such as Rap Brown and SNCC (who according to David Horowitz engaged in murder). When Rothbard comes to their defense he says that he is against crime and violence, but in actuality defends it. Thus his actions belie his words. Were he alive today he would find the perpetrators of 9/11 to have had an understandable response, while condemning any serious action by America as aggression. It is true that he would proclaim that he is not a pacifist, and would advocate defensive wars. But in practice America would never be the aggrieved party.
If whenever a mugger attacked someone, Rothbard would excuse the mugger while criticizing the defender, would we accept his words that he is against all aggression?
“In other words, when America seeks to defend herself against the aggression of fascists, communists, or Islamists, the logic of his approach is to deny that there is any threat.”
Allen, you’re completely confusing imagined threat with aggression. I understand from your past comments that you’re a pro-war hawk, constantly turning undefinable overseas “threats” into “aggression” that excuses any and all actions of true aggression: property destruction, murder, and so on.
I hope everyone else reads your comments in that light.
“If whenever a mugger attacked someone, Rothbard would excuse the mugger while criticizing the defender, would we accept his words that he is against all aggression?”
Rothbard would never excuse the mugger; his point is that the US of his day was usually the mugger.
“Were he alive today he would find the perpetrators of 9/11 to have had an understandable response, while condemning any serious action by America as aggression.”
He would certainly condemn aggressino by America against innocent civilians, as should any sane libertarian. Of course, if you convenient lump in innocent people with the criminals, you can excuse any aggression or wickedness as “defense”. That’s intellectually dishonest in a profound way.
Rothbard vividly captures the intellectual debates taking place within many of us who now call ourselves libertarians. We began to suspect that something was terribly inconsistent and wrong with the right wing Republicans and those who called themselves conservative – for example the right wing conservative Richard Nixon continuing the Vietnam war, going off of the gold standard and declaring himself to be a Keynesian.
For me the confusion evaporated once I read Leonard Read’s book Accent on the Right. For years I had been struggling on my own to recouncile the inconsistencies of the conservatives. Then I was introduced by Hans Sennholz to YAF (Young Americans for Freedom) and then Leonard Read’s Foundation for Economic Education. My life and my view of political economy has never been the same since. My understanding of how the world works and why certain decisions are made was permanently altered. I try to imagine how I would have analyzed various events had I not discovered the consistent libertarian philosophy.
For most people this is the dilemma – no consistent philosophy. It is this missing link – this philosophical gap – which the socialists, the statists, the interventionists, the collectivists, the conservatives, the leftists and the communists have been so good at exploiting. They use the right sounding phrases – eg. the term freedom suberting it to freedom from want (translated means -take from a producer and give to a non-producer), the term democracy subverting it from the true democracy of a free market to the tyranny of majority vote in the political world.
Fortunately we now have a whole range of libertarian organizations – eg.The Mises Institute and others -around the world. You can now meet a South American on an airplane and talk with him about Mises and the Austrian economists as I did several years ago. He told me that Mises is responsible for the changes starting to take place in South America as Austrian economics becomes more widely accepted in the developing world.
As a younger generation begins to look for alternatives to the failed policies of statism in Latin America, Asia and other developing countries Austrian economics will provide the answers as it did early in the formation of the United States. As a result great political and economic shifts will likely take place as the developed countries and particularly the United States squanders its birth right of individual and economic freedom in favor of Roman style imperialism.
Paul D writes that I confuse imagined threat with aggression, and am a pro-war hawk. However, I am generally against war, and advocate it solely for defensive purposes. For example, I have written that it was very wrong and costly for America to get into WWI, and I opposed our entering Vietnam. I have decried all efforts to spread democracy by military means, or to employ the military for humanitarian purposes (as in Kosovo and Haiti). Moreover, I criticize the Statism of our government, as well as the conservatives who support it. Why then do anarchists and libertarians misinterpret my position? It is because their logic leads them to interpret any attack on America as her own fault, and to view anyone who defends America as an enemy of liberty. Moreover, by focusing on the supposed faults of the person, there is an evasion of the substantive issues raised.
More pertinent is that it should be acknowledged that my leading point was that Rothbard had not (as he stated) ‘moved from “extreme right” to “extreme left” by standing in one place.’ Here, let me restate that the extreme right (mentioned by Rothbard) had in fact supported America during WWII. See http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/dec/dec05.htm#germany which describes the War Resolution, where there were 388 yeas, and 1 nays.
Paul says that Rothbard “would never excuse the mugger” but does not mention a single case where he finds any aggression committed against the US of his day. Is it plausible that in a world of tyrannies, who transgress on one another, that they never do so to America?
Finally, he answers my claim that Rothbard would defend the perpetrators of 9/11, while condemning America, without criticizing the perpetrators, but by condemning American aggression. How then is Paul’s position any different from that of all haters of America?
If anrcho-captialism “works,” and if there were anarcho-capitalist societies in the past, why aren’t they still with us?
Michael,
Not everything that works is invulnerable to destruction. Also, to say that a social institution “works” is only a metaphor.
I only read Mister ROthbard’s article this morning (sunday 12jun050. Dang, the fellow was very prescient.
I didn’t read the other comments, sorry commentators. For me, the essence is the article or origin. I am sure all of the comments were most erudite but, so much info from the www, so little time to find it, digest it, and act on it, irrespective of whether emphasis is on political, social or economic stage.
cheers,
jz
Hello on Rothbard:
Before I can say I am fully, instead of just mostly, converted to Rothbard’s Cold War analysis, I would very much like to see the Hillenkoeter testimony mentioned in the article. I was one of the guys who fought in Korea, and would like to be further convinced that I was wrong and should have stayed at home in New York to assist at more of Mises’s seminars. Any help on this would be greatly appreciated. Sincerely, Joe Keckeissen in Guatemala
Ouch. Sarcasm so thick you could cut through it with a knife.. shame on the Mises pun, BTW Mr. Keckeissen. Believe it (or not) he was actually a fellow who espoused the same ideals that the Founding Fathers did. He was also a pretty swell guy, having fought in some pretty bad stuff too.
(/sarcasm off)
Rothbard’s foreign policy is a little wierd to me. If America is currently on the way to becoming more tyrannical, then Russia must have been (and was) one of the worst places to ever live during the time of the Soviets. They were purely an expansionistic empire, and were far more brutal to their people in terms of liberties, free markets, etc. than America has ever been.
It’s wierd to hear such a pure free marketer argue along against a (more) capitalistic U.S. and take sides with a very brutal, barbaric, and nasty Soviet Union.
Rothbard’s foreign policies and views on the State are one of the reasons why I’m not a so called Rothbardian, and I am much more comfortably a Misean (or classical liberal).
“…if there were anarcho-capitalist societies in the past, why aren’t they still with us?”
That seems to me quite a valid question.
Allow me to base my speculations on the “In Praise of Evolvable Systems” article at http://www.shirky.com/OpenSource/evolve.html and let’s see what comes of it.
The author argues that a poorly designed but evolving system as large parts of the Web are, can outperform even strong centrally designed systems over time. And statists certainly would argue, that an anarcho-capitalist society is poorly designed. Likening the two to dinosaurs and mammals, it is the mammals that win (survive), while the dinosaurs may look more fit for survival at first.
Now, putting this metaphor straight from nature aside, we should ponder this:
The basic mark of a “state” is the monopoly on power it exercises within its territory, so it does not allow this kind of an “evolution”. Mammals simply won’t compete there with the dinosaur.
So how will this likeable goal, a free anarcho-capitalist society come to pass? Can it “evolve” naturally at all? Or will the dinosaurs squash it before?
***Having broken emotionally with the right wing, our tiny group of libertarians began to rethink many of our old, unexamined premises. First, we restudied the origins of the Cold War, we read our D.F. Fleming and we concluded, to our considerable surprise, that the United States was solely at fault in the Cold War, and that Russia was the aggrieved party.***
I wouldn’t exactly call the Soviet Union an aggrieved party. If someone has a true grievance against me, I likely owe them some recompense. The notion we owe something to the remnants of the old Soviet Union is non-sense.
If you had read the rest of my original post you would see that I agree that the Statist machina in the US likely upped the ante in the Cold War much sooner than was necessary but I certainly would not say that the Soviet Union was completely blameless. Rothbard’s comments make it sound like otherwise the Soviet Union would have been content sitting back after WWII if it weren’t for the bad ole US. The Soviets (and Russia in general) was expansionist – and as I stressed, all grand States seek satellites to provide resources and accept production. In light of the Statist position our own country was in at that time (and is much worse today), and the Statist economic order in the Soviet Union then, it really wasn’t per se about ideologies but simply about Statism, spheres of influence, and economic control.
Efforts to villify the US exclusively I think is wrong in that, again, Statism is expansionary in any form, and that the Soviet Union bears at least some, if not a good portion, of the responsibility for the Cold War. I truly think it is merely a fault in some people to hold their own to a much higher standard to a point that they are always wrong, and in this case to state that the US was entirely at fault for the Cold War.
All of what I have said still notes that if we had not had such a virulent strain of our own Statism that the Cold War might have taken a much different form. I don’t think that the SU was as imminent a threat as the mass was led to believe, and that our stance, again, was much more ambitious, much sooner, due to our own Statist stances.
But that’s what got us into WWI and WWII etc etc. Basically most ‘advanced’ Statist countries are just as guilty as any other. Our policy of Manifest Destiny derives from a world where the American West was ripe for the picking, Spain, France, England, Russia, the US – whoever. Not much has changed. States are still jockeying for being the “man on top of the hill”. Regretable, but I’m not going to go so far as to blame the US inordinately as Rothbard deems to.
“Efforts to villify the US exclusively I think is wrong in that, again, Statism is expansionary in any form, and that the Soviet Union bears at least some, if not a good portion, of the responsibility for the Cold War. I truly think it is merely a fault in some people to hold their own to a much higher standard to a point that they are always wrong, and in this case to state that the US was entirely at fault for the Cold War.”
Brad, I agree with the 1st part of your statement, but I think you may be missing an important consideration in connection with your latter statement.
From a practical standpoint, we have greater responsibility and control over “our own” versus others. Thus, to analogize to a more mundane situation, I may criticize my kids for their grades, eating habits, etc. even though they may be doing far better than most other kids in this regard. And it would be entirely proper for me to do so as a responsible parent (provided I am not some kind of a tyrant). On the other hand, it would be wrong and counterproductive for me to make the same types of criticisms of some stranger’s kids. Seen from this vantage point, holding “our own” (in this case our government) to a higher standard than a horrendous one such as the USSR makes perfect sense. Sure, we shouldn’t pretend that it was some kind of utopia or support it. But the proper focus of an American citizen operating in the political sphere is how best HIS government should (or should not) behave in light of the circumstances involved.
Yeah, and while you are answering this, tell us why, if so many of the scientific and mathematical developments of the ancient greeks were correct, The Dark ages happened? Civilisation must have been a bad thing, or else the dark ages wouldn’t have happened, right?
I’m being sarcastic.
Can some historians help out with this question? Is there evidence that FDR at Yalta or elsewhere explicitly or implicitly agreed to give Stalin control over eastern Europe, possibly as a “reward” for the 20 to 30 million deaths the Soviets suffered in WWII, and/or in exchange for their pledge to fight the Japanese along with us once the Nazis were defeated?
D. Saul Weiner writes “…holding “our own” (in this case our government) to a higher standard than a horrendous one such as the USSR makes perfect sense.” It is true, as he framed the issue, that we should be more conscientious about our own responsibilities, and less concerned about what others do.
However, *the issue is what happens in a competitive environment.* Do we make sure that every minor fowl committed by our team is penalized, while those of the opponent are disregarded? When we wish to sell a product, do we ensure that every flaw is exposed, while the competition, with a far worse product, is free from criticism?
Allow an example. The world has criticized America because some of its soldiers reputedly flushed a Koran down the toilet. If this occurred, it was not policy, and surely not comparable to how the enemy treats its prisoners. Nonetheless, it is said that the Arabs so revere a copy of the Koran, that we must treat it with greater respect than say if artists placed a crucifix into a glass of urine.
Yet unmentioned is that Saudi Arabia, by policy, is the greatest destroyer of Korans, since Korans that were not printed in Saudi Arabia are destroyed when Pilgrims arrive. This has been documented for centuries, as they mutilate copies, and disrespect them. Here, nobody is concerned with what the Arabs themselves do. Apparently, the rioters are concerned with the holiness of the Koran, when Americans engage in a minor incident, but are completely unconcerned when Arabs engage in a major practice.
Would Mr. Weiner say that when all parties gang up on America, including those haters within our country, that we too should do so, while our adversaries’ behavior is treated as “understandable”? What does he recommend as the approach for dealing with world opinion?
Hi Allen: I think there is a very common and very detrimental misconception among the citizens of the world that their government is on their side. This assumption is causing a huge amount of harm. Many Americans assume Washington is vigilantly looking out for their best interests, at least to the best of their limited ability. The excruciating fact is that this is very far from the truth. Imagining otherwise grossly distorts how one interprets Washington’s actions, and those of its enemies. To criticize Washington is not to criticize our “team”; it is to criticize the most significant danger to our own peace and liberty at home. This has always been the case and this will not change.
What disturbs me about many of the posts above is that they appear to equate the US with the USSR as just another state with only insignificant differences between them. Even if you think all forms government are illegal, you have to admit to a huge qualitative difference between the US and the USSR. US citizens are not helpless before the US government. They have the power to change it and change it radically, as they have done in the past. That most don’t care enough to do so doesn’t change the fact that they can. Rothbard argues that in a state-less society, citizens could fire the insurance companies that fail to protect them. US citizens can do essentially the same thing: They can fire those who don’t rule as they desire. Also, the Constitution and law place checks on the power of government so that the US government cannot do all that it wishes and especially cannot murder its citizens at will as do dictators.
So on a continuum from state-less to totalitarian, the US would fit somewhere in the middle. And if libertarians consider a state-less society to be morally superior, then they should acknowledge the US system as morally superior to the Soviet or any other non-democratic country.
Hi Roger. I’m not sure how accurate your impression is of the other posters on this thread, but I’m going to try to clarify my position. I’ll insert my comments between yours.
“What disturbs me about many of the posts above is that they appear to equate the US with the USSR as just another state with only insignificant differences between them.”
The US is a wonderful place to live. I do believe I would prefer it to living any other place in the world. It is heads and tails better than the USSR was or Russia is now. There are very significant differences between the present state of Washington, and say Moscow. I would way prefer to live under Washington rule than Moscow rule.
“Even if you think all forms government are illegal, you have to admit to a huge qualitative difference between the US and the USSR.”
I agree wholeheartedly.
“US citizens are not helpless before the US government. They have the power to change it and change it radically, as they have done in the past. That most don’t care enough to do so doesn’t change the fact that they can.”
Having now studied the Civil War, which I now consider more accurately titled The War of Northern Aggression, I now dispute your contention passionately. I invite anyone to dive into Thomas DiLorenzo’s work on Lincoln before making his final decision on just what power a weaker minority has over a majority in a “democracy” with a powerful central government.
“Rothbard argues that in a state-less society, citizens could fire the insurance companies that fail to protect them. US citizens can do essentially the same thing: They can fire those who don’t rule as they desire.”
I dispute the validity of the analogy. Can I fire my ruler and abstain from hiring a new one until I’m convinced it would be to my advantage? What kind of market is this where I’m always forced to try to pick between the services of the lesser evil? If I don’t like bread at all, will someone force me to choose between brown and white?
“Also, the Constitution and law place checks on the power of government so that the US government cannot do all that it wishes and especially cannot murder its citizens at will as do dictators.”
The US government is responsible for preventing the US government from violating the constitution. Does that not strike you as more than just a little bit ironic? As for the question of murdering its citizens, again, I recommend taking a second look at the War of Northern Aggression. We are not safer from Washington today, than the South was in 1861. Finally, if Washington can and does murder innocent citizens of other countries, as many governments are prone to do, shall we call it ok because we voted for them and they don’t murder us?
“So on a continuum from state-less to totalitarian, the US would fit somewhere in the middle.”
Yes. I agree.
“And if libertarians consider a state-less society to be morally superior, then they should acknowledge the US system as morally superior to the Soviet or any other non-democratic country.”
Moral superiority must be taken on a case by case basis. Nothing makes murder and aggression morally superior by anyone or any group, regardless of their other finer qualities. Even if it is “only” committed against citizens of another nation.
Nobody argues that the United States isn’t a great place to live – at least compared to other countries. But I become leery when someone brings up the Constitution… the Constitution is and has been a dead letter for a good many years, and the readings, interpretations, and legalese makes it just pointless, in my humble opinion. When someone tries to make a plea for something being unconstitutional, I feel like rolling my eyes.
People just need to start talking about secession – to heck with voting.
Paul Edwards claims that some think that the government is on their side. This does not apply to me, since I oppose government intervention in such areas as the economy, education, etc., and claim that our government is not motivated to protect America or her citizens. His position however is not responsive to whether or not there is a real threat by others (such as the Arab-Muslim bloc) or how to deal with it. Let us presume (as some have claimed) that illegal aliens are bringing disease into America. Is the response to say, let us attack any government action to deal with it because our government is the problem, and to deny any threat so as to support that position? That incidentally was the anarchist response years ago when Cuba took the dregs from their prison population and transported them to Florida, bringing a wave of crime and sickness.
Roger is disturbed by posts that “equate the US with the USSR as just another state with only insignificant differences between them.” He sensibly concludes that libertarians “should acknowledge the US system as morally superior to the Soviet or any other non-democratic country.” Roger might further note that the logic of the libertarian position (as just expressed by Paul) is to treat our system as the greatest danger.
Allen Weingarten asks:
“Apparently, the rioters are concerned with the holiness of the Koran, when Americans engage in a minor incident, but are completely unconcerned when Arabs engage in a major practice.”
I am unfamiliar with the facts of the situation but will take these comments on face value. This double standard reminds me of the situation where Blacks can refer to each other using the N-word but God help a non-Black who does likewise. I think it is human nature for members of a group to be more sensitive to perceived abuses by outsiders versus within their own ranks.
“Would Mr. Weiner say that when all parties gang up on America, including those haters within our country, that we too should do so, while our adversaries’ behavior is treated as “understandable”? What does he recommend as the approach for dealing with world opinion?”
To start with, I would substitute the words “The U.S. government” with “America”, to gain mental clarity that the USG is not necessarily (and not usually) acting in the best interest of most of its citizens.
Next I would ask, “Is world opinion correct? Is my government acting in a destructive immoral fashion?” If the answer is “No”, then I will argue my government’s case. If the answer is “Yes”, then I will do what I can to try to get my government to change course.
I would not argue that immoral or destructive actions taken by an adversary is acceptable or understandable. I would be critical of them as well.
Hi Allen: I have to say i strongly agree with your comment “…that our government is not motivated to protect America or her citizens.” But are you sure you believe it? If you do not, you certainly are not alone. Many people believe that 9/11, for instance, had nothing to do with retribution for acts of aggression Washington has committed in the past. They believe that attacks against America are due to irrational hatred of our values and lifestyle, rather than murders and devastation supported by or executed by Washington in far off lands. They further believe that Washington, even as we speak, is stomping out terrorism and advancing the cause of liberty in Iraq, and when they are done, the US will be a safer place. No one who thinks the above is true should be inclined to be too critical of the USG. Others, who believe the opposite is true, are compelled to be.
D. Saul Weiner notes that “it is human nature for members of a group to be more sensitive to perceived abuses by outsiders versus within their own ranks.” I concur, but think that with the Blacks as well as the Arabs there is something more than sensitivity, namely hostility toward other nationalities, even to the point of being self-destructive. I also concur with his view of judging our government’s case on its merits, as well as that of other parties. Here I would note that often others speak of America with hatred, and ill intent. Conversely, Americans, whatever their faults, do not take the position of wishing harm to other peoples.
Paul Edwards wonders whether I sincerely believe that “our government is not motivated to protect America or her citizens.” Yet he thinks that one cannot hold this view while at the same time believing that 9/11 was not caused by America. Islam preaches the destruction of America, and does not say that this is due to her transgressions. Rather, the very life style of people such as he is considered an affront, which demands destruction and servitude.
Allen, can we at least agree to maintain a distinction between America and its government?
Secondly, it seems you do believe 9/11 occurred mainly because of Islam, and not due to Washington’s “transgressions” such as supporting murderous regimes that typically repress and kill Muslims largely. It also seems (you can clear me up on this) that you believe Washington’s policy in Iraq, for example, has been for some pretty good reasons (Washington has provided several), which will significantly benefit Americans.
Well we disagree on those questions, but despite all that we can thankfully still agree that “our government is not motivated to protect America or her citizens” and that is a most useful fact to consider when thinking about American foreign policy and domestic laws implemented for our protection that seem to threaten our privacy and liberty.
Paul Edwards asks if we can “agree to maintain a distinction between America and its government?” Of course we can. As to the policy in Iraq, it has been flawed in many ways. It did not focus on the primary threats of: Iran (the world’s major supporter of terrorism); Saudi Arabia (the primary ideological supporter of Jihadism); North Korea (the builder of Atomic weapons for future export). Fighting an extended war in Iraq for the sake of spreading democracy is mistaken, as is sacrificing our troops to avoid collateral damage, and not attacking Mosques which are used for military purposes. The government has spent over $100 billion (of taxpayer money) as bribes to win Iraqi support, and for the gain of politicians. The Bush Administration focused on the need to remove WMD because it was politically popular, and not because that was the main threat. (As an aside, it has been mistaken to view the enemy as terrorism, and Islam as peace, when the threat is the commitment to our destruction.) There are many other ways in which our government went astray, and others have spelt this out.
However, at least there was some resistance to the Arab-Muslim Bloc. *Were the anarchists, libertarians, pacifists, or liberals in charge, there would have been no resistance at all.* It would have been open season to spread Islam, as is largely happening in Europe. There would have been even more of an open border policy than the government tacitly accepts, with insurgents having no incentive to curtail their efforts. Here, we would have returned to the policies of Chamberlain, in continuing to make further concessions to tyranny.
We agree on the depredations of our government. However, reversing her intervention requires acknowledging the threat of Islam and anti-Americanism. It will not be reversed by rationalizations that America is not threatened. Of course, one could argue, as does Rothbard that there has virtually never been any threat to America. Here the question becomes *what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?*
Allen:
There has and is a threat to America far more dangerous than Islam, and it is about as anti- american (american = property +liberty) as any threat I know, and that is the government, be it local, federal or global. No other institution has deluded, killed or harmed more people and stolen more property than this criminal organization otherwise known as the state.
Steve asserts that the more dangerous threat to America is its government, since “no other institution has deluded, killed or harmed more people and stolen more property than this criminal organization otherwise known as the state.” He has presented a doctrine, which requires no evidence. Thus, regardless of what occurs in reality, his faith can be stated. Let us suppose that a man is robbing your house, and you ask for police protection. Steve can assert that the problem is not the criminal but the police, for all of the aforementioned reasons.
Note that my final sentence was the question *what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?* Apparently, his answer is that no matter what happens it should never be viewed as a threat, because the response of one’s own government is necessarily the more dangerous threat. So if Hitler were on the march to take over Czechoslovakia, Poland, and France, Steve would have cautioned the people of those countries to not have their governments defend, either before or after they were attacked.
Thus the problem with the argument is that it is too good. It is considered to hold as an article of faith, independent of any and all realities. However, if I have misread his response, let him state what criteria he employs to determine whether or not his own government constitutes the major threat.
Allen,
I think that the State has caused more economic instability, crisis, and general tomfoolery than any robber – and yes, here in the United States. The things that the State here has done is enormous – have you bothered reading the Mises site, or even Conservative news sites? The harm the government does right now in may areas is legion.
Obviously our government isn’t as bad as the Soviet Union. But isn’t this like flogging a dead horse? I know so many people who keep repeating this, and it’s become very annoying. You would think that because American isn’t as bad as the Soviet Union we should just shut up and eat our cake too.
It’s also wierd how people who take an angry view of the economic and social chaos caused by the United States government (welfare, social security, taxation, inflation, regulation, etc) are viewed as people who don’t want to defend their homes from another, worse government from invading.
Alex writes that the State, in particular here in the United States, has done enormous damage, and asks whether I have read about it. Despite my having asserted that very point, he seems to believe that this is responsive to my question, which I repeat again is *what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?* Thus, as with Edwards and Steve before him, he takes as an article of faith that our government is to blame.
Perhaps if we were investigating a crime, Alex would point to a serial killer as the perpetrator. Then if someone noted that the killer were in prison at the time, he would say: ‘don’t you know how many crimes he committed’; ‘why don’t you read how terrible they were’, etc.
Finally, he says that people who are angry about the chaos caused by our government are viewed as not wanting to defend their homes. I am someone who is concerned about the chaos caused by our government, in foreign & domestic policy, intervention in the economy, education, & social matters, and I want the government to defend our homes. Alex’ comment is not an answer as to whether or not there is a foreign threat
Allen:
Suppose my home is robbed. The private thief takes $1000 dollars in cash. Suppose that the police (the public theives) then catch the thief. He is then convicted and sentenced for several years in jail. To me, I have been robbed twice.
Not only have I lost a grand, but now I have to support the thief with 3 hots and a cot, the warden, the parole officer, (my list could be a mile long) through the taxes I pay. The thief doesn’t have to pay me, he has to pay the state. Where is the justice in that. I rather take my chances and lose the grand, then pay another set of crooks to “protect me”. In fact, my own government will get away with far more then the private theif will ver get. Despite the rhetoric, the police are nothing but a monopoly extortion racket.
People such as your self can use all the intellectual gymnastics you want to justify this “protection” racket, but its based on fraud and theft, and how can anything be of value based on those premises?
Steve completely disregards my comment that he provides a statement of faith, rather than arguments that can be tested by reality. So I repeat: “Note that my final sentence was the question *what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?* Apparently, his answer is that no matter what happens it should never be viewed as a threat, because the response of one’s own government is necessarily the more dangerous threat.”
Instead, he points out that the current approach of the criminal justice system is excessively costly. That is true, and by the time you take all of the benefits given to the criminals it often pays for some to go to prison. This is a departure from how prisons were run a century ago, when they were quite inexpensive, and did not grant benefits to prisoners that ordinary citizens lacked.
It is also true that instead of properly requiring restitution to the victim, the state receives payment. I also oppose the massive corruption associated with the war on drugs. So when Steve states that I use intellectual gymnastics to justify these disasters, he has manufactured an argument that does not apply. Once again, the method employed to counter my arguments is not germane, but is based on mistaken assumptions.
When we inquire why the current system has gotten to be so bad, it is precisely because the aim has been to reduce the power of the State when fighting crime. It has not been the State that has asked for legal technicalities to prevent conviction, or endless costly appeals to free the guilty or grant them benefits. Today, many consider it inhuman for the State to use the death penalty. The day may come when it is considered inhuman to punish the criminal in any serious way. At that point, barbarism will reign.
The punishment of crime is not based on the premises of fraud and theft, but on the imperative to restrain it.
“*what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?*”: Here’s one: when a criminal or terrorist organization successfully prevents the airlines from arming or otherwise enabling themselves to use force to protect their customers and their property. This is a threat that made the 9/11 disaster feasible. But was it a criminal or terrorist organization responsible for that act of sabotage? Yes, it was. But what is the government to do to protect us from such threats? I’ve got it: bomb Iraq.
Allen: You wrote “what would have to happen before something would be acknowledged as a threat?” In short, a threat would be “the uninvited physical damage or diminution of things and territories owned by the person.” Examples: 1. the British government’s attempt to occupy and interfere with the property and liberty of the American colonists. 2. Lincoln’s attempt at collecting his tariff from the South through the use of force. These are two clear cases that would constitute a threat and would require resistance either by nonviolent and or by violent means. Furthermore, the resistance should not come exclusively from the government, but by all the individuals harmed by it. As a property owner living in America (land of the free), I have witnessed innumerable acts of theft employed by our own government through the imposition of all sorts of sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes and inflation of the currency. In addition, these crooks also superimpose their monopolistic judicial, police and education rackets on society which are designed to take even more money and liberty from us. In other words, one rule for the government and one rule for the governed. At what point do these crimes committed by our own officials constitute a greater threat than foreign ones? In your mind will they ever?
Awesome examples, Steve.
Mr. Allen Weingarten
This poem by Allen Ginsberg is easy reading.
Allen Ginsbergs’ fine poem Capitol Air is clear and simple and to the point and needs not be explained.
Written 25 years ago it still rings so true to this day.
Perhaps in the 22nd century when a whole new population has arrived on earth, the gangsters and war criminals will have been placed where they belong.
Capitol Air
I don’t like the government where I live
I don’t like dictatorship of the Rich
I don’t like bureaucrats telling me what to eat
I don’t like Police dogs sniffing round my feet
I don’t like Communist censorship of my books
I don’t like Marxists complaining about my looks
I don’t like Castro insulting members of my sex
Leftists insisting we got the mystic Fix
I don’t like capitalists selling me gasoline Coke
Multinationals burning Amazon Trees to smoke
Big Corporation takeover media mind
I don’t like the Top-bananas that’re robbing Guatemala banks blind
I don’t like K.G.B. Gulag concentration camps
I don’t like the Maiosts’ Cambodian Death Dance
15 Million were killed by Stalin Secretary of Terror
He has killed our old Red Revolution for ever
I don’t like Anarchists screaming Love Is Free
I don’t like the C.I.A. they killed John Kennedy
Paranoiac tanks sit in Prague and Hungary
But I don’t like counterrevolution paid for by the C.I.A.
Tyranny in Turkey or Korea Nineteen Eighty
I don’t like Right Wing Death Squad Democracy
Police State Iran Nicaragua yesterday
Laissez-faire please Government keep your secret police offa me
I don’t like Nationalist Supremacy White or Black
I don’t like Narcs & Mafia marketing Smack
The Generals bulling Congress in his tweed vest
The President building up his Arimies in the East & West
I don’t like Argentine police Jail torture Truths
Government terrorist takeover Salvador news
I don’t like Zionists acting Nazi Storm Troop
Palestine Liberation cooking Israel into Moslem soup
I don’t like the Crown’s Official Secrets Act
You can get away with murder in the Government that’s a fact
Security cops teargassing radical kids
In Switzerland or Czechoslovakia God Forbids
In America it’s Attica in Russia it’s Lubianka Wall
In China if you disappear you wouldn’t know yourself at all
Arise Arise you citizens of the world use your lungs
Talk back to the Tyrants all they’re afraid of is your tongues
Two hundred Billion dollars inflates World War
In United States every year hey’re asking for more
Russia’s got as much in tanks and laser planes
Give or take Fifty Billion we can blow out everbody’s brains
School’s broken down ’cause History changes every night
Half the Free World nations are Dicatorships of the Right
The only place socialism worked was in Gdansk, Bud
The Communist world’s stuck together with prisoners’ blood
The Generals say they know something worth fighting for
They never say what till they start an unjust war
Iranian hostage Media Hysteria sucked
The Shah ran away with 9 Billion Iranian bucks
Dermit Roosevelt and his U.S. dollars overthrew Mossadegh
They wanted his oil then they got Ayatollah’s dreck
They put in the Shah and they trained his police the Savak
All Iran was our hostage quarter-century That’s right Jack
Bishop Romero wrote President Carter to stop
Sending guns to El Salvador’s junta so he got shot
Ambassador White blew the whistle on the White House lies
Reagan called him home cause he looked in the dead nuns’ eyes
Half the voters didn’t vote they know it was too late
Newspaper headlines called it a big Mandate
Some people voted for Reagan eyes open wide
3 out of 4 didn’t vote for him That’s a landslide
Truth may be hard to find but Falsehood’s easy
Read between the lines our Imperialism is sleazy
But if you think the People’s State is your Heart’s Desire
Jump right back in the frying pan from the fire
The System the System in Russia & China the same
Criticize the System in Budapest lose your name
Coca Cola Pepsi Cola in Russia & China come true
Khrushchev yelled in Hollywood “We will bury You”
America and Russia want to bomb themselves Okay
Everybody dead on both sides Everybody pray
All except the Generals in caves where they can hide
and fuck each other in the ass waiting for the next free ride
No hope Communism no hope Capitalism Yeah
Everybody’s lying on both sides Nyeah nyeah nyeah
The bloody iron curtain of American military Power
Is a mirror image of Russia’s red Babel-Tower
Jesus Christ was spotless but was Crucified by the Mob
Law & Order Herod’s hired soldiers did the job
Flowerpower’s fine but innocence has got no Protection
The man who shot John Lennon had a Hero-worshipper’s connection
The moral of this song is that the world is in a horrible place
Scientific Industry devours the human race
Police in every country armed with tear Gas & TV
Secret Masters everywhere bureaucratize for you and me
Terrorists and police together build a lowerclass Rage
Propaganda murder manipulates the upperclass Stage
Can’t tell the difference ‘tween a turkey & a provacateur
If you’re feeling confused the Government’s in there for sure
Aware Aware wherever you are. No Fear
Trust your heart Don’t ride your Paranoia dear
Breathe together with an ordinary mind
Armed with Humor Feed & Help Enlighten Woe Mankind
Frankfurt-New York, December 15, 1980 By Allen Ginsberg, From Mr. Ginsbergs’ Collected Poetry 1947-1980
With regard to my asking how to recognize a threat, Paul Edwards attacks the behavior of our government. Thus, he appears to be saying that there cannot be any threat that requires a military response by our government. It is difficult to tell whether that is his position, since he does not present the criteria for acknowledging a threat. Until he does so, I shall infer the following: there was no threat to us when Cuba had missiles with atomic warheads aimed at Florida; Japan did not threaten us when it bombed Pearl Harbor; Hitler posed no threat to England, France, or the USSR in 1939; Iran posed no threat when it seized our embassy, and poses none today.
Steve provides examples of threats, including Britain’s treatment of the colonists, the tariffs exacted from the South, and various acts by our government. Then he asks how I would determine whether “these crimes committed by our own officials constitute a greater threat than foreign ones?” Now I concur with the threats that he mentioned, and advocate reducing government to its proper limited functions. Thus his assumption that I never view our government as the problem is an ad hoc invention. As I mentioned previously, I was opposed to our involvements in Vietnam, Haiti, Kosovo, etc. So I have no difficulty concluding that our government can be a bigger threat than a foreign one. However, he appears to be saying that it can never be the other way around. So my examples of Edward’s view toward Cuba, Japan, Germany, and Iran, apply to him as well. Thus, my reasoning leads to the determination of what and who constitutes a threat, whereas his can only lead to the conclusion that our government is the problem.
Ginsberg’s poem expresses his hatred of all governments, and sees no difference between America’s Attica and Russia’s Lubianka. So had Ginsberg been around at the time of Hitler, his reasoning would have opposed all sides, and since he would have been in our country, it would have been helpful to Hitler. To him that would have posed no problem, since when Hitler murdered him for being a Jew, that would have been no different than when America taxed him to support capitalism.
The world is and has always been in a situation where all sides were imperfect, and one could only choose among them. Ginsberg’s choice has been in effect to support the worse side.
Comments on this entry are closed.