Good article. I especially liked the bit about cultural support for freedom, similar to my own ‘politics follows culture’ idea.
But while I might agree that ‘government is the negation of liberty’, I think the converse, ‘freedom is that which government does not control’, doesn’t hold. Freedom is the absence of coercion. And while government is perhaps the largest agency of coercion in the world, it is not the only agency of coercion. Or have we forgotten about your average ‘private’ criminal?

Great article, very inspirational. And although we see the government trying to extend its power on any occasion and neglecting every economic law since the times of Bastiat, we should not be demoralized and realize that every real revolution comes from within the people. Just by looking at how this movement has grown over the last few decades is inspirational. The Mises institute has build a solid foundation, so that when the economy crashes in the near future(be it because of hyperinflation, because of the continuing account deficits etc.) every one will know that the government and not the free market is to blame. It will probably be these types of events together with the ever increasing violations of private property by government that will ignite the public opinion, as it did in 1776, no fake government propaganda can stop this. I may be more optimistic that your average, but I believe the modern governments will collapse under there own weight, like all coercive governments before them. Who will be left to give the people an alternative, the Mises Institute and other classical liberal/libertarian institutions.

Great Article. The tone makes it sound as if the Mises Institute is has been alone in the fight for Freedom. It commendable to also recognize that for more than 25 years Universidad Francisco Marroquín has made it their central and ultimate mission to teach and disseminate the ethical, legal and economic principles of a society of free and responsible persons. The Mises Institute has shining allies in its fight.

Everything Lew says is essentially correct, and tyranny is a big ship to turn. It will take time. Laying the intellectual groundwork is critical to helping make that turn, and we should all thank Mises Institute and other organizations for doing the heavy lifting and slugging it out.

But to reach more people, we also need to find avenues to let people know what we are for, not just what is wrong and what we are against. We have to explicitly pair our up vision with our critques, not just assume the guy on the street is going to get it from the context of an intellectual debate.

Libertarians have a compelling vision–and the only truly human vision. We believe in Liberty. Opportunity. Prosperity. Independence. Achievement. We believe in people working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. We believe in people keeping what they earn to help them build that life. And we believe in the right of people to think, say and believe what they want, and to live whatever lifestyle they want to–so long as they respect the equal right of others to do the same.

We value these things because we value the nature and dignity of the individual human life above all else. To borrow Jefferson’s brilliant formulation, we value Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. We understand that every individual has a right—by his or her nature—to have control over his or her own life; to live therefor in an environment of liberty; and to pursue those things in life—those values—that he or she believes will maximize their existence, their “happiness.” We know that only an independent life, unshackled by the whims of others leads to the a truly human existence that each of us has the right to live

Liberty. Opportunity. Prosperity. Independence. Achievement. This is a powerful vision. It’s compelling, and it’s worth talking about–just as often, or more often, as it’s worth talking about what’s wrong.

I think the other paragraph should have been there to complement the “definition” If there are no limits placed on government, if our freedom under law is not guaranteed as an absolute principle,…, since the teaser paragraph basically says any government (which I assume would include things like laws against murder and stealing) restricts freedom – which it does in the sense that freedom is the ability to exercise one’s will (and not conditioning it on avoiding evil or violation of rights).

I think the traditional Catholics here might agree that we are happy to let Benedict XVI control our church – we can join or stay outside, but our “control” of church stuff ought to be limited. Does that make us less free? I suppose lovers of liturgy and liberty don’t have any problem participating.

I’ve heard it argued (if it can be called argument) that reason itself is a limit on freedom. I think such things are silly.

But I’m encouraged that the State is dead, though in the sense of someone on machines who is technically dead but still breathing. I’m even worried that Katrina might have set in motion the collapse. When it becomes discredited (in multiple senses of that word), it will collapse. I’m glad people are thinking about how to insure a phoenix of liberty will rise from the ashes and how to prevent it from turning again into a vulture.

Sione quotes “Govt. is crime.” but governments are not only crime & not only government officers & legislators are criminals. If Franklin D. Roosevelt once said “The real truth of the matter is, as you and I know, that a financial element in the large centers has owned the government of the U.S. since the days of Andrew Jackson.” why do voters still choose government officers & legislators [with a few nonourable exceptions] who submit to the will of FDR’s “owners”?

Even more sinister, why did FDR’s words not arouse public debate that could have ended the reign of those “owners” last century? Instead we see voters increasingly resigned to “Govt. is crime.” and Misesians like Professors Sennholz & Hoppe blame “democracy” [The God That Failed]. In his comments on ‘Democracy: The God That Failed’ Professor Hoppe wrote “selection of government rulers by means of popular elections makes it essentially impossible for a harmless or decent person to ever rise to the top” and “democracy virtually assures that only dangerous men will rise to the top of government”.

Those opinions are consistent with widely publicised facts such as the unpopularity of elected politicians. These facts are best seen in free [& secret elections where a great majority of voters either does not vote or out of [often media-aroused] fear of dangerous men, chooses the “lesser evil”. For such unpopular candidates to win office means [in legal terms] ballots are used “to defeat the franchise” of the majority. If you have seen the winners of elections that purport to require a majority you may well say “So what!” as they are as dangerous as FDR & GWB.

Well, the difference is that fraudulent ballots are used “to defeat the franchise” of the majority. All this is known well enough to some if not all editors in our self-proclaimed free press. In one 2004 case editors of a News Ltd daily ran a headline ‘Thumbs up for counting system’ after the police had filed a Crime Report naming the electoral commissioner as prime suspect in a false 2003 vote count that ‘elected’ a candidate with no majority! The same electoral commissioner repeated the fraud only last week but by now the police [with flimsy excuses] refuse to file such complaints! If all this is “news” to you, consider the words of Thomas Babington in 1843: “The gallery in which the reporters sit has become a fourth estate of the realm.” FDR was only half right. Government “ownership” by financial element in the large centers depends on ‘free’ editors to suppress facts and public debate of how ballots are used “to defeat the franchise”.

What is the difference between taxation and theft? Here it is: many have been conned into believing the former is ethical and only the latter is unethical. But both are coercive. Both are equally unethical. In fact, beside the perception some people hold, they are the same. Here’s why i have such a problem with government: it legitimizes theft, coercion and murder. Will there always be criminals? Sure, i guess so, but the upside: we all recognize them as such and we don’t waste mental energy defending their activities. When the same can be said for governments, i’ll breathe a huge sigh of relief and perhaps we will see their demise.

Bruno wrote: I think what you guys are doing is great, but it’s nowhere near enough to alter the current trend.

I particularly enjoy reading your comments, sir. But I think the trend is pretty emphatically pointing toward disaster and chaos, more or less an Atlas Shrugged result. Libertarians are highly relevant, and they have a stern task ahead.

“cannot take your kids and send them to far-flung wars to kill and be killed. ”

Wow, those 18 years and older are property of their parents? They are not adults who can make their own choices to volunteer? So much for liberty. Lew endorces a slavery-meme of the communists…an for what? For liberty? Ha, what a joke.

Don, you said “Libertarians have a compelling vision–and the only truly human vision. We believe in Liberty. Opportunity. Prosperity. Independence. Achievement. We believe in people working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families. We believe in people keeping what they earn to help them build that life. And we believe in the right of people to think, say and believe what they want, and to live whatever lifestyle they want to–so long as they respect the equal right of others to do the same.”

Wow…what a mouthful….of absolute gibberish.

Let’s examine each of your assertions:
“Libertarians have a compelling vision–and the only truly human vision.” Just change the word Libertarian to Nazi, Fascist or Democrat and those words would be equally as odious.

“We believe in Liberty.” For whom? Libertarians don’t believe in charity or kindness but will fight to the death for the kind of Darwinian Capitalism that means the rich will survive and the rest are doomed. Such a future isn’t exactly a thing to be treasured.

“Opportunity. Prosperity. Independence. Achievement.” Great words but completely antithetical to the Libertarian perspective. It’s a great thing if you’re talking about the best among us…those things are possible. However, the Libertarian world-view is that those who aren’t on TOP of the game are merely pawns to be used up and discarded on the scrap heap of life. Pretty words to describe such a viciously anti-humane perspective.

“We believe in people working hard to build a better life for themselves and their families.” And no one else does? I suppose that a world without Libertarians would be a world where we all desire hardship, famine, pestilence and death. Oh brother.

“We believe in people keeping what they earn to help them build that life.” Unless, of course, it interferes with building the Libertarian utopia. The Lib philosophy is just as cult-like and noxiously elitist as is any other fringe econo-religious orthodoxy.

“And we believe in the right of people to think, say and believe what they want, and to live whatever lifestyle they want to–so long as they respect the equal right of others to do the same.” Except, of course, when those “other” people don’t tow the Lib line-of-thought. Disagree with a Lib, like Lew, and you won’t get an intellectual discussion, you’ll get ad hominems, and foaming-at-the-mouth vitriol.

This sounds like it should be a pamphlet for entry into the vapid cult of econo-think. One for one and none for all. I shudder to think of what the world would be like if Libs ruled the planet. No, we might not have the problems we have today, but I seriously doubt that the state of the world would be appreciably better off. Unless, of course, you’re in the Ruling Lib Classes….then you’ve got it made.

Intellectual puffery, the lot of it.

Paul,

I’m sure that Lew likes HIS form of government. He’s made it more than plain – ad nauseum, ad absurdum – that he’s in favor of rules, regulations, stipulations, and every other limitation…..just as long as it’s one that HE approves of. Yeah, good ole Lew likes it when HE calls the shots, but gets a little whiny when others do.

In all honesty, Lew’s an armchair anarchist. The kind of guy who talks a great game but won’t put any fat in the fire, no rubber on the road.

Lew, if you’re so certain that the Lib cult is the “right” way, the “only” way…then let’s see your happy self up there running for God or King or whatever other self-affirming title you want to have. Constantly carping and whining about what’s wrong should be beneath a “great mind” like yours…..ooops, guess not.

John writes:

“If your [Lew Rockwell's] perspective weren’t so intellectually bankrupt you [he] might actually be a threat to the status quo. Thankfully you aren’t.”

If Rockwell is so lacking in prospects, it’d be interesting to hear why John puts so much energy into attacking him.

Those attacks are difficult to address, of course, because they’re just so many vaporous generalities. It’s all in the manner of, “And so’s your old man!”

I notice that John’s URL goes to notolerance@hotmail.com. I guess that just about says it all.