On this stand off in Mexico, it is unlikely that bullets or honest ballots would have produced something as enjoyable (or possibly even as socially optimal). The result is a mess for both ruling parties in Mexico, and Mises and Rothbard, far from being democrats in the modern sense, would not be surprised by it. In fact, they surely would have welcomed it, because any event that has the effect of reducing the legitimacy of a state increases the realm of social cooperation. FULL ARTICLE
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/5297/mexicos-advanced-auction-on-stolen-goods/
Mexico’s Advanced Auction on Stolen Goods
Previous post: Eek, a Libertarian!
Next post: The Wisdom of Ludwig von Mises
{ 13 comments }
Hey, do y’all think this is going to have any impact on the San Sebastian mines?
Mexico was, indeed, once ruled by the Habsburgs both under Spain and Maximiliano in the 1860′s. The latter was brought down, in no small part, through the machinations of Lincoln’s U.S. government. I can’t help but speculate how much better off Mexico would have been had they been able to retain the monarchy.
I sometimes wonder how things would have turned out if the United States had annexed the country, as it seemed we were fairly close to doing in the Mexican-American War. Would Mexico have turned out more like the United States? Or would the United States have turned out more like Mexico?
TGGP,
If CFR current plans go through, unmolested, we’ll have the opportunity to witness, first-hand, by 2010, the subject of your Q’s.
Social action by Mexicans might still be possible because they are willing and able to walk in protest for their violated rights. Compare that to the total political apathy and sometimes literal inability of their brethren up North to get off their couches.
Each year, Mexico’s politics and society are becoming more like the US, and that is precisely part of the problem.
HINT: Habsburgs in Mexico always meant absolute poverty for the masses. When you mention “freedom” please specify whether it’s the one for the few or for the many.
Pedro,
Two presidential candidates who got around one-third of the vote each are arguing over who should rule over the two-thirds who voted against them. Who in their right mind would participate in such a system?
“Each year, Mexico’s politics and society are becoming more like the US, and that is precisely part of the problem.”
You have it backwards. Mexico has been a corrupt and brutal kleptocracy for many years while the US political tradition is (or at least used to be) limited government, property rights, and the rule of law.
It is the US, unfortunately, which is becoming more like Mexico. And the more Mexicans who immigrate here, the more like Mexico we will become.
Myself, I wonder if Salma is going to (re?)claim the “von” which, at least presumptively, was in front of her last name as of the mid-19th century.
Geeky this may be, but it’s worth a look anyway:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/dgwhayek.html
Careful, Reactionary and Pedro – the degree to which the US and Mexico emulate each other’s worst features seems to depend on whether you look at it in a macro vs. micro fashion. Read some of Fred Reed’s columns and you will see what I am talking about;
http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed-arch.html
But I agree – due to government action, both are losing features of liberty which once made life more tolerable in certain ways than now.
Maximilian was imposed by the French so I’m not too sure he would have lasted very long even without American support of Juarez.
M. E. Hoffer, does “CFR” stand for?
I would like to believe that greater economic reform would be more popular in Latin America than the limited economic reform that countries like Peru have had.
And I would like to believe that total free trade would be more popular in Mexico than the limited free trade that N.A.F.T.A. allows.
However, I rather doubt it.
I often do not agree with the ideas of F.A. Hayek – but he was right in thinking that most people have profoundly statist beliefs.
Whether this is just because (as Mises and others long argued) because people are taught false ideas by the education system and the media or (as Hayek held) that such statist ideas find a fertile soil because human nature itself (due to the evolution of humans in hunter-gatherer packs) is a moot point.
However, one can not pretend that very many people are statists.
Take the example of the United States – in early 2001 President Bush was not unpopular because he was not rolling back the state. President Bush was unpopular because he was not pushing ahead with the extention of Medicare (to prescription drugs).
Most people did not think that President Bush’s tax cuts were “tiny” or “phony” (the position of many libertarians) they thought they were “too big” or “just helped the rich” or other such B.S.
Certainly President Bush is a big spending nonentity, but there is no great demand to roll back the state out there.
“When are you politicians going to roll back the state?”.
“When there are a majority of voters who want to get rid of specific large programs”.
If politicians thought that big cuts in specific programs (or the elimination of these programs) would be net vote gainers then many politicians would offer such cuts (and deliver them).
Till free market folk can convince most voters to want such specific reductions in government spending they will not happen.
TGGP,
CFR is an acronym for the Council on Foreign Relations.
Here’s an art. that talks about the “plan” I was alluding to.
Note, Lou Dobbs, from CNN, is one of the very few in the MSM to even make mention of it.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51036
see: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=North+American+Security+and+Prosperity+Partnership
and: http://www.cfr.org/publication/8102/
The problem is not the mexican elections, they’re really clean, the USA could learn a thing or two from them. The problem is Lopez Obrador who is a Chavez-like wacko.
Comments on this entry are closed.