Of the big five of the libertarian movement — Von Mises, Hayek, Rand, Rothbard and Friedman — who is your favorite?
Doherty: Murray Rothbard, and I’ll tell you why. Rothbard, in one way, was the most distinctly libertarian of the libertarians. He was influenced a lot by both Mises and Rand, not so much by Hayek and Friedman. He brought together Mises’ deep economist’s understanding of why government economic intervention tends to fail and Ayn Rand’s sort of natural rights-based philosophy that argued that it is morally wrong for government to do certain things, whether or not it worked better — even though it didn’t work better.
Rothbard also took them to sort of the most colorful and radical extremes. He actually was a complete anarchist. Unlike Rand and Mises, he didn’t believe there was any role for government. He wrote so well and was so impassionedly in so many fields — philosophy, economics and history — and was so intimately involved at an organizational level with lots of great libertarian institutions, from the Cato Institute to the Institute for Humane Studies to the Foundation of Economic Education. He really had his hands in every aspect of the story, was such a colorful and fun writer, and was so bracing in his radicalism, that I found him the most fun to contemplate of all those figures.
Read more of the interview with Brian Doherty on his book “Radicals for Capitalism” here.
{ 83 comments }
← Previous Comments
Eric, are you seriously asserting that “the state is the people and the people are the state” is a core position of libertarianism?
Wow! Do you guys provide goosestepping lessons too?
The problem between anarchism and minarchism is deeper than rhetoric.
Usually people might say, “libertarians are a diverse group that even argue amongst themselves” and stuff and this is portrayed as good.
Rand was a radical and didn’t play this “lets comprimise and get together and call ourselves with one name”. Although she was closer to libertarianism than Rothbard.
She would have endorsed everthing Mr Dondero said. But wouldnt be called a libertarian.
Rothbard was a radical to but, I must admit Mr Dondero is right, wasn’t a libertarian if libertarian means the same thing what used to be clasical liberal.
I am an anarchist and I believe people who call themselves libertarian over there in the US are statist who want to steal property. Maybe not as much as other statist but never the less. Theft is theft, and there is no middle ground or there cant be a comprimise I dont thik.
Rand was right in saying when food and poison is comprimised death is the winner. She just was to stubborn to take logical deductions to where it goes, otherwise she would have been a great anarchist.
Eric,
I think that someone with very hands-on experience in the matter summed it up rather nicely, making it clear why anarchist (however much I dislike the use of it in this context) is just another word for libertarian:
“It is nonsense to make any pretense of reconciling the State and liberty.” — Vladimir Lenin
TGGP- who do you think gave the mujahadeen those stinger missiles? lithuania?
eric- I don’t see your libertarian activism or service to the libertarian party as proof of libertarianism, which is based on principle not accumulated credit.
and there are ways to have basic services that aren’t run by the state. courts, roads, and police can be funded privately. I read that in rothbards “society without a state” in….the Libertarian reader!
also, if you don’t mind me asking, why do you not use the jewish part of your last name? Is it because the hyphenation thing is too cumbersome?
Perhaps on an operational level, the litmus test for who ought or ought not to be considered a libertarian is that person’s fundamental orientation toward the state. Are you consistently wary of giving power to the State, even under circumstances where it may even seem justifiable? Or do you somehow identify with the State, and trust those in power to exercise it judiciously, at least when the “right people” have been elected?
As usual, Rothbard (the alleged non-libertarian) said it best.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard75.html
So national monuments, museums and parks are a part of the libertarian program now?
I started being a libertarian after reading Friedman and Rand, was active in the Libertarian Party (up to state chair and a couple of runs for office) and eventually came to realize that the non-aggression principle logically leads to anarcho-capitalism. If the market can handle education, health care, etc., then why can’t it handle rights-protection? In one sense, at least, the minarchists and anarchists aren’t all that different. We are both heading in the same direction.
But we must be consistent. The non-aggression principle should be applied to all people unilaterally, whether they are American citizens or not. The war in Iraq was unjustified, and the appropriate response would have been going after the terrorists qua terrorists, not going after a country, a religion, or starting a broad, vague War on Terror. When you cross the line and go beyond defensive or retaliatory force, you become an aggressor, an initiator of force. Weakness is in not admitting when you’ve made a mistake and in not trying to correct the mistake. Bush is weak, not strong, and hides behind America’s military might.
As for politicalactivity, while I don’t want to put down the efforts by the LP, I’ve come to realize that politics is a very reactive system, not pro-active, and any changes in politics are going to be far more effective if they reflect changes in the culture of our society. I would say that political activity is a necessary but insufficient cause of change if we’re to reach a free, libertarian society. The libertarian movement needs to have a broader, socio-cultural impact if we’re ever going to succeed.
Eric: “If you believe in no government, i.e. no Military, no Judicial system, no Police Force, no Border Patrol, no National Monuments, Museums or Parks, than you are an Anarchist, most certainly NOT a Libertarian.”
No. You don’t get it.
A libertarian recognizes principles first, then application of principles.
If YOU can’t conceive how a certain function would be provided in the absence of a coercive state and therefore you advocate a role for the state in violation of principle, that would make you less—I repeat, LESS—libertarian than one who applies the principles consistently and envisions that said function is either unnecessary or could be provided volulntarily.
It is you who is trying to be the “king of libertarians†if, through your tortured logic, you try to change the definition to make the former the “true†libertarian position, and the latter something else philosophically on the fringes outside of libertarianism.
mujahideen != Maktab al-Khadamat. All of the latter are the subset of the former but the former is not the latter. Verstehen Sie?
It’s not just MAK members that say this. The CIA and ISI members that were involved say the same thing. The key thing linking people who allege that America was supporting the MAK is that they were not in a position to actually know what happened. Getting support from infidels isn’t always considered a bad thing either, that’s why so many muslim countries were client states of the Soviet Union. The actual Afghan mujahideen didn’t have a problem recognizing that they got support from Americans (nor did the MAK denounce them for that), it made sense to do so. Osama was independently wealthy (so he didn’t need us much) and was not a major factor in the Afghan jihad (so we didn’t need him much).
I’m confused reeding those credentials. Mr. Dondero seems to be so close to Ron Paul. I thought Paul was against military intervention in Irak Iran and Palestine. Why to use those credentials then?
TGGP,
You say: “The key thing linking people who allege that America was supporting the MAK is that they were not in a position to actually know what happened.”
But them you say: “The actual Afghan mujahideen didn’t have a problem recognizing that they got support from Americans (nor did the MAK denounce them for that), it made sense to do so.”
So which one is it? Do you finally admit something that nobody was hiding: that U.S.A. was supporting mujahidin movement in Afghanistan, whose integral part was Bin Laden?
Again, no offense to you, but no one really denied Prince Bandar’s claims. There was no logical reason how could the U.S.A. discriminate against Osama’s fighters, who were a part of MAK.
Regards.
Keeping in mind that dirty socialists stole the term “liberal,” is it a stretch to suggest that other dirty socialists now are pretending to be the only true “libertarians?”
Actually, I think that the adoption of the term “libertarian” by classic liberals was their retaliation for the hijacking of the term “liberal” by the left. The first known use of a term that has been translated as “libertarian,” in a political sense, was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque who used the French term “libertaire” in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857. The term is still commonly used in Europe to designate collectivist anarchists (one anarchist faction in Spanish civil war was called libertarian).
Nevertheless, it makes sense for people like Rothbard to call themselves libertarians, since their version of anarchism consistently advocates the individual freedom and autonomy.
A man that to 100 percent supported a private property ethic was, naturally, also a 100 percent libertarian and anarchist. Who am I writing about? Naturally, Murray Rothbard.
Anyone that do not to a 100 percent comply with a private property ethic is something less than a fully libertarian. That is quite obvious.
Milton Friedman has extremely effectively influenced the world, but I would hardly call him a libertarian. I would classify him as a free market conservative. Hayek has also influenced the world, but to a lesser degree. He was a free market conservative too.
Mises and Ayn Rand, though, I would classify as libertarians.
I think we have a new star on the scene and that is Hans-Hermann Hoppe. I, also, think Murray Rothbard would have agreed with me.
Personally, I think Ayn Rand was a little weird. Intellectually she could not compete with the other guys, especially not with Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe and Hayek.
Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe are the true masterminds.
Björn Lundahl
Göteborg, Sweden
barry goldwater could be considered an anarchist
“I come to washington not to make laws, but to repeal them!”
Bin Laden was not “an integral part” of the mujahideen. He was not just “part” of MAK either, him and Abdullah Azzam were the founders of it. And the U.S government has denied supporting the “Afghan Arabs” (which would include Bin Laden, Azzam and the MAK). So you are wrong on the simple evident facts of whether or not there is denial, and the people who are asserting that it never happened were actually in a position to know while the people who assert that it did universally were not in such a position.
This may not be particularly relevant, but the best piece I’ve read on Afghanistan and the Taliban I’ve read is “Who is Responsible for the Taliban?“
Osama was a mujahidin (by any definition of that word) and he could not fight his own war in a foreign country. Even according to international law, he was a part of a side in conflict that fought against Soviets and Afghan Communists.
As far as your DOS link goes – it only repeats statements of terrorist and no official denial of U.S. officials who could be involved in those actions.
As far as your other links goes – you may find the counterclaims all over internet.
Robin Cook, former leader of the British House of Commons and Foreign Secretary from 1997-2001, wrote in The Guardian on Friday, July 8, 2005:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,12780,1523838,00.html
” Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally “the database”, was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.”
—
Anyway — you are (at best) trying to prove that not even U.S.A. links Osama and Saddam : )
Bjorn, Goeden Dag,
How can one be a “Conservative” if one is Pro-Choice?
This has always boggled my mind. All these Paleos sit there and accuse me and other Pro-Defense Libertarians of being “NeoCons.”
If I attended a NeoCon meeting as a Pro-Choicer/Pro-Sexual Tolerance guy, NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, et.al would skin me alive. Not too mention my Pro-Drug Legalization stance. That would send Mr. NeoCon himself — Bill Bennett — into the stratosphere.
Enlighten me please.
Tak
Eric Dondero, God dag!
I do not know about you but I guess that there is a great difference between a neo conservative and a free market conservative.
Apart from the definition that a truly libertarian is a guy that to a 100 percent comply with a 100 percent private property ethic, political labelling is in no sense absolute.
I mean, for example, a socialist could want the monetary system of a nation converted into a gold standard.
Hälsningar (Regards)
Björn
From the land of social democrats, welfare state, big government, envy, equality, woman’s liberation, high taxes, regulations etc
http://www.answers.com/sweden?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
http://www.answers.com/g%C3%B6teborg?gwp=11&ver=2.0.1.458&method=3
Robin Cook doesn’t know what the hell he is talking about. He had no involvement in the Afghan Jihad and is just talking out of his ass. Paul Bergen called him on his idiocy here, although Bergen has only interviewed bin Laden and is thus not as definitive a source as the people actually involved in the Afghan Jihad (none of whom support your theory).
The DOS page does serve as a denial. It is the official position of the U.S government. It contains denials from C.I.A agents who actually carried out operations that are alleged to have involved Bin Laden. Give me someone who was in a position to know what happened, as these C.I.A and MAK people were, who claims there was any connection. Then I will take you seriously. Until then you have nothing.
I don’t think we should have invaded Iraq. I am not defending the invasion, I am refuting a cock and bull story. Was there any connection between Saddam and bin Laden? “Connection” is a very vague term. There was some communication between the two, but it never amounted to much. Saddam really only supported regional terrorists that could support his interests against his neighbors. He didn’t want any involvement with the “Worldwide Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders”, which had been al Qaeda’s focus since the assassination of Abdullah Azzam.
“And I dare say, there isn’t a Veteran amongst you all here.”
“More proof that you all just want to bash America and have no feelings of loyalty to this great country.”
I served seven years in the U.S. Navy. Honorably discharged six months ago. I met and know people still serving in the Middle East.
Most of us were defrauded into service, subjected to jingoish brainwashing, and turned into thugs and thieves. Your great country can spin on it.
“So Garet Garrett and the rest of the “Old Right” were actually “Left-wing,” while Franklin “Stalin is a good Christian gentleman” Roosevelt and his Keynesian, central planning, welfare-state-building buddies were the true right-wingers?”
Actually, I’d say most of the Old Right were really from the left — Nock the culturally leftie Georgist, Mencken the anti-authoritarian, Flynn the progressive Democrat — and FDR was a fascist, yes.
Dondero: “Again, I knew Murray Rothbard. Murray was a friend of mine. A Libertarian? Murray was not. He’d tell you straight out that he was an Anarchist, and disliked Libertarians, particularly Libertarian Party Libertarians, whom he loathed later on in his years.”
Dondero is such an activist he cannot help but think “libertarian” means “member of the Libertarian Party”. First, the LP contians some anarchists. Second, Rothbard wrote For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. So to think he would not say he was a libertarian is just asinine and ignorant. To imply anarcho-capitalist or anarcho-libertarian is not libertarian is just a confusion; it is a type of libertarian. Dondero is himself not even a libertarian, but just a mainstream neo-con.
“If I attended a NeoCon meeting as a Pro-Choicer/Pro-Sexual Tolerance guy, NeoCons like Bill Kristol, Fred Barnes, Bill Bennett, Pat Robertson, et.al would skin me alive. Not too mention my Pro-Drug Legalization stance. That would send Mr. NeoCon himself — Bill Bennett — into the stratosphere.”
Pat Robertson is not really a neocon.
Plenty of neocons are pro-choice and decent on the drug war, actually. They differ on domestic policy and don’t care much about it. Their main issue is promoting war.
Eric: “I knew Murray well.â€
Apparently you didn’t know him well if you believe you are somehow more libertarian than he was. You missed something: Go back to his WRITINGS.
I believe Eric Dondero is a sincere and passionate advocate with good intentions, but who unfortunately lacks the intellectual equipment (and probably the patience) to appreciate the penetrating clarity and profound depth of Rothbard’s thought.
This is why Dondero, instead of recognizing Rothbard for the towering libertarian figure he was, (or at least trying to mount a convincing argument why he was not a libertarian), instead tries to pull him down to his level, claiming familiarity—”I knew Murray wellâ€â€” making subtle put downs—”He was a loveable little guyâ€â€”thus weakly attempting to minimize him.
It’s no surprise that Dondero uses such tactics since—when he must maintain civility in such a distinguished forum as this and may not yell and flail about—it becomes apparent how inadequate his tortured semantical arguments are.
His deficiency in critical thinking naturally leads to all sorts of absurd and backward conclusions, such as believing killing innocent people or “kicking the s*** out of flag burners†is a libertarian position, while everyone else’s positions are not.
TGGP,
Your Department of State link used the statements from terrorists, simply to fill in the blanks all the fluff.
Let me remind you, Robin Cook said: “Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan.”
To which the former CIA official Milt Bearden responds: “The CIA did not recruit Arabs,” as there was no need to do so… So the notion that the Agency funded and trained the Afghan Arabs is, at best, misleading.â€
In other words – he is not denying Cook’s statement, but just dancing around the issue.
By the way, when he mentions arming, he tries to unload some of the blame: “Bearden says the United States, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China, Egypt, and the UK were “major players” in the effort to aid the Afghans.â€
That really stinks.
By the way — who is your source of information that “infidel dictator†(as Salafi call him) Saddam was in touch with Osama? The same agency that claimed that he had WMDs? Tsk, tsk, tsk, tsk….
I didn’t want to read what terrorist side had to say until now, but Abdullah Anas:
“If you say there was a relationship in the sense that the CIA used to meet with Arabs, discuss with them, prepare plans with them, and to fight with them — it never happened.”
Opa!
So he says there was not that kind of relationship (“in a sense”)… too bad he didn’t say what kind of relationship it was (arms delivered on parachutes, logistics, indirect directives via Afghans?).
Give us more links like this TGGP!
Bearden was not responding to Cook. He made his statement before Cook made his.
If you think that al Qaeda using disparaging names means they didn’t get along with a regime, you should read the Harmony Documents and what is said in there about the Taliban. They have an elitist sensibility, but they realize beggars can’t be choosers. They didn’t enter into a working relationship with Saddam Hussein because it wasn’t useful for them to do so. I don’t remember the places where I read about this, but it’s not a very significant point.
You are reading nothing but denials from everyone involved, but to you it comes off as an admission. That is because it is what you want to hear. There is no evidence for any relationship WHATSOEVER between the US government and MAK. We didn’t have any files on Osama until the 90s. It is not even known if Osama used American arms, though if in fact he did it would not be terribly surprising as the Afghans we armed sold their armaments far and wide.
I do not feel like looking for more links for you. What I want from you is ONE statement from someone INVOLVED in the Afghan Jihad that says that there was a relationship between the US and MAK. Not a denial that you find insufficient, and not someone commenting on it but with no involvement. I do not know of any such statement.
TGGP,
I know that Bearden was not responding to Cook’s statement — that was my whole point. He danced around real issues, just like you do when I asked you to support your claim that Saddam had any connections with Al-Qaeda.
Plus, the statement of Abdullah Anas actually does not deny that there was some kind of relationship between the U.S.A. and “Afghan Arabs” — he just denies that it was as cozy as some people assume. It’s a shame you don’t want provide more links like that – but I understand that you don’t want to provide more evidence of cooperation between Al-Qaeda and CIA. Anyway, you did enough and I thank you.
I know that Bearden was not responding to Cook’s statement — that was my whole point. Quit yanking my chain. To which the former CIA official Milt Bearden responds So why the heck did you write that? Your posts strike me as very intellectually dishonest.
Bearden is not “dancing around” anything. He is giving an account of his activities. He recruited and trained Afghans. That was his job. He did not do the same for Arabs. That is it. He has no need to respond to anything because there is no evidence of a CIA-bin Laden connection.
I am not “dancing around” the Saddam-al Qaeda issue. I think it is very minor and am willing to concede whatever point you want to make about them, unless you were claiming that they actually fought against him (bin Laden offered to do so before the Gulf War but was rebuffed by the Saudi royal family, which marked his split from that regime).
TGGP,
The fact remains: I didn’t see anyone denying what Cook said. You said that CIA denied those claims — but they didn’t.
As far as issue of Saddam and Al-Qaeda, I joked that U.S. aid is the only thing linking them — just because Eric Dondero acused Saddam Hussein that he was partially behind 9/11, hallucinating about those shameful lies about Atta in Prague and Zarqawi in Baghdad (with a prosthetic leg). That was the context.
I used to edit American Defense for the Caucus. Before that, I wrote an Ayn Rand obituary exposing the logical fallacy behind anarchism. It is the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Does anyone remember? Cheerfully,
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.