Comments (6)

• Kent Welton

  Conservatism captured/ruined by neo-con fascists.
  Party is wrecked. 7 of 10 trillion debt is due to Reagan, Bush and Bush II - huge borrow and spend hypocrites and war mongers.
  See John Dean's book The Conscience Of A Conservative.

  Published: November 30, 2007 12:39 PM

• Anthony

  Great article, thank you.

  Published: November 30, 2007 12:45 PM

• Paul Marks

  Conservative thought in Europe is a complicated matter.

  For example, the conservative Whig Edmund Burke was never a "statist" by any reasonable standard (and no I am not talking about Vindication of Natural Society) - he always supported deregulation, strict control of government spending and, along with this, lower taxes.

  Even if we confine consideration to the Tory people. The country ones (from the October Club in the early 18th century, to the late 18th century ones that Burke worked with on such things as opposition to the cider tax) were very limited government people.

  In other European lands conservative thought was often about OPPOSING (not supporting) absolute monarchy - it was about supporting traditional checks. Paliaments, Estates, local autonomy, traditional customs and practices (and so on).

  In the 19th century conservative thought was often associated with opposition to nationalism (for example German and Italian "unification") and the higher taxes and conscription (and so on) that this movement brought with it.

  And in Britian conservative thought was not only associated with the Association for the Preservation of Liberty and Property in the early 19th century (which might be called a "Church and King" although that is to oversimplyfy it), but also with such late 19th century organizations as the Liberty and Property Defence League and the Personal Rights Association.

  Of course there are many statists also associated with conservative thought (in various European lands - including Britain), but as I have already said it is a very complex story.

  For those interested perhaps W.H. Greenleaf's "The British Political Tradition" is the best work for the British part of it (the work covers the various traditions of thought, conservative, liberal and socialist).

  As for Murry Rothbard:

  In the history of economics he was a real historian - i.e. he was interested in what happened, the story itself was his primary concern. Rothbard's history of economics (although sadly unfinished) is the best work on this subject in existance.

  But in his other historical work his political mission (to support libertarianism as he understood it) came first - and the complex facts of the story tended to be of less importance.

  As for Murry Rothbard's position that there should be no resistance to Marxism (either the Soviet Union or other Marxist powers) unless there was a direct military attack on the United States (the position that the Ludwig Von Mises Insitute seems determined that no one should forget):

  Yes I know this was his position - he had the same position regarding the Nazis. No support for any nation resisting Nazi Germany.

  The vision seems to be of the United States as an island of liberty in a sea of tyranny.

  Fair enough - the Ludwig Von Mises Institute does not have to publish an article every other day reminding us that Murry Rothbard opposed NATO, wanted Ike to lose in 1952 (and so on and so on).

  We already know that Rothbard did not "lose the meaning" in the 1960's, as he had lost it long before.

  There are worse things than Uncle Sam in this world - but very early on Murry Rothbard forgot that.

  Thankfully, Ludwig Von Mises had nothing to do with such a liberty-in-America-only-the-rest-of-the-world-does-not-matter postion.

  Perhaps partly because Ludwig Von Mises understood that an island of liberty in a sea of tyranny can not long endure.

  The rest of the world does matter.

  Published: November 30, 2007 3:13 PM

• George P

  Mr. Marks,

  I appreciate your remarks regarding the difference between Rothbard's political views and those of Mises. Nevertheless, the casual reader of the Mises web site comes away with more of a Rothbardian impression rather than a Misesian. Whether this is accidental or not it is something to consider.

  Published: November 30, 2007 3:39 PM

• Brent

  Mr. Marks,

  You take an uncritical view of the means to support your goal. You suggest that Uncle Sam can save our (American citizens) liberties by defeating tyranny outside U.S. borders. That is fine and noble idea in and of itself - though, in reality, we see the noble idea is usually a farce, covering up a more sinister agenda.

  But how can Uncle Sam "defeat tyranny outside U.S. borders? I dare say that Uncle Sam will inevitably tax, draft, and otherwise destroy the liberties of U.S. citizens in the process. So, even if the rest of the world were evil, creating a new tyranny in the U.S. only eliminates the ability of citizens of the 'rest of the world' to find better refuge.

  Published: December 1, 2007 12:04 AM

• Don

  Even if, as asserted, Ludwig Von Mises did have such an understanding, that "an island of liberty in a sea of tyranny can not long endure", I cannot accept such a statement as being a logical basis to support the proposition that the inhabitants of such an "island of liberty" are thereby justified in leaving their "island of liberty" in order to attempt to tame this referenced "sea of tyranny".

  Published: December 2, 2007 12:33 PM