Comments (50)

• Larry N. Martin

  "Taco's new Center"?? Is that the Anti-Cato group? Or are you just ready for lunch? ;-)
  

  Published: December 13, 2007 11:32 AM

• DM

  Really -- the snide constant baiting from the Rockwell crowd regarding Cato is tedious and reflects badly on you guys. And it is particularly silly in this post. Individual rights are human rights. And I doubt that Cato used the term "human rights" to imply anything about the UN. But any excuse to bash libertarians who aren't buying into the new revised libertarianism coming out of Auburn.

  Published: December 13, 2007 12:10 PM

• R.W.W

  DM, the 60-year anniversary of the abominable Declaration passed a few days ago. Kinsella's just combining a mild critique of terminology with the memory of that event. I don't see the problem.

  Published: December 13, 2007 12:31 PM

• TGGP

  Instead of deriding some phrase they used, why don't you criticize actions they've taken? And "Taco"? I admit it's a step up from DiLorenzo's STATO, but still childish.

  Published: December 13, 2007 12:54 PM

• Jonathan Bostwick

  Because war mongering libertarians are still libertarians, right? Oh wait, no they aren't.

  Published: December 13, 2007 1:18 PM

• Ryan

  Regardless of what label they put on it I am very glad that they are providing libertarian outreach materials in other languages. I want people to taste freedom no matter what language they prefer to communicate in.

  Published: December 13, 2007 1:51 PM

• Kevin B

  I believe the choice of "human rights" rather than "individual rights" is just marketing tactic by CATO.

  After all, I believe, they are advocating complete freedom to those not already sold on the idea.

  From the web page for the Center for Promotion of Human Rights:

  "The Center helps facilitate a worldwide network across disparate countries that advances aspirations for individual liberty, freedom of association, religious freedom, freedom of trade, limited government, the rule of law, and peace. "

  Perhaps they would use "individual rights" if their market was those who already understood the idea.

  Regards,

  Kevin B

  Published: December 13, 2007 2:10 PM

• Anthony

  Perhaps CATO is trying to hijack the term (like liberals hijacked liberalism)? After all, the only rights we see as legitimate are individual rights, and thus these are the only 'human' rights we see as valid.

  Published: December 13, 2007 3:00 PM

• Yancey Ward

  DM,

  I don't really see this as an attack on CATO by Kinsalla. He is questioning their use of a particular phrase, but he did commend their outreach.

  Like Larry Martin, I suspect "TACO" was a Kinsalla's stomach taking control of his brain, but perhaps it meant something else.

  Published: December 13, 2007 3:07 PM

• IMHO

  DM

  "It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace."

  I'm a little concerned over this one-world government concept. If everything we do is for the pleasure of the U.N., what happens to our sovereignty?

  "...to protection against unemployment..."

  Isn't that what's happening now in Europe? Employers are afraid to hire people for fear that they can't get rid of them should they be unsuitable for the position.

  "Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance."

  It's been my experience that when the government awards special rights to one group, it ends up trodding upon the rights of others. In other words, some groups become more equal than others.

  It seems to me that the implementation of this plan would require a great deal of government intervention and the establishment of a worldwide welfare state.

  Published: December 13, 2007 4:00 PM

• Josh

  If Cato wanted to preach to the choir then they could use the term "individual rights," but they're not. They're trying to attract as many people as possible and to do so they need to not scare people off right away.

  On the surface, Schumpeter's CS&D looks like a defense of socialism, but he only did it so socialists would read the damn book. I think Cato is doing the same thing and it is a briliant strategy.

  Published: December 13, 2007 5:21 PM

• Carlos

  Well, to be honest, I don't think we should be too hard with this document "Universal Declaration of Human Rights". Yes, it has many positive rights, but you read it carefully it also promotes libertarian principles and ideas:

  "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world"

  "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,"

  "Article 1.
  All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

  Article 3.
  Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

  "Article 17.
  (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

  (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."

  Besides, paragraph 4 or article 23: "4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." is not at all socialistic. The problems of unions is when then use the government, that is, coertion, for the protection of his interests. Unions per se, are not socialistic.

  Best regards,
  Carlos

  Published: December 13, 2007 8:19 PM

• Dan Mahoney

  Carlos,

  you are a dope-smoker.
  

  Published: December 13, 2007 9:03 PM

• Renato Drumond

  "But I wonder about use of the term "human rights." Why not "Individual Rights," which is usually used by libertarians, given the socialistic connotations of the term "human rights"?"

  It's not true that the term "human rights" have socialistic connotations. What about the most important document of French Revolution, called "Declaration of the Rights of MAN and Citizen"?

  The American Declaration of Independence says that
  "all MEN are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

  Herbert Spencer wrote that: "If every MAN has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man, it is manifest that he has a claim to his life: for without it he can do nothing that he has willed; and to his personal liberty: for the withdrawal of it partially, if not wholly, restrains him from the fulfilment of his will."

  Lord Acton defined liberty as "the assurance that every MAN shall be protected in doing what he believes his duty, against the influence of authority and majorities, custom and opinion."

  Published: December 13, 2007 9:38 PM

• Brent

  >Justin Raimondo's quote of Cato's Brink Lindsay's definition of a "libertarian utopia" reveals to me a big reason why so many of the Beltway crowd seems to hate and despise Ron Paul and anyone assocated with him, especially those of us who work with the Mises Institute and write for LewRockwell.com.

  Raimondo quotes Lindsay in one of his (Lindsay's) books as describing his own version of libertarian utopia as "the sexual revolution, environmentalism and feminsm, the fitness and health care boom, and the opening of the gay closet . . ." It is well known that the position of Lew Rockwell, myself, and everyone else formally assocated with the Mises Institute and LewRockwell.com on all of this is freedom and tolerance; live and let live. Ron Paul himself put it best in a recent interview on Faux News with Brian Kilmeade when he said: "Im for freedom but I don't care how people use their freedom."

  But the "Beltway liberventionists" tend to be totalitarian-minded and childishly intolerant of this live-and-let-live philosophy. They display a venomous hatred toward those of us who choose to largely ignore these issues but would never stand in the way of anyone who wanted to pursue them. They insist that all libertarians be champions of feminism, gay rights, and, appaprently, even health club membership. They remind me of the campus leftists who keep informing me that I must not only tolerate all possible varieties of sexual diversity but "celebrate" it. ("Celebrate Diversity" has been the multiculturalist credo of higher education for about 15 years now).

  Well, I'd rather celebrate freedom, which is the surest way to allow everyone to live as diverse a lifestyle as they want -- as long as they don't commit aggressive acts against others with their freedom.

  - Thomas DiLorenzo's Post
  

  Published: December 14, 2007 1:43 AM

• TGGP

  The official position of the Cato Institute was one of opposition to the Iraq war, even if some members like Brink supported it (similarly not everyone at National Review endorses Romney). To portray the organization as war-mongerers is simply dishonest and I think statist would be stretching it from any perspective other than anarchist.

  Published: December 14, 2007 4:22 AM

• Luis

  I think the use of the term "human rights" is misleading.

  To understand the deep implications I recommend reading Frank van Dun's article "Human Dignity: Reason or Desire- Natural Rights vs. Humans Rights" (Journal of Libertarian Studies vol. 15 num. 4)

  It is a shame that the statists stole words like liberal and human rights, but the truth nowadays is that the human rights is the catchword used by those who promote government interventions.

  Besides, it is not true that the use of the expression 'human rights' doesn't scare people, because in nonwestern countries that phrase serves to design a western political agenda of indoctrination. It would be more useful to speak of natural rights, an expression which does not refer to any UN or NGO programs.

  Published: December 14, 2007 8:14 AM

• Yancey Ward

  Carlos,

  There well may be parts of the document that are worthy of respect, but the preponderance of positive rights renders the asserted negative rights meaningless, and vice versa.

  Published: December 14, 2007 8:55 AM

• Tony T

  No, Kinsella was just hungry.

  Published: December 14, 2007 9:41 AM

• Mathieu Bédard

  This little Clan Hoppe Vs. Clan Palmer thing is getting old..

  The Cato Institute’s Center for Promotion of Human Rights seeks to increase the understanding of ideas and policies based on the inalienable human rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

  Did you just deliberately choose to ignore that part?

  Published: December 14, 2007 3:24 PM

• Juan

  
  Spencer uses the term 'human rights' some ten times in Social Statics.

  On the other hand, the term seems has been efectively hijacked by the left, just like 'liberalism',
  

  Published: December 14, 2007 8:42 PM

• Juan

  I meant :

  On the other hand, the term seems to have fbeen effectively hijacked by the left, just like 'liberalism',

  Published: December 14, 2007 8:45 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  Exactly what position is Cato spreading to the rest of the world? That we need more politicians like Fred Thompson. Plenty of countries already got those.

  It's a pretty bad massage to talk about freedom to other people in different countries and then support candidates like Thompson at home. That sort of attitude wouldn't get far with me.

  If you want to spread principles, first you must be principled yourself.

  Also TGGP said:

  "The official position of the Cato Institute was one of opposition to the Iraq war, even if some members like Brink supported it (similarly not everyone at National Review endorses Romney). To portray the organization as war-mongerers is simply dishonest and I think statist would be stretching it from any perspective other than anarchist."

  The National Review is publication for readers first of all not a non-profit organization with a specific ideologically goal. Second if Cato stands to support certain principles, then why does it hire people who don't stand for those principles? I would be pretty upset if the Mises Institute randomly hired someone who didn't reflect Austrian/libertarian values but was instead a Keynesian. If people who don't reflect the goals are being hired, there is a problem within the institution. Ultimately, Cato chooses who is on staff. If you don't support war and interventionism, then don't hire war mongers as your analysts. And if someone has changed their perspective separate from the goals of the institution, they should not have their contract reinstated. I would hope that if Mark Thornton became a Marxist and began ranting all over the place that the Mises Institute would get rid of him or specifically make announcements that he is not talking with representation of the mises institute until his contract runs out.

  Published: December 14, 2007 11:31 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  Mises said it best. Our preferences are revealed by human action.

  If an ideological institution hires war mongers and keeps them on board, what sort of preferences are being revealed?

  They say that they're anti-war but it doesn't change their actions. George Bush says that he's fighting for freedom in the world (does that mean he is. of course not). What is said matters little. What is done tells all.

  Published: December 14, 2007 11:45 PM

• TGGP

  Exactly what position is Cato spreading to the rest of the world? That we need more politicians like Fred Thompson. Plenty of countries already got those.
  Provide some evidence for your assertion. Their main schtick doesn't seem to be telling voters who should be in office but telling people in office how to govern, as Mises did in Austria. Furthermore, point out where's Cato's official positions deviate from libertarianism toward something Thompsonesque.

  It's a pretty bad massage to talk about freedom to other people in different countries and then support candidates like Thompson at home. That sort of attitude wouldn't get far with me.
  Cato never endorses ANY POLITICIANS. EVER. As a non-profit organization they are not permitted to.

  Second if Cato stands to support certain principles, then why does it hire people who don't stand for those principles?
  People supporting LvMI or LRC over Cato should NOT be trying to pull that. People regularly rag on the two aforementioned organizations and Ron Paul for associating with "shady" characters. It's simply guilt by association and a tactic for those who don't care about anything other than smearing. Cato is not Rand's circle and people are not expelled for heresy, they simply do not promote the views they do not agree with. If you want to attack Brink, I heartily encourage you to do so.

  Published: December 15, 2007 2:59 AM

• Vedran Vuk

  TGGP,

  There is a GIANT difference between associating with a questionable person and having a questionable person on your pay roll.

  Also as I said about "official" positions. George Bush's official position is to spread freedom and democracy in the world. "official" positions don't mean much. What is actually done matters

  Published: December 15, 2007 1:53 PM

• TGGP

  Vedran Vuk, Ron Paul employed a person who wrote horribly racist things that were published under Ron's name. He also employed Eric Dondero, and the less said about him the better. Do I think any of that is a black mark on Paul? No, I keep him distinct from his employees. He denied that the newsletter represented his views, and I accept that.

  George Bush's official position is to spread freedom and democracy in the world.
  There is a GIANT difference between generalized platitudes and specific policy endorsements. Bush favored the Iraq war, Cato opposed it. Are you demanding that Cato staffers start laying down on rail-tracks shipping munitions overseas? I don't see and LvMI folks doing that, nor would I expect that of them.

  What is actually done matters
  Writing about policy is what Cato does. What actions taken by Cato as distinct from individuals associated with Cato are objectionable?

  Published: December 16, 2007 12:52 AM

• TGGP

  On similar matters, do you think it shocking that a magazine called the American Conservative had an openly liberal employee for an extended amount of time who strongly disagreed with the viewpoints expressed in some of their publications and when he confronted them with his objections they decided not to fire him and he had to quit out of his own disgust? Personally, I find it funny that Alexander took the job without assuming he'd come across work that really offended him, but I don't think it reflects poorly on AmConMag as long as the work he performed on its behalf was good.

  Published: December 16, 2007 1:01 AM

• Vedran Vuk

  For the second time, there is a difference between a for profit magazine and a non-profit ideological institution. It is in the interest of the National Review to have Huckabee people, Romney people, Guiliani people on board, and hell maybe some liberal people.

  And you just mentioned that Ron Paul did something about the situation. He addressed the issue.

  Simple question. If the Mises Institute hired Karl Marx resurrected tomorrow, would it change your opinion of the institute at all?

  According to you, it shouldn't matter one bit.

  Published: December 16, 2007 1:35 AM

• Vedran Vuk

  "Writing about policy is what Cato does. What actions taken by Cato as distinct from individuals associated with Cato are objectionable?"

  Also for the second time, the action I object to by CATO is THE HIRING OF OBJECTIONABLE PEOPLE. They didn't magically just get the job did they? Is the hiring process something that Cato Institute has no control over. It just happens one day you're hanging out talking about economic policy and holy crap there's a pro-war guy next to you rooting for Thompson! Institution fairy dust

  Published: December 16, 2007 1:40 AM

• ArrowDebreu

  DiLorenzo thinks Cato is "totalitarian?" Bizarre!

  As an outsider, all this libertoonist infighting seems quite strange. I can understand why the Mises Institutes spreads lies about Cato, since MI probably imagines itself competing with Cato.

  But I can't understand why the Mises Institute promotes ideas such as natural rights in the first place, since von Mises argued that "natural rights" themselves are metaphysical nonsense ("illusory notions of natural law and human equality" in Human Action).

  Watching libertoonists debate whether to call them "individual rights" or "human rights" is admittedly pretty entertaining. And it certainly explains why you've all been so successful in spreading your ideas and rolling back the state.

  Published: December 16, 2007 2:58 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  ArrowDebreu,

  So if I see an institute that is supposed to espouse liberty going off course, I'm not supposed to criticize it????? I don't see this at all as competition between CATO and the Mises Institute as you do. I see CATO as a great ally in the battle against the state going astray. I don't criticize them because I like the Mises Institute more but because I love liberty most and would love to see CATO get back on track.

  I hope that if the Mises Institute ever started hiring people who supported Fred Thompson openly that someone from CATO would criticize the Mises Institute and expose the erroneous direction this behavior is headed to.

  Not saying anything about libertarians who support intervention is not a way to fight the state. It is a way to increase state power.

  ArrowDebreu, forgets exactly how we came to be where we are. Classical liberals started more and more compromising with the idea of the state until, we have things like the modern Republican party today. So, if I see libertarians now compromising with the state, you're damn right I'll call them out and criticize them!

  Published: December 16, 2007 5:25 PM

• Inquisitor

  ArrowDebreu, to put it bluntly, is an ignoramus. But that's never stopped 'outsiders' like him from posting their silly opinions before, why should it stop them now?

  Published: December 16, 2007 6:06 PM

• TGGP

  profit magazine
  Magazines with ideologies, like The New Republic or Weekly Standard, are not for profit. Their purpose is ideological. The American Conservative is only afloat because Taki is rich. I am pretty sure National Review is also not for-profit.

  They didn't magically just get the job did they?
  Brink got his job long before he endorsed the Iraq war, and they declined to fire him because his work for them met their standards.

  there's a pro-war guy next to you rooting for Thompson!
  I don't know of anyone at Cato rooting for Thompson. Brink declared that he would vote for a Democrat this time, and his reason was that they were the party opposed to the Iraq war. Now that he's changed his mind, do you still hate Cato?

  I can't understand why the Mises Institute promotes ideas such as natural rights in the first place, since von Mises argued that "natural rights" themselves are metaphysical nonsense
  Rothbard founded the institute and it would be more sensible to have named it after him, but I guess it would have seemed tacky to be running an institution named after yourself unless you're really a big deal.

  So if I see an institute that is supposed to espouse liberty going off course, I'm not supposed to criticize it?
  Cato still espouses liberty, the organization might be said to have gone off course on some issues like Canadian drug importation, but on the whole I'd say they stuck to their ideals pretty well.

  I love liberty most and would love to see CATO get back on track.
  What would that require? Firing Brink even though he's already admitted that the Iraq war was a terrible mistake?

  ArrowDebreu, to put it bluntly, is an ignoramus.
  What mistaken things has he said that indicates he is an ignoramous?

  I hope that if the Mises Institute ever started hiring people who supported Fred Thompson openly that someone from CATO would criticize the Mises Institute and expose the erroneous direction this behavior is headed to.
  Who from Cato supports Fred Thompson? And I would hope that it would be the Thompson supporter who was criticized rather than his/her employer.

  Published: December 16, 2007 6:28 PM

• TGGP

  And what's with the capitalization "CATO"? I thought it was named after a american independence era pseudonym, itself named after an ancient Roman. Did it become an acronym without my knowledge?

  Published: December 16, 2007 6:33 PM

• TGGP

  And you just mentioned that Ron Paul did something about the situation. He addressed the issue.
  Ron Paul did not immediately fire eith staffer, as far as I know. He just said he dissagrees with their views. Cato did the same thing, it opposed the Iraq war.

  If the Mises Institute hired Karl Marx resurrected tomorrow, would it change your opinion of the institute at all?
  Marx frequently criticized the state, and envisioned that it would wither away after the dicttorship of the proletariat. I would have no problem with LvMI employing him to spread his message insofar as it meshed with their own.

  Published: December 16, 2007 6:37 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  "If the Mises Institute hired Karl Marx resurrected tomorrow, would it change your opinion of the institute at all? Marx frequently criticized the state, and envisioned that it would wither away after the dicttorship of the proletariat. I would have no problem with LvMI employing him to spread his message insofar as it meshed with their own."

  That pretty much sums it up TGGP. Thanks

  Published: December 16, 2007 8:42 PM

• TGGP

  I think some of you might be interested in this old post from Radley Balko. In it he's defending Reason and Cato against an ex-Catoite liberventionist, with loads of quotes from people at Cato about Iraq and an insider's perspective on the common points of view at those institutions.

  Published: December 16, 2007 8:53 PM

• Vedran Vuk

  "Who at Cato supports Thompson?" Well why not look at the article DiLorenzo mentions himself.

  http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8701

  Here's a quote from the article posted on the Cato
  website written by Chris Edwards who has been a member of Cato since 2001:

  "I'm pleased that Fred Thompson has thrown his hat into the ring."

  Also check out this great quote by Chris Edwards,

  "What about presidential candidate Ron Paul? Paul is certainly a strong believer in the 10th Amendment, but he has been mainly occupied by the war in Iraq and hasn't focused his campaign on cutting domestic spending."

  .....really? That's so descriptive of Ron Paul.

  You got your tongue caught TGGP. You're the one that's not following what's going on while so fervently accusing others.

  What's your excuse on this one. Sure he says that he's pleased with Thompson but it's on the Cato website which doesn't mean Cato supports it and he works for Cato but....uh...uh....

  I wanted to argue with you on how any institute should be judged but hey if gotta be called out as someone who doesn't know what they're talking about then it has to be done.

  You said: "I don't know of anyone at Cato rooting for Thompson." Well now you do

  Published: December 16, 2007 9:02 PM

• TGGP

  I had not read Chris Edward's piece before. I still do not consider it an endorsement of Fred Thompson and I do not find anything objectionable in it. He did not even seem to be saying that Thompson was a better candidate than Ron Paul, only that Paul talks a lot more about other issues and Fred's entry means federalism will get discussed. Reason discusses Fred's better than usual but still inconsistent record on federalism here. It does seem that Fred has been willing to go against the rest of the Senate and most of his party when it means promoting federalism, and I will say kudos for him on that issue, even if I think he would make a bad president and pales in comparison to Paul. Paul has also violated his federalist principles with the partial-birth abortion ban, but I am willing to overlook that because of all his actions and positions I support. I would not be upset if Cato publicly praised Gravel & Kucinich's anti-war stance despite other bad policies they favor, and I myself once sent an e-mail to Max Raskin when I thought he was too dismissive of Gravel based just on a video a supporter put together of him saying "Give peace a chance".

  DiLorenzo is right that their support of federalism in some cases conflicts with their endorsement of many of Pilon and Bolick's theories. I regard "libertarian centralists" as mistaken but still libertarians in a way that I do not consider liberventionists. I think that Walter Block has said it is fine for a libertarian to support a state being prevented from violating rights by the federal government. Mises supported world-government and hoped it would end infringement of rights by smaller polities. I still praise Mises for the good things he said.

  DiLorenzo is wrong that Ron Paul has not generated enthusiasm at Cato. It just takes a few seconds to do a quick search of their blog and find that there are frequent references to him, all positive. Their posts discussing the neocon smears against him and saying "good riddance to bad rubbish" with regard to pro-war phony libertarians. I just did a google search of cato.org for "fred thompson" and "ron paul". The former got 209 results and the latter 725. I suppose for the latter you can find articles critical of his position on free-trade agreements, vouchers, immigration and Congress negotiating the price of medicine, but I'll bet they're outnumbered more than 3-to-1 by pages praising him. The first result for the former search called Thompson's speech a "diatribe" that "set a record for the amount of sloppy thinking". Michael Tanner, who has been lambasted around here for positive things he said about Thompson, said relative to Paul "Fred Thompson talks a good game, but his record suggests he is closer to McCain-lite". Note that I wouldn't consider it awful for anyone to speak highly of McCain's opposition to torture when every GOP candidate other than Paul was competing in a Jack Bauer impersonation contest.

  Published: December 17, 2007 2:36 AM

• Vedran Vuk

  I agree with you that they have some other decent op-eds. But that one definitely supports Thompson...no doubt.

  One thing I also find troubling is that they have a few articles talking about how this or that candidate is good at not spending too much. Chris Edwards mentions that Ron Paul doesn't talk much about cutting domestic spending. If someone seriously believes domestic spendings is what's draining our economy, then they're surely living on Mars.

  Published: December 17, 2007 9:21 AM

• Vedran Vuk

  I think the Tanner piece on Paul is really funny. He starts out saying that Ron Paul can't win; then he mentions that 1/3rd of Republicans are against the war and that Democrats and Independents like him also. It's just the funniest article to me. It should be entitled, "Ron Paul Can't Win and Why he actually Will"

  That must have been either a monday morning article or a late night booze article.

  Published: December 17, 2007 9:26 AM

• Luis

  A question to TGPP:

  Where does Mises endorse world government? I would like a quote and the source. Because in all the things I have read from him, I never found anthing like that. In fact, he defended the right to secede.

  Published: December 17, 2007 1:18 PM

• TGGP

  Luis, Roderick Long says here "In addition to such diachronic tensions, there are also synchronic ones; Mises endorses a right of secession down to at least the village level (Liberalism III.2), but as the Hülsmann biography documents, this decentralist commitment coexists uneasily with Mises’ enthusiasm for the imposition of liberal values on local jurisdictions by a strong central government". His support for world-government comes from his liberal hostility to nationalism. I believe Rothbard referred to that when he said "Some of us consider Mises to be a member of the non-communist left". Rothbard also said Mises was "someone so hostile to immigration restrictions that he almost endorsed war against such countries as the United States and Australia to force them to open up their borders". In Radicals for Capitalism it is claimed he thought universal liberalism was necessary for international peace. This link isn't about Mises but it discusses the internationalist tendencies of the circles he travelled in. While I can't remember the actual sites I read that Mises supported world-government, I think if you ask Kinseall or Long they'll back my assertion up, adding the qualifications that Mises thoughts on decentralization were rather confused.

  I'm kicking myself for not linking to this critique of Ron Paul's inconsistencies on federalism earlier. I think the point is arguable, and as a consequentialist libertarian I might be willing to compromise my decentralist instincts and embrace Mark Kleiman's grand bargain.

  If someone seriously believes domestic spendings is what's draining our economy, then they're surely living on Mars.
  Foreign aid is less than one-percent of the budget. A lot of defense spending is at home, and I think that's still less than half the federal budget. Social security and medicare/medicaid are the biggies.

  I think it would be wonderful if Ron Paul became president, but I really don't think he'll win the primary. If you think otherwise, there is a lot of money to be made at site like intrade because they say the odds are heavily against him.

  Published: December 17, 2007 4:05 PM

• Luis

  Dear TGGP:

  The thing is you couldn't give a source for your claim on Mises. One shouldn't say something if one hasn't the way to prove it. Simply saying that there is some place where Mises says that, and that some other people sure knows where, weakens your argument. Besides, as anyone who reads your answer sees none of your references relate to Mises. Additionally, the central government Mises has in mind would be one which eliminates privileges and unfair institutions in the provinces. It is not a government that imposes uniformity but respects cultural and ethnic diversity. And most important of all, it isn't a world government. Anyway if you find the source I would thank you if you share it.

  Published: December 17, 2007 4:41 PM

• Anthony

  TBH, I would not be too surprised if Mises did advocate such a thing. IIRC Hayek believed in a world government of sorts.

  Published: December 17, 2007 6:03 PM

• Murray Rothbard

  I never expect much from Kinsella, even the Spanish Inquisition. but this little post moves the bar for stupidity sideways. Anyone want to bet whether he'd have bothered to write this if Palmer wasn't involved? OTOH, Kinsella did compliment the effort and, indirectly, Palmer, so I guess he has more integrity than Palmer.

  Obsessed much about Stephan

  Published: December 17, 2007 6:06 PM

• Parrotocracy

  Mises and One World Government?

  It seems that the case for Mises wanting a one-world ideology, call it Liberalism, is stronger than that for a one-world government. Mises saw types of order as functions of ideas. Therefore, a liberal world’s institutions would compliment Liberalism: a free-trade, secession-filled, tradition-challenging, anti-militarist and anti-collectivist idea. Liberalism shared by all seems collectivist, true, but it simultaneously has the most tolerance for otherwise diverse ideologies. Here is an analogy: It is the difference between humans collectively living on top of the earth yet having a universe of possibilities spread before it (shared liberal outlook); and humans being confined to living on the inside of the earth’s sphere and having only the finite option looking towards the core (nationalism, etatism, protectionism, militarism…).

  In Human Action, Mises writes very negatively about some “world” organizations:
  “It is futile to place confidence in treaties, conferences, and such bureaucratic outfits as the League of Nations and the United Nations. Plenipotentiaries, office clerks and experts make a poor show in fighting ideologies. The spirit of conquest cannot be smothered by red tape. What is needed is a radical change in ideologies and economic policies.”

  In the Theory of Money and Credit, Mises continues his love of world centralization:
  “Even the manifest futility of the International Monetary Fund does not deter authors from indulging in dreams about a world bank fertilizing mankind with floods of cheap credit.”

  In add, Mises respects nations, but not Nationalism: “A nation that believes in itself and its future, a nation that means to stress the sure feeling that its members are bound to one another not merely by accident of birth but also by the common possession of a culture that is valuable above all to each of them, would necessarily be able to remain unperturbed when it saw individual persons shift to other nations.” (Nation, State, and Economy)

  Again, it is ideology that leads to bad order, especially etatism. Mises writes in Omnipotent Government: “No international authority can preserve peace if economic wars continue. In our age of international division of labor, free trade is the prerequisite for any amicable arrangement between nations. And free trade is impossible in a world of etatism.”

  Please, then, make the case for Mises’s alleged desire for a one-world government more thoroughly.
  

  Published: December 17, 2007 9:44 PM

• Mathieu Bédard

  Anthony;

  IIRC Hayek believed in a world government of sorts.

  Is this a joke?..

  Published: December 18, 2007 9:33 AM

• Inquisitor

  No, it's a mistake. I confused what he had said toward the end of Road to Serfdom.

  As for Mises... Omnipotent Government contains a critique of world government, partly mentioned by parrotocracy.

  Published: December 18, 2007 9:58 AM