Comments (26)

• Barry Loberfeld

  From "Liberalism: History and Future" (FrontPageMag.com):

  However, in terms of both semantic usage and governmental policy, "liberalism" is most widely associated today with a single concept: the mixed economy, i.e., a state that is neither completely capitalist (laissez faire) nor totally socialist (totalitarian). It is, to be sure, a union of conflicting -- liberal vs. anti-liberal -- elements. As F. A. Hayek, the great twentieth-century scholar of liberalism, observed: If we have the redistribution of wealth, then what of private property? If we enact biased laws to effect economic (or "social") equality, then what of political equality? If we regard the collective as the essential entity (which Hayek called "anthropomorphism or personification"), then what of the primacy of the individual?
  

  To be capitalist or to be socialist? -- that is the question. Precisely what is the mix of the mixed economy? When is it capitalist and when is it socialist? When does it protect property and when does it confiscate it? When does it leave people alone and when does it coerce them? When does it adhere to the ethics of individualism and when does it obey the code of collectivism? And just which is the metaphysical primary -- the individual or the collective (e.g., the nation, the race, the class)? The fundamental truth about the mixed economy is that mixed practices imply mixed principles, which in turn imply mixed premises -- i.e., an incoherent grasp of reality. With socialism, the chaos was economic; with "social democracy," it's epistemological. Ultimately, the latter can no more generate rational policies than the former could generate rational prices.
  
  The mixed economy doesn't present us with a mosaic portrait of the just society,
  but with a jigsaw of pieces taken from different puzzles.
  
  

  And it is just that jumble that constitutes the modern liberal welfare state. Consider its exemplar, the "liberal," who supports laissez faire for social (i.e., cultural) issues but statism for economic issues. The soundness of this position is best demonstrated by how easily it is inverted by his putative opponent, the "conservative," who supports laissez faire for economic issues but statism for social issues ("social-issues socialism"). Both, however, belong to a generation now gone. As if ideology possessed its own laws of genetics, inconsistency has begotten only more inconsistency. Among the present generation we behold liberals who no more support free speech (e.g., Catharine MacKinnon) than their conservative peers support free trade (e.g., Patrick Buchanan). We see people who
  

  
  * support affirmative action, free trade, and immigration (such as the liberal Michael Kinsley and the conservative William Bennett)
  

  
  * oppose all three (such as the liberal Michael Lind and the aforementioned Buchanan)
  

  
  * support affirmative action and immigration but oppose free trade (such as the liberal Jesse Jackson)
  

  
  * support free trade but oppose affirmative action and immigration (such as the conservative Peter Brimelow)
  

  
  * support free trade and immigration but oppose affirmative action (such as any "neoconservative" -- or "neoliberal" -- you can name).
  

  
  We can have a veritable "Heinz-57" of possible positions if we consider the multitude of thinkers, activists, and voters, and the only unity that comes out of all this division is the implicit creed they share:
  

  
  a) Give us the tax dollars and the tax breaks, but give them the tax bill.
  

  
  b) Give us liberty, but get those perverts!
  

  
  After all, while there is a myriad of voices clamoring for censorship, who ever says, "There have to be some limits on free speech, and we should start with mine"? Among all the calls for protectionism, do we ever hear, "You know what? Give the competition the subsidies. Me, I'll bear the rigors of the market"? Capitalist freedoms and socialist entitlements for me, but socialist restrictions and capitalist responsibilities for thee -- that becomes the mix of the mixed economy. Such is the "idealism" that distinguishes contemporary liberalism from the "selfishness" of classical liberalism and its establishment of the same rights for oneself and one's neighbor.
  

  As universal principles, the self-interest of capitalism and the self-sacrifice of socialism have both given way to the "special interests" of pressure groups. Consequently, we no longer really have political philosophies so much as political lobbies hiding under the wool. Feminism is perhaps but one of the more obvious examples. This is not an ideology but an advocacy group that will say whatever its takes to load the dice in its members' favor. Chants of "privacy" and "choice" are sufficient to establish a "woman's right to control her own body" (abortion), but not enough to establish a man's right to control his own mind (free speech). The politics of prohibition? While feminists widely dismiss that notion that the outlawing of guns will mean that only outlaws will have guns, they regard virtually as divine revelation the notion that the outlawing of abortion will mean that only outlaws ("back-alley butchers") will perform abortions. (Their conservative opponents, who ostensibly flip the issues, share this fair-weather recognition of the law of unintended consequences.) And while they oppose individualism and defend popular democracy, does the former find a better friend -- or the latter a fiercer foe -- than the feminist fighting to maintain the wall of separation between Abortion and Plebiscite?
  

  When a principle or premise defends one's case, it is affirmed; when it doesn't, it's denied. Think about these two statements:
  

  
  a) Individuals have the right to engage in consensual private behavior even if it can harm them.
  

  
  b) The government has the duty to stop individuals from engaging in consensual private behavior that can harm them.
  

  
  So, which does our "liberal" believe in? Well, if the issue's smoking, the second. But if it's "sodomy," then the first. And the "conservative"? Just the reverse. What prevails is a now-you-see-it-now-you-don't commitment to any tenet. Moral integrity falls to personal prejudice, and hypocrisy becomes the standard of "social democracy."
  

  Soon enough, however, such hypocrisy on everyone's part becomes impossible to miss, as witness the exchange of barbs on the sundry "debate" shows. And "victimology" -- of which the above feminism is definitely one of the more obvious examples -- collapses when everyone eventually claims (on one basis or another) victim status. The "end of ideology" truly has arrived. Laws are passed, not with reference to philosophic principles, but only with an eye on the polls; "social democracy" devolves into majoritarian democracy -- a one-party democracy, where Republicans and Democrats "run towards the center" as closely as possible. Realizing James Madison's great fear in Federalist No. 10, the country has come to that stage where "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice, and the rights of the minor party; but by the superior force of an interested and over-bearing majority."
  

  There is, of course, another conceivable direction for the mixed economy: the opposite one, i.e., a move towards ideological consistency, be it capitalist or socialist.
  
  The full article.

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:27 AM

• Deefburger

  Has anybody else read this:

  http://www.prisonplanet.com/secret-state-police-report-ron-paul-bob-barr-chuck-baldwin-libertarians-are-terrorists.html

  I think this is truly frightening. I could be under surveillance right now just because I have a Ron Paul bumper sticker!? What happens if I get caught with my copy of the Constitution? These Homeland In-security nuts appearently have lost their collective minds.

  Either that, or this is a hoax. One scary frickin hoax if it is....

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:57 AM

• Kevin

  Once again Mises speaks with the logic and the wisdom that he exhibits in so many of his writings.

  This article is from a long time ago yet it is still pertinent today perhaps even more so then when it was written. The US is suffeing now more than ever from the threat of the government taking even more freedom away.

  This is a good commentary and hopefully it will prompt others to read Mises works and other Austrian economists. They make sense rather than confusing, contradictory nonsense.

  Published: March 13, 2009 11:28 AM

• Alex Barros

  Being a libertarian and having exhaustively read liberalist literature, it amazes me that very few liberals emphasize that liberalism is BETTER for the poor, than any statist, socialist, you name it, system.
  Unfortunately, although liberals have the best DOCTRINE, they have very inadequate political RHETORIC in the sense that they fail to emphasize how much better liberalism is to provide the poor with better opportunities for advancement.
  End of comment

  Published: March 13, 2009 1:14 PM

• Tim Kern

  The Master asks, "Why do all 'underdeveloped countries' ask for American aid and American capital? Why do they not rather expect aid from socialist Russia?"

  His answer is implied: because Russia has nothing to give.

  I believe the answer is different: because Russia's socialist leaders understand that anything they give away means having less for themselves, personally. Because they expropriate all private wealth to use for their own ends, they tend to be jealous of that confiscated wealth.

  In other words, even the leaders of that exemplar socialist state understand the fundamentals of property; they simply pervert them as far as they need to, for their own ends. They're just like the socialist leaders of today, in the governments that rule us.

  The difference is that the socialist leaders of Russia didn't need the votes of the proletariat, and that they did not have all the wealth available that our socialist leaders have today -- because the peasants of Russia didn't have the ability to live high on credit, as Americans have for decades. So America's socialists give away purloined goods and services, paid for on credit and redeemed by fiat currency.

  ...and the funny thing is, everybody else still wants that currency.

  Published: March 13, 2009 1:32 PM

• Matt

  "The Political Chances of Genuine Liberalism"

  Written in 1951 and still applicable today, even more so? Von Mises seems then to have been an optimist as to the future outcome of Capitalism.
  Unfortunately the problems are even worse today than in 1951, nothing seems to have been learned.
  We are heading to the dark ages as Von Mises was concerned about, but first we will get a heavy dose
  of Martial Law and Hyper-Inflation. This of course can be dragged-out for many decades. There are just too many in academia that carry that missing link (lack of rational thinking) between the ears that will ensure a lower standard of living and fewer liberties.

  Published: March 13, 2009 1:45 PM

• Bob Stafford

  Mises is far from prescient. Capitalism will not fail, simply because it has already failed. I don't refer to the current 'meltdown.' I refer to the persistence of abject poverty amid wealth, to the squandering of resources that should have been conserved, to the heedless damage to the planet, and to the substitution of shopping malls for communities and cheap junk for things of craft and aesthetic value. And don't bother to argue that 'capitalism' has been the great engine of prosperity! It hasn't; science and technological ingenuity have done most of what economists claim for capitalism.

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:05 PM

• billwald

  >The majority of the voters are just dull and mentally inert people who dislike thinking and are easily deceived by the enticing promises of irresponsible pied pipers.

  Nothing has changed, has it?

  >Capitalism will not fail, simply because it has already failed. I don't refer to the current 'meltdown.' I refer to the persistence of abject poverty amid wealth,

  Libertarian capitalism has not failed. The top dog capitalists have gotten much smarter so we don't know who they are. The new money paper profit capitalists are so far down the food chain that they don't matter.

  For example, the two richest people in hard assets are never mentioned, Queens Elizabeth and (her name escaped me )

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:27 PM

• greg

  Here is the problem:

  The intellectuals cannot get their message across to the masses speaking as intellectuals. They need to get their message to the masses by speaking to the people as if they were one of the people.

  You can train all the people to the Austrian School of Economics and unless they are taught to connect with the masses, it will fail.

  Published: March 13, 2009 2:30 PM

• Inquisitor

  "Mises is far from prescient. Capitalism will not fail, simply because it has already failed. I don't refer to the current 'meltdown.' I refer to the persistence of abject poverty amid wealth, to the squandering of resources that should have been conserved, to the heedless damage to the planet, and to the substitution of shopping malls for communities and cheap junk for things of craft and aesthetic value. "

  Yes, for all that, socialism is to blame. Please go troll some other site.

  "And don't bother to argue that 'capitalism' has been the great engine of prosperity! It hasn't; science and technological ingenuity have done most of what economists claim for capitalism."

  Yawn. Ipse dixit. I love it when people invoke "science" or "technology" as idols to be worshipped, as if they could be instantiated WITHOUT the savings that that presupposes and the economic means to do so, and without the innovative power of capitalism. Sorry geeks, your science is pretty much worth fuck-all without capital. Get over it.

  Published: March 13, 2009 4:34 PM

• N. Joseph Potts

  In the 58 years since this speech, it appears to me that neither all those housewives in whom Mises placed such hope, nor much of anyone else, has saved us.

  Every complaint he voiced back then, it appears to me, can be voiced today with at least equal vociferousness.

  Maybe I should just be glad we're still alive and sufficiently conscious of the way things COULD be to continue to complain.

  Published: March 13, 2009 4:44 PM

• Barry Loberfeld

  "Being a libertarian and having exhaustively read liberalist literature, it amazes me that very few liberals emphasize that liberalism is BETTER for the poor, than any statist, socialist, you name it, system."

  Indeed? Try "What About the Poor?"

  Published: March 13, 2009 4:52 PM

• Alex Davidson

  Almost 60 years on, the change Mises hoped for hasn't occurred. Perhaps he underestimated how hard it is to change academia once state-funded education takes over. No-one bites the hand that feeds them...

  Published: March 13, 2009 6:06 PM

• James McCarthy

  I believe that the triumph of capitalism is inevitable. Worry not at the progression of these socialist policies. Socialism, in the moment of it's greatest success is but a short moment away from its own destruction.

  Without the producers that capitalism allows(as under any socialist regime all these great producers seem to be perpetually on strike) the socialists have nothing to survive on.

  Witness the dramatic implosion of the Soviet Union, the move of China, Cambodia etc. to fascism and the perpetual stagnation of North Korea (that survives exclusively on the handouts of Chinese & U.S. food donations).

  If anything I say give them more of what they want, let them see with their own eyes the wonders of their socialist paradise.

  Published: March 13, 2009 6:33 PM

• newson

  to barry loberfield:
  good essay, though i disagree with your implementation strategy. rather than trying to dismantle lobbies piecemeal, it seems that monetary reform (sound money) would instantly starve most special interests of funding. let them then fight it out for the few remaining crumbs.

  don't shoot alligators, drain the swamp.

  Published: March 13, 2009 7:22 PM

• Cybertarian

  Inquisitor,

  Just because Capitalism is not an utopia doesn't mean it's a failure.

  First of all, Capitalism never claimed to bring wealth to each and every person, Capitalism never had the goal of eliminating poverty. So it cannot be a failure of Capitalism because it was never it's goal.

  However, Socialism is a gross failure, because it's goal was precisely to meet everybody's needs and it only succeeds at making everybody poorer and less free.

  Capitalism is a framework, a system. It's the individual who succeeds or fails, not the system.

  Poor people failed because of their owm mistakes, poor choices or bad luck, yes bad luck can happen.

  But that does not make capitalism a failure. And as humanity progresses both scientifically, technologically and economically, there are more and more people in wealth.

  The middle class did not exist before the late 19th century, people were either rich or poor. Capitalism created a middle class.

  But current socialism preys on this middle class and threatens to re-create a society divided between the rich and the poor.

  And in pure capitalism, the poverty ceiling is lower, meaning it takes less money to pay a living.

  In socialist controlled countries, the cost of living is higher.

  Also, I'd rather be free and poor than "rich" and a slave to the government.

  With freedom you have the opportunity to lift your own weight and be in charge of your own life.

  With slavery, you end up loosing your wealth.

  I'd rather suffer my own mistakes than those of a tyrant.

  Published: March 13, 2009 8:39 PM

• Cybertarian

  James McCarthy,

  No, look at North Korea, Cuba, the USSR, it can take a very long time of excruciating agony before capitalism "triumphs".

  Norh Korea is dying a slow and painful death and might start a war just because of that.

  When the USA will become socialist and take guns away from citizens, nothing will stop it from invading the world.

  Socialism is catastrophe, it killed 100,000,000 people in the 20th century and it could kill billions in the 21st century.

  We need to expand underground and black market and we need to turn the black market into the mainstream market through internet connections and secret transactions.

  We need to expand peer-2-peer marketing and circumvent taxes and regulations and thereby toss the government in a corner, let it starve off less taxes and finish off it's die-hard core.

  Published: March 13, 2009 8:44 PM

• Ken

  Stafford cut and pasted the exact same statement in another thread here.

  When the USA will become socialist and take guns away from citizens, nothing will stop it from invading the world.

  Cybertarian, with all due respect: Who are these people that you imagine will simply turn 'em in? In the words of the noted philosopher B. Bunny, "He don't know me very well, do he?" ;-)

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:32 PM

• pbergn

  Good article overall...

  Could not help but notice the great irony of the quote from Communist Manifesto that Mises brings:

  "[...] "The cheap prices of its commodities are the heavy artillery with which capitalism batters down all Chinese walls." [...]"

  It is funny and tragic at the same time that the exact opposite is being observed...

  The problem with relative low appeal of laissez-faire policies to the vast majority of the masses that Mises and many other Libertarians, it seems, are not able to grasp is very simple:

  Since the vast majority of masses of so-called "dull" populace are not equally talented, but have equal basic needs in terms of food, clothing and shelter, the Free Market Capitalism increasingly will not be able to appeal to the psyche of common man simply because the common man becomes more and more of an outdated, outmoded "useless eater" in the eyes of his more successful counterparts. You see, with the advent of technology and growth of population, this becomes more and more obvious. Everyone wants food and shelter, but NOT everyone will be able to EARN it in a truly Free Market Capitalist society, since only very skilled labor will increasingly be in demand...

  Think about Capitalism versus Socialism vendetta in this way:

  There is a rock concert at a venue that has limited seating capabilities. There are twice as many fans that want to see the performance of their favorite stars. Now, those with connections and more money, and more nimble (i.e. well-connected, rich and skilled in our analogy) will grab the limited seats in the priority of their "merit". Those with no money or less able or less nimble (i.e. the poor "dull" masses in our analogy) will be left with no choice but to enjoy the sounds of their favorite songs behind the walls of the venue... Now imagine a populist troublemaker shows up and promises everyone a "fair" deal "according to their needs" - "A front-row seat to everyone!", or so the slogan goes...

  Whom do you thing the masses will favor? Obviously they will follow the populist Socialist, and not because they are really "dull", but because they have no chance in hell at a concert ticket, otherwise - and they know it (well, unless they really believe in karma or reincarnations...)!

  So, the whole antagonism between Capitalism and Socialism (a.k.a Good vs. Evil) finally boils down to how much resources are available, and who has enough power to enforce a certain distribution of that resource among the competing parties...

  It's all dust and bones, baby! All dust and bones...

  Published: March 13, 2009 9:54 PM

• pbergn

  TO: Barry Loberfeld

  Excellent, excellent post! Thank you, sir.

  Enjoyed your writing. A true voice of reason...

  Published: March 13, 2009 10:26 PM

• Inquisitor

  Cybertarian I'm not sure why you're telling me that since I agree - rather I was countering "Bob's" condemnation of capitalism based on the current system. One can equally, and indeed even with more justice lay the blame on socialism.

  Published: March 13, 2009 11:11 PM

• Gil

  So what is one to think of this quote:

  "The majority of the voters are just dull and mentally inert people who dislike thinking and are easily deceived by the enticing promises of irresponsible pied pipers. Subconscious inferiority complexes and envy push people toward the parties of the Left."

  Are the masses are basically amoral and see crime as a means to an end? The last thing you want these people to do is vote? Perhaps 'freedom' is the wrong word. Maybe the better word is 'merit'. Freedom implies something for all. Merit implies success is only for those who can attain it.

  Published: March 14, 2009 1:20 AM

• Inquisitor

  That quote threw me off, because Mises then goes on to criticise pessimism. Is he perhaps describing the view of the pessimists? It does not seem to comport with his own subsequent views in the article.

  Published: March 14, 2009 2:31 AM

• Kitty Antonik Wakfer

  "greg" wrote on 3/13/09 2:30pm:

  Here is the problem:
  The intellectuals cannot get their message across to the masses speaking as intellectuals. They need to get their message to the masses by speaking to the people as if they were one of the people

  You can train all the people to the Austrian School of Economics and unless they are taught to connect with the masses, it will fail.
  ------------------eom-------------

  "greg" has made an important point IMO, in that "intellectuals" cannot get their message across to "non-intellectuals" if the former do not speak in terms to which the latter can relate. (I loosely define "non-intellectuals" as those who have not spent a great amount of time studying the related factors, while "intellectuals" have done so.) There are several intellectual writers formally associated with Austrian economics and commenters to the blog at mises.org who are excellent writers - they make their points well regarding the faults of government economic intervention. However, they are mostly writing for/discussing with the converted at mises.org. To reach "the masses" - those who have been swayed to idea that government is the source of (or at least the only way to ensure) all that is good - an intellectual writer must go out into "the masses".

  I have long thought that the vast majority of people supporting the concept of government have the sincere conviction that rule by others is truly necessary, for without that rule they are convinced that there would be chaos - a loss of society as a whole.The problem then is how to motivate people with strongly held beliefs (and I use the word "beliefs" purposely to signify ideas held as valid, but for which much historical evidence and sound economic theory exists that they are incorrect). Continuing to write only for the already convinced does not appear to me to be the way. And when writing where the majority of other writers and readers hold views supportive of continued, and often even more government involvement in people's lives (at least in some areas), I try to always remember that these people are (for the most part) very sincerely wanting a better society for themselves, their families, friends and every other peaceful member of society.

  I suggest that "intellectuals" write articles or op-ed pieces in newspapers (with online versions) and at websites that are more "liberal" in the current meaning of the word, and keep in mind the current sincerity of those for whom they are writing. In this way those who would not even think of visiting websites like mises.org will more likely find themselves reading some of the same type articles that would be published there. This would then raise the numbers of people who are exposed to the ideas of a truly free market and the eventual numbers who want it, instead of the very mixed economy that exists with its enormous assortment of serious problems. Once increasingly large numbers of individuals come to question the pronouncements by government officials/politicians and their supporters, the "message" Mises spent a lifetime in creating and promoting among fellow "intellectuals", as well as valid writings by others, will have reached the necessary audience for bringing about changes in thinking by individuals, an essential for movement to a self-ordering society.
  

  Published: March 14, 2009 2:46 PM

• greg

  Surfing the TV channels I stopped on CNN to see Ron Paul. Here we have the free market spokesman in Congress talking about allowing states to legalize hemp. And that crazy woman from the View, Joy was eating him up in the debate.

  If this site is depending on this guy to be the spokesman to get their views out into the world, this view is in serious trouble!

  Published: March 15, 2009 8:12 PM

• khl

  I first read Mises 31 years ago. I started reading this passage and didn't read the preamble with the date and that Mises had written. I mistakenly believed that it was written today. Mises's words are truly universal. The sugar producers are still restricting supply, in fact some argue that this is the real reason why after 50 years we have no trade with Cuba, our domestic producers want low cost Cuban sugar kept out. Then there is also the theory that marijuana is illegal to keep hemp fiber from competing with Dupont's nylon and other man made fibers. Certainly seems plausible.

  But to the point. Americans are about to get more socialism shoved down their throats than they ever thought possible. And it is being foisted upon them as a cure to capitalism deficiencies that got us into the awful depression that we currently find ourselves in. Unfortunately, the masses that Mises refers don't understand that we haven't had free market capitalism in this country in a very long time. They don't understand that FDR's was not the savior that he has been held out to be. And they don't understand that the socialist policies that Bush started and Obama is expanding will only push us further into depression and make things much worse.

  Published: March 16, 2009 9:34 PM