Libertarian History/Philosophy
Andrew Koppelman: 'Delusion and Greed' Have Destroyed Libertarianism
The Burning Down the House author says the shift from Hayek's classical liberalism to Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism is a moral and practical disaster.

The libertarian movement has lost its way over the past 60 years as it's shifted from Friedrich Hayek's classical liberal corrective to Depression-era central planning to Murray Rothbard's full-blown anarcho-capitalism in which all taxation is theft and all transfer payments are immoral.
That's the argument in a provocative new book called Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy was corrupted by Delusion and Greed, by Andrew Koppelman. Along the way, he critiques major libertarian figures such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, Ron Paul, and Charles Koch.
I spoke with Koppelman, a law professor at Northwestern University, about why he believes classical liberals have given ground to anarchists and how that fundamentally changes not just the rhetoric but the political goals of the libertarian movement.
Today's sponsor:
- The Reason Speakeasy. The Reason Speakeasy is a live, monthly, unscripted conversation with outspoken defenders of free thinking and heterodoxy in an age of cancel culture and thought police. The next one takes place in New York City on Thursday, December 1, with Nick Gillespie interviewing Kaytlin Bailey, the founder of Old Pros, a sex worker rights group, host of The Oldest Profession Podcast, and the writer and performer of Whore's Eye View, a one-woman show about 10,000 years of prostitution, female emancipation, and sexual freedom. Doors open at 6:00 p.m. Tickets are $10 and include beer, wine, soft drinks, and appetizers. For more details and to buy tickets, go here now.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hayek and Rothbard are in moral opposition as much as Trotskyites and Leninists were in moral opposition. Their differences are at the margins and directionally they are more alike than 95% of the rest of the public.
The idea that it is their small differences that is somehow sinking the Libertarian Party is absurd on its face. Libertarians have problems because for the past 10 years, LP leaders abandoned the promotion of Free Markets in the hopes that their "Just Bake the Damn Cake" woke bleating and social signaling would somehow make them popular with the college kids.
Last ten years? No, how about all 50 years? The LP and its candidates have tried many different approaches - hard core, wishy washy, something in between - and all of them have failed. Because the American voting public is heavily invested in a two party system that is perpetuated by the two parties that control politics.
Dave Nolan believed that a Libertarian Party could use elections as a soapbox from which to spread libertarian ideas that would then be co-opted by the two major parties. Instead, without significant money to advertise their campaigns, Libertarian candidates have largely been ignored by the media and their views not heard by the voters.
It has been estimated, by Cato for one, that there are far more libertarian-leaning voters who pull the major party levers than pull for LP candidates. If this is so, then perhaps Nolan should have
called for a Libertarian Caucus within each of the major parties. This would have encouraged the 10,000 or so libertarians who actually want to be political activists to participate and advocate in the far larger forums given to major party primary candidates.
Potentially true.
My overall point is that these self described Hayekians are all people who argue process and results, but not principles. When COVID lockdowns began, we had all sorts of tepid pushback along the lines of, "Gosh, this lockdown could have some negative consequences." Never a full throated argument against the abridgment of freedoms.
The problem is that this style of argument is that the Government Machine and its enablers always have 100x the studies that show you that you don't need to believe your lying eyes. They saved 1 Million lives so just suck it up and take it!
These are the people who would rather shout "We condemn all bigotry" than to shout "People should be able to associate with whomever they want." If you feel that the former is more important to declare than the latter, then you aren't promoting libertarian values. *shrug*
“Never a full throated argument against the abridgment of freedoms. ”
There was fear and uncertainty about covid-19, and doubt that the nostrums of libertarianism would be of any use in combating the pandemic. Trump, for example, early on used the power of the government to ban air traffic between America and China. There wasn’t a peep of opposition to the measure, let alone a full throated argument against such blatant government interference.
Your side of this argument suddenly wants Covid Amnesty.
"Your side of this argument "
There was no argument, full throated or otherwise. There was total unquestioning acceptance.
Oh, a memory hole instead of amnesty?
https://reason.com/2020/03/02/are-quarantines-a-proportionate-response-to-the-coronavirus/?comments=true#comments
The last word from the linked article:
"People deprived of their freedom for the benefit of the general public through no fault of their own should be indemnified against such costs."
A fair point but hardly a full throated argument against anything.
Oh, now we want to take the 'No TRUE Scotsman' route?
Feeling a bit guilty about something?
Great article, Mike. I appreciate your work, i’m now creating over $35000 dollars each month simply by doing a simple job (knd-09) online! i do know You currently making a lot of greenbacks online from $28000 dollars, its simple online operating jobs.
Just open the link———————————————>>> http://Www.RichApp1.Com
Maybe take some baby steps and focus on REASON.COM articles and authors first.
And, since I linked to the COMMENTS and not the article, try this one out:
"I don’t trust our government for one minute and no one should based on its history. I think this whole thing is being blown way out of proportion by both government entities and political parties for their own purposes that have nothing to do with our safety."
I don't pay much heed to pseudonymous whinging on the internet. It amounts to very little. And besides, 'I don't trust government' is not an argument.
Spoken like a true statist.
https://reason.com/2020/03/05/coronavirus-will-be-deadly-to-your-liberty/
Remember:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
"Spouting nonsense is an end in itself."
Stupid and smug about it pretty much defines this watermelon.
Hilarious
I get paid over 190$ per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless. Heres what I’ve been doing..
HERE====)> http://WWW.RICHSALARIES.COM
"There wasn’t a peep of opposition to the measure"
I recall a bunch of big-time dems running to the nearest China-town of their city in order to hug people and cry racism against Trump, but that may have happened before he stopped the flights.
Just for once, why don’t you give up the international travel and international trade soapbox and deal with libertarianism WITHIN the USA?
Banging on Trump for the travel restriction is stupid and unlike many of the restrictions that were implemented it was actually constitutional.
Apparently, you don’t mind being restricted to your house, put out of work, prevented from even talking about the best medications to take, and forced to take medications you might not want.
But not being able to take that vacation to China really makes you butt-hurt. Just to remind you, international travel is nearly ALWAYS regulated and restricted. Keep those passports and visas handy.
This is the actual point, you AREN’T a libertarian, you are an anarchist. Your anger and angst seem always directed at the most minor of infringements on freedom while you are unable to see the most major of infringements. You are bound, gagged, tied to the bed in a locked room and outraged they failed to leave you a glass of water.
"and deal with libertarianism WITHIN the USA?"
Libertarianism is about the free movement of goods, people and ideas. Within and without. Freedom, you know?
"while you are unable to see the most major of infringements."
Poor me. I don't live in the USA. I never had to suffer the infringements you chose to live under.
Clown.
I'm telling you there was much fear and uncertainty when covid19 emerged. Nobody was promoting libertarian principles as a measure against them.
As a republican convert, that'd be a great idea. It'd be much easier to sway members from within the party who may then jump to the LP than it would be to just try to get them to jump ship blindly
The pro-choice Libertarian Party's single electoral spoiler vote naming a woman got the Suprema Corte to protect women from ku-klux kristianity's Comstock laws and lynch mobs--until the Trumpanzee was elected. Our votes grew by 12% a year until the Gee-Oh-Pee cringing straddle plank spitting in women's faces changed all that in 1980. Despite this we still crawled from 4000 to 4 million votes against The Looter Kleptocracy until Knapp's Terrorist Importation Plank was published.
What's stopping you?
"as much as Trotskyites and Leninists were in moral opposition."
Trotsky and Lenin opposed each other on the vital issue of surrender to Germany. Lenin was almost completely alone among the Russia political leaders in advocating surrender. He was opposed by rightists, monarchists, social democrats, and many bolsheviks like Trotsky. Trotsky was at the negotiations to end the war with German leaders, walked out in a huff over some issue of little importance, and the Germans started up again, gobbling up still more Russian territory. That spelled the end of Trotsky's role as foreign minister.
Thanks for adding exactly nothing to the discussion, as usual, mtrueman.
None of your "Ackshewally" changes the point that Crazy Murder Hobo Team A and Crazy Murder Hobo Team B were more similar than the various political movements that opposed them. And it wasn't a shift towards Trotsky or Lenin that made their regime an unbelievable horror of leftist death. They were both going to do it.
Likewise, Hayek wanted much smaller government, while Rothbard wanted arnarcho-capitalism. Neither movement has gotten any traction since at least 2016, and to suggest that one or other is at fault for this is nonsense on stilts.
"Thanks for adding exactly nothing to the discussion, as usual, mtrueman."
It was Lenin's decision to surrender to Germany that made his revolution possible. It was no trivial matter, as you seem to believe. Read a book on the history, if you are curious.
http://library.lol/main/1102789B517A4BEFD59259A832F7808C
Kotkin's bio of Stalin is quite readable, though Stalin was a minor player in bolshevik circles at the time, but the book covers the events in question in some detail.
http://library.lol/main/761F6C83F8B05B8C1C62AD2F6A719DA0
Lenin on the Train is shorter and more to the point. About writing the April Theses.
"It was Lenin’s decision to surrender to Germany that made his revolution possible."
Which has nothing to do with the point I was making. The two flavors of revolutionaries were all far more "the same" compared to the alternative than the political groups they opposed. Just as the Libertarian Hayekians and the Rothbardians are far more the same- compared to the Democrats and Republicans they oppose.
We get it. You love your murderer hobos. You love apologizing for them, and glorifying their tyranny. And nothing makes you tent your trousers more than the opportunity to gloss over their mass killings with well researched nuance. Like a moth to a flame, you flutter to the barest mention of Mao or Lenin to regale us with more hero worship for these psychopaths- eager to digress on irrelevant tangents.
Meanwhile my point remains.
"...Which has nothing to do with the point I was making..."
Remember:
mtrueman|8.30.17 @ 1:42PM|#
“Spouting nonsense is an end in itself.”
Stupid and smug about it pretty much defines this watermelon.
He's a tomato, not a watermelon.
He's a green tomato that grows red as he ripens before your eyes. 🙂
"Which has nothing to do with the point I was making. "
Your point is they were the same. My point is they were on opposite sides of the issue that turned out to be decisive. Lenin was a pragmatic opportunist who essentially abandoned Marx in the April Theses. Trotsky was much more of an ideological purist. What purpose does pretending they're the same, simply to make some half baked rhetorical point?
"Your point is they were the same. "
No it wasn't. So, you know, pretty much everything you say from there is nonsense. But please talk more about half baked stuff. I told you the point- like repeated it twice. And the fact that you still don't get it is a stain on yourself and you only...well, you and the commies you defend and worship at every opportunity.
"No it wasn’t. "
I'm not sure what your point was in that case. You said the differences between Lenin and Trotsky were marginal. I pointed out a big difference of great consequence. The April Theses and surrender to Germany. Trotsky opposed the surrender, as did Kerensky and his social democrats, the monarchists and the rightist Kadets. Had Lenin not had his way, it's unlikely his revolution would have been successful and he'd be a forgotten figure.
And yet despite these "great" differences- which were tactical- they were still fundamentally no different in relation to the rest of the world. They were more alike than different.
The differences are not just at the margins - and the pandemic response is a good example of Hayekian/Whig v Rothbard/ancap
"The differences are not just at the margins – and the pandemic response is a good example of Hayekian/Whig v Rothbard/ancap"
YOU don't get to define the terms, chicken little.
Yes, this! "All taxation is theft" is NOT going to help libertarians win very much political power! And anarchy does NOT work!
When was the last time the Libertarian Party was calling "All Taxation" theft? For all the bitching and moaning about the Mises Caucus (and their Rothbardian inclinations) the fact is that they are extremely recent.
The hypothesis that Rothbardians somehow sunk the LP is falsified easily: In 2020 the "Good Hayekians" lost over 50% of the vote from the 2016 election. That wasn't because they called "All Taxation Theft". This is ridiculous and anyone who thinks that such strawman beating is informative is so deluded as to not be worth discussion.
From 1st paragraph in the article above "...to Murray Rothbard's full-blown anarcho-capitalism in which all taxation is theft and all transfer payments are immoral."
If Murray Rothbard never actually said that, I wasn't there to NOT hear him say it! I HAVE heard libertarians say those kinds of things, and, in the real world, it will NOT help us to win elections. Purist posturing and preening might make us "feel good about ourselves", but generally does more harm than good. Incrementalist progress is better than no progress at all, thanks to the "man in the middle" laughing at our self-supposed, purist superiority.
Rather than advocating too-sudden or too-extreme cuts in taxes, we might start with politely asking "The Man" for blanket permission to blow upon cheap plastic flutes! Baby steps, ya know! (And maybe some folks might wake up to see just HOW bad things have gotten.)
To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!
From 1st paragraph in the article above
Nobody reads the articles. They read the headlines, make a bunch of assumptions, and then rip into strawmen in the comments.
I did not rip into a strawman. The strawman is arguing that the LP was somehow Rothbardian.
True. Didn't mean to say you did. However you couldn't have read the article, at least not seriously, being that the argument you claim no one was making was made in the first few sentences.
And you didn't read Overt's comment, instead lapsing into white knighting as a kneejerk reaction to perceived criticism.
Self-awareness isn't a Sarcasmic superpower.
What the hell are you smoking?
My entire point was that the article's first paragraph is wrong.
The author contends that the LP adopted Rothbardian dogma like, "Taxation is theft" and "all transfer payments are immoral". And SQRLSY +1'd it.
So I asked for evidence that the author's unsupported, bold statement was true. SQRLSY's response was to...quote the same unsupported, bold statement as evidence.
One day Sarc, you will actually read and participate in conversations instead of offering your endless hot takes. Tell me when you are ready to do that, so I don't just dismiss you out of hand.
None of this is responsive to the point I made.
Rothbard’s language was NOT what the LP was using for the past 10 – 20 years, so claiming that Rothbard’s “All Taxation is Theft” rhetoric was somehow the doom of the LP is absurd on its face.
Again, the argument of the author is that 1) the move to Rothbardism, 2) is the cause of the LP decline. There is no proof that #1 happened. An in fact we can see clearly that in the 2012, 16, and 20 elections the LP in fact was Anti-Rothbardian and the 2020 election was a disaster for them, even using that message.
Before the LPMC, the Radical Caucus voluntaryist misfits would interrupt convention business to announce "taxation is theft!" and try to extract confessions from party officeholders and candidates stating as much. The Mises Caucus Rothbardo-Hoppeans are actually more normal-acting in that regard.
And how often did the Radical Caucus carry the day? Because as near as I can tell, they were almost always overruled and shushed into the playroom.
Arguing that the "Taxation is Theft" crowd message from the LP was somehow its doom is silly. That crowd never ran the messaging from the LP.
Has anyone been arguing the "taxation is theft!" shouters are singly responsible for the LP's abysmal record and poor messaging?
Headline: "The Burning Down the House author says the shift from Hayek's classical liberalism to Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism is a moral and practical disaster"
First paragraph: "The libertarian movement has lost its way over the past 60 years as it's shifted... to Murray Rothbard's full-blown anarcho-capitalism in which all taxation is theft and all transfer payments are immoral."
Now maybe "lost its way" is not the same as "decline" but the two seem synonymous enough for me.
There's a lot more to Rothbardianism than moral opposition to all taxes real and imagined, and are we talking about a movement catching on in the mainstream or a party enjoying electoral success?
Oh please. It is right there in the original post:
“Yes, this! “All taxation is theft” is NOT going to help libertarians win very much political power!”
So he is agreeing with the article that says the Libertarian Party has had a “Practical Disaster” due to a shift to “Taxation is theft and all transfer payments are immoral”. And he is saying that “practical disaster” means not winning “very much political power.”
The record is clear. Libertarians have not gained “very much political power”. In fact, the race of Jorgenson was a “practical disaster” in 2020, as the party lost over 50% of the support it had in 2016. *You* may not consider that a disaster, but fine- argue with SQRLSY, as the framing was his.
And the record is further clear: Neither Reason- the self described masthead of libertarian thought- nor the Libertarian Party have argued that Taxation is Theft, or All transfer payments are immoral, in 20+ years. So *if* there was a practical disaster for the LP, then it wasn’t because those statements infiltrated Libertarian thought.
Duh anyone with common sense knows taxation is robbery because of the threat of violence.
"And anarchy does NOT work!"
Not in the "Commons." But when applied to individual lives, and how individuals interact with each other in their lives, well, that is a different tale. The Taoist/Anarchist principle can be stated as "only natural, uncoerced and voluntary action is acceptable. Both Anarchy and Taoism realize that any restriction to this process creates the seeds for disorder and chaos."
Thus, while we may need to have some regulation in the Commons, (think speed limits as an example), such regulations, when applied to other areas, are inherently destructive. And when the whole of society becomes, in effect, the Commons? Game over. Or something like that.
Agreed all around! Good job!
So commonism is freedom. That has an eerily familiar ring to it, sort of like a pre-Civil War Germanic Revelation chant...
Non-anarchy doesn't work either.
Anarchy is reality. If you choose to accept the authority of some assholes calling themselves a government, that's on you.
If you choose to accept the authority of some assholes calling themselves a government, that’s on you.
You don't always have a choice.
Rooster: Who said you wuz in charge?
Trumpy: Who gon' tell me I'm not?
Sure you have a choice. You deny their authority and then it's just some random thug that's kicking your ass and forcing you to do stuff.
Calling all voters assholes is precisely why nobody wants anarchists jointing their political party, and also why anarco-cretins cannot form their own party, but attach to and infest like parasites any unhygienic political party that'll host them--until they kill it. Anarchists are exactly what Hitler and Stalin, Trump and Biden wish would inherit THE OTHER looter soft machine.
Oh, yes: that’s the problem.
You don't need to to follow a particular philosophical 'leader' or 'style' to practice libertarianism in any sort of practical, personal way. In fact, it's probably better not to.
When I'm trying to form an opinion about a policy or proposal or law, from a libertarian perspective, I ask myself a couple of questions:
"Does this increase or decrease personal freedom for most people?"
"Does this increase or decrease the size and scope of government?"
All you have to ask is "Does this action involve the initiatory use of force."
I mean the two of you basically articulate the divide between the Hayek and Rothbard wings….And again, in the current United States, the two stances are differences without a distinction.
Ask yourself any question about national policy in this overly-intrusive government, both stances will lead to the same answer. Whether it is taxation, baking cakes, nationalizing loans, enforcing tariffs- whatever. Both “Pro Freedom/Smaller Government” and “NAP” litmus tests will produce the same results.
The day that the two ethos produce different responses to a question at hand is the day that we are already in a minarchy and the stakes of such a decision are so tiny as to be inconsequential.
"You don’t need to to follow a particular philosophical ‘leader’ or ‘style’ to practice libertarianism in any sort of practical, personal way."
That is the basis of Taoist thinking (anarchy). It's not so much about a lack of rules -- it's about a lack of "leaders."
Ron Paul wants to let states ban guns. He doesn't think any of the Bill of Rights applies to the states, including the 2nd Amendment. That's the problem with Ron Paul. "Ron Paul Incorporation of the Bill of Rights". Google it.
In his last term Ron Paul became House chair on monetary policy and hosted idiotic meetings on how the Fed funded Sadaam Hussein. He is looney.
turd lies; it’s all he ever does. turd is a kiddie diddler, a TDS-addled pile of shit and a pathological liar, entirely too stupid to remember which lies he posted even minutes ago, and also too stupid to understand we all know he’s a liar.
If anything he posts isn’t a lie, it’s totally accidental.
turd lies; it’s what he does. turd is a lying pile of lefty shit.
It's funny; I googled it, and the only thing coming up was a Redit post suggesting I google it... Which linked to a The New Republic hit job on Paul from 2008.
https://reason.com/2013/04/11/rand-paul-vs-ron-paul-on-the-constitutio/
It talks about the 5th amendment there, but not the 2nd.
2nd declares a right to bear arms.
The 5th declares government power and abilities of the federal government.
They are not the same.
The Constitution doesn't declare rights. It recognizes them. Big difference.
It doesn't say "The government grants unto the people the right to keep and bear arms." No. It recognizes that right, and declares that the government must respect it.
It ticks me off when people say Constitutional rights. Wrong! There are Constitutionally protected rights. They don't originate in the document. They originate in our humanity.
"The Constitution doesn’t declare rights. It recognizes them."
The Constitution doesn’t recognize rights. Its purpose is to prohibit the federal government from infringing upon or interfering with people’s preexisting rights.
I'm giving you an opportunity to prove you're not a petty douchebag by providing a comment you can respond to in a civilized manner.
Will you take it?
And I'm giving you an opportunity to prove your not a piece-of-shit troll by giving actual examples of lies you've been claiming Jesse and I told.
Will you take it, drunky?
Sad.
Ron Paul is and always was a girl-bullying Republican, repeat, Republican congressman from a southern district of Texas. His infiltration of the LP--like William Jennings Bryan's infiltration of the Dems--turned the party toward fascism (religious socialism) the same way Bryan did the exact same thing to the Democrats! True, the guy is good on nuclear power, but enslaving women into breeder dams is the "underwear on the outside" addendum that only Republicans and Ceausescu appreciate: (http://bit.ly/3kxniQM)
>>libertarian movement has lost its way over the past 60 years
has it? individuals keeping out of one of the two political parties is never a growth model. conversely the concepts behind L are not fast food so the masses will never join
If anyone wants to hear someone intelligent discuss the ideas in this book, David Gordon made it the topic of his weekly column a while back.
https://mises.org/wire/burning-down-rothbard
Thank you sir.
You're welcome.
The problem is that our system has a systemic bias against libertarians. Our people are incredibly oppressed.
The libertarian movement has lost its way over the past 60 years as it's shifted from Friedrich Hayek's classical liberal corrective to Depression-era central planning to Murray Rothbard's full-blown anarcho-capitalism...
Wow! That Rothbard guy must have been an absolute genius who could figure out how to warp and twist the very fabric of space-time. I mean, he was able to make the consequence of the Rothbardian Mises Caucus in being founded in 2017 stretch all the way back 60 years. Not to mention, he was able to engineer a long-term decline in libertarianism that reversed itself for a "Libertarian Moment" and then reversed itself right back! Makes me want to go out and buy a copy of Man Economy and the State just to see if he included any of his secrets of time travel in the text.
Read: It Usually Begins With Ayn Rand, by Jerome Tuccille. Murry Rottbutt was a mediocre economics student who failed to grasp the true causes of the U.S. and worldwide market crashes and Depression (and wars). Yet he is the ONLY "economist" I have read who actually acknowledges that when the Crash occurred, American laws and the Constitution made production, transportation and TRADE in the weakest beer, wateriest wine and weakest dope an asset-forfeiture chaingang felony. He literally tripped over the facts and still missed them.
Libertarianism never had a way just a bunch of vague platitudes. All libertarians should focus on is one single issue, stopping government from initiating force because that’s THE problem from which all others are it’s consequences or corollaries.
A little history. Rothbard quit the LP in 1989 after being exposed for lying while giving a nominating speech for a LNC Chair candidate.
His candidate then lost. Ironically, the winning candidate was the author of a well known and circulated pamphlet titled "Taxation is Theft." And the LP's membership soared 50% in the two years after Rothbard quit and began denouncing the LP.
1. Taxation is theft. There is no way to define theft without including taxation unless you give it a specific exemption. 2. An-Caps are logically consistent libertarians, period. You might say “it won’t work”, and that’s an argument. Then have the argument. The argument is wrong, in that it has worked, works now, and will work in the future. And, also, as the person arguing for theft is the one actually making the claim (roughly “it won’t work without theft”), then they are the ones who have to back it up. And, again, as they are arguing for theft, they better make a very good case of it. 3. Do you think people want more Utilitarian claptrap or actually logically consistent morals, in the form of something roughly approaching “don’t do bad things to others”? If people want Utilitarian claptrap, well, that’s what they’ve been voting for for about 200 years and has gotten us into the mess we’re in. It turns out that individuals are really bad at predicting the ultimate results of their behavior that “only initiates force a bit”!
The only problem with anarchy is that some gang of thugs will murder all the other gangs of thugs and then start demanding protection money. Next thing you know you've got a government.
Anarchism is a practical impossibility. It's more realistic to accept that some tax-funded government is going to exist, and to focus on keeping it chained down as best you can. Saying "taxation is theft" doesn't solve anything.
Look, just knock it off. You're wrong, OK?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-capitalism#Historical_precedents
1. Now, Somalia is actually an example of what you talk about. That is to say, Anarchy at its very worst just devolves into a State system. (Calling that system an An-Cap society is likely violence to the language.) That is a very bad argument against something, that at its very worst it's as good as the best your system does.
2. Every time a private road is made, a private well is dug, and there is private law enforcement, that's proof that Anarcho-Capitalism can and does work.
3. Let's look at some of the other An-Cap societies, like Medieval Iceland, Ireland, and the American Old West. They worked for a long time, until they decided they loved Big Brother and became a State system. So, at least there would be no theft (other than the unsanctioned kind) for a generation or 10.
4. One that didn't make the list is the land of Israel from the time of Joshua to 1 Samuel 8. There was no king and everyone did as they saw fit (this quote is all over the book of Judges). There were laws, but no legislature, no executive, and the only Judge was appointed by God (through men's decisions, apparently). And what stopped it? The people demanded a King (the State, in one person). God told them they'd be taxed and enslaved, but that's what the people wanted. So, again, it devolved into a State system, but only after a few hundred years!
So don't tell me things that aren't true!
1, yeah.
2, only because of property rights enforced by government.
3 and 4 no longer exist.
Look, it's human nature to take the easy way, and plunder is easier than production. Organized violence will always triumph over the individual. Every incentive exists to form a government, if only to live off of the toil of others. That's what most governments are. As Bastiat said "Government is the great fiction where everyone endeavors to live at the expense of everyone else."
I wish what you say could be done, but I don't believe it to be possible. A government will always form because people are assholes, and will use organized violence to steal.
As Franklin said, two things are certain in life: death and taxes.
2. No. Notice the "private law enforcement".
3 and 4 did exist.
Organized violence rarely triumphs over the individual, because individuals voluntarily come together for self-defense (private militias, like the US had around the 1840s).
Regardless, I know how hard it is (especially for you) to admit you are wrong. You've been on this site for years and still haven't learned much of anything at all, regardless of how often someone proves you wrong. You're impressively stubborn, in that you are stupid about it.
Yes, if I'm right (and I am, after studying this for a very long time), then you are wrong, and you're a monster because of what you support. Therefore, because you know you are a hero, then you *cannot* be wrong, and therefore any argument, good or bad, will do to show that you must be at least somewhat evil in order to protect "the good". The fact that you have the burden of proof, and that by your own admission I've proven you wrong, doesn't matter to you, because you can't be wrong.
After all, you're not like other people. You are perfect just the way you are!
Also, An-Caps aren't anti-government, just anti-State. There is a difference.
The State taxes and demands a monopoly on the use of force. A government can be literally anything that governs human behavior, such as a church, societal norms, or the market.
2. No. Notice the “private law enforcement”.
Right. On private property. That the government recognizes and says "Yeah, do your own thing. We won't bother you."
3 and 4 did exist.
I'm not getting into the veracity of biblical history. Suffice it to say they don't exist now.
Organized violence rarely triumphs over the individual, because individuals voluntarily come together for self-defense (private militias, like the US had around the 1840s).
Individuals voluntarily coming together is organized violence. You're confirming what I said. In some cases people disband once the need for organized violence is over, but when they don't it becomes government.
I don't know what your big long thing with the word "you" in it is all about. Looks like an argument against me, not what I said.
I'm not arguing against you. I'm simply stating that a gang of assholes can and usually does become government because individuals are no match for organized violence. Unless they organize. And at that point they're basically government.
Why don't we agree to disagree instead of saying one or the other is wrong because of personality flaws.
2. There ought only be private property. Public property is *always* subject to the tragedy of the commons. Regardless, private law enforcement operates on public property all the time, to protect people.
3 and 4. Again, if you'd bother reading this all again, that was only point 4. There is also little reason to disbelieve that narrative of the OT. It gained the nothing to make up Exodus-1 Samuel 8, at least not in that way, because it made them look like complete idiots. Why should they lie and say they had no king? It makes the really weird and makes no sense. Regardless, ignore point 4 if you like. It's just another data point supporting 3.
"Individuals voluntarily coming together is organized violence."
Violence isn't necessarily bad. Violence to protect innocent people or to ensure (actual) justice is done is good.
Government isn't bad. Anything that governs and doesn't steal or demand a monopoly on (really anything, but especially force/violence) isn't bad, and the market, which is to say the people, can replace it with something better if they so choose.
I don't think that the State comes into being because they are better at organizing than something that isn't a State. Maybe, due to the fact that the State only seeks to increase or protect its own power (this is an Iron Law) means that it's more motivated than non-State actors to control things. Would that necessarily overcome the issue of monopoly incompetence*? Almost certainly not.
No, I think the reason the State is chosen by people is much more insidious. As I showed, over and over, every An-Cap society (I have evidence of) ceased being not because of invasion, but because it voluntarily chose to become a State system! So, again, this is shown in 1 Samuel 8 (take it as simply a story, if you like). The people wanted a king, and the cost was theft, conscription, and almost constant war.
So, my answer is that people inevitably choose the evil that is the State, not because there are no other answers, but because people are evil, and almost everyone actually just wants to control their neighbor.
*I thought I'd invented a new term with "monopoly incompetence", but there's apparently one person wrote an article with that as the title in 2008. Dang. Anyhow, I meant it as a term to describe how any enforced monopoly wouldn't need to worry about competition, and therefore be loathe to actually innovate or be any more efficient than they'd need to be. We see this in the State, lots of Cartels (though they would need to compete against other Cartels), and things like public utilities.
I define government as "The people with the last word in violence."
OK, well, that's a poor definition (it's not true), and it's still not shown that it's "necessary".
(I note that the word "necessary", when used in politics, seems to only ever be used by a tyrant trying to convince others they need to cede their freedom for tyranny.)
I just finished this book.
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/161017156X/reasonmagazinea-20/
It was entertaining. Not much I didn't already know or believe.
Every time I see some libertarian bragging about how logically consistent they are, I know I’m dealing with someone who doesn’t test ideas against reality and doesn’t pay much attention to factors that distinguish one scenario from another.
That's not entirely true. Some of us make it out of our mom's basement a couple times a week.
Laursen tests every libertarian idea against his blue check lifestyle and finds them wanting.
Hit me with your best shot.
I haven't thought of everything, no one has. But, I constantly "pressure test" my ideas against themselves to find logical inconsistencies and against reality to see if they fall apart.
The easiest way to think you're right is to defend whatever you initially thought to the death. The easiest way to *be* right is to accept you might have been wrong. Then, in the long run, you'll end up being right almost every time.
Let's all note that Mike is arguing fallacies (as usual).
He offers no evidence- just sick rhetorical burns. He fallaciously appeals to his authority as someone with "experience". But what is that experience? Mike is a lefty who spent years among other lefties in Santa Clara, California. But as the post above indicates, he isn't just a lefty, he is also an arrogant ass who simply must assert himself as smarter than others.
Thus, when his standard lefty proclivities were unremarkable in deep blue Santa Clara, he declared democrats silly and tried running as a libertarian. And when libertarians rejected his nonsense as arrogant leftism, he declared them idiots who don't "test ideas against reality". He is a troll who merely wants people to agree with his vapid rhetoric. Perhaps, now he has retreated even from his lefty enclave in California, he will find people who won't take his bullshit at face value and might actually decide to use reason once and awhile.
“Look, just knock it off. You’re wrong, OK?”
No, thank you. I’ll pass on politics debate with anyone who leads off their arguments with a sentence like that.
Oh, you think what you do is "debate"? That explains a lot.
Regardless, if you're not willing to actually argue based on merits, then we're all better off if you don't respond.
1. Somalia was and is ruled by Islamic warlords who enforce Sha’ria Law.
2. Private roads require government permission to link to government roads, private well-digging is government-regulated and requires government approval, and Paul Blart, Mall Cop has no legal powers of search, seizure, and arrest.
3.Why didn’t Mideaval Iceland keep the Althing thing if it was so damn good?
Why didn’t Ireland keep the Brehon system if it was so damn good, shore ‘n’ B’gora?
Isn’t sustainability part and parcel of a perfect society?
And by the way, IIRC, Dodge City banned guns and required people to turn them in to the City Hall upon entrance of City limits. Not an AnCap Paradise.
4. If there’s no evidence that two humans procreated the entire line of the human species (genetically and evolutionarily impossible,) no evidence that the Great Flood occured, no evidence that the Ancient Hebrews were exiled slaves in Egypt for 400 years, then how credible is the subsequent story of Samuel anointing David as King after the people clamored for a King?
The Holy Bible is an absurd, mish-mash, contradictory book of Grim Fairy Tales, not a valid historical document and God does not exist M’Lady!
*Tips black fedora with neck of Molotov Cocktail.*
Start again, Ace_M82.
(I guess I put too many links in, so my post is awaiting moderation. Reason also won't let me edit it. Here it is with the links removed.)
1. Yes. It wasn’t An-Cap by any merit. I spoke about it because the list I linked to included it.
2. “Private roads require government (read: state) permission…” OK, so what? My argument is the State has never been shown to be “necessary”. Telling me the State regulates now is a red herring.
3. Because people love the State (see 1 Samuel 8). That was my conclusion, people don’t like “scary” freedom, they want “safe” tyranny. They really don’t like what their neighbor is doing with their property and want to send men with guns against them. Humans are evil.
As for certain cities in the West, yes, that’s true. There were some little City States within an otherwise An-Cap(ish) ocean. Most towns didn’t do that.
4. Wow, you take me to have said much, much more than I did. The best view I’ve heard of all you just complained about is found here:
(Google " Inspiringphilosophy genesis playlist ")
And here:
(Google " Inspiringphilosophy exodus playlist ")
To say there’s no evidence, you’d have to deny the evidence we do have. Which is to say that I know because you’ve said there’s no evidence, that you’re incredibly biased, and that you don’t know that.
(Google " Inspiringphilosophy atheist bias ")
Regardless, speaking just about about the time of the Judges, especially 1 Samuel 8, there is no reason to disbelieve the narrative. They make themselves look stupid and really odd compared to everyone around them. There is no reason for them to lie about their form of governance or for their reasons for abandoning it.
Even if all you do is take 1 Samuel 8 as a story and nothing more, it makes my point, the people love the State, and the State brings taxation, conscription, and almost constant war!
(Now, a somewhat unbiased reader would wonder how the ancient Hebrews figured this out 2500 years before the rest of us did, and think there might be something to that!)
1. For about 15 minutes in the 2010s, everybody was calling Somalia AnCap. Can't you Utopian AnCaps have better publicity?
2. While the State may not be necessary for roads and wells, you can't claim them as AnCap examples in our present Statist society.
3. You still didn't answer my basic question: Why would past societies that had AnCap give it up if AnCap was so good? Couldn't this reveal that AnCap can't defend itself from foreign tyranny?
.
4. One, "Google dat shit" is not an argument. Two, if any of this is like St. Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham, this will be a pushover, as Christian Apologetics always are.
1. A. I'd love to see evidence of any An-Cap calling Somalia An-Cap.
B. When are An-Caps united in anything?
C. An-Caps are (generally) not utopian, therefore you are Straw manning.
2. There are. Private law enforcement is one of them. There are plenty of others. I would list a bunch now but you are arguing rather than listening so it's likely not worth my time.
3. I did answer. It was good. They made a value choice (read the first bits of Mises' "Human Action" if you don't know what I mean) that they'd rather have "safe" tyranny than "dangerous" freedom, see 1 Samuel 8 for an example.
4. Yes. I didn't do that. I gave you what to Google that will get you immediately to what you desperately need to know.
I also note not only are you incredibly biased, you also suffer from delusions of grandeur. This is what happens when you only listen to your own tribe. So, instead of actually giving a small effort to look upon something that might give you evidence that opposes your current worldview, you won't.
"Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them."
1. They sure never did shit to counter the claim about Somalia as AnCap if someone else made it.
2. I'm arguing against what I'm hearing, and what I'm hearing isn't worth my time.
3. So Iceland and Ireland made a "value choice" against AnCap. Could that be because it ultimately didn't protect the "value choice" of Life, Liberty and Property?
4. I didn't say I wouldn't read it. I just don't think it will be any different than other lame Christian Apologetics.
I hope you're not charging a billable hour for that long-distance psychoanalysis of "delusions of grandeur" and Tribalism because that's weak sauce too.
1. So, no, you don't have evidence.
2. Appeal to ridicule, try again.
3. I mean, anything is possible, but it seems odd to slowly move away from it if that's the case. Occam's Razor.
4. Which is the same thing!
You are a tribalist. Everything you've said about Christianity is tribalism. Atheists are some of the worst tribalists.
If you want to show me how "St. Thomas Aquinas, William Lane Craig, Ray Comfort, or Ken Ham" are pushovers, "as Christian Apologetics always are", then I will retract the comment about “delusions of grandeur”. Good luck with that!
(Let me be clear, Ken Ham is a hack.)
Anarchy means "without rulers". That can be achieved simply by prohibiting government from initiating force.
That would be nice. Reactive government.
Yes, An-Caps aren't anti-government. They are anti-State.
A government can be literally anything that governs human behavior, such as a church, societal norms, or the market.
The State taxes and demands a monopoly on the use of force.
So yes, stop the government from initiating force.
Yes, An-Caps aren’t anti-government. They are anti-State.
That is an interesting distinction. Thank you for that. I will need to think about it for a bit.
After thinking about it I agree and disagree. What you call State I would call force.
Church isn't force. Societal norms aren't force. The market isn't force.
Someone using violence to get their way in any of those things would be unacceptable.
That's where the State comes in. Them's the people who start fights and always win because they have more friends than you.
How do you tell them to stop initiating force except by force? Now you've got the last word in violence. You can initiate force now. So someone else knocks you off because you were initiating force. They get to initiate force now.
It's like those who say the government is controlled by the rich, and if only the government had more power it would control the rich who control it. So you give government more power. You just gave the rich more power because they control government. So you give government more power. Now the rich have more power...
Private individuals can use force. If they initiate it, then that's what should be called "crime". If they respond to it (in kind), then that's either defense or justice.
The people have a high demand for justice. Therefore, there is a huge market for it. At a high enough demand (as long as the tech exists), there will be a supply.
It's not hard, and the American Old West is a good example of it. People would just deal with (real) criminals by grouping together.
Is it perfect, no, nothing ever is. The market does tend towards supplying the demand "perfectly", though never getting there. So, an assumption that the market can't provide your determined amount of justice is either due to ignorance or is an admission that you want more justice than what the market will bear. As you support the State (which is by its nature unjust), I highly doubt the second one.
There is no need for there to be a monopoly on the use of force (some would use the word violence). There's no need for a monopoly on anything. There's absolutely no need to steal to pay for justice, especially considering how huge the demand for it is!
-An Economist
If there's no monopoly on the retaliatory use of force then it's just vigilantism and blood fueds.
Back up that claim that somehow a monopoly is necessary for the demand for justice to be supplied when that's necessary in no other case.
Also, the State does claim that monopoly and engages in "blood feuds" all the time, so I'm not sure that's a great claim.
Well government is supposed to have a monopoly on the use of force, the RETALIATORY use of force. Government is the means by which we place the retaliatory use of force under objective law. We should enforce the NAP and that applies to government employees too.
Even if the government only claimed the use of retaliatory force (which would preclude taxation), that would still be evil, because I ought to be able to determine who gets me justice for any wrong committed against me.
Now, if that's all the government did, it would be so little evil that I'd probably stop complaining at that point, but still...
If the retaliatory use of force isn't confined by objective laws justice is just vigilantism.
Yes, this video goes into pretty well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZ0Qkhnt6bQ&t=4s
True, but even if you BELIEVED that legalizing murder and forcible child buggering were good things, it would make sense to shut up about that and work, donate and vote libertarian as the ONLY way to get an inch closer to that hallowed goal. Even Lenin applauded when the commies tossed the anarchists face-first onto the pavement. Whether to devout communists or ethical libertarians. Anarchists infiltrate the LP, get on the platform committee and scribble "enslave women, buttrape kids, import terrorists" and act puzzled when our vote share shrinks, withers and dies.
The Rothbardian tradition gave us Ron and Rand Paul.
The Hayekian tradition gave us Tom Palmer and Nick Gillespie.
You tell me which one destroyed libertarianism.
No one destroyed libertarianism. We're still here having lively debates among ourselves and mostly being ignored by everyone else, just like always.
Exactly. When was there ever anything to destroy? Lol.
"Damn libertarians, they ruined libertarianism!"
Nobody ignores our spoiler votes.
Reason libertarianism is libertarianism for those who're keen on food trucks, ass sex, illegal immigration, drugs and abortion, but worry that free speech might sometimes go too far.
Libertarianism lives as long as someone uphold the Individual Rights to Life, Liberty and Property against all threats, including you.
Fuck Off, Witch-Burning Nazi!
Taxation is theft. If you want to justify taxation, then make the (damn strong) case that the theft is worth it to prevent a greater evil. Transfer payments are fine if they are funded voluntarily.
Alright. I’ll try.
Government is force. It doesn’t produce anything. As such it does not create value.
Yet we need force. The NAP says we don’t initiate force, but once someone else does, game on.
We form governments so we don’t have to use force. We let other people do that for us. Cops. Courts.
Thing is, they’re not producing anything. They don’t create anything. They’re a service that can’t be sold.
Because of that the only realistic funding mechanism is taxes. What use is a pay-for-service justice system to a victim with no resources?
Thoughts?
There are noncoercive means of funding. A voluntary 1% fee on contracts to enforce them for instance.
What about Freddy the Freeloader?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZcuSBouhVA
No freeloaders because the money goes into a general fund. Plus there's so little crime in Libertopia it really wouldn't matter.
2 articles on free loaders:
https://mises.org/library/solving-problem-free-riding
https://mises.org/library/free-rider-basis-government-intervention-0
But my initial response would be that the demand for justice is so high, that there will be a supply. Even given the free riders (why should my private law enforcement protect free riders?) the demand is so huge that people put up with the massive State just because they think they "need" to. How massive is that demand!
I don't think that's a bad argument for the necessity of some government and therefore some form of taxation. I just think that you have to look at is as a necessary evil, but still definitely evil. Unless you have accumulated the power of a government, someone is probably going to steal from you in some way or another.
That was another good one. Someone is on a roll...
One thought. Victims with no resources would be at the bottom of my list of priorities. Indeed, voting parasites aside, they are at the bottom of The Kleptocracy's list of priorities too.
Volokh has an article up on his impressions of the book. Essentially, (1) he agreed with more of it than he expected dealing with libertarian weaknesses, and (2) the book completely ignores the vast amount of libertarian work replacing Rothbard so AK's pretense libertarianism is Rothbard is ridiculous.
Recently heard an argument that has stuck with me concerning this topic. That by not making the moral case, Rothbard and Hayek did more damage to the cause of liberty than anyone else.
Oh noes! We Libertarians will lose all of our hard-won influence...
We had 4 million votes before the import terrorists plank. We had 12% yearly growth before the "enslave women in good faith" plank.
Man, I miss the threads of nerdy debates about anarcho-capitalism and stuff. This was a nice change of pace. I'm just exhausted with anger about current politics.
To a non-libertarian (me), modern libertarianism looks a lot like a pseudo-intellectual justification for letting corporations and other corporate interests run roughshod over the rest of us.
Take a look at comments on Reason and you'll have your answer. What a dumpster fire this place has become, just like the Libertarian party and those claiming to support it.
Traditional German-American associations were infiltrated by National Socialists (from the same places that sent us Lootvig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek) all during the 1930s. After that, only courageous Jewish spies and FBI agents cared to join in hopes of finding criminal information for true bills.
What ONE question did Nick ask this loser that would have elicited a different answer or evasion from Ted Koppel or Al Gore?
From 1st paragraph in the article above “…to Murray Rothbard’s full-blown anarcho-capitalism in which all taxation is theft and all transfer payments are immoral.”female delusional calc
If Murray Rothbard never actually said that, I wasn’t there to NOT hear him say it! I HAVE heard libertarians say those kinds of things, and, in the real world, it will NOT help us to win elections. Purist posturing and preening might make us “feel good about ourselves”, but generally does more harm than good. Incrementalist progress is better than no progress at all, thanks to the “man in the middle” laughing at our self-supposed, purist superiority.
Rather than advocating too-sudden or too-extreme cuts in taxes, we might start with politely asking “The Man” for blanket permission to blow upon cheap plastic flutes! Baby steps, ya know! (And maybe some folks might wake up to see just HOW bad things have gotten.)
I find that people who believe coercion to be the solution to every problem simply cannot comprehend cooperation, which is the core if libertarianism. So they try to describe cooperation in terms of coercion, fail, get angry, and then start calling libertarians names.
One of these days you'll make a comment that didn't look like it came from a teenager.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Principle_of_non-aggression
The phrase "initiate force" couldn't exist without there being an understanding of what the words mean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Uh, what Putin does? Isn't that a good enough example of initiating force?
28th amendment, "Government shall not initiate force."
You're not a libertarian, Sarcasmic. At best you're a bog standard liberal who hates cops.
Good point. So good that I'm going to find a way to make it look like I thought of it first! Or mebbe a Hatlo hat...
Says the guy who claims to fuck other commenters' mothers.
Do you think answering that part of his point discredited his (and my) link?