by Keith Preston
http://attackthesystem.com/2014/04/07/libertarianism-no-threat-to-the-ruling-class/
In what way does the actually existing libertarian movement, anarchist or otherwise, threaten the existing political order? If anything, the libertarian movement is a microcosm of the wider society. There are the “right-libertarians” who extol the virtues of capitalism, Christianity, and the American way (kind of like, you know, the Republicans). And there are the “left-libertarians” who jump over the Democrats and even the far left to demonstrate their opposition to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, “bigotry, “brutalism,” etc. There may not be anything inherently wrong with these ideas, but in what way do they threaten the state or the establishment? They don’t. Instead, they just reflect contending factions of the system.
Oh, ruling class, quake in your boots.
What I’m hoping for is that as libertarianism grows, the neocons will defect to the Democrats and form a neocon-totalitarian humanist alliance. That way the primary enemies will be solidly in one camp and the battles lines will be better defined. If that happens the Republicans will try to co-opt libertarianism and make it their front ideology. Hopefully, this will fail and the Repugnicans will become a marginal party, except for in the reddest of red states. Meanwhile, it’s up to us radical libertarians, anarchists, national-anarchists, radical decentralists, whatever we are to push things in an ever more extreme direction so that the neocon/totalitarian humanist alliance is genuinely threatened by a domestic insurgency. When this insurgency evolves, our fair weathered friends on both the Left and Right will go over to the side of the system. Hopefully, this is what will unfold in the decades ahead:
http://attackthesystem.com/2009/07/24/forty-years-in-the-wilderness/
Our first order of business at present is to grow a better crop of anarchists, libertarians, allies, and constituents. We need a new generation of anarchist and libertarian leaders and activists to emerge who throw off all the old baggage, and start pushing things in a more radical direction, towards hard core revolutionary extremism. Most libertarians and anarchists nowadays are just a variation of liberals or conservatives. That’s the first thing that has to change, and that’s what most of my work has been about. Ultimately we need the development of an pan-anarchist revolutionary front that is committed to organizing radical coalitions against the state, ruling class, and empire for the purpose of decentralizing power to the lowest possible level.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
You write as if you are a Romantic, Keith.
Why do you feel a need to threaten the Ruling class? Those you call left libertarians seem to be set against various civil liberties, about against discriminating against others but pristine liberalism allows the liberty to reject and is not concerned about equality.
If ever we win over the masses, then the state and politics will have to go but only because it threatens liberty, not because liberals need to threaten the persons that make up the ruling class. They will be sacked, that is all.
But we are miles off sacking them today owing to our backwardness in winning the public over.
Liberalism has no enemies. It is an Enlightenment paradigm rather than a silly Romantic paradigm, glorifying struggle, class or otherwise. Marx loved null-set ideas like the working class. It never did exist in reality so it failed the objective test he put for it in the preface of his famous book of existing as a class in itself independently of mere subjective classification. It never did act for itself as it did not exist. Owen found that in his pro-working class union. Note what Owen said of the other unions. History was never on Marx’s side, not even for one moment. The socialist movement was a Romantic sham.
Liberalism is for the respect of all in liberty; as ends in themselves. We educate ourselves and all others in liberal propaganda, but that does not threaten anyone.
Right and left always were an excuse not to debate but in 1789 it was free trade on the left and protectionism on the right of the French Assembly.
Power needs to be dissolved rather than distributed. When we sack the state, power will vanish.
It is the case that Classical Liberalism (as well as Libertarianism) teaches that there is no ECONOMIC class conflict – in the sense that the long term economic interests of “rich” and “poor”, “employers” and “employees” , “capital” and “labour” are the same.
However, there can still be a political class conflict – between tax payers and tax eaters.
“But Paul – the people who depend on government hand outs would be better off in a free market economy”.
So they would – but there are large number of “intellectuals” who are interested (who lust for) power.
These “Cloward and Piven” types deliberately push the expansion of the state not because they think X government scheme will actually help people – but because they think that expanding the state (its spending, and its regulations) will bankrupt “capitalism”.
Good arguments may convince someone who mistakenly thinks that big government helps the poor – but good arguments will not convince someone who already knows that big government does not help the poor (and does not care – indeed wants there to be as many poor people as possible, in order to “smash the system” and bring themselves to POWER).
Of course few political types are actually this evil (the word is not too strong) – but there is normally a desire to be “of use”, and a failure to see that one is part of the problem (not part of the solution) that makes political types (including academics and the media) resistant to Classical Liberal arguments.
To arguments that basically say – “things would be much better if only you lot would get out of the way”.
Of course there are some politicians who sincerely want the government to be much smaller (both economically and in terms of civil liberties) Senator Rand Paul is an obvious example.
But there is something unnatural about someone who thinks politics is the problem spending most of their time in politics – a doubt that often occurs to me (in relation to myself).
Paul, never mind about those evil types. We need to be very clear so that we can get the rest of the people to see the truth of the pristine liberal case. Once that is done, the evil types will not matter much, if at all.
But we are nowhere near the end of that very long road today; so more propaganda is needed.
Agreed David.
If the argument is made strongly enough (a very big “if”) there really is no reply to the argument that a free market policy is for the benefit of the vast majority of people – rich or poor, employer or employee, capital or labour.
All the arguments and disputes (that I waste so much time on) are a distraction from this central point.
It is good to agree for a change, Paul but disagreement is usually more fruitful.
It is not easy to be clear to others but, as liberal propagandists, that is what we need to do. We have a long way to go to win the masses over.
Yes David.
When most people think (as they appear to) that passing a regulation saying “wages shall be X” is the way to get higher wages (ditto better working conditions), and government spending is a sign of “compassion” or “generosity” there is clearly a very long way to go.
Our chief problem is apathy or boredom of the public, Paul.
If only they were of the opinion you say they are then we could rather soon debate them out of it but our big problem is that debate bores them and they do not favour such false ideas but rather that they do not want to know at all and are indifferent. So we are locked out. Had they false ideas, then, presumably,we could get in to debate. We would then soon be on our way. But today we face apathy and indifference.
Up to the mid 1960s Henry Hazlitt had a regular column in Newsweek magazine – exposing the statist follies of the establishment (including Newsweek intself) every week.
He was followed by Milton Friedman – I did not agree with Milton Friedman on monetary policy (or on methodology or ……), but he fullfilled a similar function (till they terminated his services – part of the gradual growth of intolerance for dissenting opinions among the establishment).
“And your point is Paul” – my point is that this stuff was popular (often the free market column was the first thing that people read). It is the same on television and radio.
I would argue that it is not that people are apathetic – it is that they are not exposed to a free market point of view (when they are exposed to such a point of view, people are often receptive to it).
Take the Cafe Hayek person (an economist from George Mason who posts regularly on the internet). I bet his stuff would be popular in a newspaper or on television and radio. But he does not get much of a chance – free market people do not.
But on debates…. personally I hate them. They tend to be an exchange of talking points (with each person concentrating on hitting his opponent – not on seeking the truth). I would rather have a person just explain a topic of interest (if, a big if, they really knew their stuff) – when there is a debate I find myself reching for the off switch. I have to force myself to listen (or read) the exchange – and I am left more tired and dispirted than I was before (even if the good guy won – I just do not like the game).
You write as if you are apathetic yourself, Paul.
The change we need in the general public we do often get in the colleges, for there students feel they ought to tolerate conversation, but the general public today are not interested. They are apathetic or “cynical”.
Conversation means almost the same as debate, of course, in that we converse with each other.
Newsweek never was popular. But conversation in the colleges, especially with freshers, usually is.
The aim of all debate is the truth. Any fault of either debater is beside the point but it is true that many people today fail to understand that fact about debate.
That is why I hate the very idea of “debate” in the meaning of people presenting opposing ideas or viewpoints or even challenging each other’s alleged matters of fact (“a history debate” — was there really a “historical Jesus” or “who was Shakespeare, really?”).
So I would prefer to think of discussions, which presumably are non-competitive and civil, or “arguments” (not in the sense of logic) where people are in open disagreement and are focussed on making their own case, not on some mythical “win.” Unfortunately they can become quite heated, and I am combat-averse, or as much as one can be while still being a Contrarian pain-in-the-neck.
On the other hand, though it wasn’t a debate, watching Richard Epstein leaving Jed Rubenfeld with his entrails decorating the podium’s floor, the latter having first made a perfect ass of himself, was most satisfying. Not really a debate, of course. And it WAS educational.
Learning to debate (in this sense), or being on the debating team … on the one hand it would teach one to use specious arguments to run one’s opponent through, and it would also encourage one to hold shifting viewpoints (so as to take either side of the argument effectively) in a way that might make it difficult in the end to figure out one’s own most genuine viewpoint and then hold to it. On the other, it would teach one to resist effectively the specious arguments of others.
At best it seems to me it would be rather like being vaccinated against disease X, thus insuring that one will never catch X, but thereby become a carrier of X.
David – if I was apathetic why would I spend (waste) so much time on the internet, rather than doing things I actually like doing, such as walking. I could also clean the house more and work on the garden.
Instead I spend most of time (when not at work) doing internet stuff I hate.
Mass communication (print, radio, television) is vital if you want to get a message across. My example was simply to show that when a free market case is put to people they tend to respond well – if you want to pick a quarrel with me (“you sound apathetic yourself”, “Newsweek was never popular” and on and on) well fair enough – but it the sort of thing that makes me wish I did not bother (not so much apathy as despair).
Talking to students is also a good idea. If a bit small scale.
Different if it was a matter of setting undergraduate textbooks and examinations.
As W.H. Hutt said when asked “how did the Keynesians win the debate”.
“There was no debate – the Keynesians gained control of the appointment of lecturers and the setting and marking of examinations”.
Actually I do not like that much either – but it is effective.
Julie.
No I do not really like the heated debates.
But I suppose it is better than just listening to a lecturer get everything wrong.
Listening without being able to reply (other than “ask a question” – to someone who will not know the answer) is torment.
What would I really like?
For students to go and study with people whose works they knew and respected before they went to study with them.
Sometimes I thing the whole move to institutionalised colleges (rather than seeking out individual scholars) was a mistake,
Yes it happened in the 13th century – but I am still not entirely happy with the idea.
Yes, I know that you are not really apathetic, Paul but I said that you wrote on debate last time as if you were, not that I thought that you truly were
I’m surprised that you hate propaganda work. I hate writing and computers [owing to impatience with them] but I love talking and ideas.
I have always thought that the mass media was over rated. I do think that word of mouth is enough but the mass media aids it, of course. If the public had the outlook of freshers in the colleges that would aid us way more than the mass media ever could. We need people to take an interest. Now if they were interested in any form of politics, no matter how backward, we could debate them out of it. But they do not want to engage, but freshers, by contrast, are keen.
Yes, the people are not hostile to the market.
Newsweek never was popular, Paul. Today, newspapers as a while are ebbing. I say those things as they seem to be true. I am not interested in quarrelling with anyone.
I would say talking to people is way better than textbooks and what we learn for examinations we rarely believe and very soon forget. It hardly matters anyway.
I never thought that the Keynesians did win the debate for debates are not won by the democratic theory of truth but Hayek did not win it either. It is a pity that WW Bartley died before he got the edition out that he was due to edit. Hutt failed in the way that Hayek did in not being clear enough. We cannot be too clear. The debate took place in the LSE journal Economca. It was real enough.
Keynes won the LSE over almost completely. Only Hayek failed to go over to him. That and the campaign that Joseph Chamberlain made in the Liberal Party of the 180s to win it over for Toryism [or for the Court party as against the Country party] remain interesting episodes in the history of the decline of liberalism.
Paul, listening to some idiot lecturer get everything wrong without being able to speak a word in correction is why God made shoes.
It gives something to throw at TV screens and monitors. :>)
Julie – a better use for shoes would be to just walk out (or not be there in the first place). No need to throw them.
That reminds me – why is no one looking into the recent show throwing at Hilary Clinton?
I have not heard a word about who the person was who actually flung the shoe at her.
I mention this because of what happened in New Hampshire in 2008 – some “protestors” turned up at a Hillary Clinton event chanting “sexist” stuff (“go iron my shirt” and so on). It turned out that the “protestors” were actually working for Mrs Clinton’s campaign (that the whole event had been staged).
Is the same thing happening again?
Who is the person who flung the shoe?
Perhaps everything is at it seems – but after 2008 it would be nice to have some actual journalism (some investigation).
As for television – there is always changing the station (or just turning the thing off).
Especially in Britain – were all the stations present the same point of view politically.
“But there is Sky News” – errr this is very different from Fox News (itself very far from perfect). In fact (in terms of the world view it presents) it is the same as the BBC.
I apologise for misinterpreting your comment David.
As for newspapers (and magazines) ebbing – indeed they are. And in the United States that is a good thing (as the print media is dominated by “School of Journalism” types).
However, television (and television, not libertarian places on the internet, is still where most people get their view of the world – not just from news programmes, but from entertainment shows also, and entertainment shows have been increasing dominated by a certain point of view since in a little rule change at the American FCC in the early 1960s) is just as bad.
Even the internet (which so many of us had high hopes for) is no longer a few boards where people (such as “Lycrophon” which was my internet name when it started) present their case.
Since the mid 1990s the left have moved in – the well organised (and well financed – the various Tides Foundation rich leftists) left. “Moveon”, “Daily Kos”, “Salon”, “Slate” – and the websites of the msm themselves (such as the New York Times).
There is also the “herding cats” problem – libertarians tend to fall into disputes (I do – especially when I am tired, which has been for some years now), the “liberal” left work in lock-step. Like “the Borg”.
We (me) waste our energy fighting each other – they concentrate (like a hive mind) on achieving their collectivist goals.
And it is not just the state.
When large numbers of people think it is correct behaviour to loot supermarkets (and so on) at the first opportunity they get – the anti property forces have already won.
That is the spirit of much of Latin America – and elsewhere.
It is not just that such people tend to elect governments in their own image (Argentina is a classic example), it is that such people can ruin everything even without the state (they can loot, kill and burn – without orders in triplicate from the “Ministry of Looting, Killing and Burning”).
Ideas such as “Social Justice” (the rich “owe” me – they are only rich because they “exploit” me) do not just effect government policies. They can influence private behaviour also.
Libertarianism needs people with libertarian beliefs.
People who do not respond to someone else being better looking than them by throwing acid in their face.
No need to apologise, Paul. I suppose we all [i.e. all humans] misunderstand each other often. We are all open to reason, anyway. It never seems wise to ever take offense.
All belief is superficial. What maintains it is appearance, how things seem to us just now. This misleads many into thinking that we have deep ideas inside but it seems to me that none of us ever do but the outside is roughly constant. That is why I think all can be won over to pristine liberalism, for all are open to reason but it takes some time. But they need to be tolerant enough to talk.
So I do not think that types matter very much. Nor can mere wealth maintain folly. Folly only needs to be comprehended as such to be automatically rejected. What holds liberal progress up is apathy.
No, perception is where people get their ideas of the world from, Paul Te3levision can inform but who agrees with the media and Westminster on politics? Have you ever met anyone? I recall not even meeting one such person.
What beliefs do people adopt from TV shows? How popular do you think PC is? I know no PCer at all but the nearest to one is in the LA.
Do you know a single person who agrees with the insane media and political idea that Russia threatens the west over Crimea for example? I do not. . Do you? It is the mapcap sort of thing that daft Edmund Burke might agree with, of course. I did get a slight hint of neo-con from you in our earlier Burke discussion. Burke is the father of that sort of warmongering. His 1790 book is a warmongering book. War is the opposite of free trade. War is about as illiberal as we can get.
I have seen quite a few free market types on socialist lists; way more than I expected. But you are haply right that the statists have revived. The slump of 2007/8 aided their revival. But, as I say, if they are keen they can be won over but not if they are indifferent, or not with such ease anyway.
Disputes do not seem to matter much.
The idea that a debate is somehow like a fight is a Romantic exaggeration, Paul as debate is cooperation aimed at the common facts rather than competition of some sort.
Do the anti-property people own property or have they given it up? My guess is that all individuals retain some private property. I expect that we will find property in Latin America too.
I suppose you mean by libertarian beliefs pristine liberal values, Paul. I think we can get others to adopt those but only if they engage with us.
David.
Well the funders of the Tides Foundation in the United States own a great deal of property indeed. In fact some of the leading Progressives are billionaires, Although the media tends to ignore the wealth of Democrats – Governor Romney was presented as too rich to be President, but the (far more rich – thanks to his wife’s former husband Mr Heinz, yes that Mr Heniz) Senator Kerry was not considered too rich to be President in 2004.
In Latin America either the demagogues are rich to start with – or they become rich (like the Perons in Argentina . Castros in Cuba, and Ortegas in Nicaragua).
So perhaps they are not Romantics at all (but hard headed realists – out to benefit themselves, and masking it with a lot of waffle about “the masses”). Or perhaps they manage to keep their hatred of private wealth in general, and their lust to be wealthy personally – in two separate boxes in their heads.
I suspect the latter option is closer to the truth.
Let us look at what Romance is, Paul. It presents itself as hard headed realism. It holds reason as naïve. It imagines as real such things as revolutions.
Burke knew that the new idea of revolution as a fresh beginning from nothing was bosh. He knew that the 1688 usage was to go back to the status quo ante, to complete the revolution [having exactly the same meaning as reactionary] rather than going off on a tangent to an imaginary fresh start. But then he adopted the new Romantic meaning, Instead of realising that what went on in France was none of his business, Burke instead thought it justified war at last.
I expect very few people, if any, to give up property, Paul.
I do not see the masses getting their ideas from the media, as you said yesterday. I do not know a single PCer but the nearest to it is an LA member which, as such, he cannot be completely PC.
On the latest media mania to oppose Russia, I meet no one at all who does not say it is mad but maybe you are going to be the first one.
If it matters … I was very unclear about my dislike of “debate.” I meant formal, COMPETITIVE debate, unless the rules are very clear that fallacious arguments lose points, and character attacks (as opposed to the ad hominem FALLACY and outright untruths stated as fact (when the intent is deceit, anyway) ought to get the debater disqualified then and there.
Then again, that’s not exactly what our “political” debate among candidates are.
Unbalanced parens again obscure the meaning. Meant: Character attacks and deceit should disqualify the debater.
Maybe. But in the real world, any significant argument is going to be with people who fight dirty, hit below the belt, and will be using anything that will win them points. Arguing particularly with progressives is good practise at this, as these are the people who will use those bad debating tactics to bend the public will.
It’s learning to streetfight, rather than boxing by the rules. We’re up against intellectual savages, not honest brokers.
Agreed, Ian. My objection could be restated, saving the word “debate” to refer to HONEST competitive argumentation (as intellectual sport) and calling the “arguments” or “debates” with the street-fighters something else.
The point of that kind of debating is to learn (1) to keep focussed no matter what (I have a story about that, hee-hee, pats self on back); (2) to recognize invalid arguments; (3) how to point out the invalidities, and counter them with opposing, valid arguments; (4) how to fashion your own valid arguments; (5) to learn to think through however many sides there are to an issue; (6) to develop intellectual honesty, meaning that in real life (as opposed to the realm of “debating competition”) one will not permit oneself to argue a position one does not in fact think is correct.
Of course, a lot of prosecutors and a lot of defense attorneys would have a lot less work if they did that.
But that observation would lead to a whole ‘nother discussion. I think we should leave it for another occasion.
Yes David – neither the GR of 1688 and the American Revolution of 1776 were about creating a new society. The old meaning of the word “revolution” was about restoring (or protecting) traditional liberties that were under threat (or allegedly under threat) from innovating governments. Revolution as in revolving – going back to what things had been (we would use the term “Counter Revolution” today to describe what the Old Whigs of 1688 called “Revolution” – they, rightly or wrongly, regarded James II as the innovator, not themselves).
The French Revolution was the first that presented a new meaning of the word “Revolution” – claiming to be creating a new society, that the Revolutionaries would spread (by force) to all other parts of the world (including Britain).
Whether the correct response to such a threat was force or not is a moot point – as the French Revolutionary regime actually declared war on Britain (rather than the other way round) in 1793.
Mr Burke was not in the British government at the time. And how much influence he had on Prime Minister Pitt the Younger is a much debated matter (personally I think that Burke had very little influence over Pitt – either then or later).
Julie, the world is largely external to us. So most facts are too, as facts are just aspects of the world when thought of or quasi-aspects when not thought of but most will never be thought of, as most relate to objects in outer space.
Debate is just trade in ideas with the common aim of the truth. Truth is facts in speech, writing or thought. It is true that many debaters overlook the fact that debate is co-operative though they do see that truth is the aim. So they often do not mean to be co-operative at all. I think that objectively eristic arguments and ideas in debate are gist to its co-operative mill. Institutions, like debate, often matter more than mere motivation that is so often not one whit germane, so it basically rarely ever matters very much.
My thesis is that no debate can be truly competitive. I am not denying that both sides usually feel it is, of course, but that the common aim is truth nonetheless! And that this social fact matters more than confused personal motivation.
You are right that attacks on the person are a fallacy when the topic, as is usually the case, is not the person concerned. It is a fallacy only as it changes the topic whilst being held as being germane to it. Thus if I attack you personally in the wake of going on about the topic of debate, then that will maybe be rude and bad manners but not the fallacy of ad hominem on as I did not put it instead of dealing with the topic but in addition to it.
The chief liberal virtue is tolerance, Julie. I agree that debate demands it in spades. In debate we face someone who thinks we are wrongheaded and we feel the same about them. I find that exciting. We have a common world but this person thinks I am wrongheaded in a lot, maybe all, of what I think. Why? If he tells me it is almost bound to be interesting whether, he gets it right or wrong. That is what we get in any debate.
I suppose we all have some beliefs that are delusions [ i.e. false beliefs –psychiatric hyperbole I have little respect for; there is nothing deep or particularly stable in either false or in true beliefs] so we should tolerate people saying false things, especially if they are deluded .None of us can help what we believe, after all. All belief is quite automatic. But we can always choose what we say.
It is pointless banning a debater for saying falsehoods or even for being rude in personal comments. Debate is the means of creating clear truths, sorting out falsehoods, even of propagating good manners. To cut off the very people who need it is counter-productive at best.
Politics is anti-social in any case at all. The state needs to be sacked. It is a warmongering menace in the world.
Anyway, all ideas need to be tolerated in debate, especially the false ones. We debate to attempt refutation.
Ian, debating is not fighting, so it is never ever fighting dirty either. Eristic points are grist to the co-operative mill. Truth is the common aim. It follows that the process is not truly competitive at all. But debaters do feel competitive. They are largely confused.
What wins points in any debate is what looks like the truth to those who feels it scores.
You are a Romantic opponent of liberalism rather than an Enlightenment liberal, Ian. Liberalism has no enemies. The idea it does is sheer Romantic bosh.
There is only the real world. In it, fighting is statist. Liberalism is against war. War is a child killer.
Paul,
We largely agree on 1688.
The Romantic meaning of 1789 never was realistic. It was no fresh beginning. It was a riot. There is no such thing as revolution in the Romantic sense. But Burke pretended that there was.
Ever since 1968 I have reading stupid historians [is that a pleonasm?] on how near things came to this imaginary revolution here or there, rightly ridiculed as the reds under the bed meme
As Cobden made clear, the French were pushed into declaring war. Had Burke been killed in the Gordon riots there would have been no war. His book was what caused it.
Pitt was free of Romance at first but not for long. Burke was good at winning people over to his side.
David – we will never agree on the French Revolution.
I agree with the standard account of these events (by Doyle and others) – you fundamentally disagree with these accounts (denying that hundreds of thousands of people were murdered, mostly in the Provinces, and holding the Revolution to be a riot).
As neither of us has a Time Machine it is not a discussion we can settle – and therefore it is not a discussion worth having.
The important thing is (in the modern context) is that we agree on economic policy.
As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out – in the 17th century the main issues that divided people were religious, in the 20th century (and now the 21 century) they are questions of ECONOMIC policy.
Thanks for your reply, Ian.
Yes, facts are out there objectively, though most are beyond our ken/comprehension. Most facts relate to outer space.
Values are indeed psychological. Note that ethics is as value free as is science, but no living scientist is value free. No person can be.
Objectivity has many different uses. The one I used here, lately, is maybe the most common use that means all that exists i.e. the actual metaphysics; or reality as it is. In that sense all minds are just part of it so mind is a proper subset of reality, or of objectivity.
With this “Pink Floyd is rubbish” statement it might be what someone thinks, thus might express a value. The statement cannot be itself a value. Values can never leave the head.
Popper uses objectivity to simply mean what we can refer to. He would say the statement “Pink Floyd is rubbish” is objective, as we can refer to it clearly. It only remains subjective if it is not recorded.
Any value statement, as well as not ever being a value, can also be a second order fact in that someone, let us say myself, says “Pink Floyd is rubbish”. If I am being honest then it will be a fact that I thought they were rubbish at time t, when I said it. My mind is part of the wider world. So are all the other minds of the mammals, thus of all men too.
All values are of some mind. Recorded statements are also external and when forgotten completely external, unless destroyed.
Land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship are objective but some may feel they are worthless, say a Buddhist monk.
Liberals cannot quite be conservative today but they might be when liberalism is established.
Many traditional conservatives do have some liberal values, of course.
Marx thought that there was something that he called objective value. He meant natural price but no practical price can be a value as it needs to go between the values of the traders, being worth more to the buyer and less to the seller whenever a price works. So Marx was confused.
Ethical rules are real, as Plato saw. They are a matter of external Form/meme. Ethical memes are value free, just as facts are usually belief free. Beliefs and values are never mind-free. But Form/memes are external.
You do not make what you see as a fallacy clear, Ian. What is it that needs sorting out? Is it that all must value economic growth? The reality is that many people might not, of course. Liberalism is indifferent to that fact. It is about live and let live. No crass politics.
Why is liberalism the losing side? Is it only that we have yet to win? Or do you feel the massive setbacks of the 1860s cannot be reversed? That the slight revival of the 1970s came way too late?
I do not agree that things have changed in any germane way since the 1860s, by the bye. It is still liberty versus politics. Our enemy is not any people at all but only the state. The chief cost of backward politics remains war, the acme of politics and the opposite extreme to trade.
I see no Achilles’ heel but also no grand Achilles either. Most people feel we must have a state; even about half of the LA does; as it is an alliance of anarcho-liberals and classical liberals.
And in the 21st century, they are matters of SOCIAL policy (as they were to a larger degree than is credited in the 20th). But if we (reasonably) accept Von Mises’s point, we can understand the debate of his time; an economically determinist system (Marxism) in which “social relations” are the consequence of economic relations is countered with a free market (subjectivist) argument from Libertarians.
But “progressives” are not economic determinists. For them, the economy is shaped to achieve social goals; it is an inversion. And as I said, this was a very strong component in Anglo countries even in Von Mises’s time. They did not derive (for instance) the prohibition of beer from an economic theory. They started with that “social” goal, and then they apply economic measures (as currently with the demand for “minimum pricing”) to attempt to achieve that social goal. Thus, modern Libertarianism needs a different focus.
Von Mises was a great man, but has been dead for quite some time now and the world has changed. The “true” marxists were indeed defeated, with their economic determinist theory. Ultimately, the economic subjectivist theory prevailed- or at least, clung on enough to rebuff the Marxist spearhead. But now, we face a socially objectivist (determinist) theory (or suite of ideas, if not a coherent theory) under the second wave “progressives”. Which is why to me at least it becomes clear that only a socially subjectivist repudiation is going to have any traction. This has two advantages.
Firstly, it is intellectually consistent. Economic subjectivism (which we know to be correct) is only rational if we recognise a general subjectivism. Our economic activities are merely a subset of our general “social” activities. If you give me a hand with my gardening, we do not suddenly cross a magic categorical line if I offer to pay you (with returning the favour later on, with beer, with a nice meal, with a tenner for your trouble, for a contracted pay rate, for a formal contract).
Secondly, while typing that last paragraph I forgot what my second point was, gone completely blank and lost my thread. I’m pretty sure it was a jolly good one though. Oh well, one will do for now.
David, 15 April, 2014 at 11:03 am:
“Truth is the common aim” in debates? Within the context of that comment, do you really think that, for instance, either Mr. Obama or Mr. W. Clinton has the slightest regard for truth?
The common aim in most actual, public “debates” is to try to demolish the other guy’s arguments at the least, and too often the guy himself if at all possible. Listen to “debates” on global warming, in which the most egregious lies are told by the “Alarmists” about the CAGW skeptics like Dr. Richard Lindzen — that they (and he in particular) are in the pay of “Big Oil,” for instance.
Later, you wrote:
“Debate is just trade in ideas with the common aim of the truth. ” It’s the same statement as before, but expanded slightly, and prompts me to observe that this is true in a different sense of the word “debate,” where what it really means is to “consider,” to “reason together,” to “discuss.” This rarely occurs in public debates. It occurs rather in civil (and usually in at least somewhat friendly) conversation.
By “debate” in the sense of “intellectual sport” I meant formal competitive debates, as are practiced and presented by debating societies. These can be useful as I described in the points I enumerated on 15 April, 2014 at 2:45 am, second paragraph.
Ian – economic collectivism (whether one calls it Marxism or not) has certainly not been defeated. Although there has indeed been a change in tactics.
Government spending is about half of the entire economy in most Western nations, and “private” industries such as banking and housing are now utterly dependent upon government in many nations.
Back in 1960 Hayek wrote (in “The Constitution of Liberty”) of the decline in faith in traditional socialism (collective control of the means of production). but the rise in faith in the results of production – socialisation via the unlimited Welfare State (his predictions concerning its expansion have proved grimly accurate).
For how some Marxists in America turned to indirect (“stakeholder”) socialisation of the results of production see “Radical In Chief” by Stanley Kurtz.
As for social policy and how (transformed) Protestantism was only one source of “Progressive” (i.e. controlling) social policy – see J.Goldberg “Liberal Fascism”.
Paul, I didn’t say it has been defeated. That would be absurd, even for me. What i meant is that the Marxism 1.0 arguments against which Von Mises was fighting are no longer the primary justifications for it, but it is instead derived from more nebulous, general “social” goals.
Sorry, to be more clear
“Paul, I didn’t say it has been defeated”
should read
“Paul, I didn’t say that economic collectivism has been defeated”.
I do not deny that many were killed in the riots, Paul, but I do deny that there ever was any existential import in the superstitious meme of revolution. So did Burke but he still granted it all the same. He was a politician after all. As for Doyle, he does not seem to think at all. He is a typical historian. I see both of those statist eulogisers as corrupt.
It is not clear what a time machine can do to aid us, do you imagine that we can see a clean beginning just by being there?
Why you feel that I deny any death in the French riots of 1789 and their aftermath is not clear to me.
I oppose economic state policy, on principle, but the freer the better.
Liberty mattered in the eighteenth century too.
I like Mises but I do not think he always gets it right. He got the economic calculation argument [eca] against communism right though.
Ian, I no more think that social policy can leave people free than can economic policy so I oppose that on principle too but the freer the better.
Marxism is a set of bogus ideas. Revolution is just one of them. Class struggle is another.
Subjectivity is a subset of objectivity. The facts are common to all but often not known [e.g. we do not know how many planets are out there or how many carry life].
I do not think that modern liberalism needs a fresh aim or a fresh focus. It aims at liberty, or at ending state policy.
The world rarely changes radically. The state never was other than a public menace.
There is no way to a non -objective world. Moreover, none is needed by anyone at all. I fear that you are somewhat confused. Ian. In what way can anyone gain from a lack of objectivity?
All ideas are rational. But many are false.
It is true that trade is where both sides gain owing to difference in subjectivity, if that is what you mean by your first point.
Julie,
Yes, we are all automatically concerned with the truth at all times. We are never free of belief. How can it be otherwise?
We can only demolish others in debate by appeal to the truth. Nothing else can score points.
I doubt if there are many lies told in any debate, but if there are then it hardly matters for truth alone motivates but the project we aim at might not be the topic of any debate. For example, a socialist might push Green issues as a means to increasing state control but I guess few ever will do so, for it is more likely that a propagandist, of any sort, will be honest. Falsehoods in debate are rarely lies.
Debate is always debate, a trade of truth claims. This is not to deny that only a few people seem to see the institutional truth of debate. Most people who think about debate seem to think that motivation matters more than it can ever possibly matter. Most do see debate as competitive but it is, in fact. co-operative. As is so often the case, motivation does not matter. The over rating of mere motivation is a great folly.
Yes, a lot debating societies debate for sport. But the one I ran at the University of Warwick mustered opponents to defend a thesis each debater had long held.
Paul, Marxism has been refuted inthe1920s, and it has ebbed since 1990 too, but politics is nowhere near defeated. Politics is collective, one size fits all. It need not even satisfy even one person. The market, by contrast, caters to the individual. Politics is against liberty but the market allows it.
David,
Facts are objective, values are subjective. “Pink Floyd are a rock band” is an objective fact. “Pink Floyd are rubbish” is a value. The error I believe many libertarians make is to try to claim economic values are subjective, but others aren’t; this is particularly true with those libertarians who also identify as conservative. It ends up with an inversion of the “liberals” of the 1970s, who wanted objective economics (Socialism, marxism) but subjective (individualist) social and moral values, in which such “right libertarians” tend to end up trying to argue that social and moral values are objective, but economics is predicated on subjective value. This is I believe a fallacy and I think it need sorting out, since it is inconsistent, and when you’re on the losing side, inconsistency is a major Achilles Heel.
One could also note that the 1970s “liberals” ultimately failed too, because of the same inconsistency; one side had to give, and they ended up losing the social subjectivism side of the argument, which is why we’re now under another phase of totally objective hegemony in terms of both economics and general society; which is what the “nanny state” or PC or whatever is.
Thanks for your reply, Ian.
Yes, facts are out there objectively, though most are beyond our ken/comprehension. Most facts relate to outer space.
Values are indeed psychological. Note that ethics is as value free as is science, but no living scientist is value free. No person can be.
Objectivity has many different uses. The one I used here, lately, is maybe the most common use that means all that exists i.e. the actual metaphysics; or reality as it is. In that sense all minds are just part of it so mind is a proper subset of reality, or of objectivity.
With this “Pink Floyd is rubbish” statement it might be what someone thinks, thus might express a value. The statement cannot be itself a value. Values can never leave the head.
Popper uses objectivity to simply mean what we can refer to. He would say the statement “Pink Floyd is rubbish” is objective, as we can refer to it clearly. It only remains subjective if it is not recorded.
Any value statement, as well as not ever being a value, can also be a second order fact in that someone, let us say myself, says “Pink Floyd is rubbish”. If I am being honest then it will be a fact that I thought they were rubbish at time t, when I said it. My mind is part of the wider world. So are all the other minds of the mammals, thus of all men too.
All values are of some mind. Recorded statements are also external and when forgotten completely external, unless destroyed.
Land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship are objective but some may feel they are worthless, say a Buddhist monk.
Liberals cannot quite be conservative today but they might be when liberalism is established.
Many traditional conservatives do have some liberal values, of course.
Marx thought that there was something that he called objective value. He meant natural price but no practical price can be a value as it needs to go between the values of the traders, being worth more to the buyer and less to the seller whenever a price works. So Marx was confused.
Ethical rules are real, as Plato saw. They are a matter of external Form/meme. Ethical memes are value free, just as facts are usually belief free. Beliefs and values are never mind-free. But Form/memes are external.
You do not make what you see as a fallacy clear, Ian. What is it that needs sorting out? Is it that all must value economic growth? The reality is that many people might not, of course. Liberalism is indifferent to that fact. It is about live and let live. No crass politics.
Why is liberalism the losing side? Is it only that we have yet to win? Or do you feel the massive setbacks of the 1860s cannot be reversed? That the slight revival of the 1970s came way too late?
I do not agree that things have changed in any germane way since the 1860s, by the bye. It is still liberty versus politics. Our enemy is not any people at all but only the state. The chief cost of backward politics remains war, the acme of politics and the opposite extreme to trade.
I see no Achilles’ heel but also no grand Achilles either. Most people feel we must have a state; even about half of the LA does; as it is an alliance of anarcho-liberals and classical liberals.
David-
Well being pedantic, the statement “Pink Floyd are rubbish” is the expression or articulation of a value, which can leave the head, just as I can say, “that good is not worth £5 to me, but I’d be willing to pay £2.50”.
If Popper would say that about objectivity and subjectivity, he was using strange definitions. The statement might be an objective fact (i.e. that I said it is certainly a matter of truth or falsehood) but the value expressed is subjective. It is unique to me as an individual, transient (I may change my opinion of Pink Floyd), cannot be proven or disproven (since being subjective there is nothing to prove) and, like economic values, is actually an ordinal rather than cardinal ranking.
The value remains in the mind, the expression of it is not, itself, a value but value free, Ian.
What you say is objective if ever recorded. If you merely think it then it remains subjective. Almost anything about the fact/value [better belief/value] distinction will be pedantic. It is a bit like arithmetic where 3 is not quite 2. As Joseph Butler said, the world is the way it is and not some other way.
Popper shunned definitions, as they logically lead to an infinite regress. They are never needed. We need to talk about the world not the mere use of words. Reality, not crass language, aids us to think clearly. Popper also shunned belief. He was interested in objective knowledge, especially science. Science is about statements, but statements relating to things in the world.
Again, facts are external to the truth. A statement is not a fact, but it may be true if it aptly states an external fact.
That you have this, or that, value then it is a fact about you at any one time, Ian. You may move on, but your past remains as factual as ever. It need not be known, of course. So that you move on cannot affect any absolute fact qua fact [absolute fact is a pleonasm, of course, as all facts and all truths are absolute ipso facto]. You may no longer want to stick to any earlier price that you offered, but that you did offer whatever you offered is a fact, as it is that you said whatever you did say in the past. All facts are eternal.
Yes, your values are unique but so is the food that you eat.
Most objective facts are alien to proof, that is mainly at home in geometry and logic.
All values are economic, as all values relate to what things are worth but many things are not for sale, or trade. Price is not value. Money is about mere exchange, it is not a good measure of worth.
Ethical rules are no more to do with mere values than science is to do with mere belief. They are a matter of Form/meme, as is mathematics. However, basic morals are very simple. We all know what they are but not all feel them to be right. Liberalism is a moral paradigm. But few see it as anti-politics.