Sadly, there seems to be another split brewing in the american libertarianism movement. On the one hand, there is the Cato institute and those associated with it. On the other hand there is the Ludwig von Mises Institute and the LewRockwell/Ron Paul crowd. Now, I’m not very up to data about what the latest intellectual quarrel is about, but Tom Woods has a good outline of it all. It reminds me of what happens when people here that I don’t give that much for Milton Friedman. WHAT? they say. With a blog named Save Capitalism? How can you not like Friedman? He was the ultra-capitalist!!
Yes and no. The problem with people like Friedman, and the Cato crowd for that matter, is that they like capitalism and freedom but not because they consider these fundamental values, but because they produce the best results. It’s called pragmatism, and the most important thing you can learn from Ayn Rand and objectivists is that pragmatism is the root of many evils. You may set out on a path of doing the right thing, but once you start going against your ideals the quest is worthless. Without your ideals, you no longer have any way of saying if you are doing good, or doing evil.
It is the basis for the modern social-democratic movement. Sure – capitalism brings economic prosperity – so we cannot have government ownership of too much. But once we allow the free market, why shouldn’t we pile on an adequate amount of taxes to support the poor, the sick, and the unemployed? Pragmatism. And while it makes sense to some (we’re not removing capitalism – we’re just tweaking the free market a bit), right and wrong suddenly disappeared, or rather became a matter of majority vote. Two wolves and a sheep went to vote on what to eat for dinner …
I guess I will probably be spending more time on this topic up ahead. And for the record – I’m not saying that the LVMI/Rockwell/Ron Paul crowd is infallible. But they tend to do things more because it is the right thing to do, and less because it produces the right results. And this is an important distinction to make, unless we want to fall into the trap of only thinking short-term, and sacrificing the long-term benefits of a totally free society for some temporary benefits of a less free society.
Very good.
I like to think of this as choosing “the moral right thing” to do as opposed to the “right thing.” On the surface of course they appear the same. When looked at deeper… emotions are utilized as a balance instead of the hammer.
The statement “an adequate amount of taxes,” is on the surface sound practice albeit emotional. When morality is considered the “thou shalt not steal,” aspect becomes evident and becomes the center of the fulcrum. Stealing is, of course, wrong morally. Stealing even to give to someone else because one feels “the need” is therefore also immoral. The moral thing to do would be to work harder to make more money so you can give more because you already own it… imagine that.
I could type forever on such a subject but will spare you
~Foosis
I would leave my blog address here but do not wish it to be taken as spam… My blog is easy enough to find on Google by name.
I recently saw the book seminar at Cato online about Palmer’s new book. I think all of the blog traffic about a split in the libertarian camp is a tempest in a teapot. While I agree with your assessment as to why a lot of those at Cato are for market capitalism (i.e., pragmatism versus fundamentalism), I think the results are the same and at this point there aren’t enough people in the movement for anything to split.
It reminds me a little of when I get into debates of minarchy versus anarchy. I don’t consider myself an anarchist, not because I’m against anarchy, I just think it’s utopian. If anarchy were to suddenly be achieved, I would be quite happy about that, but for now, I expect it to happen about the same time I get 72 virgins in heaven.
Hehe, “not enough people in the movement for a split”. True that.
And the eternal anarchy/minarchy discussion is always un-interesting. How’s about we worry about that when we get there – and if that makes me a pragmatist…..
By your logic Milton Friedman was a potential social democrat? Generally, I don’t think a clear cut between idealism and pragmatism is possible. Take for example the social democrats: they are idealists, because they dream of a egalitarian society that is based on onsound economic policies. At the same time, they also know that communism sucks, so they stick to capitalism as a means to achieve the highest possible living standards and still have some of their egalitarianism achieved. So, they are also pragmatic people.
Further, I don’t see how one can seriously argument for most of the current social democratic policies on the basis of capitalism. Of course, there are many people who don’t understand capitalism and free markets and how they work. As far as I know, a proper understanding of capitalism and free markets leaves only few areas of the economy open for government intervention. You don’t have to be an idealist to defend true free market capitalism.
However, idealism has often led to catastrophic outcomes in human history. That doesn’t mean that idealism is bad, but it’s dangerous. Possibly even more dangerous than misinterpreted pragmatism.
Most people are “potential social democrats”. There are very few people who will not concede some of their liberty for a little safety, to use a famous quote. Now – I am not saying that the only true way of being a capitalist idealist is to demand 0% taxes at once – but as soon as one forgets that the goal is to remove taxation because it’s wrong, then one has lost direction. Friedman went a bit astray with his “negative tax” ideas among other things. And in order for a social democrat to be an idealist – they have to be rather mentally corrupted. Because the whole idea is paradoxical. On the one hand – we should have free markets because they bring wealth. On the other hand, we should restrict the free market by redistributing the wealth – because it brings equality. I suppose one could see social democrats as wanting a “fair balance between wealth-creation and equality”, but that is a very non-interpretable goal, and I have a hard time seeing that as “idealism”.
Idealism as such is always dependant on which ideal is to be achieved – but I would disagree with idealism leading to catastrophic outcomes. You can just as well murder millions of people because of pragmatic causes as of idealist causes (Soviet Russia is probably a good example. Stalin didn’t murder 20 million people because of some ideal – he did it because he was a paranoid bastard and they were unlucky enough to be in his way in one way or other)