Left Libertarians Attack Mises Institute Speech

Last week, Mises Institute president Jeff Deist delivered what has become a controversial speech at a libertarian conference in Malta. The controversy around the speech, which was full of common sense advice for libertarians, centers around the use of the phrase “blood and soil”, which was used by the Nazi government to emphasize the importance of culture and land. While nobody can condone the behavior of the Nazis, simply using the phrase, which was actually a reference to a recent Jeffery Tucker article that also used the phrase, is hardly grounds to be called a Nazi. After reading and hearing the speech, it’s obvious that this is another case of hyperbolic faux outrage typical of “left libertarians”.

Here are some interesting points of the speech.

Because while libertarians enthusiastically embrace markets, they have for decades made the disastrous mistake of appearing hostile to family, to religion, to tradition, to culture, and to civic or social institution — in other words, hostile to civil society itself.

Deist begins by making the point that some libertarians hostility toward cultural and social institutions is misplaced. The reason is simple: those things can and do act as a bulwark against the power of the state.  Strong families don’t need the government. People that help each other through religious and other voluntary mutual aid groups don’t need the government. Private and religious schools don’t need government.

Mecca is not Paris, an Irishman is not an Aboriginal, a Buddhist is not a Rastafarian, a soccer mom is not a Russian. Is it our goal to convince them all to become thorough Rothbardians? Should libertarians care about gay marriage in Saudi Arabia, or insist on the same border arrangements for Brownsville, Texas and Monaco? Should we agitate for Texas-style open carry laws in France, to prevent the next Bataclan?

Or would our time be better spent making the case for political decentralization, secession, and subsidiarity? In other words, should we let Malta be Maltese?

This is hardly “libertarianism for me, but not for thee” as some of Deist’s critics argue. Deist’s speech is one of uncompromisingly radical self-determination, which is as far away from Nazism as it gets. His point is that as libertarians, we believe that we don’t know what is best for other people and shouldn’t force our preferences, be they political or cultural, on others. With that in mind, libertarians should abandon the “universalist” mindset and instead focus on self-determination, that is, allowing people to choose their own political and social arrangements.

He ends with this point (emphasis mine):

what would you fight for? The answer to this question tells us a lot about what libertarians ought to care about.

By this I mean what would you physically fight for, where doing so could mean serious injury or death. Or arrest and imprisonment, or the loss of your home, your money, and your possessions.

I’m sure all of us would fight for our physical persons if we were attacked, or for our families if they were attacked. We might fight for close friends too. And perhaps even our neighbors. In fact we might like to think we would physically defend a total stranger in some circumstances, for example an old woman being attacked and robbed.

How about an abstraction, like fighting for “your country” or freedom or your religion? This is where things get more tenuous. Many people have and will fight for such abstractions. But if you ask soldiers they’ll tell you that in the heat of battle they’re really fighting for their mates, to protect the men in their units–and to fulfill a personal sense of duty.

In other words, blood and soil and God and nation still matter to people. Libertarians ignore this at the risk of irrelevance.

Does that sound like a Nazi hate speech? Of course not. Aside from those three words, what’s the issue? Replace “blood and soil” with “family and property” and no one bats an eye. Not to mention, his point stands: if libertarians refuse to acknowledge that most people care about their culture and don’t want to see it demolished, then they are going to continue to have a hard time drawing converts and affecting change. There is no incompatability between libertarianism and culture. Realizing that doesn’t make you a Nazi, regardless of what left-libertarians think or say.


The Path To Liberty: Radical Decentralization vs. Universalism

Today on Lew Rockwell’s indispensable website, Mises Institute president Jeff Deist, posted a thought provoking article on the practical ends of libertarianism. Deist’s contention is that almost all liberals and conservatives seek universalism, that is, attempting to instill western democratic values to all persons on the globe. Unfortunately, many libertarians, including the Libertarian Party, have jumped on that bandwagon.

Per Jeff Deist:

“Universalism provides the philosophical underpinnings for globalism. But it does not provide a roadmap for freedom. Libertarians, who want a non-political world organized around civil society and markets rather than the state, have a responsibility to call foul on this inescapably statist narrative. Globalism is not liberty; instead it threatens to create an entirely new level of government. And universalism is not natural law; in fact it is often directly at odds with human nature and (true) human diversity.”

He goes on to point out that universalism, political or economic, is ultimately unachievable because people can’t be relied on to always think and act in ways that the ruling class want them to and thus universalism can’t answer questions fundamental to the study of human action (praxeology). Not only this, but to have any kind of workable universalism, you would need to presume an all-powerful one world state.

Deist argues that what libertarians should really be pushing for is not universalism, but radical decentralization: the idea that local oversight is always better than faraway rulers and that humans, because of natural law, have the right of self-determination. This decentralization should ultimately progress all the way to the individual.

Deist on the importance of self-determination:

“In other words, self-determination is the ultimate political goal. It is the path to liberty, however imperfect. A world of seven billion self-governing individuals is the ideal, but short of that we should prefer the Liechtensteins to the Germanys and the Luxembourgs to the Englands. We should prefer states’ rights to federalization in the US, and cheer for the breakup of EU. We should support breakaway movements in places like Catalonia and Scotland (provided they are organic and not engineered by states and their spy agencies). We should admire the Swiss federalist system, where localism is a governing principle.  We should favor local control over faraway legislatures and administrative bodies, and thus reject multilateral trade deals. We should, in sum, prefer small to large when it comes to government.”

The first step on the path to self-determination is to delegitimize the state, in all its forms. Only once people see the state as the violent and oppressive institution it is, can they begin to imagine practical market and self-determined solutions to the problems they face.  The election of Donald Trump has certainly done a lot towards this end. When was the last time you saw progressives in California talk about nullification and secession in a positive way? Normally if you claim either of those things as positive values, you are attacked by the left as a racist and a neo-confederate. It’s amazing to see people who champion the growth and supremacy of the state change their tune once they are out of power. Is the left hypocritical? Of course, but so is the right. The only thing that is important is for the state to lose credibility, legitimacy, and, ultimately, authority.

Without Government, Who Would Provide ______????

One of the most persistent arguments any anarcho-capitalist hears, without question, is “But without government, who would build the roads?”  All too often, the question comes from some statist who wields the argument around like it’s a checkmate against anarchy. It isn’t. In fact, roads in the pure free market is one of the easiest things to explain. For this reason, the “roads argument” is the source of much derision among libertarian.

Nevertheless, the question remains. It doesn’t matter if the issue is roads, PBS, or defense services, the question isn’t who will build or provide these services, but who will fund them. On the free market, these services aren’t funded by a coercive government stealing the hard earned money of it’s citizens, but by the individuals who use the service.

Many people counter that this is utopian; that it’s too difficult for individuals and organizations to coordinate the production of so called “public goods.” Nonsense, take the recent case of Planned Parenthood. After President Trump announced he was cutting funding from Planned Parenthood, the market miraculously responded in the form of increased individual and private funding. Proponents of Planned Parenthood argue that increased private donations equal increased public demand for federal funding, but what they don’t realize is that they’re actually making the case for privatization.

If you’re ever in doubt about how x would be provided in an anarchic society, just follow the handy chart below.


Pillars of Libertarianism: The Non-Aggression Principle

In the second part of this series on the pillars of libertarianism, we’re going to focus on the Non-Aggression Principle (NAP). Along with strong private property rights, the NAP makes up the foundation of libertarianism. At its core, the NAP answers the most fundamental political question: when is it justified to use force?

In For a New Liberty, Rothbard strongly makes the case. “The Libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” Included in this definition of aggression are direct threats of violence with intent to follow through. Don’t hurt people and don’t take their stuff. It’s a pretty simple idea, really. It’s an idea that most would agree with as a matter of course.  But when the principle is applied to interactions with the state, problems instantly arise.

The most obvious example of this is taxation. Libertarians all love to  share memes on social media that emphasize that taxation is theft, but the fact remains: taxes are not voluntary donations. If you don’t believe me, stop paying them and see what happens. Nor are taxes the price you pay for living in a civilized society. That logic is absurd. Is war is the price we pay for peace? Are economic crashes the price we pay for prosperity?

Another example is war. Again we return to Rothbard, “And since war, especially modern war, entails the mass slaughter of civilians, the libertarian regards such conflicts as mass murder and therefore totally illegitimate.” Related to war is conscription, or the draft, which is when young men and women are involuntarily enlisted into the service of the State, which almost always means fighting and dying as a part of the armed forces.  If that young person decides not to join they are thrown in jail. What is conscription other than slavery on a national level?

What these examples show in stunning clarity is twofold. First, there is no organization in the whole of human history that has oppressed, marginalized, abused, tortured or downright murdered more people than the State. The body count in the twentieth century alone is over a quarter billion. Second, most people seem perfectly willing to give to the State the moral license to do things that any private group or individual would never be allowed to do.  This is why the statist apologist mentality is so dangerous; once you’re able to comfortably make excuses for the worst excesses of the government, you can use it to justify all sorts of atrocities.

A libertarian makes no such distinctions. Likewise, libertarians make no apologies for the moral bankruptcy of the State. If it is illegal or immoral for a group to steal the property of an individual, the fact that the group calls itself a government matters little. Same goes for

One common argument against the non-aggression principle is that it is a pacifistic doctrine. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fundamentally libertarian private property norm states that you own your own body first and foremost. This includes an irrevocable right to self-defense.  The same is true at the global level. There are legitimate reasons to go to war. The real problem is that the usual reasons politicians give to their constituents never rise to that level.

To clarify this point, imagine this scenario: you are walking down the street and see Mr. A approach Mr. B. After a brief argument, Mr. A physically takes the watch off the wrist of Mr. B and walks away.  Surely Mr. A has violated the NAP with regard to Mr. B and his personal property. But this is not necessarily the case. It very well could be the case that Mr. A is aggressing against Mr. B by stealing his watch, but perhaps the watch belongs to Mr. A and he was simply taking it back from Mr. B who stole it the day before, which is well within his rights under established private property norms.

Another common argument against the NAP is that it is an inflexible doctrine that fails to adequately deal with real world situations. There are of course many incredibly complex private property disputes in our society and no system, including libertarian anarchism, will solve every situation perfectly. Anarchists don’t claim their system is a utopia, only that it establishes the most equitable way to resolve the inevitable clashes that occur over scarce resources.

Pollution disputes are a good example of this argument. Rothbard effectively argued that pollution, in the forms of water, air, and even noise, are of a type of trespass and thus a clear violation of the NAP. Matt Zwolinski argues that then means that any amount of smoke from a chimney that passes over the property of another is aggression and subject to retaliatory self-defense. What he fails to recognize is that the NAP doesn’t apply in a vacuum. The NAP is an ethical guideline used to justify the use of force within the established legal framework of that society. If Mr. A’s chimney blows smoke over Mr. B’s property, it is highly unlikely that would justify Mr. B in blowing up Mr. A’s house. Mr. B would instead have to show real damage to property and any restitution would be proportionally awarded. Zwolinski’s argument ends up being a bit of a straw man.

The non-aggression principle and strong private property rights work hand in hand to establish and protect an individual’s right to life, liberty and property. They also provide the most equitable determination of when force is justified when disputes over resources do occur. And all of this is done voluntarily and without coercion. That alone makes it an upgrade over our current system.