Hans Hoppe Welcomes You to his Fantasy Island
I have often observed that libertarian principles can corrupt the character even of good men. Whether that is the reason or simply personal vanity, but Hans Hoppe's account (on VDARE) of the departure of Libertarians from the John Randolph Club, while it is filled with many intelligent and useful insights, is founded on an historical lie. The lie is that Hoppe, Rockwell, and the others left the Club over ideological differences having to do with the Buchanan campaign's economic policies, which we supported because we refused to study economics. He also complains about how difficult I am to get along with, but anyone who has experienced Hans' towering ego--"You should invite me to more meetings because I am a celebrity"--will know with how many grains of salt to take that observation
The Club was certainly divided on the economic nationalism that Buchanan had borrowed from Sam Francis. The split was not libertarian versus conservative since, on balance, Clyde Wilson and I (among many others) were never nationalists, much less economic nationalists. I supported Buchanan partly because I thought he was the best and most honest candidate to offer himself to the voters in many a year and partly because he was and remains a friend. I know personal loyalty does not mean much to libertarians, but that is one more sign of their insanity. I did not expect Buchanan to have the chance to test Sam's theories and since I agreed with a good deal of what he was saying, I thought it more polite not to criticize views for which I had some moral sympathy but which I regarded as economically impractical, except insofar as it would be useful to attack global free trade as an instrument of internationalism aimed at hurting the American people. As Hoppe must know, our tax policies do not give American industry a fair shake.
Then what did cause the libertarian defection? The truth is that Hoppe, backed by Rockwell, precipitated the exodus. Hoppe, in a speech attacking economic nationalism in fairly extreme terms, referred to Sam Francis's position as a form of national socialism. Later in the meeting, I took the opportunity in my speech to suggest that the man who had referred in a previous meeting to "Jews, Gypsies, and other human garbage" was in no position to compare anyone with the Nazis. I went on to say that the essence of the JRC was vigorous and open debate among friends who disagreed with each other. Name-calling that gave weapons to our enemies was a moral betrayal of the Club and its members.
Rockwell had vigorously campaigned for Pat in 1992, and so long as Murray was alive he had not regarded his economic views as an insuperable obstacle to libertarian support. But, somewhat to my surprise, he backed Hoppe all the way, and he led the libertarian walkout. have heard from some, who would deny it today, that Rockwell gave orders not to attend meetings or write for Chronicles. From what I have heard from disgruntled Misesians, they run their program in Auburn like--to quote a phrase--"a Stalinist indoctrination camp"--in which every one is required to cheer for the home team. At the fateful meeting, I talked with my friend Burt Blumert, a major supporter of the Mises Institute and a good man. He said, and I can remember it very well:
"Tom, when we started the Club, the two sides were fairly evenly matched. With Murray gone, we just don't have the same power. All Lew has is Hans, and he has to stick with him." I might add that Hoppe's complaint against the cheap hotels in which we held our meetings was remedied as soon as the libertarians left. A number of their followers were impoverished dead-beats who complained about high prices. We have held meetings in quite nice hotels in Washington, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and the next meeting will be held in the very beautiful Mills House in Charleston.
I understood the difficult position Rockwell was in: In general, Libertarians cannot tolerate dissent, and he must have been taking flak from his supporters and donors even for hanging around with us. I remember when Ed Crane criticized Rockwell and Rothbard for associating with people who did not appreciate sexual diversity, and for a year they never referred to the head of Cato except as S.D. Eddy. I never quarreled with Burt of Justin Raimondo or David Gordon. I would have remained on good terms with Rockwell, if I had not received a series of reports of his hypocrisy and slander. One small example will do. When I remarked to him that Joe Sobran was now calling himself a libertarian, Rockwell asked me--entirely in jest--whether he was a tax cheat or a child molester, explaining that people became libertarians to find a justification for their moral failings. Imagine my surprise when Rockwell began telling me that I had authored this rather brilliant insight.
I would rather not have had to write this column. I will go to my grave with a sense of gratitude for having known Murray Rothbard and with respect for the achievements of several libertarians I have known, such as Justin Raimondo, David Gordon, and Hans Hermann Hoppe, but when Hoppe's dishonest and self-serving account was published on a website directed by someone we regarded as our friend, I thought it necessary to speak out.
Entries(RSS)
"free to choose" is not about leading a good life. It is not about ethic or moral implications of choice in most cases. It is merely a device to introduce the concept of utility and once this utility is defined (and it can be defined by imputing morality if we wish) we can work with some quantifiable econometric tools. Friedman introduces this as an ideal only insofar as it is a juxtaposition to the statist concept of planning, where utility and prices as vehicles for making choices are irrelevant. Erroneous implications are often drawn from "free to choose" concept when it is used to suggest a basis for an ideal economic system. Asking "to choose what" would be one such case. I doubt very much that HHH is corect when he claims that the Paleos reject to learn sound economics. To me it sounds more likely that they find it more distracting than useful for their own arguments. Arguments, which by the way are quite complex and refined.
Mr. Wilson, those people who implemented Great Society came in power still because of democracy. We must acknowledge that.
Even if it is not what people wanted, it's what the ended up voting into office.
Why? Because, voting is about competing between various bad options and choosing the least worst option. It's about voting who has a bundle of policies that bother you the least; not the individual policies you want.
That's why few people get completely powerful and then do what people don't want. What is the difference between a corporation and a politician? Even the most monopolist corporation of all time, A&P Grocery Chain, never lasted more than six decades as a viable competitor. 90% of all businesses end up failing within a decade. On the other hand, politicians almost never fail, and keep getting elected over and over and over again. Failure is more important than success, because we need failure to tell us what works. In a failure-free system like democracy where your promises keep getting you elected, there is no failure to tell you what works.
Mr Fleming
Interested to read your account. Could you shed any light on why one of the more interesting writers of recent years, E. Michael Jones, no longer gets a platform at Chronicles events. If he has been quietly excluded could you say what caused this? Is there any chance of reconciliation?
Be most interested in your response.
Regards
MV
I fully understand what Friedman was saying, having read him and watched his TV show. Of course his primary argument was against state intervention, but ethically neither Friedman nor his followers had any understanding of moral freedom or the purposes of life. The duller sort of libertarians even elevate amorality to their moral Olympus. Economics is the study of certain means by which people work to achieve their ends. It is neutral about the ends themselves. This means that while they may be good technicians, they are very misguided when the confuse--as they so often do--the mechanisms of the market with the proper ends of human life.
Dr Fleming, you mentioned you would recommend some French works for me. I've been reading Touqueville on the French Revolution, from his truncated work on the subject. Is this work redundant or is it all useful? Like some of the other French classical liberals , he seems to be an honestly genuine Catholic with some very good insights, although I am barely 20 pages in.
Tocqueville is an important interpreter of the FR, and so is Augustin Cochin, whose work we have published in English. For a narrative account by a man sympathetic to the Revolution, Taine is wonderfully readable and not afraid to dwell on atrocities. If you read French, Jean de Viguerie's fairly recent biography of Louis XVI is magnificent and completely overturns the standard view. To begin to understand the counter-revolutionary mind you might start with the Hungarian Thomas Molnar, whose outlook was shaped by that tradition. You have probably already read Bonald and Maistre and Maurras, but I would also recommend Maurice Barrès, whose Les déracinés give a good insight into their regionalism. Read Balzac for the insight into the vulgarization of liberal France, read Péguy for a mystical vision of French history... If France interests you at all, then you must study the literature in which the soul of France is expressed. Journals like Catholica and Valeurs Actuelles (among several others) could be helpful. In Quebec the revue Egards is quite good. It was edited by our friend Luc Gagnon and is now in the hands of the philosopher Jean Renaud... They are quite open to Anglo-American conservative thought as well as to the French tradition. Indeed, there is a picture of Russell Kirk on their home page egards.qc.ca
Hm, thanks for the recommendations. Tocqueville is a rare case of a liberal monarchist, so I think I will have to read more of his works for an interesting perspective.
I am not a French reader unfortunately; I am told the best work on Louis XVIII (whom, I am convinced was France's best leader in the 19th century) which I would have liked to read, but alas is in French only. I cannot I have some knowledge of German, but thats about it.
I've been told by the handful of Quebecers Ive known that Quebec a whole different world than France. I guess they had remained Catholic socialism didnt take there as much; before falling to nationalism.
Ignore my numerous grammatical errors @56. Sometimes my typing speed gets ahead of me and I make frequent errors.
Of course Quebec is different from France, though there are Catholic intellectuals in Quebec who are very much on the wavelength of the French Right. And they are neither socialists nor nationalists. Indeed, the ones I have met prefer a unified Canada as a means of maintaining Quebec's traditions. Oh, and you can start learning French today. It is a much better use of your time than cruising websites--apart, of course, from this one.
Dr. Fleming,
I have been thinking of beginning to learn French this summer. What program would you recommend using? A friend of mine told me that the Foreign Service Institute courses were good. Would you recommend them?
Dr. Fleming,
Help me with a theological question re: your religion. If it is too personal for the blog, I sincerely apologize. However, major fallacies of secular libertarianism are shown in the writings of Rushdoony, North, Peacocke, etc. (westcoast guy) to name a few, as well as many, many other theologian/economists/historians, including yourself who have devastatingly critiqued natural law theory in contrast to say theonomics or superior moral positions. Y'all who write for Chronicles are well learned and smart. I'm not. Question: how come when I look at a map of all countries around the world and see those that are predominantly catholic tend to have a heck of a lot more socialism that those that are/were predominantly protestant? I know the answer, you men are catholic because John Calvin was catholic. No seriously, why are y'all not orthodox, reformed presbyterians or something? Again, my question is not to meant to be smart. Is it because, Catholicism and monarchy are better paired and protestantism and representative government are better paired? Foolish man that I am, I would be better served to learn and steal your wisdom rather than critique.
Have a good one folks!
Andrew,
While I also would be interested in what Dr Fleming might say in answer to your question, let me put my two cents in, in case you didn't already know:
I'm not sure whether any such course is all that good compared to study under a good tutor or rigorous grammar study. However, if you want the Foreign Institute courses, then remember that they were created by the government for use of government personel, and the content of those courses are public domain. All companies which package and sell the FSI courses do so with government permission.
In other words, what I am saying is that you dont have to buy the courses from a private company when the government originals, all copyright free, can be downloaded for free.
Check this out: http://fsi-language-courses.org/Content.php
Other related materials can also be downloaded for free from a government website, and links to them can be found on the above site.
Mr. Wilson,
Thanks, I was already aware that the FSI courses were available for free. I am just wondering if there is anything better that I could use.
I have tried to use two FSI courses--which I paid for--one in French and one in Serbo-Croatian. The French course went along so slow that after hundreds of hours you know next to nothing, while on the Serbo-Croatian the native speakers, with a not very literate accent, read the text without any feeling or intonation and as rapidly as possible as if trying to see how quickly they can get to the end. I would invest in a good college textbook--buy it second hand--and if it does not come with an extensive CD series, you can invest in one. I have tried a number. My advice is not to waste money on tourist (Just Listen and Learn) or business oriented (Barrons) courses. The Ultimate Advanced Courses are ok especially if you have studied the language. Pimsleur is excruciatingly slow though their method is good for people who cannot seem to learn a language or for really difficult languages that are quite alien to us. Pimsleur can be bought second hand, by the way, for less than half price and they will give you $100 (minus shipping) if you return it. I am currently experimenting with a Linguaphone course in modern Greek. It has a good deal of grammar and moves rather rapidly. It is perfect for me and a similar approach would work well with someone who is studying a book intensely. Finally, the cheapest aid is in Learn In Your Car and Vocabulearn series, though the Italian goes farther in the grammar than the French does.
I agree entirely with AW that intensive study with grammar book and tutor is better than any other method, but I rarely have that option. For a while I had an Italian tutor, but we ended up wasting a lot of time speaking English. The same thing happened with my Serbian tutor, whom I eventually hired as my assistant. My advice is to pick at least one classical language and one living language and study them every day for the rest of your life. It is good for the brain and gives you something to do in a doctor's office or traffic jam.
To Mr. Rhettman, I would say that while I do not ordinarily talk about "my" religion--which is not mine at all--I have no reluctance to do so. I was reared as an atheist in a family that occasionally attended Episcopal Church (but that began only when I was 14). I began regarding myself as a Christian before turning 25 and was increasingly regular as an Anglican, though my father's background was Catholic. My wife and I eventually took the road to Rome, though I do not think it is proper to speak of conversion, unless we are going back to a time when conversion was used of Christians who decided to lead a completely regular Christian life.
However, I should warn my Catholic friends that while I shall never knowingly contradict any of the Church's teaching, my mind was formed outside the Church's influence, and I write independently of the Church's authority. I will say that even as an Anglican I found St. Thomas to be the most satisfying Christian writer on moral and political topics--and I still do. I should also add that I have never made any criticisms of Orthodoxy, whose theology, liturgy, and clergy I very much admire. I think the schism has been disastrous and I prefer to lead my life as if it did not exist. I can also find many things to admire in the higher Protestant theologians. I am very fond of Butler's famous Analogy and of Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity. I have been seriously influenced by the Calvinist Althusius--or to be more accurate I have found in Althusius a clear anticipation of my own thought--and have read a moderate amount of Luther, Richard Baxter, CS Lewis, etc. Where I find the Reformers deficient is not so much in their anti-Catholic polemics--which are about as serious as the arguments of a high school village atheist--as in the tendency of their followers to elevate the opinions of Luther or Calvin into an authority. There is no Catholic writer I would ever treat as an oracle, and if I refuse to treat Augustine or Thomas in this way, I am certainly not going to regard any of their successors with such reverence. I can say with Gilbert's "Little Oliver" (one of the Bab Ballads):
The simple Truth is my detective,
With me Sensation can't abide;
The Likely beats the mere Effective,
And Nature is my only guide.
Dr Fleming is right, Pimsleur is very slow. In addition, if you really want to master the material, expect to take more time with each lesson than they recommend in the instructions, because you'll need to review.
Though I'm sure most here already know, google books and the internet archive have a multitude of old foreign language grammars, composition books, and readers available, and I believe that many use the older method of teaching that was used before language learning books became trendy and sometimes ridiculous. They even have Gildersleeve's latin series. I had his Primer reprinted by Public Domain Reprints before they suspended their reprint service.
Some good thoughts there Dr Fleming. Some of my fellow Catholics cannot help themselves but to pretend its 1525 again and they are still battling Luther and his fellow heretics - Catholics are always right, and Protestants are always wrong, even on secular matters. I personally have also always treated the Orthodox with respect, even if there are a few areas I disagree with their teachings.
I literally returned 24 hours ago from a three week visit to my wife's town in Greece (Nafpachtos, the quondam Lepanto), deeply dispirited to be reminded how fast any language learned in midlife can disappear if you don't study it at least a little bit every day, as Professor Fleming recommends above (and completely inexcusable when you live with your own native informant). Nonetheless, for anyone interested in learning modern Greek, I can recommend Greek in Three Months and also Colloquial Greek as far as primers with tapes or CDs go, though the former would probably have to be purchased used. Both have a fair amount of grammar, not just endless collections of mindless phrases of the "How much is your wife?" variety. Olga Eleftheriades Modern Greek (also out of print but probably available on abebooks.com) is a great next step -- it's considered outdated, but simply reading her relatively simple discussions of syntax and then going through her many sample sentences will give one more of a real "feel" for the language than slogging through Peter Mackridge's two more up to date and scientic grammars. But to my mind, the best grammar by far for anyone of old fashioned philological interests is Albert Thumb's Handbook of the Modern Greek Language (Dover should reprint this) --not very useful for anyone who wants to order a second (or third) bottle of wine at dinner, but a beautiful treasure trove of poetry, fairy tales, dialectical and regional forms (some such as the Pontic in transliteration), bibliographical references that beg to be tracked down, etc. And finally, Greek song is often so beautiful (even much of the modern pop stuff has beautiful traditional or quasi-traditional melodies and lyrics) that simply following along in a CD booklet with lyrics in Greek and English is a great way to furher one's knowledge of the language -- I would recommed Martin Schwart'z collection of Smyrnaica recordings from the teens through the 1930s or the current recordings of Glykeria or Eleftheria Arvanitaki.
Sorry for the digression.
I'm using "Easy Italian Step-by-Step" and it's not bad. The biggest problem with books you get in the bookstore is that there aren't enough exercises. There are some, but to really learn a language you have to drill and drill and drill...just like you did back in phonics class. There are usually workbooks you can get just for this purpose. I sometimes wonder if old grammar school textbooks wouldn't be best for learning a living language.
The biggest hurdle for me to speak even simple Italian is that I don't think in Italian. I think of what I want to say in English and then mentally translate. If I could stop doing this I think I'd be much better with it. It's easier said than done though.
If I make make one or two suggestions... First, no single book or program will be adequate, because each has its biases and limitations that can only be corrected by another approach. The step by step books are good for basic grammar but no so good at developing vocabulary and idiom. You will never begin thinking in Italian until you spend a good deal of time listening to it and speaking it. That is where even the bonehead approach of Pimsleur is good in that it teaches little but puts it permanently into your head. For Italian, once you have mastered the elements, you can always watch movies and listen to music CDs. My strong suggestion is to write the language as early as you can. Grammar school texts will not get you very far nor will most high school books. For Italian, Prego is the standard, I believe. For serious students of Italian at the intermediate to advanced level, there are a number of reference grammars of varying quality. The best by far I have found is by Maiden and Robustelli.
For Modern Greek, I have tried a variety of books. So far the most effective introduction has been Greek Today by Peter Bien et al. Ann Farmakides' book is badly produced but it does have a good deal more grammar. The trouble is that it requires either a teacher or a student who is used to learning languages. Thanks for the tip on Thumb, which has been reprinted. I am ordering it today, though the rules of the language have changed a good deal, much to the disgust of educated Greeks. Marc, married to a Greek wife, does not have the usual excuse--lack of opportunity--for improving his Greek. I have now despaired of every mastering Modern Greek. I am finding it easier and easier to read and if I keep it up I shall be able to write and speak simply, but it is my ear that will never be trained. Far from being irritated at the digressions, this is probably the most interesting conversation I shall have today. I am thinking of starting a column over on Rockfordinstitute.org to discuss modern language learning as a parallel to my ancient languages discussion. I could then transfer over parts of this "digression." Perhaps Marc can tell us something of his trip. I leave for Athens in about a month, where we will stay two nights seeing friends before going on to spend a week on the boat with our irrepressible Greek columnist, a few nights on Aegina to look at the temple of Aphaia and then one final night in Athens.
I must say that while Patrick Buchanan has taken very admirable and strong anti-war stances, there are also situations when he betrays a slight fondness for the Republican Party's actions in spreading "democracy and human rights" abroad.
He praised Reagan for the "liberation of Grenada" in 1992 RNC. Liberation of Grenada? The US used military force to crush a group of angry construction workers, to supposedly "save" American medical students who never asked for the help, and highlighted this liberation by bombing a civilian hospital. On top of which, it took two weeks to achieve this amazing feat. This shameful display of military force on a tiny nation for arbitrary reasons is an admirable thing?
I don't understand praise for Reagan. Reagan was a lunatic. Although he was diagnosed with dementia later in life, he was already suffering from it before he was President. The man used to tell fictional stories about himself that were not one bit true - claiming he rescued Jews from concentration camps, when he was never in a concentration camp, never in that part of Europe, and never even in WW2. The man's job was to simply recite memorized speeches, and then doze off on a chair. Meanwhile, Alexander Haig was actually running the country. Reagan was just like Peter Sellers in Being There - an empty-headed prop for the public who could say or repeat whatever you asked him say. This demented prop was allowed to soothe the public, while shadow statesmen doubled the US deficit, increased the size of US government, conducted covert operations on foreign lands, and fueled more wars abroad.
And then Buchanan in his 1992 speech, would go on to praise Bush Sr., the Butcher of Iraq. We are talking about the man who ordered entire villages of innocents bombarded during the Gulf War, just to turn against a former US ally once he stopped towing the line, by first stealing Iraqi oil through drainage in Kuwait. A million Iraqi women and children died in American excesses in Iraq during the Gulf War. That is a real tragedy, not the one against Albanian drug dealers pretending to be freedom fighters in Serbia - the ones killing police authorities accused of massacres that never happened.
Buchanan did condemn the Iraq war and rightly so. He also condemned Allied entry into WW2 and rightly so. Hence, his condoning of certain recent atrocities begs for explanation - particularly since they are not consistent with the Old Right's anti-war, anti-international-intervention, anti-imperial stance.
Buchanan does show a more thoughtful, cautious, and scholarly perspective on foreign policy than most Presidents, but I sense it's possible he would have succumbed to pro-war pressures from the Republican Party (that he still admires so much). For this reason, perhaps those sectarian lot who left the John Randolph Club still did something right in not choosing to support Buchanan. His sympathies for the modern Republican Party are troubling.
I am sure Pat does not subscribe to the 'all wars are bad' view. I've seen libertarians condemn Jefferson's war with the Barbary Pirates...I suppose we should have just let our shipping be attacked. I appreciate a so called isolationist view too, but not to the point of being suicidal. On the other hand, all of that is probably just niceties of Pat's speech...I remember him on Crossfire condemning the Gulf War.
Since the walk-out had nothing to do with foreign policy and, indeed, had nothing to do with any principle of any kind--unless greed and vanity now count as libertarian principles--Mr. Buchanan's shortcomings or lack thereof are entirely irrelevant. It is probably hard for younger people to understand this, but those of us who grew up during the Cold War were a little reluctant to embrace pacifism or reject war. Chronicles was the first publication on the right to criticize US imperialism--including the imperialism that landed us in Southeast Asia--and it was precisely our writings on the growth of the empire, both at home and abroad, that encouraged Murray Rothbard to initiate the exchange of letters that led to the formation of the Randolph Club. I must admit I was surprised by the first letter. I had never read Rothbard and the little I knew of him came from hostile sources. Of my friends and colleagues, only Bradford had a good word for Murray, but Mel was often too kind. But, as I learned, Murray was as good a man as Bradford had said he was. It is too bad that his followers, most of them at least, could repeat his ideas--often his worst ideas--and even mimic his polemical manner without absorbing his honesty and courage.
This whole debate between traditionalists and idealogues is very old. What Tom Fleming and Murray Rothbard evidently shared was a capacity for friendship. For evidence of this see how the debate itself was much more dignified in 1962 when the old Brent Bozell wrote his Twisted Tree reply to the libertarians Meyer and Evans compaared to this louder and more recent proclamation of Mr. Hoppes. The only thing that has changed in the last fifty years is perhaps hearts have grown more narrow as the libertarians have gained more populist ground while the traditionalists memory has dimmed.
Tom Fleming is not a difficult man, he is simply a stout hearted man sailing in a sea of little people. I am pleased he has decided late in life to simply tell the truth and let God sort out the mea culpas. It is an invaluable lesson for those who work around him at the present time and will remain a distant inspiration for those of us who know and admire him from afar. It will all be over soon enough and either the contrite and broken heart will be an acceptable sacifice or it will not. Interea, my thanks to the "difficult man" in Rockford.
Dr. Fleming,
Thank you for your response to that question. I would agree that Augustine, Luther, Aquinas, Calvin, Edwards, etc. are all fallible men. However, when all five of those guys agree on something, it gets my attention. Men of orthodoxy have been the ones who have been the greatest Church reformers and thus the reformers of the world. When the Church catches cold, the world gets lung cancer. I don't think there is any dispute among either Protestants or Catholics on that point no matter what doctrinal differences exists. Most, if not all, of our problems re: economics, civil government, monetary systems, business ethics, legal systems, education, sports, entertainment, family government, personal government, etc are theologically rooted. Therefore, theological truths and applications are necessary to solve our current problems. If the Church does not come to the fore, then we will just substitute one form of tyranny for another. The Church reformers I named above, changed the Western World. Westernization and technoloby are two different things. Technology, and an increase in wealth, are a byproduct of Westernization. HHH is a good economist, however, where I part ways with men like him is on theological/epistemological/historical/political/etc. grounds. I always know an economy, nation, country, society, etc is headed for a complete debacle whenver there is a departure from Biblical Orthodoxy. For example, HHH wrote a book titled "Democracy, the God that Failed" It was a good book with good economics in it. He spends a lot of time using good Austrian economic analysis showing why elected leaders are prone to overtax and destroy economies. But you could save yourself some time if you just read what King Solomon wrote - "A Nation of Many Rulers Comes to Ruins" - It cuts to the chase with re: to a long book by HHH who unknowingly borrowed Biblical truth to a degree. All of our answers to problems we face are Bible based. Now is the time to start to rebuild, reconstruct, reform, re-whatever. It's not going to happen by men who have Christian hearts with secular brains. Christians do not change the world - only diciples of Christ change the world. We are to diciple the nations - not the world. This brings us right back to the conversations with men such as Donald Livingston who understand the necessity of small polities. There is no longer a Christian base in the U.S. But the main point is, the world is ready to hear Biblical answers and solutions to problems that we face. The more Christians can prosper, the more the rest of the world will propser. Christians and non-Christians, all people, like to live happier and have more fulfilled and proserous lives. People have a built in need to acquire things as the 1st Commandment indicates. It's all economics in this sense. Thus, the ultimate futility of HHH and company. The truth is that God is in a massive building enterprise. That enterprise is developing people. For example, if a business's primary purpose is to develope people, where profits are not first but rather the inevitable result - then we are into something that can last generations. Orthodox protestant businessmen are aware of a method called "Cathedral Builiding" when using Biblical strategies in the market place. With these Biblical strategies, we could make mince meat of our enemies. This means that focusing on the decline of the West with re: to idiot rulers is a waste. Why focus on nothing-nobody's as you say. Its time to move on with Biblical insights. Who has them?
I will say one thing about Murray Rothbard. His critique of the Communist, Protestant revolt in Muenster is about the best answer to what people like Luther left in their wake. Of course I think old Murray was using it as an example of how primitive communism led to disaster for a society. It sure is a good read, in my opinion anyhow.
To digress again, for those interested in learning Greek, you may want to check the nearest Greek Orthodox Church (if there is one close to you) to see if they are conducting classes in modern Greek. You may be able to participate and supplement any other techniques you are using. I have no interest in learning Greek at my age (but I might want to take a stab at Latin because I studied it and Italian when I was young), but my Greek Orthodox Church regularly conducts classes in modern Greek. Other ethnic churches may also offer language instruction, too.
Years before I met my wife, I first took a stab at Greek using Farmakides -- agreed on both counts, it has many strengths, but it also has to have the ugliest font and the most confusing layout of any book I have ever read. I hope you enjoy the Thumb. I'm afraid we did little on our trip of any general interest. My wife's family has a building a hundred feet from the waters of the gulf, so simply being at home there is a real pleasure, and most of our other time was spent visiting friends and relatives, swimming, eating and drinking, and running after our year and a half old granddaughter. We visited the usual local monasteries of course (my wife's passion, but for me there are limits), but unfortunately didn't make it this year to the wonderful old monastery of the Prousiotissa high in the mountains behind Nafpachtos. The town has a small but well-organized museum on the battle of Lepanto, and one of these days we want to come later in the fall to see the yearly mock repetition of the battle. Thankfully the town has no ancient ruins that I would feel compelled to visit -- to my shame, unless the ruins are on the level of the Acropolis, they bore me to tears.
Regarding the study of foreign languages. Is there a Greek-language equivalent, I wonder, to the excellent Alliance Française (which has branches throughout the English-speaking world, including one, I see, in Chicago)?
I ask this because I found the AF's adult-education classes (normally with one teacher and five or six students) to be far and away the most effective method I know of becoming genuinely fluent in French: immeasurably better than any book and/or CD set that I tried, although both books and CD sets have their uses. People like me need the constant sense of competition which is created by having some - but not too many - fellow students to vie with. You don't get that with solo learning.
"I might add that Hoppe’s complaint against the cheap hotels in which we held our meetings was remedied as soon as the libertarians left. A number of their followers were impoverished dead-beats who complained about high prices. We have held meetings in quite nice hotels in Washington, Philadelphia, and Chicago, and the next meeting will be held in the very beautiful Mills House in Charleston."
Put me down (and my wife) firmly in the camp of preferring cheap hotels. I consider frugality a conservative virtue.
This is a very interesting series of posts to read. I'm a supporter of both LVMI and PFS. (I have given them money.) I'm probably one of the most literate members of the faction in the private sector. And I agree that it's a tough crowd to spend time with. Yes, it was extremely difficult to get past the doctrinal attitude and Randian cultishness that you are complaining about in order to understand and make use of the philosophical content that's in their line of thinking. What made it worthwhile was the number of answers provided by them, and the vast amount of effort they put into educating people of all stripes that made it easy to become involved in this branch of the history of ideas.
First, I don't really care about someone's rhetorical posture. I have never found Hoppe's theatre anything other than entertaining, and have found him helpful and a good mentor if you're worth his time - which I can count on having received in seconds or minutes at best. And if you accepted praxeology (I don't for technical reasons having to do with closed systems of logic - and praxeology is a subset of behavior and so it's a falsely closed system) you'd also look at the world as Hoppe does: if you disagree you're just wrong because it's logically impossible to disagree. I am pretty certain he actually believes it. And I have never pressured him on any point and found anything other than honesty underneath his posture. This posture is an incredibly effective, controversial, and therefore valuable, rhetorical device. But it's important to understand that it's a rhetorical device. Every single TV Producer understands this, or we wouldn't have talking-head shows to entertain ourselves with. Part of his knowledge base, (as was Friedmans and Rothbards) is this somewhat intentionally antagonistic posture. It undermines the opposite posture: opting out of the argument. Again, this is an ancient rhetorical technique in the european model.
In fact, I suspect that the members of this blog, who have left comments above, do not understand the emotive rhetorical device they themselves are using. Or rather, that Hoppe is baiting in order to obtain engagement, and most of the comments above are attempting to force methodological conformity derived from assumptions of equality under the civic republican tradition - the presupposition of majority sentiment rather than superiority of ones argument. While I'm not certain, Hoppe's method may in fact, be the only device possible to use against the method that you're using.
And I think you're relying upon that sentiment rather than the veracity of any argument you possess. I don't think that needs to be the case. I think that your method lacks an analytical foundation and you're stuck between a desire for positivist solutions to unarticulated moral problems, and relying upon majority sentiment and tradition as an argument. (WHich is the default human position in any field of endeavor.)
Unlike your majority position, I think Hoppe, Rothbard and Mises have fallen into, or intentionally embraced, a logical Godelian trap in an effort to find a pseudo-scientific device with which to fight the pseudo-scientific positivism underlying the rationalizations of democratic socialism. So while they have advanced the body of thought, they have failed to date. Hayek failed as well, at least, to make a strong enough argument, because he relied too much upon psychology rather than calculation -- and the two wings of theorists failed, (Along with Talcott Parsons) to actually uncover the problem.
Despite these failings, as a research program the Anarchists have proved very fruitful. While Rothbardianism is flawed, for technical reasons this group members would not understand without quite a bit of unwilling-and-skeptically-expended effort, the structure of Misesian, Rothbardian and Hoppian argument is a strong analytical foundation for discussing what have been, for all of the history of thought, undefinable abstractions.
They haves provided an alternative framework (property and calculation) to the process of balance-of-powers-through-debate, which is the technology of republican government. Or rather, they have show that WITHOUT reliance on a calculative framework, that rhetorical debate devolves into either error or fraud. They see property as a moral argument rather than necessary argument - and they do so because they failed to articulate the full spectrum of human behavior by relying on the easy-epistemology allowed by the records left from the exchange of money. They did not include the invisible institutional economy of sacrifices that people make by NOT doing things with their property, their time, their bodies and their money. I suspect the Misesians make these errors because they are a little too enamored of infinite property rights -- a bias which stops them from seeing and articulating the limits of property rights, and how those limits can be calculated. (Calculation being necessary when time, permutation and content are beyond human perception without such tools.) And I suspect that they intuit, if not understand, that if they did explain that full spectrum of human action, that they'd be confronted with the necessity, rationality, and morality of redistribution and public services.
Rothbardianism and Misesianism are an attempt to create a luddite religion based upon trade, rather than a technical political order based upon land holding, trade route holding, market participation, coordination, calculation and adaptation. I suspect that this is simply an unconscious attempt to justify the Jewish maternal minority sentiment that comes from non-land-holding disaporic people, as opposed to the european majority fraternal sentiment of land-holding soldiers. These are sentiments, derivations and residues that we rarely if ever understand of ourselves. This Misesian and Rothbardian jewish wing is in direct contrast to the Hayekian and Christian wing's sentiments of group persistence in order to be able to defend and hold land, and in holding and defending land, hold and defend markets and trade routes. These sentiments are the underlying difference between the Jewish and Christian wings of libertarianism: jewish reliance on words and systems of though and christian reliance on the republican and militaristic models of land holding. We cannot escape our Hayekian knowledge no matter how hard we try. and in turn, these two libertarian programs are attempts to find a solution to the problem of maintaining freedom and prosperity without having to confront the reality of the necessity of using violence to retain that freedom - when that freedom originated uniquely in the west precisely because it was obtained by, and held by, violence. In other words our political dialog is distracted by the contra-rational desire to ignore the necessity of using violence to retain sufficient power to retain freedom.
The question remains which wing of classical liberal thought, whether it be the 'liberal' factions or the conservative factions, have made progress in articulating a framework for political economy once the epistemological boundary conditions imposed on the republican model by hard money were broken by the adoption of fiat money. The Austrian prescription is a return to the gold standard. Which is wrong, because the insurance provided by fiat money, or at least, paper money, is too valuable to ignore. This is simply the only solution that they can think of - and since they're economists rather than information architects, they fall into a selection bias. We must understand that Misesian and Rothbardian thinking is that of luddites, just as was Marx - they are trying to return to a technology they understand without understanding why it's necessary and what alternatives that there may be. These regressive ideas are conservative solutions -- historical solutions to a problem of increasing individual participation in a market consisting of larger and larger numbers of people with increasingly localized and fragmentary knowledge, and operating in real time, in order to exploit opportunities that present themselves because of necessary and permanent asymmetry of information in a large population engaged in diverse production.
The gold standard It is not the only solution. There are others. There is a very good one in particular. But you cannot understand that solution unless you understand the value of the methodology used in the Misesian, rothbardian, and hoppian models, and the limits of knowledge brought to bear by Popper and Hayek.
This information-weakness in our existing political and economic institutions is the underlying problem of political economy with the civic republican model -- If you can fathom it from the few and admittedly abstract words I've posted here. The problem is one of practical epistemology that allows experimentation and innovation without exposing us to the risk of human hubris on one end, and corruption, theft, and slavery on the other.
And debates like this one over form and protocol, manners and arrogance, are frankly beneath me, and should be beneath anyone who is concerned about discovering real solutions to the problem of political economy. Both sides of this dispute, from my standpoint, are simply acknowledging their failure when they rely upon ideological, methodological, or rhetorical conformity as a means of argumentative discovery of the solutions we seek. All I read into Hoppe's piece was sentimental reflection, and tame taunting elitism. Perhaps this is one of those debates among academics that is so important precisely because the stakes are so small. And I don't think the above retort does much to disprove hoppe's taunt. The tactical response would be to tease him and therefore disprove him rather than reinforce his position.
And the real argument here is that everyone within this absurdly minority movement, just like all desperate little academic movements, is that it's desperate for followers. And not operating logically, but instead, using silly socio-political tricks because we're all desperately seeking confirmation biases in the face of a problem we cannot comprehend, rather than understanding each other's position and desperately seeking a solution to political economy. Libertarianism is a fantastic research program within the branch of conservatism. And the world needs the movement simply because conservatives have failed to muster and articulate a rational and technical alternative to encroaching socialism. Historicism is insufficient because HISTORICAL MODELS FAILED. EACH OF THEM FAILED.
The Austrians and Anarchists are very close to providing a rational solution to political economy. I suspect that they (myself included perhaps) will fail for the same reasons that this silly dispute of egos and manners illustrates.
Even if someone were to publish an essay with the solution in it, and the truth of it were patently obvious, I would venture that everyone in every faction would desperately seek to use whatever content was inside that essay to justify his own position in order to keep his followers or demonstrate that he was right all along.
Hume told us what the problem is. Kant failed to find a solution. A legion of political economists have spent a hundred and fifty years trying to find an answer. They came closest in the 1930's. But Mises, Hayek and Parsons failed, just as Weber and Pareto failed. And because they failed the political sector reached out to Friedman, which provided a temporary solution even if it was the wrong one, and Hayek, because his sentiment was correct even if his solutions were faulty. The conservatives hoped to get enough people into the property society that they could counteract the dependence society. But they used general liquidity (cheap money) rather than direct investment, and so the money was used for consumption not innovation and increases in productivity. The liberals, having converted us from a saving to a debt society, the conservatives hoped to alter it, but only accomplished further indebtedness. Only the libertarians have attempted to reconvert us to mans greatest innovation: the saving and investment society.
But the way we solve our political problem is not debt, or even monetary policy. It is to create an innovation over the greek city state and the roman empire and the anglo mercantilist and american consumer republic. And to understand why we need to innovate beyond that model: the limits of human perception in a complex division of knowledge and labor. And that when we break with hard money, AND at the same time pool information (accumulate quantities in categories using numeric values of abstract objects we call property) we launder the necessary causal information needed to make rational decisions. And in doing so we also remove the incentive for people to obtain and hold that information, and to be disciplined and truthful in their valuations. The information needed to evaluate Property cannot be embodied in numbers. It's a perishable not conveyed by the number. Numbers and values are subjective judgements, not objective truths. This is the error of both liberal positivists and the general political fantasy of scientific politics sought by the socialists.
The solution is to fix our institutions of banking and accounting, so that we possess sufficient information to make rational decisions under the economically stable civic republican model. This change in institutions is a technical problem, not a philosophical, religious or cultural one. And as a technical problem, it is a solvable problem. It does not ask anyone to 'believe' anything. Faith is not a strategy. Hope is not a tactic. As weber said, all advancement in institutions is calculative.
The second half is to understand that it is bureaucracy that is a danger to us, not government. A bureaucrat lives outside the market, as does a priest, a politician, a union laborer, or a welfare recipient. They are no different - they are class descriptions of the same behavior. But government is the means by which we concentrate all forms of capital. It is a joint stock company whose membership is paid for by respect for property rights, and frankly, whose dividends are paid for in public services and redistribution. The problem we enter into is when public services become the purpose of government, rather than the concentration of capital necessary to provide the joint stock company with competitive economic advantage so that there are returns great enough that redistribution can be performed in one form or another. Aside from the transforming from the saving society to the debt society, the transformation of government from creating wealth to consuming it is the artifact of the 20th century. It is far easier for the houses of government to debate over spoils, than it is to debate over the creation of prosperity so that it can distribute the spoils.
The anarchists are working on solving, and have largely solved, the problem of bureaucracy. And the solution is not anarchy. The solution is privatization of the bureaucracy, and the improvement of our institutions such that the knowledge that was provided by individuals THROUGH hard money, can be provided by individuals through shared investment in borrowing from the public's future commitments in exchange for mutual gain, while retaining accountability, and with those who are willing to be accountable because they possess knowledge by which to make rational decisions. Under this model, the government may make rational decisions about investments, and we are protected from enslavement by either debt or the bureaucracy.
This is too much content for a posting, too poorly articulated for the scope of the problem. But I was trying to put the different factions into a context so that we could focus on the real problem: finding an answer to providing institutions that deliver both freedom and prosperity.
And for my side, I consider Hans Hoppe a gift to all of us. He's innovative, creative, pedagogically gifted, and most of all, funny.
Mr. Doolittle, I am not sure I understand the "insurance" provided by fiat currency.
Land, labour, materials, and enterprise are scarce resources. Increasing the money supply will not reduce their scarcity. It will, however, redistribute these resources, based on who gets the most credit from the central bank and who can spend the increased money supply the fastest.
If protection of people's standard of living meant that we had to redistribute physical resources from manufacturing businesses, salaried professionals, and pensioners towards other arbitrary activities, then I gather that being a progressive trying to find new solutions is nothing more than shifting focus from long-term gain to short-term gain.
In this respect, I shall remain a proudly regressive person.