Wow, listen to this in relation to what is now going on at the Campaign for Liberty and Rand Paul's shift in focus from "End the Fed" to "Keep the Internet Plugged In".
And keep in mind this is from a speech Rothbard gave in May 1989 at the Michigan Libertarian Party Convention, held in Southfield, Michigan.
A distillation of Murray's analysis of strategy: http://lprc.org/strategies.html . Also see the last chapter of The Ethics of Liberty.
ReplyDeleteRothbard wrote in "Strategies for a Libertarian Victory" that...
ReplyDelete"In any case, holding the victory of liberty as one’s primary goal is only likely in those persons whose libertarianism is motivated and molded by a passion for justice: by a realization that statism is unjust, and by a desire to eliminate such glaring injustice as swiftly as possible." (The emphasis is Rothbard's.)
So "the victory of liberty" is a victory of justice. Unfortunately, one impediment to victory will be the stereotype of the grasping, shallow, adolescent boy who claims to be a libertarian. In fact, however, wealthgrubbers are overrepresented among statists, in which case the stereotype must be flawed. Still, there needs to be a strategy to undermine the stereotype. Cheering for John Galt, to give one example, won't be part of it.
Read on at http://lprc.org/strategies.html for Rothbard's warning about utilitarianism and pragmatism.
First of all, the shift in focus of the Campaign for Liberty is not "Rand Paul's" strategy. It is endorsed by Ron Paul as well. Secondly, as far as I can see, it has never been presented as a "shift" in focus but merely an elevation of this issue. Thirdly, the incremental strategy as described by Rothbard would, in this context, not be "End the Fed," but "Audit the Fed" and legalize private commodity money. Even Ron Paul agrees that outright abolition of the Fed is probably not desirable. Josesph Salerno has a discussion of the problems of returning to a gold standard on YouTube. Even Austrians disagree dramatically on the risks involved and how it could be achieved. Ron Paul's private currency approach is by far the best alternative. Don't end the fed by abolishing it. Let it whither away.
ReplyDeleteWhat does any of this have to do with Rand Paul? I don't see where he disagrees with Ron Paul at all nor where this is a signficant departure from the kind of strategy Murray Rothbard has articulated.
Abolishing the fed is not a viable strategy at this time but auditing the fed and allowing competition is. This is quite in line with Rothbard. Abandoing the issue of the Fed would be a mistake in policy, but I have not seen where that has been proposed by anyone. Rand Paul is the Senate sponsor of Ron's audit the fed bill.
"Secondly, as far as I can see, it has never been presented as a "shift" in focus but merely an elevation of this issue."
DeleteBoy, you really like semantics, don't you?
Last i checked, if you "elevate" the importance of one issue to the point where it become higher in priority than another issue (and that is the impression that has been given), you are simultaneously shifting in focus.
And just in case you want to deny it:
"The new push, Paul aides say, will in some ways displace what has been their movement's long-running top priority, shutting down the Federal Reserve Bank. The move is an attempt to stake a libertarian claim to a central public issue of the next decade, and to move from the esoteric terrain of high finance to the everyday world of cable modems and Facebook."
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/the-pauls-new-crusade-internet-freedom
What part of the words "Paul advisors", "Paul aides", "displace" and "move from/to" wouldn't you understand?
***
"I don't see where he disagrees with Ron Paul at all"
Who said anything about Ron Paul? The video has Murray Rothbard, and Robert mentioned Rand Paul. You are the one dropping Ron Paul's name. Nobody else.
Maybe it is because you are making an appeal to the authority of Ron Paul (Ron Paul says A, therefor A is true); but in this particular thread you are the only one.
***
"Abolishing the fed is not a viable strategy at this time but auditing the fed and allowing competition is. This is quite in line with Rothbard."
Okay. Then maybe you should present either a valid argument or proof that it is in line with Rothbard. For instance, by presenting a quote or piece of footage in which he agrees with your point of view about the Fed. Merely saying it, doesn't make it so.
***
"Abandoning the issue of the Fed would be a mistake in policy, but I have not seen where that has been proposed by anyone."
That's funny. I also don't recall anyone claiming that the Pauls (who we are talking about) have said that "the issue of the Fed should be abandoned". What has been claimed, is that the Pauls have shifted from "End the Fed" to "Audit the Fed", and that such is tantamount to a watering down of the message.
So next time, please hold back on the strawmen.
***
"Rand Paul is the Senate sponsor of Ron's audit the fed bill."
Yes, but you should know by now that some consider there to be a difference between "ending" and "auditing". So why should they be impressed that Rand is sponsoring an "audit the Fed" bill? The difference is that most people still assume that Ron Paul ultimately wants the Fed to be abolished. Hence the difference in the treatment of them on this issue.
Can you prove that either Ron now only wants to audit but not end the Fed, or that Rand not only wants the Fed audited but also abolished? If not, then there is a difference between Ron and Rand, as far as many people are concerned.
Constitutional lawyer, Austrian economist and monetary expert Edwin Vieira, author of Pieces of Eight: The Monetary Powers and Disabilities of the United States Constitution, also has an excellent plan to restore sound money. His plan involves getting one or two states to circulate gold and silver coinage via adoption of this practice through the respective state legislatures. The state legislature bold enough, with political backing by the people, could demand taxes to be paid in specie. This would encourage people to purchase and circulate gold/silver coinage in competition with federal reserve notes, thereby providing a system of sound currency that acts as a beacon; drawing attention to the functioning of a more sound economy and monetary system. The incentive? Avoiding complete economic collapse or high inflation. This could demonstrate to other states, how to combat this problem. Since the states and the people are the true sovereigns(under our form of government), they shore up this "experiment" through the legitimacy of the power of the sword and purse, the legislature and the people. Vieira notes that electronic payment systems backed by specie have already been developed in the voluntary sector, and could make the transition less troublesome.
ReplyDeleteTo enforce this measure, he also supports the reconstitution of our "colonial" state militias, made up of every able-bodied citizen and drawing upon all their individual talents. In short, we would be our own homeland security too. We would be the trained response to civil unrest, domestic terrorism, and natural disasters. Out with FEMA and everything else federal. We would, of course, live among and hopefully know many of those who we are helping. It is an interesting plan, far superior to the state of our country now.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mI8Lek60_w
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2012/07/16/rothbards-leninist-attack-on-gandhi-and-voluntaryists/
ReplyDelete"I feel I am on very strong grounds when I say that Rothbard could not have known much about Gandhi at all, if he thought that Gandhi’s habit of sleeping (without sex) with young girls when he was in his eighties was “unknown”.
DeleteIt was widely known. Gandhi himself wrote about it at length, because he saw it as part of a spiritual practice derived from Tantra. He berated himself endlessly when he felt he had been aroused."
lol...that is the most confused line of logic/statements I've read in regard to Gandhi. Thank you for the link.
Interesting...
DeleteHow about the readers judge for themselves by reading the original article by Rothbard, the response by George Smith, and the subsequent reply to that by Murray Rothbard again?
Original article by Rothbard:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_03.pdf
Response by George Smith:
http://www.voluntaryist.com/backissues/005.pdf
And finally, Rothbard again:
http://mises.org/journals/lf/1983/1983_05-06.pdf
I find it to be a very interesting sparring where hard blows were dealt to both sides.
If there is any further back and forth between the two, i'd be interested to see any links.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you're trying to say. Rothbard attacked some voluntaryists as mystics and Gandhians when they weren't either (misrepresentation one); then he changed his views on Gandhi because of expediency; then he misrepresented both non violence and Gandhi.
The part about the women is only one example.
He has done the same thing with regard to Smith, Rand, Friedman and others.
Try this
http://mindbodypolitic.com/2012/07/16/rothbard-fudged-money-supply-figures/
So if he is capable of such propaganda and Machiavellianism, why is he a mentor to anarchists, I'd like to know?
And how reliable is his other scholarship?
I wish I'd known all this about him before.
It makes me think twice about anything he said.
I'm certainly no Rothbard worshiper, in fact I think it's folly to put any man on such a pedestal that holds him up to infallible or close to such.
DeleteI think there is a very real possibility of some cultish behavior surrounding Rothbard,Mises, or Ron Paul for that matter...
That possibly being the case for some though has no bearing on the cognitive dissonance with the above quotation I made. I'm sorry it wasn't more obvious.
Lila, if you want to assume intellectual honesty, you should really post the links to Rothbard's articles just as you had done for George Smith.
DeleteGiving people a chance to only read one side of the story, after which you then proceed to further attack Rothbard on the basis of that article you linked to, doesn't lend you much credibility.
If you had links to Rothbard's articles, you didn't present them in yours.
And if you had no idea of where to find Rothbard's articles, then how would you even know if George Smith was honestly representing Rothbard's words?
At the very least it seems as if you only had George Smith's words to go by, and automatically assumed/presented it to be the truth, simply because it served your purpose of attacking Rothbard.
@Tony,
ReplyDeletePoppycock.
You want to read Rothbard's article, just click on the link or google, lazy bones.
My point btw is not even Rothbard's article (which is just a one-sided rehash of Koestler and not even of Koestler's book)
The point is Rothbard's tendancy to do hatchet jobs in pursuit of a political agenda.
Reading his article wouldn't help you with that but by all means do so. Who's stopping you?
Can you assess it though?
You'd have to know Indian and British politics, history and culture at the time, the religion (Hindu baloney), and Gandhi scholarship to know that....as well as the libertarian history/infighting that Smith recounts. Or you could just take Rothbard's word...which is what you'll do, I'll bet.
Someday I'd like to subject the great Mr.Rothbard to the same treatment - you know, with all of his atheist-radical baloney... or do I really mean his anarcho-capitalist baloney - since that's a contradiction in terms just there.
[I know I couldn't call it Jewish-Christian baloney and be taken seriously, could I?)
Smith does a very thorough and excellent job of dissecting the piece, with much more context than anything in the original.
It's just one of dozens of examples I'm finding....now that Rothbard's attack on Rand (posted here) got me to reading him.
And by the way, Gandhi is not considered very Hindu by most Hindus (like Aurobindo), he's considered Christianized or Westernized and eclectic if not eccentric.
Gandhi got his occultism and naturopathy via the Victorians (he lived in London at the end of the century)
So just there Rothbard showed he didn't know what he was talking about.
And one last point. Rothbard seems to have attacked people constantly, as do his followers, in quite scurrilous terms.
So I'm curious why you feel so personally injured when some one just politely points it out?
I mean it can't only be Rothbardians who get to call people names and pronounce them morons, right?
An extensive response to you, part 1:
Delete"You want to read Rothbard's article, just click on the link or google, lazy bones."
Why would i want to do that, if YOU want me to believe anything you say as a reader of your website? And i assume that's what you want.
I have looked it up. It doesn't change anything about your apparent lack of intellectual honesty.
P.S. Why not tell me to "just Google" for Smith's article? Because obviously Smith serves your purpose while Rothbard's article doesn't.
"The point is Rothbard's tendancy to do hatchet jobs in pursuit of a political agenda."
You have to actually PROVE that is what he is doing, and the only thing you have proven is that certain people CLAIM that he is doing a hatched job.
"Reading his article wouldn't help you with that but by all means do so. Who's stopping you?"
So i can assume you only want people that blindly believe you in anything negative you have to say about Rothbard?
Basically, you are saying: "If you want to read both sides, don't bother me. Do the work yourself. I only provide the side that serves my purpose in doing a number on Rothbard."
"Can you assess it though?"
No thanks to you, yes.
And while Rothbard doesn't look great, he looks better than either Smith or you make him out.
Ironic how you do precisely what you accuse Rothbard of doing.
"Or you could just take Rothbard's word...which is what you'll do, I'll bet."
Oh darling, you are SO wrong. But then randomly assuming things appears to be your method.
I was actually ready, after reading Rothbard's initial article, and then Smith's response, to make a post saying that Rothbard got 'owned'. Until i decided to check if there were any further responses, which i had to find no thanks to you.
I actually stated i am interested to know if there was any further response from Smith. Why do you think that is?
You are actually trying to commit a form of ad hominem against me for justifiably calling you out on low standards. How ironic, considering your problem with Rothbard.
"Someday I'd like to subject the great Mr.Rothbard to the same treatment...with all of his atheist-radical baloney... "
Good luck. Nobody is stopping you. Should be a hoot.
Hopefully you will bother to post links to Rothbard's works when you do it.
"or do I really mean his anarcho-capitalist baloney - since that's a contradiction in terms just there."
The only way in which the above is in any way relevant to this discussion, is in the fact that it certainly exposes an agenda on your part and puts your one-sided presentation of the sources and facts in an even worse light.
Part 2:
Delete"Smith does a very thorough and excellent job of dissecting the piece, with much more context than anything in the original."
The problem is that such is not up to YOU to decide, but up to the reader, assuming that you want to show a modicum of intellectual honesty, which it appears you don't.
Why, pray tell, should be believe you that Smith does a better job, or even a good job at all unless we can immediately check with the Rothbard source? That's my whole point. But i realize that wouldn't serve your purpose of doing a number on Rothbard.
"And by the way, Gandhi is not considered very Hindu by most Hindus (like Aurobindo), he's considered Christianized or Westernized and eclectic if not eccentric."
Oh, who cares?
My point was never the specifics. My point is the way you present the facts, and your own bias. I have no interest in doing any scholarship about Ghandi, and would have taken Rothbard's words about him with a grain of salt if only because i don't know much about Ghandi. I already told you i actually at one point thought Rothbard got 'owned' by Smith.
My point is that there is no reason to believe you have given a balanced and objective criticism of Rothbard because you yourself have an agenda and only the present the story one-sided. Your criticism could have turned out to be 100% correct, and it still would have been a mere happy coincidence, considering your obvious bias.
"So just there Rothbard showed he didn't know what he was talking about."
Ordinarily i wouldn't know, because you don't bother to present me HIS words the way you did Smith's. If i had blindly believed your article to be sufficient and objective, you could have told me that Rothbard believes in fairies, just by posting a link to an article of someone accusing Rothbard of believing in fairies.
"And one last point. Rothbard seems to have attacked people constantly, as do his followers, in quite scurrilous terms."
You don't want people to make up their own minds as to whether the 'attacks' are 'scurrilous'. Therefor your work can't be trusted.
"So I'm curious why you feel so personally injured when some one just politely points it out?"
First of all, you did not 'politely' point out anything but anti-Rothbard opinion. Without Rothbard's own words, that is all it is.
Second of all, i'm not 'personally injured', because i am actually critical of Rothbard's standard of argument in this whole affair. I actually see Smith's point to a large degree. What i am 'personally injured' by is wasting my time just to see to what degree you or George Smith can be trusted.
Why do i have to work just to see if you are being honest?
You, however, seem quite 'personally injured' that i have called you out on your low standards, your one sided presentation, and the fact that you may have an agenda fuelling these standards and methods (which you obviously do).
You want to dish it out but can't take it? Despite the one sided account you expect people to blindly believe your article? Too bad. I've proven they can't.
"I mean it can't only be Rothbardians who get to call people names and pronounce them morons, right?"
Oh, your entire point is to be allowed to stamp your feet like a child and getting to do what Rothbard does while criticizing HIM for it?
Noted.
In the 2010 NY LP Gubernatorial Race, a message different from both other parties was used. The Candidate ran on a message of "Stop Wasting Money". while falling short of ballot status, the LP did have triple the vote count from previous years.
ReplyDeleteRather than just talking about vague cuts along with Waste and Abuse, the campaign laid out several wasteful or duplicative departments that would get the axe and highlighted some outrageous public sector salaries in the state.
Other insurgent campaigns may want to try this strategy.
Steve