Posted on 11/22/2008 6:58:51 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
It’s almost enough to make you wonder whether the cause of individual liberty is lost.
Shortly after the financial crisis hit, Jacob Weisberg, editor in chief of the online magazine Slate, wrote an article with the headline “Libertarianism is dead.”
The burden of the piece was that, since deregulation and untrammeled free markets have been so thoroughly discredited by this crisis, libertarians should just crawl in their holes and never be heard from again. And the attitude that this crisis means what we really need is more regulation and a retreat from the “theology” of free markets was heard on all sides, from the Obama campaign to the McCain campaign to most of the commentary on network and cable news.
Weisberg was wrong in his assessment of the causes of the financial crisis, of course. Not only was it not due to deregulation, but one of the pieces of deregulation, the 1999 repeal of the Depression-era Glass-Steagall Act, which erased the legal barrier preventing the same firm from engaging in investment banking as well as commercial banking, left those who had taken advantage of it (Bank of America) still standing while several who didn’t do so (Lehman Brothers) failed.
Deregulation actually contributed to financial stability. The crisis was precipitated by years, even decades, of government inducements to grant mortgages to people who would not have qualified under older rules, creating a housing bubble that had to burst sooner or later.
The trigger was the failure of the two government-sponsored secondary mortgage market giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, something that free-market economists had been predicting for years.
Still, even in the face of all the evidence that the financial crisis was induced by too much government intervention into the marketplace rather than too little, the crisis almost certainly tipped the presidential election in favor of the candidate who could most credibly promise stricter future regulation and more expansive government intervention — more hair of the dog that bit the markets.
Almost all the talking heads and most newspapers attributed the meltdown to a supposed “orgy” of deregulation under President George W. Bush when, in fact, while the Bushies occasionally talked the deregulation talk they never walked the walk.
The facts, then, are on the side of advocates of free minds and free markets, but public opinion, at least at this point, seems firmly lodged on the side of desiring further government intervention and manipulation of the marketplace. It gives one pause.
Has the mission of R.C. Hoiles, founder of Freedom Communications Inc., and whose Nov. 24 birthday our newspapers celebrate Monday as Founder’s Day, to offer facts and arguments on behalf of free markets and personal liberty, been for naught? As the company itself battles in a tough market for all newspapers, has the company’s ideological mission failed?
There are reasons to be concerned, but on balance, I feel reasonably sure that the cause of liberty to which R.C. devoted his life and his considerable business skills, while it might have some tough sledding ahead, will not fall into the dustbin of history.
In the late 1930s and 1940s, when R.C. Hoiles was reading everything he could get his hands on and working out a political philosophy, which evolved from a fairly standard-issue devotion to the U.S. Constitution to a full-fledged fealty to what he called “voluntarism” (which most people today would call libertarianism, though he was never quite comfortable with that label) he was going much more against the tide than we are today.
President Roosevelt had installed the New Deal, to the applause of almost all the cultured classes, and John Maynard Keynes had provided the theoretical economic underpinning, which quickly came to dominate academe, for widespread government intervention into the economy.
A Ludwig von Mises, a giant in economic theory in Europe, couldn’t get a job at any American university when he escaped Austria just before the Nazi takeover. Most of the chattering classes took it as a given that some form of socialism was the wave of the future, that backward-looking capitalism was already dead. Holding out against this tide earned R.C. the moniker from Time magazine of “the weird Uncle Harold of the newspaper business.”
But R.C. had read his Adam Smith, Bastiat, Mises, Hayek and others, and he was convinced that socialism (let alone communism) was inherently unstable as well as cruel. He helped to promote the few liberty-minded writers, like Ayn Rand, Isabel Paterson and Rose Wilder Lane, who arose during the 1940s, and reprinted the work of more established commentators like Albert Jay Nock. He provided Leonard Read with some of the seed money to establish the Foundation for Economic Education. He distributed pamphlets to everybody he met. He never gave up hope. And eventually a freedom movement grew and increased in influence.
Reason magazine, at its 40th anniversary banquet Nov. 14, recognized the past and present importance of R.C. Hoiles and his family by giving its Flame of Freedom Award to longtime Freedom Communications executives R. David Threshie and Dick Wallace and their wives, who are granddaughters of R.C. Hoiles. In accepting, Dick Wallace, modest as always, said the award really belonged to R.C., who died in 1970 at age 91.
The very fact that Reason has survived and even thrived for 40 years is evidence that there is more of a freedom movement in this country than when R.C. Hoiles began his lonely intellectual quest. In Washington, the Cato Institute and Competitive Enterprise Institute regularly offer sharp and well-researched critiques of government initiatives and influence other think tanks. The Institute for Humane Studies (in whose founding R.C. also had a hand) and other institutes at George Mason University help free-market scholars make their way in the tangled groves of academe. The Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Ala., and the Independent Institute in Oakland are devoted to promoting liberty.
Hmmm. Perhaps Jacob Weisberg and other devotees of state power, far from actually thinking libertarianism is dead, recognize that it offers the most cogent critique and set of policy prescriptions related to the current crisis. Perhaps they want to ward off a movement that is far from dead with a preemptive strike.
Libertatians do a great job of taking votes away from Republicans so Democrats can be elected. A real freedom movement /s
Libertarians, I mean — typo.
Thus it is that what we are attempting to do in this rapid survey of the historical progress of certain ideas, is to trace the genesis of an attitude of mind, a set of terms in which now practically everyone thinks of the State; and then to consider the conclusions towards which this psychical phenomenon unmistakably points.
Instead of recognizing the State as “the common enemy of all well-disposed, industrious and decent men,” the run of mankind, with rare exceptions, regards it not only as a final and indispensable entity, but also as, in the main, beneficent.
The mass-man, ignorant of its history, regards its character and intentions as social rather than anti-social; and in that faith he is willing to put at its disposal an indefinite credit of knavery, mendacity and chicane, upon which its administrators may draw at will. Instead of looking upon the State’s progressive absorption of social power with the repugnance and resentment that he would naturally feel towards the activities of a professional-criminal organization, he tends rather to encourage and glorify it, in the belief that he is somehow identified with the State, and that therefore, in consenting to its indefinite aggrandizement, he consents to something in which he has a share - he is, pro tanto, aggrandizing himself.
Professor Ortega y Gasset analyzes this state of mind extremely well. The mass-man, he says, confronting the phenomenon of the State,
“sees it, admires it, knows that there it is. . . . Furthermore, the mass-man sees in the State an anonymous power, and feeling himself, like it, anonymous, he believes that the State is something of his own. Suppose that in the public life of a country some difficulty, conflict, or problem, presents itself, the mass-man will tend to demand that the State intervene immediately and undertake a solution directly with its immense and unassailable resources. . . . When the mass suffers any ill-fortune, or simply feels some strong appetite, its great temptation is that permanent sure possibility of obtaining everything, without effort, struggle, doubt, or risk, merely by touching a button and setting the mighty machine in motion.”
It is the genesis of this attitude, this state of mind, and the conclusions which inexorably follow from its predominance, that we are attempting to get at through our present survey. These conclusions may perhaps be briefly forecast here, in order that the reader who is for any reason indisposed to entertain them may take warning of them at this point, and close the book.
The unquestioning, determined, even truculent maintenance of the attitude which Professor Ortega y Gasset so admirably describes, is obviously the life and strength of the State; and obviously too, it is now so inveterate and so widespread - one may freely call it universal - that no direct effort could overcome its inveteracy or modify it, and least of all hope to enlighten it.
This attitude can only be sapped and mined by uncountable generations of experience, in a course marked by recurrent calamity of a most appalling character. When once the predominance of this attitude in any given civilization has become inveterate, as so plainly it has become in the civilization of America, all that can be done is to leave it to work its own way out to its appointed end. The philosophic historian may content himself with pointing out and clearly elucidating its consequences, as Professor Ortega y Gasset has done, aware that after this there is no more that one can do.
“The result of this tendency,” he says, “will be fatal. Spontaneous social action will be broken up over and over again by State intervention; no new seed will be able to fructify. Society will have to live for the State, man for the governmental machine. And as after all it is only a machine, whose existence and maintenance depend on the vital supports around it, the State, after sucking out the very marrow of society, will be left bloodless, a skeleton, dead with that rusty death of machinery, more gruesome than the death of a living organism. Such was the lamentable fate of ancient civilization.”
CHAPTER 5
Our Enemy, The State
by Albert J. Nock - 1935
Republicans like Arnold the RINO Schwarzenegger?
I have been a Republican since I graduated from College in 1970, and have never voted for a non-republican for National Office.
But, I find a lot of good reasoning in some of the Libertarian writers.
Many years ago I read several of R. J. Ringer’s books.
One of his books,
“How You Can Find Happiness During the Collapse of Western Civilization”,
was particularly on the mark for what has happened during and after the November 2008 elections.
This 1980’s book was like reading Ayn Rand with a little Humor added. His cartoons humor was good too.
I might just dig it out of my library and re-read it.
It is hard to laugh about what has just happened.
Blah blah blah blah blah....
I suppose next you'll be saying that Libertarians shouldn't be allowed on the ballot. Some 'democracy' you've got there, punk.
And pray, do explain to me how one 'takes' a vote away from a politician. Do they 'take' this at the point of a gun somehow? When you say 'take', you imply that this vote rightfully belonged to one of your two Approved Parties.
Is that what you meant?
I'm really asking for help here because I honestly don't understand this whole 'taking' a vote thing. I thought, at least I was taught when I was young, that my vote belonged to ME you bloody simple minded fool.
Politicians have to EARN my vote. Maybe your vote is only lent to you every two years because you're not responsible enough to hold on to it full time.
Thank God for the Libertarian Party. Hopefully in Alaska, and I haven't seen the numbers yet, it was the Libertarian vote that cost that convicted felon Senator Stevens his seat.
In Alaska the Republican Party actually had to make the unspoken argument that it was better to let a convicted Felon retain his seat because the Dem would be WORSE.
And people are wondering why the Republicans got their asses handed to them this year?
How freaking STUPID do you have to be to blame your parties loss on a fringe party that must at the same time be so small as to be inconsequential and yet powerful enough to affect the balance of power in Congress.
HELLO! ANYBODY IN THERE?
The Republicans lost this time around because they deserved it. They've run what is arguably the most bloated, wasteful, and incompetent government this nation has seen for the last 8 years. They willingly stood by, no check that, the were the architects of the largest increases in Federal power and spending in the last 50 years.
And you're pissed because a couple of million across the US finally said "ENOUGH" and pulled the lever for someone who was telling them that they'd actually work to return Government to it's Constitutional prison?
You're blaming THEM? Oh that's just too f****** rich for words. And I'll bet to add to the delicious idiocy you babble you're all in favor of returning the Republicans to 'conservatism'.
Listen up, Skippy. The Republicans ceased being 'conservative' a long, long time ago. They're reaping what they've sown. They've kicked real small government conservatives in the face for the last 20 years.
So this time enough small government conservative types pulled the lever for the "L"s because they were finally fed up with the bloated pork filled budgets year after year after year under Republicans and it cost them seats.
Learn from it.
Fix it, or go the way of the Whigs.
But for Gods sake quit whining that it's those nasty Libertarians taking away 'your' votes. It's not your f****** vote.
It's mine. Try earning it sometime.
L
C’mon - tell us how you really feel!
The article is not referring to the Libertarian Party but libertarian thinkers such as Milton Friedman, Von Misis, Hayak, Rand and others.
Chill my friend.
He doesn't need to chill, he is absolutely correct, on the dot, hammer to the nail dead center. His vote is his, he didn't take it from anyone. I am not a libertarian, at least not yet, but I fully agree with his assessment of his vote and his anger at the inane statement that libertarians take votes from republican candidates. If we are going by that criteria we should be bitching at Democrats, they "take" more votes from republicans than anyone!
The fact that many in the RNC don't realize that conservatives, for the most part, are individuals and their ideals come first and party second, is the reason they are so blind to the simple truth that they are losing the base and lost a large part of it this election.
Whether they gain it back or not will depend on if they swing back to the right and sh** can all the mushy middle RINOs from the party.
Conservatives will vote for their principles and most of us are tired of compromise, especially when it is a proven loser. We will vote how we please, at least I will the next election, and to he** with any RINO running under the republican ticket, they won't get my vote.
Don’t disagree. Just don’t want to see an online aneurysm.
I mean it couldn't possibly have been that lame ass campaign that McCain ran. It couldn't possibly have anything to do with a 750 BILLION dollar taxpayer financed completely un-Constitutional 'bailout' rammed through Congress with the help of McCain.
It couldn't possibly have anything to do with the obscene Highway bills, Medicare drug 'benefits' bills, Education bills, campaign finance bills....no it couldn't have anything to do with any of that.
And just for the record, I voted for McCain AND the Repub Congresscritter for my District, as well as for the Republican Senate candidate from my State.
The Republican Party is conservative like clockwork. That's precisely once every two years. Then they get all kinds of 'conservative'. In the intervening time small government, social conservatives are the ignorant country bumpkins from back home or the crazy uncle in the attic.
Well screw that. From now on the Republicans can run real conservatives or in the next cycle my vote WILL go to the Libertarian on the ticket.
L
No politician is entitled to anyone's vote. Votes are earned, not taken for granted. If voters are voting for the Libertarian candidate, then that simply means that the Republican candidate didn't offer what the voter wanted, or his message was too similar to his Democratic opponent, which is often the case.
I'm deeply touched by your concern for my continued good health. I really am.
But I'm far more concerned at the ever quickening pace of the destruction of my country than I am about the possibility of one of my cranial arteries giving way.
I've watched the steady leftward drift, no check that it's not a drift, it's more like a screaming left dogleg on a NASCAR track, of the party which claims the mantle of 'conservative'.
After this election, I'm done with the Republican until they come back to me. And this unbridled arrogance that some other Party is 'taking' votes really pisses me off.
A smart Party, and God knows there is a very good reason the Republican Party is called "The Stupid Party", might take a lesson from the fact that a significant number of people who SHOULD be on their side aren't.
Gee...I wonder why that is.
The Libertarians aren't 'taking' votes from Republican. They Republicans are kicking those voters to them with BOTH FRIGGING FEET.
If, and that's a damn big if, the Republicans were a conservative political party, they wouldn't have to worry about the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, or any other Party.
But they won't, because they aren't. And so American without any real opposition whatsoever, will slide slowly and inexorably to what Reagan called 'the ant heap of totalinarianism' with only a whimper.
It's damned sad, really.
L
On the other hand, the Democrat Party is an increasingly consistent advocate for socialism and tyranny.
So we are left with a decision. One choice is to try and change the lifetime Libertarian track record of 5% vote totals. The other choice is to conquer the Republican Party, with it's organizational gravitas, in the same way socialists conquered the Democrat Party.
More and more I think the correct choice lies with moving the politics of Republicans. But, it's been said that if national health care is passed we will have lost forever as there will be no going back. This may all be moot.
Been there, done that. I actually won two elections as a Republican and tried to 'change it from within'. Maybe it's just that it was Illinois, and well, in Illinois the Republican Party is worse than useless.
They're the idiots that gave us George Ryan, and tried to foist Alan Keyes off on us.
No my friend, I'm afraid we're watching the death throes of a once great party. It's damned sad. The Republicans freed the slaves, saved the Union, ended Jim Crow, and gave us the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Unfortunately they're also the party that gave us Trent Lott, Stevens, and John Boehner.
They're dead. Gone. Stick a fork in them.
Palin is their last hope, and the Legacy Media is going to spend the next 4 years making sure every single American knows she's a turkey slaughtering, moose killing, inbred idiot who can't find Africa on a globe.
We are so screwed.....
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.