". . . a republic, if you can keep it."
Nice to see Friedman catching up to the intellectual work of Hoppe:
Further proof that Anarcho-Capitalism is becoming main-stream is this poorly written, rambling criticism from the Southern Poverty Law Center: www.salon.com/2012/12/18/how_to_spot_an_anarcho_capitalist/
I imagine some power brokers thinking to themselves — okay, we can’t stop this thing, so let’s try to own it.
Wow! Just found Rothbard’s critique of David Friedman’s Anarcho-Capitalism.
Merry Christmas & Happy Holiday!
I love Stefan Molyneux’s passion and ability to communicate.
Developments at the Cato Institute have in recent months taken a surprising turn. After a protracted struggle between Ed Crane, the President of Cato since its inception, and Charles and David Koch, both sides have reached a settlement. John Allison, a highly successful banker, has replaced Crane: he is now President and CEO of Cato, To all of us who care about the future of Rothbardian libertarianism, this appointment should be a matter of grave concern, It signals a new stage in the efforts of Cato to separate itself from its Rothbardian founding principles and to replace these principles with something radically different.
Allison’s appointment at first sight seems difficult to understand. He is not only a follower of Ayn Rand, but a Randian of the strictest observance. In his recent book, The Financial Crisis and the Free Market Cure, he acknowledges “a deep intellectual debt to Aristotle, Ayn Rand, and Leonard Peikoff.”
. . . .
Allison is a strict Randian, close to Peikoff and Brook: so what? Why do his views make his appointment difficult to understand? The answer lies in bringing together two facts. The Cato Institute, despite its break with Rothbard, bills itself as a libertarian organization; but the Ayn Rand Institute has for many years bitterly opposed libertarianism. The opposition finds its foremost expression in a pamphlet by Peter Schwartz, “Libertarianism: the Perversion of Liberty.” As Randians of the Peikoff faction see matters, libertarians’ defense of the free market counts for little or nothing, in the absence of the proper philosophical foundations. Only Objectivists can consistently defend liberty. Schwartz draws the following conclusion in a shorter essay of 1989, “On Moral Sanctions: “Justice demands moral judgment. It demands that one objectively evaluate Libertarianism, and act in accordance with that evaluation. It demands that one identify Libertarianism as the antithesis of – and therefore as a clear threat to – not merely genuine liberty, but all rational values. And it demands that Libertarianism, like all such threats, be boycotted and condemned.”
How then can Allison, a confirmed follower of Peikoff, assume the leadership of a libertarian organization, if to the members of the Peikoff faction no association with libertarians is permissible? The mystery appears to have a ready solution, but this solution will not stand examination.
(Read more)
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
The word “anarchist” carries a lot of baggage. This picture succinctly summarizes the distinction.
Following up on my earlier post, several readers wrote me about my query about the Randian comments that a large government is okay in some cases. Jeff Keller writes:
I think the originator of that quote was Roger Donway (from David Kelley’s Atlas Society/TOC, not the Ayn Rand Institute). He wrote…
“Limited government” means a government restricted to certain purposes, namely, the defense of individual rights; “small government” means a government that absorbs a small percentage of the gross national product. If a country has been invaded, its government might absorb 50 percent or more of the nation’s product to mount a defense—and yet remain a “limited government” in the relevant sense. Conversely, a government that abandons its military and police missions might spend very little of the national output, but if it spends that little on health, education, and welfare, it is not a “limited government.”
The above is from a piece called Government, Yes! Leviathan, No!”
I recall hearing David Kelley make a similar point: that smallness of government isn’t the primary concern, but whether it functions within its legitimate authority (Kelley, et al.’s view of legitimacy, of course). That was at the 1999 TOC Summer Seminar, which I attended. I think it was during a debate Kelley had with Randy Barnett over anarchism vs. minarchism, but I wouldn’t swear to it.
In The Libertarians’ Albatross, Butler Shaffer recalls John Hospers who “recently wrote that ‘voting for George W. Bush is the most libertarian thing we can do,’ and that ‘a continued Bush presidency . . . might well succeed in preserving Western civilization.’ Kerry ‘will weaken our military establishment,’ he went on, quoting favorably from a statement made by Rand, in 1962, to the effect that paying 80% for taxes was justified ‘if you need it for defense.’”
As Stan Lee used to say: ’nuff said.
Toward the very end of his career, Milton Friedman, the socialist who brought us income tax withholding, repudiated his life-long view that government should control money, inflating slowly.
Here’s a fascinating article about it: www.fff.org/freedom/0399b.asp