We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
«  
  »

The Mises Institute asks “What Keeps Us Safe?”

· Civil liberty, Law & Regulation

Articles like this help even an intolerant short tempered swine like me forgive the Ludwig von Mises Institute for some of its people’s a priori history and America-and-Britain-are-always-wrong view of war.

May 9th, 2009 |

11 comments to The Mises Institute asks “What Keeps Us Safe?”

  • the other rob
    May 10, 2009 at 1:41 pm

    Fascinating article, Paul and spot on about government standards.

    The only question remaining is, who is responsible for the fact that everything I buy these days seems to come with a label reading “Do not melt this product down and recast it into the form of a stabbing weapon then shove it into your eye with great force while setting yourself on fire and drinking poison.”?

  • lukas
    May 10, 2009 at 10:53 pm

    Err, tort lawyers and their friends in high places?

  • Nuke Gray!
    May 11, 2009 at 7:37 am

    The Ludwig Von Mises Institute is great! They are trying to be consistent anarcho-capitalists when they oppose war. I have always liked Thomas Moore’s idea, that his Eutopians would prefer to assassinate the leader who declares war on them, and not have to kill the soldiers sent to do the job! This would be both Humane AND economical!
    I recently saw an episode of Foyle’s War, (about a Policeman in Britain in WW2) where Conscientious objectors were routinely vilified and mistreated. The misbehaving constable seemed to feel that his brother’s death at Dunkirk was being demeaned- he never understood that if Britain had stayed out of the conflict, his brother wouldn’t have been dead!
    I can’t help thinking that there must have been other ways to get Hitler, without a World War, even though Hitler wanted that. Maybe a million pound reward for his head, by a Rothschild?

  • Paul Marks
    May 11, 2009 at 10:52 am

    Errrr comparing the Ludwig Von Mises Institute people to Thomas Moore is rather offensive – although I fully accept that you do NOT mean generally (you mean just in this one example of a tactic).

    To reply to your general point.

    I do not deny that the Ludwig Von Mises Institute people (who I agree are great on economics – indeed it is the best place in the whole world for this) are anarcho capitalist, and ararcho capitalists of the “consistent” (down with lesser evil arguments) Rothbardian type.

    But, of course, Ludwig Von Mises was not this.

    He supported the struggle against Hitler and the National Socialists, and he supported the struggle against the Marxist powers.

    In short the real Ludwig Von Mises was a lot closer (in his positions) to writers like Frank Meyer, or politicians like Barry Goldwater – than he was to Murry Rothbard or the Rothbardians.

  • James
    May 11, 2009 at 1:12 pm

    “(S)ome of its people’s a priori history.”

    Elaborate, please. Is this a not-so-subtle jab at Lew Rockwell’s old association with the Ron Paul newsletter, or something else?

  • Johnathan Pearce
    May 11, 2009 at 2:14 pm

    Great article, Paul. Thanks for the pointer.

  • Nuke Gray!
    May 12, 2009 at 3:33 am

    I actually think that Moore had a sense of humour, and that Eutopia was not meant to be taken seriously. You are right that I was raising just one point, but you never answered that specific point- wouldn’t it have been better to put a price on Hitler’s head, and let the market do its’ job? Better to assassinate one man, than have WW2?
    Or would it have been better for the governments to always be isolationist, leaving individuals free to fight as they want?

  • Andy
    May 12, 2009 at 6:56 am

    You are right that I was raising just one point, but you never answered that specific point- wouldn’t it have been better to put a price on Hitler’s head, and let the market do its’ job? Better to assassinate one man, than have WW2?

    Of it would course have been if it was a viable option. But isn’t the most likely scenario that he simply gets replaced with someone more competent and the whole thing goes ahead.

  • Nuke Gray!
    May 12, 2009 at 8:26 am

    But Hitler WAS the Nazi party! He built it from small beginnings after WW1, and he held it together. He deliberately kept people paired against each other so that no-one could out-coup him. With him gone, himmler would have tried for top-dog post, as he controlled the SS, but the other Nazi party executives would have ganged up against him, so the result would have been civil war, with Europe safe.
    And you could always put another bounty on Himmler’s head, if he did emerge on top!

  • Paul Marks
    May 13, 2009 at 12:00 pm

    A priori history.

    Such as H.H. Hoppe with his democracies are like ……. and monarchies are like…………

    In realty monachies varied wildly – and the monarchies that were limited governments tended to be monarchies where the King’s power was institutionally limited (by Parliaments, Estates and so on) not where a King had unlimited power and was guided by his desire to maximise the long term wealth of his realm by keeping taxes down.

    Even as a generalization Hoppe is wrong – and in reality one should look at each Kingdom individually.

    History is about what did happen – not assuming certain things must have occured (without checking).

  • Paul Marks
    May 13, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    James

    If you are implying (and it is “if” I do not know) that it is jues Lew Rockwell or just a newsetter that was opposed to either resisting the evil of National Socialist Germany or the evil of the Marxist powers after World War II, then you are sadly mistaken.

    Indeed such Rothbardians opinions are common in the Institute – although (of course) the real Ludwig Von Mises did not share them.

«  
  »