This person at the Daily Caller appears – with some justification I might add – to take a dim view of Ron Paul, the US congressman and Republican primary contender for the presidential ticket known as “Dr No” on account of his saying no to various government measures and enterprises. He is, famously or infamously, a hardline anti-interventionist in foreign affairs, so much so that his views might be dubbed as almost pacifist. He has called for accountability by the Federal Reserve, and argues that institution ought to be closed down. But he has feet of clay, and this article I link to, which is written in a sort of furious burst of anger, focuses on those flaws and makes light of Paul’s merits. In particular, the article unfairly misrepresents the Austrian school of economics and its methodology. It also seems to smear libertarianism on issues like legalising prostitution and drugs, ignoring the obvious arguments that criminalising consensual acts has created huge costs for society.
All the way down at the bottom of a comment thread prompted by this article, is large item by commenter Michael P. Ivy. It is so good that I reproduce it here. There is the odd typo, but it is worth quoting in the raw:
I am always amused by wannabe economists, who call themselves capitalists, but, are unable to embrace or understand the true axioms of capitalism when push comes to shove. Austrian economics spins on essentially to axioms: (1) that there is no free lunch, and (2) all human action is purposeful action motivated by the individual’s (not society’s) desire to move from a less to a more desired state. These are self evident truths, much like the “more is preferred to less” axiom of the neoclassical school. You butcher Rothbard without understanding his work and particularly his crititique of the neo classical school of wackjob indifference curve analysis and welfare economics. The notion that an individual can be indifferent between two different states of the world without ever actually exercising choice is not a reliable basis for recommending redistribution measures of the Kaldor/Hicks kind. Even Samuelson so much as admitted that it is impossible to derive a social welfare function without making assumptions about the marginal utility of money et al (1951).
The problem with Keynes’ economics, is that it must rob resources from one sector of the economy to furnish another and it consumes resources in the process. Moreover, in doing so, the government does so without the knowledge of the benefits that those resources procure that only those individuals holding those resources…know. This is the problem with any measure of government involvement in economics. That they suffer from fiscal illusion (not my money so it don’t matter) is one thing, but, they effectively create an environment of uncertainty by destroying productive incentives. Incentives do matter after all and I have yet to see the mathematical models of the neo-classicals actually recognize this and quantify them. The fact is, is that you can’t unless you invoke a value judgement of the Keynesian/Samuelson kind.
Welfare economics has never worked and it never will work, for as M. Thatcher so plainly points out, “Socialism is a great idea until you run out of other people’s money”. The statement captures two notions: (1) if their actually was a multiplier effect on GDP from government spending, don’t you think this would be a permanent line item of the government’s income/expense statement?, and (2) the No Free Lunch axiom is underscored by the fact that since government is an unproductive entity that consumes resources for its existence without actually creating anything of value is that eventually the productivity of the market is unable to keep up with and compensate for the unproductive actions of government. True capitalists understand this.
And if you think the market is unable to coordinate itself with respect to defense, innovation, policing of private property, mass transit, health, education, indeed all the things you think we require a central planner for, then you obviously have not bothered to school yourself on the opportunities that can and will present themselves if productive individuals are left alone and allowed to participate. Finally, I see that your article is riddled throughout with incorrect and obnoxious assertions about economic theory presented by Rothbard, Mises et al. (semi-autistic dogmatism). The fact is, is that there is nothing dogmatic about the Austrian school. Its core tenet is that the best production, exchange, and coordination of resources occurs when individuals are left free and unfettered to choose. And by whatever math you might care to invoke, given the level of debt ($16T) incurred by the Welfare State, I’d say you’re pointing the dogmatic finger in the entirely wrong direction. THAT is what is dogmatic….doing the same illogical, nonsensical thing over and over again (at the people’s expense), and expecting a different result every time. So before you decide to write another diatribe on someting you don’t know much about, I’d recommend that you review Rothbard…again, and in particular his piece on “Towards a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Economics”. There is nothing dogmatic, hairy scary or offensive about it.
Very good.
Ron Paul is very much a mixed bag, and I would not vote for him, and I am troubled by some of his views. But the fact has to be faced that almost unique in Western politics, he has put forward a classical liberal agenda on certain issues, and done so consistently. And he has managed, despite his age, to touch a lot of young people. There is a lesson here somewhere.
Yes, there is. Unfortunately, that lesson is that anyone consistently passionate and mildly crazy can get 1% of the population to be their fanboys. He’s our Ralph Nader, really – better policies of course, but a similar effect on the debate.
Well no, not really. He supported the War in Afghanistan, so I think “defence minimalist” would be a fair description, he is clearly not a pacifist.
I have stated my views on him here many times 🙂
Paul’s non-interventionist stance is moronic, considering the political threat to liberty is probably as high as it was 75 years ago.
I’ll let Dr Suess comment on what he thought of non-intervention back then:
http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/10515cs.jpg
http://libraries.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/pm/10522cs.jpg
Perry, I stand corrected on Afghanistan. However, it seems hard to square his support for that operation with his views on interventionism lately, given that Iran is a sponsor of terror against the West. The trouble is that RP will always want to see a “smoking gun” level of evidence, such as a massive attack on US soil, before doing anything. That is the limitation of his kind of anti-interventionism and why, to all intents and purposes, he comes across as almost pacifist. His judgement on these issues bothers me.
It always troubles me when libertarians on one side try and monopolise the debate and claim there is only one libertarian perspective on abortion.
There isn’t.
Libertarian thinking hinges upon the basic assumption of human rights which the state or other private individuals have no right to violate.
Anti-abortion libertarians consider the unborn humans who warrant protection. Those in favour of abortion do not.
So being generally opposed to abortion cannot be used in the whole “Ron Paul is no libertarian” rant, since a great many libertarians are opposed (indeed more openly) to abortion.
“He is our Ralph Nader – he will have a similar effect on debate”.
Ralph Nader (right from the 1960s) has had a huge effect on debate. His claims (such as “Unsafe At Any Speed”) have been a tissue of lies – but they have helped along his objective (ever bigger government – more regulations, more government spending…..) very well indeed.
The fact that he has never been elected President is not relevant – both Democrats and Republicans (such as Nixon, Bush 41 and Bush 43) have accepted large parts of Nader’s “compassionate” politics – in part because of all the publicity Nader has mangaged to generate.
As for wars…..
I believe there are two errors to be avoided.
Firstly the error of the Neocons – the belief that Islam is basically fluffy (created by a nice man called Muhammed) and that all that is needed is to defeat a small minority of bad people in Iraq and Afghanistan and “nation building” can proceed.
To be poliite this view (also held by Blair and Bush – that way round because Blair held it first) is based on fundementally false assumptions.
The other error is what might be called “Rothbardianism” (from the late economist Murry Rothbard).
This view hold that either America has no enemies in the world (that the claim that their are enemies is just propaganda by the military industrial complex – and Anglo American banks), or that these enemies have been made into enemies by the wicked crimes of evil America (and evil Britian).
It is basically a Soviet (or Noam Chomsky) view – with, for example, the hostiltiy of the Iranian regime being the fault of America helping to overthrow a pro Soviet Prime Minister in Iran in 1953.
Sadly repeated comments show that Ron Paul is deeply influenced by this school of thought.
Although (thankfully) Ron Paul does not take it as far as Rothbardians do – with (for example) World War II being blamed on Britain and the United States (not on Adolf Hitler) and the Civil War being blamed on evil Washington D.C. – not the Slave Power. The war being “not really” about slavery you see.
Actually this “it was not really about slavery” B.S. was first pushed in academia by Woodrow Wilson. But Rothbardians are unaware of the true source of the legend, still less of Wilson’s real motives – which were to increase the racial segregation (he brought it into the Federal government – even down to absurd petty things like separate toilets), and to justify big government by claiming that creating a fundementally different form of government was the true aim of the Union in the Civil War.
Oddly enough the Southern Wilson claimed to be stronly pro Union – but his actual policies (the “New Freedom” explained in such books as “Philip Dru: Administrator” written by Wilson’s “other self” his hench person Colonel House) seemed to have had the long term objective of creating a total state – oddly similar to the (rabidly statist) economic policies followed by the Confederacy during the Civil War.
Oh yes, that is another “detail” the Rothbardians leave out – Jefferson Davis and co were far MORE (not less) statist in their actual policies than Lincoln and co were, during the Civil War.
However, Wilson may have been less influenced by Confederate practice (he was only a boy at the time) than he was by his Germanic tradition education – brought to him by Richard Ely and co.
“he has managed, despite his age, to touch a lot of young people”.
Oo-er missus!
I’d feel a lot better about him if he really was consistent. On my biggest issue, trade, he’s amongst the worst in Congress, consistently rejecting tariff reducing measures on spurious “constitutional” grounds (and they really are spurious).
Consistency might mean a little less association with whatever fringe group he could get to support him. When I was campaigning in NH in ’08, I’d find that perhaps 5% of the people I’d talk to would be reduced to quivering wrecks of anger or misery when they were asked to think about politics. Without exception, they had listened to Paul, and gone ahead and researched, as he’d asked them to, and discovered that the North American Union was Bush/ Clinton’s plan to destroy the Constitution or some such idiocy. He inspires people to despair of and to hate their country.
One of the ways that he does this is by claiming to be unique in his devotion to the Constitution. As such, I view his vote in favour of the partial birth abortion ban act, which he admitted he believed to be unconstitutional, to be Paul’s equivalent of Gore’s personal energy use. It strongly suggests that he does not fully believe in the values he professes. While his policies may be worse, an honest Kucinich is better for the American body politic than Paul, who, worse, sucks out the air from the Gary Johnsons and others who would otherwise promote libertarianism in a useful manner.
Ian F4- Geisel was a dyed in the wool socialist, nearly communist. Using him to support an attack on Paul is incorrect if you are a libertarian/minarchist.
———————————————–
Paul supported the action in Afghanistan 1) because it was Constitutionally pursued (not a blank check handed to the Executive Branch) and 2) it’s objective was to attack/apprehend/kill Bin Laden and those who were sheltering him. Instead, Bin Laden was mildly inconvenienced and the action became a protracted war of attrition in the mountainous regions of Afghanistan. Review some history texts on the previous success rates of other countries in pursuing such a course.
The action in Iraq he has never supported because 1) it was not Constitutionally pursued (the Congress reneged on its Constitutional responsibility to declare war) and 2) it represents a gross inconsistency in whom we attack as it bears little resemblance to where the threats are actually coming from. One can only conclude there inconsistency is politically/economically motivated instead of being part of a Constitutionally pursued defense of the USA.
Ron Paul has no interest in being the World’s policeman – it has bankrupted us. He is perfectly aware of threats the world has, and sees perfectly well that the US has the means and the mechanism to fight when it is necessary. But there is still a (now slim) sector within the Republicans that seas the treating of defense as just another abuse heavy “program” subject to largesse. The rise of the military industrial complex has worked just like any other complex within the insanely over-expanded State. I normally take few swipes at the samizdatarians, but what separates me from the average commentator is the difference between allowing ones’ fear to get so out of hand as to support unhelpful Statist actions as they spill back into the proper role of defense. It seems that any action in the name of security and defense is proper and unquestionable, even as real security hasn’t yet been secured and never will be as for every person you kill, two more people are radicalized. If it rises to war, then pursue it with all means to secure security. The equivalent of poking at an africanized bee nest and hoping for the best, and heavily greasing the poking-stick manufacturers along the way, is a losing policy.
I have said more than once here, that if this truly is the reckoning between the Eastern and Western mentalities, then define it, sell it, and let’s get the hell on with it. These bureaucratically controlled half measures do more harm than good. I read in Paul that that is his viewpoint as well. When the danger is so clear and present, you overwhelm it and break it, otherwise you live with it refine the art of diplomacy.
Consistency might mean a little less association with whatever fringe group he could get to support him. When I was campaigning in NH in ’08, I’d find that perhaps 5% of the people I’d talk to would be reduced to quivering wrecks of anger or misery when they were asked to think about politics.
I guess being involved in two wars of attrition, about $13 TRILLION in hard debt, $55 TRILLION in debt in terms of accrual debt, “too big to fail” corporatism in full swing, and an Statist addled homogenous middle swallowed up into a Two Party System, whose policies are substantially more similar than they are different, can tend to irk some people. Maybe they don’t have the wit of Twain, and have more of Nock in them, but the sentiments are the same. I, indeed, hate the USA as it is currently constituted – a true corpora-fascistic dystopia.
It’s hard to be pleasant toward people who are so adamant that they have their finger on the pulse of public policy which boils down to doing more of the same. The USA is addicted to debt and its use has been the its version of soft socialism.
Personally, I guess having 46% of my income hauled off, additionally having some of what I’ve kept being mandated to be spent a certain way, and liened upon to well over $400,000+ more is an environment to be peeved over. Also, consider this “fringe 5%” once was the majority opinion. It is only after a century of Statist advancement that it is now the lunatic fringe.
In other words, anyone who has read each Financial Report of the United States Government and isn’t pissed off as hell, is brain dead. How many of the USA Lovers have actually read even one? It took over 200 years for the USA to run just $1 Trillion in hard debt. We are poised to add about $4 Trillion in just THREE YEARS. And I guess anything less than blind adoration is silly, even in the face of insanity.
Amen brother. Whether this is really Ron Paul’s belief is a separate question.
Classical liberal,
You swine! You got in there before me!
Ron Paul is of course not 100% correct, but then, who is?
Of all the “big govt” bureaucrats in Washington, RON PAUL is the voice of sanity.
I left the USA in 1988 and have been living in a country with a weak govt that does not attack other countries, is relatively calm and happy and let’s me do almost whatever I want personally and in business. MEXICO.
(and don’t believe mainstream media’s violence stories–it is safe here)
And here we are, still waiting for an explanation of “We have them the gas.”
Because right now, I don’t see any other explanation besides “Ron Paul is a liar.”
“Ron Paul is very much a mixed bag, and I would not vote for him.”
I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every issue (abortion, immigration, etc.)
However, most of Ron Pauls career has been spent harassing’ the Federal Reserve. I would not be surprised if that remained his focus if he were to be elected. Much like Obama and Health Care, destroying the Federal Reserve would likely consume most of his first term assuming he even succeeds. I can live with that.
There’s a whole lot of truth in that.
But on the other hand, he might want to look at Nozick for the way that private enforcement of property rights is, in the end, more-or-less indistinguishable from a state (because of free-rider problems if nothing else) – and thus we might as well just say it’s something States are for.
Indeed, it’s the primary justification for them!
And I’m not sure there’s ever been an example of the market, by itself, being able to provide for national-level defense (again, giant free-rider problems).
Now, a state buying “defense” as a good, and a market providing the means, that’s plausible…
Markets are quite capable, both in theory and in demonstrated practice, of providing everything else listed, though.
That’s the point of “exceptions” like enforcement of contracts and property rights, and national defense – they’re exceptional compared to the normal case, where self-interest and free action provide quite efficiently!
Would we be taking issue with Ron Paul at all if Rothbard hadn’t spent the last 25 years of his life cozying up to the communists and racists?
Indeed, which is why I am a minarchist rather than an anarchist 🙂
The only legitimate state is a nightwatchman state.
Johnathan Pearce,
A sponsor of terror? Huh?
So let me get this straight. Iran has supplied weapons to terrorists in Iraq who are blowing themselves up to get the USA out of Iraq. Well, the USA supplied weapons, including WMDs, to Saddam Hussein, which he used to kill innocent civilians methodically.
The USA levied economic sanctions on Iraq in the 1990s, killing 500,000 children. Did Iraq or Iran ever do that to England or the USA? How would we react if they did?
Johnathan Pearce,
Evidence of what? That they don’t much care for us? Ever wonder why that would be?
You want a bankrupt nation to attack Iran why? If they don’t attack us, then why should we attack them?
So Samizdata-style libertarians:
1. Aren’t fond of Singapore’s anti-gum-chewing-in-public policy.
2. Are fond of invading nations and murdering hundreds of thousands of civilians for no reason in particular.
In my privately owned streets I’d probably have a similar policy.
I prefer ‘murdering’ people for all sorts of really very good reasons. But I guess I do not share your reverence for the sanctity of foreign governments to murder people just as long as they do it within their own borders… but then I am sure you were planning to assassinate Saddam and Uday yourself if only pesky tax bloated Uncle Sam had not gotten in the way first.
Frankly I’d much prefer to see my tax money wasted blowing up the more ghastly regimes of the world (which usually means their employees until you can actually hang the leaders) than see it spent on ruinous and corrosive ‘social’ domestic expenditure…
…But I suspect soon the argument will be moot as the catastrophic economic and social policies by the largely interchangeable establishment ‘left’ and ‘right’ on both sides of the Atlantic will make overseas adventures completely unaffordable anyway.
Paul Marks,
Right. Unlike FDR and Wilson, Lincoln had no interest in war to expand his power and the power of the federal government. In fact, it is so clear that the War Between The States was about slavery and not the right to secession that it would have happened even if the South never tried to secede!
Please don’t let the fact that Lincoln could have purchased all the slaves for a small fraction of the monetary cost (excluding property damage & human deaths) of waging the War Between The States get in the way of your convenient view of history.
Perry de Havilland,
You’re right – only forces that invade and occupy nations ought to murder people. And they should do it in the name of democracy instead of in the name of stability!
And Western forces should remain in Iraq until Iraqis adopt the proud habits of democracies: TSA-style anti-terrorist measures, massive government spending, huge debt, generational theft, and extremely high per capita rates of incarceration. Only then will Iraqis enjoy the fruits of democracy, which will make Saddam’s quelling of revolt look like a pleasant day at the park.
Those fruits will be especially delicious given all the ethnic tensions and religious divisions in Iraq.
I used to buy that. Then I realized that paying for Grandma’s healthcare isn’t quite as ruinous as dropping bombs on civilians. And as damaging as welfare spending is for civil society, war is ever-so-slightly worse.
I am no fan of pre-emptive wars. I am with Ron Paul when it comes to non-intervention.
However, since it seems that intervene we must, I would argue that the old method of CIA installed strong men was much more effective for U.S. interests.
Does anyone really believe that if we do set up democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan that the locals will vote for policies that favor the U.S. or Isreal.
We will either have to stay (and rule them ourselves) for a generation or more (still didn’t work for the British) or we will just hand half-baked democracies to these people who will almost immediately vote for sharia law and the destruction of Isreal (do you doubt this?)
Of course, the third option is to install a brutal dictator who will not hesitate to rain down death upon his own people in order to maintain power. This kind of guy, a Saddam Hussein clone, might actually agree to U.S. policies in exchange for weapons and funding.
Given these kinds of choices non-intervention seems like a pretty wise course of action to me.
All bad things but are you seriously ‘going Rothbard’ and saying that becoming more like a deeply flawed democracy (like, say, the USA) is *NOT* preferable to Ba’athist Socialism?
Lets be honest here, what you describe as “dropping bombs on civilians (i.e any war)” is code for “respecting the right of homicidal dictators to spend a generation unmolested doing whatever they want in Iraq because Iraqis dying is only bad when the USAF kills them”.
Oh don’t get me wrong, I think the US government would do better to be far less willing to get involved everywhere, but as you seems to be making the “Iraq was better off under Saddam and his psychopathic sons” argument, I beg to differ… indeed I think that is preposterous.
Make the argument “the betterment of Iraq is not a valid use of my US tax money” if you like (a perfectly good argument), but to argue the war was wrong because leaving Saddam in charge would have been better for Iraqis is ludicrous.
Steve,
The best choice would be the first: old school colonialism. Using force to setup democracies, which institutionalize disorder and discord, only multiplies uncertainty, violence, and tension. Using force to enforce law and order is good and wise because it stabilizes societies, minimizes marketplace uncertainties, and squashes misguided attempts to gin up trouble with people of other religions/ethnicities/etc.
Plus, this can profitable and I see no reason why a nation should not be compensated for providing good governance for any particular location that has suffered from bad governance nearly continuously since forever.
So long as the old school British Empire is anathema to the ruling class, such a direct and effective foreign policy will not be implemented.
It appears that the USA has been leading the Western world in exporting problem-causing solutions ever since WWII. A pathetic substitute for and an unambiguous downgrade from the well designed British Empire.
Yes, of course it’s preferable to be more like the USA than Iraq. The USA has the reserve currency of the world, is protected by two massive oceans, has a ton of natural resources, is very wealthy, and is the world’s only superpower. That’s not the point.
The point is whether dictatorship or democracy is a better system of government for Iraq. We have seen only the immediate consequences of our adventure in Iraq. Ask me in 200 years and I might be slightly more decisive on this particular issue.
In any case, you remind me of Brits and Americans complimenting themselves in 1923 on how they wisely ended WWI to end all bloodshed forever and ever. Indeed, Wilson thought more democracies and fewer hereditary monarchies would lead to a vastly more peaceful world.
The Western world has built up the most massive quantity of public and private debts in human history and Western peoples have experienced less than a small fraction of the liquidation of these debts. Heaven knows the disorder and violence that may consume the West as the debt is liquidated.
I happen to think democracy has something to do with these debts. You may disagree. Would the USA compare favorably with Iraq if tomorrow God forced all public and private debts on earth to be paid and all public budgets to be balanced by 2020? I don’t know.
By the way, how was Hussein socialist in ways America is not? Maybe rulers are more brutal when they can’t bribe the people to not rebel by giving away free stuff?
When you support a war you are supporting what you know happens in all wars. I’d much prefer profitable colonialism to the current madness, but for future reference: bombing innocent civilians is code for bombing innocent civilians.
I don’t make a claim either way. I do think that events in the next 50 years may suggest that Iraqis will have been better off in the long run if the West had never invaded Iraq. Call be a crazy kook, but I’m a passionate agnostic on this matter.
@frak
So that’s one vote for staying a generation or more.
Not at all, I agree entirely. “The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money. – Alexis de Tocqueville”
I would be surprised if the whole edifice of welfare statism has not have collapsed in catastrophic global economic meltdown by 2020, so we will soon find out. The sooner the better in my view.
No, America is more “soft fascistic” that socialist, not that it really matters, but that whole ‘ brutal’ thing is a really good reason to think it is better now than under Saddam. Not ‘good’, just ‘better’. Certainly all the Iraqis I have ever asked think so: hardly a scientific sample but that is what they say: better than under Ba’athism.
The very nature of wars is that civilians, innocent or otherwise, die, not just the bad people and their enabling employees. To overthrow tyranny usually requires war. People who do not ‘deserve’ to inevitably die in wars. Tragic but the alternative is to just always tolerate tyranny because you are too squeamish compared to the tyrant. That is pretty much what they count on to stay in power.
Whether or not it is a good idea to involve US or UK taxpayers in overthrowing tyranny is a different question but I am pretty much of the view that overthrowing tyrants is a good idea in and of itself. It does not always mean what comes next is better but defending the status quo of tyranny is not something I would care to do (in Iraq or anywhere else).
This has developed into a really interesting discussion. FWIW, I find myself more or less in frak’s camp. Overthrowing tyrants may in fact be “a good idea in and of itself”, but in the main that’s not how I want my tax money spent. I’ve long argued (here and elsewhere) that the US should cease being the world’s policeman; close down its foreign bases; declare victory and leave Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.; withdraw from NATO et al; and completely restructure its military into a purely defensive (but extremely potent) force. But if we’re not going to do that, let’s at least make our adventurism a paying proposition. Rather than “old school colonialism” with captive local governments, as frak too modestly suggests, let’s go all the way and create an explicit empire. Install military governors, permit a certain (but limited) amount of self-rule, and exact tribute (oil would be nice). At least that’s an honest approach.
Back to the original post, like Johnathan I have some issues with Ron Paul (and I have little use for Rothbard), but on balance he’s the best on offer. I’d take him over any of the others, warts and all. He wouldn’t be able to transform the US into a libertopia (as someone has already pointed out, there’s the small detail of Congress to consider), but he could certainly massively slow down the rate of governmental expansion and do a lot of good. I once read somewhere (John Stossel maybe?) that the best political mix would be a Democratic House of Representatives, a Republican Senate, and a Libertarian President. I think that’s about right.
It seems to me that ,there’s a difference between war and occupation. I’m all for overthrowing dictators (not all of them all of the time, but as many as possible without accruing financial debt, and as long as there’s an overwhelming public support at home), but I have no time for nation building. Kill the bastard and his close circle and go home ASAP.
As to Ron Paul, I would love to think that I could support him, but sadly he looks and sounds like a sad joke, no matter how I look at him – and as a wise man told me many years ago, people actually do tend to behave the way they look and sound.
Jon Stewart, at least, has noticed that the media, even Fox News, is pretending that Ron Paul doesn’t exist. Curious, no?
After Jon Stewart, Ron Paul got lots of mentions talking about him being ignored. It seems the media doesn’t mind talking about him so long as they don’t actually have to mention his position on anything.
Not a conveient view of history frak – if would be more convenient for me if I can could join in the Lincoln bashing.
Especially as I do not like the Henry Clay Whig – which is, in economic policy, what Lincoln was. I wish someone like Salmon P. Chase had been President.
However, your view of history is flat wrong.
By the 1850s the old view of slavery in the South (that it was a passing thing and….) had declined to the point of unimportance.
Back in the 1780s or 1790s it might have been possible to reach an agreement on the basis of buying the slaves and ending slavery.
But by the mid 19th century the leaders of the South (the new generations) had come to the conclusion that slavery was a “positive good” not a passing thing they could be paid to give up.
Sadly (and this is what you just do not understand) only defeat in war (terrible war) would break the will of the Southern leadership on this matter.
Nor is the conflict with Slave Power the case where war is the only way to win.
The conflict with National Socialism and with Marxism had to come to military dispute – in various parts of the world.
For example, the Republic of Korea would not even exist without the Korean war – i.e. the successful defence of the South by the United States and allies.
It would be convenient to say the state (the government) is not needed – that we can defeat the Slave Power, or the Nazis, or the Communists without that evil, wasteful, corrupt Uncle Sam.
But it is not TRUE.
The view that all these dangers can be wished away (or got rid of by throwing money at people) is very convenient for Rothbardian doctrine, but it is not true.
Rothbardianism puts doctrine before history – what should be true, as opposed to what actually is true.
The neocons make the same mistake – but in the opposite direction.
They also refuse to see reality – because reality contradicts their theory.
In the case of Iraq and Afghanistan – the reality is that it the basic population (not just Mr X the dictator) who are realy rather nasty – deeply influenced by centuries old layers of traditions fundemenally hostile to liberty.
It is nothing like Germany, Italy and Japan after World War II – the culture of the people is entirely different (Islam being the most obvious factor).
The neocons were warned about the cultures of the Middle East – but they choose to ignore the warning and cling to false hopes.
Just as the Rothbardians ignore what people were like in 1861.
“If we had just offered them money they would have got rid of slavery” shows a terrible degree of ignorance.
Paul Marks,
I partially agree with this, but this is irrelevant. I’m saying Lincoln’s primary motivation for war was not to free the slaves. Whether or not only war would have been able to break the will of the South on slavery has no bearing whatsoever on whether Lincoln cared about freeing the slaves.
Well, history only happens once, so either anything that happened had to happen or everything that happened did not have to happen.
Anywayz, this is a classic example of examining history through the lens of doctrine.
The Marxists won. So you’re implying either that you think it was inevitable for the Marxists to confront their enemies and win or that you are unaware that the Marxists won.
Please examine how slavery ended in most nations in the past. You may find that the War Between The States was, um, an aberration.
Also, you may suffer from a small degree of ignorance yourself if you think that Lincoln, who said:
waged war on the South to free the black slaves.
Stupid me. One can’t partially agree with a statement such as this. I revise my response: I disagree with your statement, though agreeing would not contradict the view that Lincoln cared not for freeing the black slaves when he engaged the South in war.
Frak, how do you conclude from that quote by Lincoln that he supported (or didn’t mind) slavery?
“Please examine how slavery ended in most nations in the past.”
This vile practice often lasted for centuries, regardless of the economic illogic. Slavery in the Roman Republic/Empire lasted for hundreds of years, despite the famous Spartacus revolt, etc. And serfdom, a sort of watered down variety, lasted for a long time and only really began to break up after the Black Death.
Sometimes it takes violent rebellion to get rid of something that is maintained by violence. Whether it was the original motivating force for Lincoln or not, slavery plainly was a key factor in the Civil War and it is plainly disingenuous to state otherwise. It strikes me as slightly creepy as to how some some people like to shrug off the slavery issue or play down the righteousness of opposing it with force if necessary.
Alisa,
Never claimed to conclude that based on that quote alone. If one wants to actually investigate the matter here are some resources to get started:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams120298.asp
http://saberpoint.blogspot.com/2010/12/why-civil-war-was-not-about-slavery.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig2/miller1.html
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n5p-4_Morgan.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-schweitzer/slavery-and-the-civil-war_b_849066.html
Johnathan Pearce,
I don’t know what you meant by key factor, but it did not even qualify as a motivating force for Lincoln. And now I’m disingenuous in your eyes… alrighty then…
Discussing the Lincoln’s motives for war has nothing to do with discussing the morality of slavery or discussing the righteousness of opposing slavery.
BTW, attributing heroic motives to history’s victors and malevolent motives to history’s losers is not only creepy but also childish and sad.
We’ve had this discussion here before. Frak is largely correct. Certainly the “issue” of slavery, writ large, was the animating force behind the Civli War. But it wasn’t fought over freeing the slaves per se; that was merely a side effect, and a relatively late one at that. Rather, it was about extending the insitution of slavery to the western territories and new states, the (diminishing) relative power of the slaveholding states within the federal government, and their fear that at some point it would be outlawed altogether. The 20-year compromise in the Constitution had long since expired, and the issue had been festering for generations. Sooner or later, something had to give.
Lincoln’s sole motivation in prosecuting the war was the preservation of the union as a single nation. He clearly said (although I do not have the exact quote handy) that if preserving the union required freeing the slaves he would do so, but if it required him not freeing the slaves he would do that, too. He did not care about blacks as persons (as frak’s quote above demonstrates), or seek for them any sort of “equality” with whites. He merely wanted to hold the nation together, whatever that took.
Still, Paul is also correct that simply buying off the south and paying for the release of all slaves would not have worked. The institution was too deeply ingrained in the culture, and at that point (early in the Industrial Revolution) there wasn’t much alternative to slave labor for the large plantations. It wouldn’t have been much of an issue for the smaller farmers, many of whom had no slaves at all, but the wealthy plantation owners controlled all the political power and framed the debate.
Frak, what do you mean by “the Marxists won”? Which Marxists? In what context? I’m not following you on this point.
Frak, I would be damn careful about quoting those folk about the Mises Institute on things such as the Civil War, or indeed slavery. Here’s a guy who has spent a lot of time looking at those guys, Tim Sandefur, and he is unimpressed with those who have tried to play down the slavery angle or argued that it was just brought in to legitimise some sort of evil attack on the Old South:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=933676
Here is a good rebuttal of the claim that Lincoln did not care about the slavery issue or that it was not a key factor.
http://jimwoods.thinkertothinker.com/2010/02/14/in-defense-of-lincoln/
I am aware that history can be written by the victors. That doesn’t necessarily mean the revisionists are right.
Laird, I don’t think your point really rejects the idea that the war was about slavery to some extent, even if it was not Lincoln’s original causus belli:
In other words, the South feared – rightly as it turned out – that slavery would be outlawed and they would lose their relative power as new states joined the US. Hence they wanted to secede to preserve what is sometimes euphemistically called their “unique way of life” (ie, buying and selling people like cattle). So slavery may not have been the official, or proximate cause of the war, and other factors played a part, and no doubt some of the Southern folks were great the North collectivist bastards, etc, but the fact remains that slavery was an issue. And a pretty big one.
We don’t have to like Lincoln’s motives, or even be able to guess them, to believe as Laird said that the situation that presented itself was unsustainable.
Here is an interesting item. (Link)
I think the way that the likes of the Mises Institute et al have tried to make the cause of the South a sort of libertarian historical issue to be really stupid.
Laird, not to negate your other points (my knowledge of history is not nearly sufficient for that), but Frak’s quote demonstrates no such thing. I don’t know about Lincoln specifically, but in general, it would not be contradictory for a person to oppose both slavery and equality in various political rights with regards to a particular segment of a population.
Frak – it is you (not me) who is allowing your view of history to be distorted by doctrine (ideology).
Actually I would LIKE the noninterventionist line to always be true (it would make policy choices easy if it was), but sometimes it is not.
Laird,
I’m talking about the Western world basically – media, universities, finance, etc. The Establishment. The center of politics in the USA, France, England, Australia steadily moves leftward and has moved leftward for centuries.
I could explain some of it, but it’s off topic. Besides, I’m lazy and you’d be WAY, WAY, WAY better off reading all posts, comments, and sources cited at:
First and Foremost:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/
Table of contents for UR is:
http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/
The Gentle Introduction and Open Letter series, along with posts in the Democracy section, are the best.
Then:
http://vladimiria.blogspot.com/
http://foseti.wordpress.com/
http://intellectual-detox.com/
Laird,
I’m talking about the Western world basically – media, universities, finance, etc. The Establishment. The center of politics in the USA, France, England, Australia steadily moves leftward and has moved leftward for centuries.
I could explain some of it, but it’s off topic. Besides, I’m lazy and you’d be WAY, WAY, WAY better off reading all posts, comments, and sources cited at:
First and Foremost:
http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.com/
Table of contents for UR is:
http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/
The Gentle Introduction and Open Letter series, along with posts in the Democracy section, are the best.
Then:
http://vladimiria.blogspot.com/
http://foseti.wordpress.com/
http://intellectual-detox.com/
Laird,
http://moldbuggery.blogspot.com/ Enjoy.
You’re trying to keep me busy, frak, aren’t you?
My family consists of an even split between Southern and Northern sympathies in the American Civil War. The bitterness with which the issues still lingered in the memories of my relatives says more than a truckload of scholarly papers about it.
Although I was very young, I interviewed the elders at length about it. For my ancestors on both sides, the issue of slavery, the principles, morals, and economics of it were the most significant reason for the whole thing, period. Claims otherwise are laughable.
The Northerners in my family are from Pennsylvania, and felt that we could not tolerate slavery and remain a Union of states. There was no room for compromise on this issue. They do not think of lost sons as terrible tragedies, but as honorable contributions to ending a horrific blight, forever.
My Southern relatives come from Atlanta, Georgia. As losers in the conflict, they were a little more circumspect in their opinions, but they fell along two lines: 1) We always treated our Negroes well, and 2) Niggers arent people, and like any other cattle, we’ll do as we see fit, except for the interference of those meddling Northerners.
I actually heard that position from my oldest relative at the time, Pops, who had living memory of the end of the war and the years right after it.
There were many uncomfortable debates at family picnics, and doubtless many undercurrents I had no clue about as a youth. But at the end of the day, it WAS about slavery to my family.