What Would You Do if…?

I return to Nelson Hultberg and his claim that “the primary philosophical thrusts of [Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard] are totally wrong for the cause of liberty.”

I have engaged in the dialogue at DB on this topic, raising one or two of the points from my commentary published here.  Hultberg does not bother addressing the points; I offer a summary of Hultberg’s subsequent comments.

As Hultberg is want to do, whenever he faces disagreement, he immediately makes the conversation personal (emphasis added):

·        Perceptive intellects today realize that the "freedom movement" in America and the West is not exactly winning the fight against statism…

·        If you are one of the salient minds who realize this could very well be true…

·        Those who condemn mere pieces of an Introduction without investigating the body of thought being introduced (which will validate the thoughts and assertions in the Introduction) are like the primitives in Africa…Their lives remained mired in ignorance and backwardness.

I guess mosquitos aren’t perceptive intellects, not possessive of salient minds, primitive, and are instead mired in ignorance and backwardness.

But this is only a minor issue relative to my main thought.  (Bold means I am screaming!)

What would you do if you had a slam-dunk, water-tight argument disproving both Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard? 

Think about this – you are so certain that you can pull these two off of the Mt. Rushmore of libertarian/free-market thinkers; they are so paramount, that they each take TWO spots on the Mt. Rushmore of libertarian thinkers, there is room for no one else. 

Between the two of them, they have sold millions of books, written thousands of articles and essays, and are viewed by millions as foundational to their thinking of individual liberty and freedom.

There are no two bigger titans within the world of libertarian thinking, and YOU HAVE THEM OVER A BARREL. 

If you are right and convincing, your name will be remembered for as long as anyone cares about liberty – in other words, FOREVER. 

If you are so certain that your path offers the best chance for freedom on this earth, wouldn’t you want everyone to have access to your thinking?

As I stated two days ago in this thread, I appreciate everyone's commentaries, even those in disagreement. But it must be pointed out that the above article is but a brief "Introduction" to the connection that the Doctrine of the Mean has to the fight for freedom in the West. My book answers all doubts and questions (many of which are expressed in this thread) as to the validity of the Aristotelian philosophical approach -- answers that could not possibly be explained in the brief space of this commentary section.

Buy the book, he reiterates often.  I will paraphrase: “I have such a revolutionary analysis that it will take down Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard; if followed, my recommendations offer the best path toward freedom on this earth.”

What would you do if you believed you had this formula?  Would you say “buy the book”?

Look, I have no problem with someone wanting to sell their work.  Do as you like.  But if I could take down Rand and Rothbard, I wouldn’t hide my secret behind a $20 book.

I would publish my thoughts in every outlet I could develop.  I would create videos, I would release excerpts – one chapter at a time or whatever.  I would take some of the more relevant works by Rothbard and Rand and do a line by line critique. 

I could do almost all of this for free, or for a very nominal cost, on the internet.  There are enough wealthy so-called libertarians that want to take down Rothbard that I bet I could get a few of them to sponsor my work.

I would make this my life’s work, my calling.  I would do it knowing that it is my legacy – I am convinced I am right.  I would do it on the expectation that I will convince enough people to invite me to conferences to speak and further spread the message.  My only desire would be to expose my message to as many people in as many ways as I can.

Rothbard got paid basically nothing for most of his work.  He wrote for an unknown audience, at a time when there was no internet and he certainly had no idea that everything he wrote would be available to everyone on the planet at some point in the future.  Talk about speaking to the remnant!  Today, Rothbard’s ideas carry the intellectual weight of the freedom movement.

I would copy Rothbard – except I now know of the technology that will spread my ideas far and wide – forever! 

If I was right, I will die with the knowledge that I will be remembered and honored forever – offering an invaluable service for mankind.

If I wasn’t so sure, I guess I might sell the book for $20.

Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard were All Wrong!

Just ask Nelson Hultberg:

In conclusion, Ayn Rand gave libertarianism a spectacular beginning, and Murray Rothbard was certainly a brilliant economist. But the primary philosophical thrusts of these two thinkers are totally wrong for the cause of liberty.

I will get to exploring some of his reasons shortly; however it seems rather bold to state that these two contributors to libertarian thought (despite Rand’s protests, she did contribute to libertarian thought) could be “totally wrong for the cause of liberty.”  Ayn Rand has sold millions of books; Murray Rothbard’s philosophy undergirds two of the most popular liberty-oriented websites of today, LewRockwell.com and Mises.org. 

To the extent there even exists a liberty movement today, most adherents would point to one or both of these two as foundational to their arrival on this underpopulated spot on the political spectrum.  But, according to Nelson Hultberg, they are “totally wrong.”

If Hultberg wants to put out such a significant and controversial claim, he better back it with overwhelming evidence.  Let’s take a look, shall we?

NB: I come at this with an already jaded opinion regarding Mr. Hultberg’s views on freedom and liberty.  One of many reasons: he advocates that the Fed can be managed, to hold to a 4% growth of money.  Pure folly.

In order to build credibility, Hultberg offers several favorable recommendations for his book on this topic, including one from Mark Skousen: "The Golden Mean is an extremely important book that...is destined to be a classic."  NB: having a recommendation from Skousen only adds to my doubts that freedom is the objective; the reasons are too many to list.

OK, now let’s get to Hultberg’s views:

This is the paramount question that we as libertarians and conservatives must ask: Have Rand and Rothbard given us an undergirding philosophy of rationality upon which to fight for freedom? Or have we launched a freedom movement upon a ship resplendent in sail, but possessed of a leaky hull and faulty tiller?

I guess Rand is the leaky hull and Rothbard the faulty tiller?

Everyone, I'm sure, is familiar with the idea of a political spectrum…. The notion of a political spectrum with three poles of left, center, and right has come to us as a legacy from Aristotle's idea that virtue consists of the "rational course" that lies between two opposite and natural extremes of defect and excess.

I will play along. 

As examples, Hultberg offers:

The virtue of courage is the rational mean between the defect of cowardice and the excess of rashness. Ambition is the rational mean between sloth and greed. Likewise with liberality and self-control. These virtues are all means between defect and excess…. You see here the basic triad that Aristotle defined – vice, virtue, vice.

Hultberg follows this with a few examples of the “rational mean” of his own:

What is so beautiful about Aristotle's doctrine is that it shows all the noblest and most desired values of our existence to be means – such as loyalty, faith, love, peace, order and freedom. All the things we value most in life are "means" between two opposite vices.

“The things we value most in life”…let’s see: regarding a wife that one might value, one extreme would be for a very intelligent, hard-working, beautiful wife; this as opposed to the other extreme of an imbecilic, lazy, ugly wife.  So, I guess I would most value…a non-descript blob?  Regarding money that one might also value, one extreme is to have an easy job that pays more money than imaginable, and the other extreme is to have a back-breaker of a job at $5 an hour.  I choose the office typist job for $12, I guess.

Let’s look at a couple of Hultberg’s examples:

Strife-Peace-Humdrum: isn’t there only strife and peace?  Is there more peace than…peace?

Slavery-Freedom-Anarchy: again, is there more freedom than freedom?

Hultberg is stretching very far to try to convince – stretching so far that I am tempted to stop here.  But I won’t.  Try as he might, he can’t deter me from wanting to understand why Rand and Rothbard are “totally wrong.”

Daily Bell Interview: Nelson Hultberg

It is heartening to see a comment equating anarcho-capitalism with the model of the early Middle Ages – while not a perfect example, the Middle Ages were a time of significant decentralization.  Sadly, Mr. Hultberg’s interpretation of the Middle Ages is terribly flawed; unfortunately, these are not the only flaws in Mr. Hultberg’s thinking.

Anarchy, as anarcho-capitalists use the term, does not mean an absence of governance.  There will always governance – by the individual, by the family, by peers, by the community, by the church, and by the market.  This was very much in force during much of the Middle Ages.

Such an anarchic condition does not require a state as we know of it today.  And it does not result in chaos.  To the extent one requires a concrete example, the Middle Ages demonstrate this reality quite effectively – contrary to Mr. Hultberg’s assertions.

NH: The linking of society's moral guardians to the coercive arm of the state during the Middle Ages created enough evil and cruelty that we should be cured forever of such a temptation.

BM: First of all, much of the Middle Ages did not have a “state” as we commonly understand the term today.  Second, to the extent the moral guardians applied coercion: this occurred to any great extent only beginning late in this period, perhaps beginning at the end of the thirteenth century.  At least one author points to the Condemnation of 1277 as the turning point; a separation of reason and faith.

NH: The Anglo-Saxon experiment of "voluntary courts of law, armies, and police" led to a warlord society in which all people were raised to be combatants, everyone lived behind castle walls and moats, women were not able to travel openly on the roads for fear of being attacked, ruthless outlaws roamed the countryside impervious to the "voluntary courts," commerce and trade were minimal and sparse, tribal customs were arbitrary, equal rights were nowhere.

BM: The Middle Ages saw a drastic reduction in slavery, a flowering of intellectual and technological progress, women holding equal status in many occupations, etc.  These should not be so casually dismissed by someone who clearly has not read the history.  And based on this comment, Mr. Hultberg has not read the history.

http://bionicmosquito.blogspot.com/search/label/Middle%20Ages

I find the rest of his statements to embody muddled thinking – the kind that results in the advocacy of the Federal Reserve to inflate at 4% per year.  Mr. Hultberg, like many “conservatives,” points to the founding fathers as the wisest of political men: “we must start with the fruits of their labor.” 

The results of this view have been demonstrated in full force over the last 225 years: the lack of philosophical consistency, which Mr. Hultberg advocates, equals pragmatic compromise.  Mr. Hultberg, it seems, believes his book will explain why the last 225 years didn’t happen.

Beyond this, I will not post further detailed comments here, as I do not want to clog DB’s thread.

------------------------------

The following I did not post at DB:

Hope for Mr. Hultberg?

http://thedailybell.com/3059/Nelson-Hultberg-The-Ron-Paul-Revolution-Past-2012

Mr. Hultberg

Thank you for NOT suggesting that Dr. Paul adopt your dangerous notion of supporting Fed inflation via a constant 4% increase in base money. If this is an indication that you have finally rid yourself of this destructive notion, I applaud you for this. Absent this cockamamie plank, you may yet find Dr. Paul as valuable asset to your cause.

"His [Dr. Paul's] watchword is "steadfast adherence to principle." Compromise if need be on the means of implementation; but never on the principle itself. Never on the Constitution. Never on the rights of man."

Instead of your 4% rule, perhaps you could adopt Dr. Paul's "compromise" on the issue of the Fed: remove legal tender, remove monopoly over money and banking, allow full and free competition in money, remove tax consequences as to choice of use of money and currency, remove government backing of any and all money and banking schemes. Then the Fed will eventually die on its own.

No 4% rule needed on which to pin false hopes (and certainly ensure further economic disaster).


Following is (apparently) Mr. Hultberg's reply to my comments:

Posted by Nelson on 10/10/11 11:26 AM

To: bionic mosquito.

Sorry AFR has in no way abandoned the 4% auto-expansion plan. It is the only way to stop the Fed at this juncture in history from running roughshod over the quality of our currency. The American voters' eyes glaze over when you try to tell them about free-market banking and the monetary intricacies of gold money systems.

I know; I have been at this task for over ten years (check out my articles on the subject). Such reforms will take decades to bring about.

The history of money and economics shows clearly that if left relatively free, an economy will grow its goods and services at roughly 4% annually. History also shows that in a free economic environment (which we had in the 18th and 19th centuries), gold was mined and entered into the economies of the West at roughly 4% annually. Sometimes at 3% and sometimes at 5%, but over the long haul, it averaged 4% annually. When this takes place growth of money and growth of goods balances and brings about a 0% price inflation rate. Thus the Friedman plan's 4% rate for monetary growth.

We certainly support Paul's plan to remove legal tender and eliminate the Fed's monopoly. AFR is working with Edwin Vieira on just such policies. But we are very doubtful that the power elites and their media lapdogs will let 'legal tender' and government monopoly of money go anytime soon. But we are sure that we can convince the people to force the Fed by law to computerize money growth at 4% annually.

No one in the AFR camp has ever said this is a perfect or ideal plan, or a permanent plan. It is, however, a "workable" plan. It will get the issue of money and the Fed's debasement on the table in front of 70 million voters in language they can understand.

This is something that the convoluted monetary explanations of gold money and free-market banking will be hard pressed to do. Gold and free-market banking are definitely the ideals that we need to work toward.

(If you had ever read my works on the subject, you would see that no one is more in support of such policies than I); but they are going to require massive education over a generation to enact. We prefer to save America today with some "imperfect" pragmatism, rather than let her be led into globalist tyranny because the State's libertarian opponents knew nothing more to do than naively talk "instaneous idealism" to the voters.

End of Mr. Hultberg’s reply.

I did not comment further on the DB site – Mr. Hultberg has a knack of turning quite aggressive and alienating, and I didn’t want to start down that path.

Suffice it to say his reply is full of strawman arguments. His complaints about idealistic libertarians can be equally (or more so) applied to those who believe politics can be sustained for the decades necessary to bring about a gradual dismantling of the power of the Fed.

Too Late to Tinker Around the Edges??

http://thedailybell.com/2135/Anthony-Wile-IMF-Austerity-Is-Headed-to-America-Watch-Out.html

I cannot help but notice a connection to today’s editorial by Mr. Wile and the editorial a few days ago by Mr. Hultberg and his new political party. Without rehashing all of the discussion from the aforementioned editorial, it would seem Mr. Hultberg’s “practical” solutions fall directly in line with the promotion of austerity, and that the solution lies – not in a complete rethinking of the relationship of government and society – but in a better management of government, with ALL of the control systems remaining in place.

As Mr. Wile said quite well, “Rather than question the fundamental alignment between the public and private sector – the basics of regulatory democracy – the IMF treats a country like a business and prescribes cost-cutting, privatization and other methodologies that address the symptoms instead of the cause.”

I will offer a few quotes from today’s editorial:

FT: This must involve cutting spending, reducing entitlements and raising taxes.

Barr: While the solution to that problem surely lies in more responsible policy – lower spending, a less ridiculous tax code….

Wile: But the real message in Barr's article, like the FT's, has to do with IMF-style remedies in my view. The phrase "less ridiculous tax code" seems to bear that out.

Wile: The conversation, as we can see in the above articles, is constricted. The problem is always defined as too much government spending. The solution is to demand more revenue from the citizens' affected and to slash the public services that many have grown to depend on.

Wile: IMF provisions featuring privatization, tax hikes and public sector "austerity" are designed in my view to provoke the very public anger that Western elites are counting on to fuel a conversation about yet MORE centralization and MORE governmental control – of a "transparent" and "disciplined" type.

Wile: The conversation is constantly to be focused on "better" government, not less of it.

And what will be the likely result of such “practical” solutions as offered by Mr. Hultberg and others like the IMF?

Wile: The result is a controlled social implosion that the powers-that-be can capitalize upon to introduce a new system, presumably a more globalized one, complete, perhaps, with a global central bank administering a new currency.

Finally to the point that “practical” solutions are no longer sufficient, and in fact only a distraction from the true problems:

Wile: One doesn't merely need "less" of what is currently offered. What is needed is a discussion featuring the fundamental freedoms that gave Western-style democracies their strength to begin with. The US 's vibrant economy in particular was built without a graduated income tax and without a central bank. There were no centralized regulatory authorities and no over-arching military-industrial complex.

I would only modify one portion of the statement. The US’s vibrant economy in particular was built without an income tax of ANY kind. The current income tax and the current central bank both were born at the same time, the dreadful year of 1913.

Now, I will say, I wrote all of the above in real time: capturing my thoughts as I read the editorial, and before reading the conclusion. Imagine my surprise, when at the end of today’s editorial, I read Mr. Wile’s conclusion, which is exactly the opposite of everything I gathered (and commented above) while reading the editorial:

Wile: While an even more radical downsizing might be preferred, Hultberg's proscriptions are at least a start and go far beyond the IMF-style conversation now being prepared for the US.

Mr. Hultberg supports a flat income tax, when the vibrant economy of the US was built with NO income tax. Mr. Hultberg supports a Federal Reserve, with a mandated policy to inflate 4% per year, when the vibrant economy of the US was built with no such mechanism of evil. Mr. Hultberg offers a dialogue exactly within the framework of those preaching austerity: fiddle around the edges of a failed system, yet not questioning the system itself.

The conclusion of Mr. Wile’s comments today seems counter to all of the analysis in the editorial.

Nelson Hultberg and Another New Third Party

http://thedailybell.com/2114/Nelson-Hultberg-Political-Pygmies-and-Mad-Hatters.html

Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 4/20/2011 10:51:04 AM

"What has been taking place in the American political arena for the past six decades is one of the most blatant spectacles of self-delusion in American history."

Very well said.

"Yet the nefarious destruction descending upon our country had its beginning in 1913. That was the year that brought us the Federal Reserve and the income tax, which brought us the false boom times of the 1920s, which brought us the necessity to extinguish the inflationary fires with the Great Deflation of the 1930s, which brought us FDR's welfare-state."

A far better conclusion than is propagated by others on these pages. Personally, I think the big knee-bend on the chart occurred in 1865, when the last real possibility of check-and-balance on the federal leviathan was utterly destructed in Lincoln's effort to preserve the union under all circumstances. What a criminal objective, and what a horrible outcome for us all, and more so for the 600,000 who died for such an objective.

However, all of this was made possible beginning in Philadelphia in 1787, if one is looking for the roots.


From the video, the party platform:

1) A 10% flat tax.
2) The Fed to inflate at 4% per year, with someday decades from now a return to a gold standard.

Sorry, Nelson you lost my vote....

Please, spend your time educating the American people on the true nature of the problems, and the more appropriate solutions. There will be no solution via a third party; there will be no solution via politics as we know it today. But people will look for solutions when these current promises break. Your efforts in properly educating them will make for a better outcome when that day arrives.

Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 4/20/2011 2:49:31 PM

@Nelson Hultberg

It is always a treat when the author of the editorial contributes to the further dialogue. Thank you for this.

There are two main evils that, if continued, will ensure that incrementalism in the direction you desire will never work. One is the public funding of education; the other is the Federal Reserve System: the demise of either one will likely secure the demise of the other. You ignore the one, and support the latter. That you ridicule libertarians for pointing this out suggests you understand little about levers of control over the population.

If you do not destroy these two pillars, it matters little what else you campaign on. Maintain these two pillars, and nothing much will change in America. That you suggest to people that there will be change absent dealing with these two subjects properly reveals a significant shortcoming on your part regarding understanding politics and money power.

I advocate for education. To the extent you or anyone provides proper education, even if through politics, you have my good wishes. The important issues will not be "won" via a vote of an ignorant population, but only when the population is properly educated.

You offer a platform no different than things I have heard from varying politicians and economists over my lifetime. Flat tax has been discussed forever; yet the tax code only grows. The Chicago School always taught that a Federal reserve could be controlled; yet how will such a powerful entity be controlled the next time the end of the world is declared by your Treasury Secretary?

"But be fully aware that you are doing your country and the cause of freedom no good."

Please save your lectures. Over the last few years, a very radical libertarian has become a most recognizable political face to Americans. For the last two years, he was probably the second most recognized congressman, after Pelosi. Today, I would guess more people know of him than Boehner. He wrote a book "Abolish the Fed." Yet with this "radical" background, millions pay attention to his every word. Most of these same millions were sound asleep even three years ago.

Now, do I think Ron Paul has been a success in passing legislation? Obviously, no. But no "victor" of political office has done more to change the dialogue in the right direction in this country in the last 50 years than Ron Paul has. The main objective should be to expand this dialogue, to bring more people in to understand it.

Instead of piling abuse on the working poor, as you did in your editorial, and then doubled-down in your reply to WorkingClass, teach them about the costs to them of the current system. Teach them that the reason they cannot get ahead is because of the tax system and the fiat dollar.

Make the Federal Reserve their enemy; it won't be difficult to do. When the average everyday Joe has the scales lifted from his eyes (and he will, as the governmental promises are broken), he will be quite angry. And you suggest you will pacify him by advocating that you know how to manage the same beasts that caused his destruction in the first place?

They might be working class poor, but they aren't stupid; they will not be so easily fooled. And you would have done your country and the cause of freedom no good.

Posted by Bionic Mosquito on 4/20/2011 4:23:53 PM

@Nelson Hultberg

I thank and applaud you for remaining engaged in the dialogue.

"This could be done tomorrow simply by passing a law mandating that the Fed can expand the money supply at no more than 4% annually, i.e., at the same rate that goods and services grow. Voila! No more inflation. Zero percent every year."

The law won't pass. Or it will pass with one thousand loopholes. Or it will be violated the first time someone screams that the world will end. History of politics proves this is so. What do you know to counter this unassailable fact?

Inflation will not be zero. The distortions may or may not be reflected in the prices. First recipients will still get the jump on the poor saps.

"What's more, this could be explained and sold to American voters very easily."

By the time you get done explaining any of this to them in a manner that results in true understanding, they will wonder why you are advocating keeping any part of the Fed in the first place.

"Getting rid of the Fed is going to take 30-40 years."

Do you really believe your 4% law will survive politics for 40 years? In any case, I think the Fed will die of its own accord much sooner. Absent proper education in the people, those in power will stick it to them anyway with whatever comes next.

"In addition our candidate will sound like "that crazy ol' Harry Browne" who wanted to get rid of the welfare state."

Actually, this is how you came across to WorkingClass and Bluebird, and I will say these are two of the more rational, well spoken individuals of just the ilk you will need to convince. All you have done here is scare them, or at least get them quite upset with you. Scared or upset, either way they won't make good supporters of your cause.

"And even Ron Paul got only 7% with that approach....But no, radical libertarians prefer obscurity and 1% of the vote."

Now it can't be both 1% and 7%, can it?

From 1% to 7% in one election cycle, and before the obviousness of both the catastrophe and cronyism was known to a large portion of society. What might be possible with the continuation of this economic mess? And it is sure to continue and we are sure to see worse.

You recognize this fact about Ron Paul, and yet you don't see the big picture. When I heard he was running (again) three years ago, I shrugged my shoulders with a "so what." Then I saw the first money bomb. Stunning, especially for an oldster like me who recalls fondly pulling the lever for Ron 20 years earlier. He reached such levels of success before the full extent of the catastrophe was even hinted at.

Yet, you advocate continuing to give power to the same people who brought on this destruction. The people will look at you like you just came from Mars when you peddle this witch's brew ("I will manage these monsters better") in the middle of the crisis.

You believe incrementalism in the "right" direction can be had, with all of the same tools of manipulation in place. I will say again, you understand nothing of politics and money power when such levers and tools are available.

"Geeesh! What a brilliant strategy to save America."

Yes, indeed...If America is to be saved with a central bank, fiat money, the obligation of taxpayers to self-report every financial detail of their lives, public education (which you do not mention) all remaining in place, then you have saved nothing. All the same levers of control and centralization will remain. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.