Bionic Mosquito

The title
of this post is taken from chapter 15 of Murray Rothbard’s
“For
a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.” Throughout
the book, Rothbard has laid out the case for the libertarian solution
to the problems of politics and government. In this chapter, he
suggests how to get from here to there. He also deals with some
of the common objections to the idea of liberty and to the approach
taken by some. For these reasons, I found this chapter to be most
valuable.

Education:
Theory and Movement

We face
the great strategic problem of all “radical” creeds
throughout history: How can we get from here to there, from
our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal
of liberty?

On one
point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and
necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed,
for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism)
is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers
of people to the cause.

Keep in
mind that Rothbard wrote this book more than two decades before
there was even a semblance of a user-friendly internet –
a world of mimeo-graphs and snail-mail lists. With the internet,
the possibility of reaching out to others has increased exponentially
– and the facts have proven this out. It is still amazing
to see this in tangible results – twenty-four years ago
Ron Paul received less than 1% of the vote as the Libertarian
Party candidate for President. He might draw dozens to an event.
The difference today is like night and day. Yet, the charge is
often made today, as if nothing has changed – as if all
the libertarians could fit in a phone booth or something.

Rothbard
finds fault in this charge; he sees value in such internal dialogue:

This charge
is often made – why get into debates about oftentimes minor
issues when all that this does is divide an already small movement?
Rothbard makes clear why this is helpful. There is continual education
needed amongst even those who have embraced the political ideas
of libertarians.

How true
this is. There is a remnant,
and to know and be reminded that there are others of like-mind
offers hope and encouragement.

Are
We “Utopians”?

This comes
up regularly – it has never worked, who will control the
bad guys, you have to believe man is perfect if you advocate this,
etc. Libertarians are utopians.

Every
“radical” creed has been subjected to the charge
of being “utopian,” and the libertarian movement
is no exception.

Some libertarians
themselves maintain that we should not frighten people off by
being “too radical,” and that therefore the full
libertarian ideology and program should be kept hidden
from view.

This is
suggested by many as the right approach for seemingly libertarian-leaning
politicians – hide your true feelings, and then spring it
on the government once you are elected. If only Ron Paul wouldn’t
say that. Or so-and-so-pseudo-libertarian-candidate is only talking
this way to get elected.

This is
why I support taking the approach to aim
small. Those who advocate the non-aggression principle will
never come close to hitting the target if they aren’t aiming
for the target.

We must
make the building of a free society once more an intellectual
adventure, a deed of courage….We need intellectual
leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power
and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal,
however small may be the prospects of its early realization.

How true,
and in different ways demonstrated by many of the organizations
and individuals I have cited above.

How many
times are libertarians blasted with the idea to be gradual: don’t
eliminate all foreign aid, just eliminate it from our enemies;
we should remove US troops from foreign zones where there is no
identifiable strategic interest; let’s eliminate all of
the government waste before we worry about reducing the scope
of government; don’t end the Fed, let’s just make
sure that they stick to rules for inflation; we need to devise
a fair taxation scheme, but we cannot just eliminate income taxes.
The list is long.

The problem
is no one will get excited about these proposals. They are all
versions of what every politician through time has ever proposed.
Newt Gingrich, Dick Armey, and countless others could be behind
many of these statements. These statements fully support the status
quo as these statements accept the terms of the debate. The general
policies are philosophically acceptable; it is only the details
or the magnitude that must be tweaked. It continues the desired
conversation: policy debate instead of debate regarding fundamental
principles.

There is
nothing in this approach that will inspire. There is nothing here
to draw people to a different, all-encompassing world-view.

Brilliant.

Such an “abolitionist” perspective does not mean,
again, that the libertarian has an unrealistic assessment of how
rapidly his goal will, in fact, be achieved. Thus, the libertarian
abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being
“unrealistic” when in the 1830s he first raised the
glorious standard of immediate emancipation of the slaves. His
goal was the morally proper one, and his strategic realism came
in the fact that he did not expect his goal to be quickly reached….Garrison
himself distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly
as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We
have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow;
that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”
Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in
theory is perpetuity in practice.”

Unless someone
is holding tight to the objective and regularly speaking forcefully
for its implementation – the abolition of slavery or the
abolition of coercion in relationships – no one will ever
take the objective seriously. Why would the objective be taken
seriously if no one cares enough to defend and advocate for it?
How can one come close to hitting the target if he isn’t
even aiming for it?

Rothbard
then comes to identify the “true utopian” system:

Is it utopian
to recognize that every individual is an individual, with a desire
to acquire and enjoy his possessions (not only material) in quiet
comfort, each individual with different preferences and values?
Is it utopian to understand that certain men (and the ones most
apt to use it abusively), when offered the possibility of monopoly
power, will do whatever is necessary to grab those reins and then
use the power to their own advantage?

Rothbard
sees that there are two issues when it comes to the idea of “utopian”
and these must each be identified and dealt with separately:

I have already
mentioned the work of many who are providing the latter: education.
As to the former: the communist ideology, for example, like all
coercive and controlling ideologies behind state power, holds
to the implicit assumption that such centralized power can be
kept in check. What is true for communism is equally true for
any form of centralized, monopolized, state power. In other words,
equally true for virtually every state in the world today.

But such
power cannot be kept in check. To believe otherwise is quite utopian.
It is utopian to believe that man can fundamentally change the
nature of his fellow man. That somehow monopoly power will not
attract those to whom monopoly power is attractive; that once
in control, those in power will keep themselves in check.

The difficulty
of limited government: the governed and the governors won’t
agree on the definition of “limited.” And as it is
the governors to whom monopoly power is granted, guess who will
win that debate?

Rothbard
leaves open the possibility for transitional steps, but only with
certain objectives kept at the forefront:

If, then,
the libertarian must advocate the immediate attainment of liberty
and abolition of statism, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory
to this overriding end, what further strategic stance may a
libertarian take in today’s world? Must he necessarily
confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are
“transitional demands,” steps toward liberty in
practice, necessarily illegitimate? No…

How, then,
can we know whether any halfway measure or transitional demand
should be hailed as a step forward or condemned as an opportunistic
betrayal? There are two vitally important criteria for answering
this crucial question: (1) that, whatever the transitional
demands, the ultimate end of liberty be always held aloft as
the desired goal; and (2) that no steps or means ever explicitly
or implicitly contradict the ultimate goal.

Always a
reminder of the ultimate objective; only movement toward the ultimate
objective is acceptable.

Again, such
arguments only play into the hands of those who desire to control
the dialogue. Instead of always moving toward the elimination
of taxes (as in this example), it turns into a discussion of which
taxes, some are better than others, some are more “efficient”
than others, one should replace another, etc.

Why
Liberty Will Win

I will add
that it is not only the only system compatible with man’s
nature and desire for prosperity and happiness. It is also the
only system that recognizes the dark side of man and therefore
disallows the concentration of political power.

Hooray,
I hope.

The
clock cannot be turned back to a preindustrial age….We
are stuck with the industrial age, whether we like it or not.

But if
that is true, then the cause of liberty is secured. For economic
science has shown, as we have partially demonstrated in this
book, that only freedom and a free market can run an
industrial economy. In short…in an industrial
world it is also a vital necessity. For, as Ludwig von Mises
and other economists have shown, in an industrial economy statism
simply does not work.

This is
an interesting observation. Drastic interruptions to the free-market
can only occur for a (relatively) short period without risking
civilization.

In the twentieth
century, Mises demonstrated (a) that all statist intervention
distorts and cripples the market and leads, if not reversed, to
socialism; and (b) that socialism is a disaster because it cannot
plan an industrial economy for lack of profit-and-loss incentives,
and for lack of a genuine price system or property rights in capital,
land, and other means of production.

We do not
have to prophesy the ruinous effects of statism; they are here
at every hand.

Significant
interruption to the free-market will end up in destruction. Without
relatively free prices and the discipline of profit-and-loss,
resources are wasted. Are we currently passing through the final
convulsions? Is this the root of the calamity we are seeing –
the protests and revolts due to high double-digit unemployment
throughout much of the developed world? The high unemployment
brought on by the disruptive policies of the state?

It is interesting
to note: this observation from Mises was seven decades ago. Yet
here we are, continuing in the convulsions.

Rothbard
goes on to list the many economic and social problems of the 1970s.

Rothbard’s
observations are almost four decades old, yet the convulsions continue
– still no final collapse. Perhaps this serves to demonstrate
the vast amount of wealth in reserve available to be destroyed (see
here
and here).
The west had behind it centuries of wealth (not only or even primarily
financial, but cultural and intellectual) – see “From
Dawn to Decadence” by Jacques Barzun.

Conclusion

Rothbard
does this wonderfully well. Throughout this book and especially
in this chapter he gives much to those who remain open to consider
that there can be success in achieving this “radical creed”
of libertarianism.

Reprinted
with permission from the Bionic
Mosquito.

January
25, 2013

Copyright
© 2013 Bionic
Mosquito