The Intellectual Incoherence of Conservatism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | March 4, 2005 | Hans-Hermann Hoppe

[pissant]

good one.

[Sam the Sham]

Show me one non-statist society that did not have a correspondingly rigid social culture. Show me one non-statist society that was not monocultural.

[thoughtomator]

The USA, pre-income tax.

[Loud Mime]

The republicans have embraced bigger government because they have to in order to be competitive in the elections. The political trend is to have government as a provider. If you vacate that tenet, you will lose elections.

Look at the Social Security debate. Just by giving people a choice in how they invest is causing problems for the republicans!

The voters need to be educated before the politicians can pursue true constituional prinicples. I'm working on it with my website....maybe some day.....

[Taliesan]

Try to get a so-called conservative to accept that the income tax is nothing more that theft, and you will be labeled a "kook".

This is the part of libertarianism than I can never figure out.

Is all taxation theft?

[Just another Joe]

At the national level conservatism isn't statist, it just isn't represented in proportion to its voting base.

Conservatism? No.
But it sure seems that many of the representatives that claim to be conservative have a statist view.

[snarks_when_bored]

Thanks for that thoughtful and very comprehensive response. I don't find much to disagree with in it. I guess we differ on our views of the degree to which public schools are indoctrinating (in some way) rather than educating. I went to public schools, and, as my teachers would attest, nobody indoctrinated me in anything at all. Also, to judge from the drop-out rate and like statistics, I'm not sure that students nowadays are receiving much in the way of indoctrination, either.

Public education at the pre-collegiate level is pretty much of a mess, but I don't see homeschooling and the sort of cooperative network (with exchanges of emoluments) that you describe as an answer to the problems. That sort of solution doesn't appear to me to be capable of being scaled up to what's required by a society of 300 million or so people. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I don't see the way to do it right now.

Best regards to you, and may your home-schooling efforts continue to be rewarded...

[TChris]

Well its great to be a "redical libertarian" in theory. Unfortunately, the world is governed by those with powerful militaries. Always has been, always will be. Either you pony up the tax $$ to defend your national interests, or you get swallowed by an evil opponent.

I agree. The author of the article does not differentiate, nor does Buckley apparently, between taxation for, and a strong federal government in support of strong national defense and a "leviathan government" in general. Because national defense is the primary purpose of the federal government, I believe it should be paramount among that government's priorities. Our nation's citizens should be required to support what ever level of military preparedness best deters our enemies, or, failing that, can handily defeat them.

On the other hand, legislator largess using taxpayer money, under the labels of environmental protection, mindless education spending, federal land management, welfare and a litany of pork projects is a bad thing. I think most conservatives -- and libertarians, for that matter -- would agree. I don't think it requires radical libertarianism to recognize the difference between a strong, capable national defense and problematic Big Government. There's plenty of fat to be trimmed without getting into the meat.

[pissant]

well said.

[Sam the Sham]

The USA, pre-income tax.

If you were a white male Protestant the USA of 1900 was a totally free country. It was a Victorian world where it was taken for granted that power was to be exercised by the "right sort". It was a world where respect for authority was so unquestioning that wave after wave of men threw themselves into the machine guns for "honor".

[Al Gator]

Not all taxation is theft.

However, when the government views your money as theirs and taxation is their prerogative, then the word theft creeps into the picture.

[Al Gator]

"If you were a white male Protestant the USA of 1900 was a totally free country."

Seems you have difficulty with white christian males? Where does this dislike come from?

[thoughtomator]

In other words, you're being a troll, having decided on an unreasonable standard that you know no human society has ever approached. Give me some examples of what you consider a free society - if you consider any society anywhere, ever, to be free.

America is exceptional. You may not agree with that, but it's true, and we have demonstrated that time and time and time again.

[Taliesan]

So what is it about income tax that makes it theft while other taxes are not?

[Durus]

Any school that the interested parties of the public provides for but is not run by the government. A private or Edison-type school is not fundamentally different.

[Al Gator]

Because it assumes that what you make belongs to the government first.

I can choose to buy or not buy something that is taxed.

I can choose to use or not use a road that is taxed.

I cannot "choose" to not pay tax on money that is mine. If I don't pay, at the point of a gun, they put me in prison.

I cannot "choose" to not pay property tax on a house that is mine. The state owns my house. I just "rent" it from the state. If I don't pay the tax, they take my house at the point of a gun.

Getting clear now?

I know the arguments: I want my trash pickup, I want my public services, I want my taj mahal schools, and on and on...

But what about us who don't care about that?

No problem, pay up or at the point of gun we will take it from you.

[thoughtomator]

Income tax is theft because they take it before you ever spend it - you have no choice whether to engage in taxable activities or not. You earned it, but it never ever reaches your pocket. This is opposed to other types of taxes, which do not pre-empt your ability to decide to do what you will with your own money.

[Sam the Sham]

You asked a question, you got a totally valid answer.

A non-statist society requires a rigid cultural and societal hierarchy.

[Protagoras]

The author sure spent a lot of time trying to define the undefinable. Conservative is a broad term.

It sure is on FR. Here it means whatever anyone wants it to mean.

[longtermmemmory]

From the orginating website:


MISSION
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995), with a vast array of publications, programs, and fellowships, the Mises Institute seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate as the foundation for a renewal of the free and prosperous commonwealth.

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to restore a high place for theory in economics and the social sciences, encourage a revival of critical historical research, and draw attention to neglected traditions in Western philosophy. In this cause, the Mises Institute works to advance the Austrian School of economics and the Misesian tradition, and, in application, defends the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive.