The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

Ludwig von Mises Institute ^ | May 13, 2006 | Murray N. Rothbard

[Publius Valerius]

bookmark.

[Lucky Dog]

…the "productive members of society" argument you use to counter drug use is also unpragmatic in extreme and has been demonstrated as such in history.

The “argument” you cited was not intended to be “pragmatic.” Rather, it was a statement of guiding philosophy.

A society can surreptitiously turn the proverbial “blind eye” to some things that are questionable as far as those things may not be appropriate to furthering the long term health of that society. Such a benign neglect may be harmful in the long run, but still allows a society to reinstate sanctions at a later date if the activity’s detrimental consequences become more pronounced. However, “turning the blind” toward a practice or behavior is a far cry from encouraging that behavior. Legalization of a previously illicit activity is “encouraging” that activity.

Additionally, the basic premise of core values is a topic that must be addressed if a society is to survive and prosper. A society without core values has no reason to resist the takeover, either forceful or peaceful, of a competing society. Furthermore, without core values, collapse will occur in a society even without external competition. Therefore, the Libertarian Party must develop realistic core values or cede any hope of achieving political power.

[rhombus]

History has shown that making something illegal that was once legal can result in many unintended consequences. History has also shown that making something that once was legal, legal again does not necessarily mean something is being encouraged. To conclude otherwise is to give too much damn weight to one man's opinion and that is not a very good start upon which to build a body of core values. Libertarians are not alone in hypocrisy when it comes to living up to grandiose sounding guiding philosophies regarding the definition of "productive members of society".

[ClearCase_guy]

Thanks.

A big reason why I can't support the Libertarian party is right there.

[Lucky Dog]

History has shown that making something illegal that was once legal can result in many unintended consequences.

I presume you are referring to the ill-fated movement called “prohibition.” You are, indeed, correct in your observation if that is your basis.

History has also shown that making something that once was legal, legal again does not necessarily mean something is being encouraged.

I must disagree with this assessment if I understand your point correctly. While the degree of “encouragement” may be subject to debate, there can be no doubt, from a purely logical standpoint, that legalization of a previously illegal behavior is, in fact, an “encouragement,” to some degree, of that activity compared to its previous status.

To conclude otherwise is to give too much damn weight to one man's opinion and that is not a very good start upon which to build a body of core values.

Opinion, one man’s, or many men’s, for that matter, is not the issue. It is merely a matter of logic.

Libertarians are not alone in hypocrisy when it comes to living up to grandiose sounding guiding philosophies regarding the definition of "productive members of society".

Sorry, I am unsure of how the topic of hypocrisy came into the conversation. As to the definition of “productive member of society,” the term is intended to apply to those who contribute to the long term maintenance, growth or stability of a society in contrast to those members who make no long term contribution whatsoever or even a “negative contribution,” i.e., cost resources with no appreciable return, long term or otherwise.

[tpaine]

Rothbard:

"--- historians now realize that the American Revolution itself was not only ideological but also the result of devotion to the creed and the institutions of libertarianism.
The American revolutionaries were steeped in the creed of libertarianism, an ideology which led them to resist with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor the invasions of their rights and liberties committed by the imperial British government.

Dumb_Ox:
I must object to the depiction of America as an ideological nation with a set creed. If this is so, then I and many others are apostates.

We have a "set creed".. -- What else can our Constitution/Bill of Rights be called?

-- With what in this creed would you dissent?

[tpaine]

-- there can be no doubt, from a purely logical standpoint, that legalization of a previously illegal behavior is, in fact, an "encouragement," to some degree, of that activity compared to its previous status.

You just agreed that history showed us that prohibition was "ill fated". -- History also shows us that repeal did not lead to any 'encouragement' of drinking.
-- If anything, our society today is discouraging drinking [in its public intoxication/DUI laws] far more than in the decades before prohibition or after repeal.

Flawed logic.

[Dumb_Ox]

We have a "set creed".. -- What else can our Constitution/Bill of Rights be called?

"Articles of peace," rather than "articles of faith." They are imperfect documents, though much better than many other countries' constitutions, written and unwritten. If we elevate these documents to near-scriptural levels, we're conserving mistakes along with successes.

[Lucky Dog]

You just agreed that history showed us that prohibition was "ill fated". -- History also shows us that repeal did not lead to any 'encouragement' of drinking.

You are incorrect. Facts show that there was more alcohol consumption after the repeal of “prohibition” than during “prohibition.” That is to say, that there were some (although, by no means, all) of the population that reduced alcohol consumption during “prohibition” that resumed, or increased, such consumption afterwards. Such a reduction could have been from a respect for the law or a reduced availability of the substance. Regardless, the increase was definite after repeal of “prohibition” or legalization. Consequently, it is logical to conclude that legalization “encouraged” the behavior.

-- If anything, our society today is discouraging drinking [in its public intoxication/DUI laws] far more than in the decades before prohibition or after repeal.

Your statement is indirect proof of my point. The ill-effects of alcohol consumption are destructive to the “productivity” of our society’s citizens, i.e., avoidable traffic deaths, public intoxication, etc. Consequently, laws of prohibition (not of drinking, per se, but the potential outcome of such consumption) exist to “discourage” the activity.

Flawed logic.

Consider the following statements:

No law against an activity (or that activity’s after-effects) is an encouragement of that activity.

If after repeal of a law against and activity, the activity increases, then that repeal is a de facto encouragement.

Where is the flawed logic?.

[winston2]

ping

[tpaine]

If we elevate these documents to near-scriptural levels, we're conserving mistakes along with successes.

What mistakes do you see conserved in the Constitution and Amendments?

[tpaine]

If after repeal of a law against and activity, the activity increases, then that repeal is a de facto encouragement.
Where is the flawed logic?.


Alcohol Prohibition Was A Failure
Address:http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-157.html


Why do you see the Prohibition era as a success?

And why do you see our WOD's as a success?

[traviskicks]

Good read.





Libertarian ping! To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here.

[Marxbites]

With that I agree totally.

I didn't post the article to push Libertarians over Republicans, but to show that Rats & Reps aren't and haven't been towing the line vis defending our constitution ever since the progressives of BOTH parties learned from the euro-dictators how to use Govt as their own taxpayer funded wealth-maker/enhancer with the creation of the ICC, the Fed & income taxes.

Watch this great video re: America's tarrif history, illustrated with the flags used and their meanings.

http://mises.org:88/Sophocleus

[Lucky Dog]

Why do you see the Prohibition era as a success?

Please note that I have never said that I consider “Prohibition” a success in all of its intended goals. From my previous post:

I presume you are referring to the ill-fated movement called “prohibition.” You are, indeed, correct in your observation if that is your basis.

From your web site (cited in your last post):

According to its proponents, all the proposed benefits of Prohibition depended on, or were a function of, reducing the quantity of alcohol consumed. At first glance, the evidence seems to suggest that the quantity consumed did indeed decrease. That would be no surprise to an economist: making a product more difficult to supply will increase its price, and the quantity consumed will be less than it would have been otherwise.

And why do you see our WOD's as a success?

Again, I have never said that I consider the “war on drugs” (WOD) a success. Rather, what I have said is that a societal value must be established and maintained that discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs. Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto “encouragement,” rather than “discouragement” of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity. Again, please note the paragraph from your referenced web site.

[tpaine]

And why do you see our WOD's as a success?

Again, I have never said that I consider the "war on drugs" (WOD) a success. Rather, what I have said is that a societal value must be established and maintained that discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs.

You think our prohibitive 'war' is a "societal value", -- whatta load.
Sure, the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto "encouragement," rather than "discouragement" of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

The initial criminalization of recreational drug use was a de facto, unconstitutional "discouragement" of productive government activity.

[Lucky Dog]

You think our prohibitive 'war' is a "societal value", -- whatta load.

You are extremely mistaken in your perception of what I think. Again, please note that I have never said any such thing.

As a matter of clarity for you, let me point out that one can no more make “war” on drugs (inanimate objects) than one can make war on “terror” (the tactic of attacking non-military targets and individuals in an attempt to break an enemy’s will). The so-called “war on drugs” is a misnomer invented as a public relations ploy to refer to a combination of police actions, diplomatic initiatives, publicity campaigns, and other activities intended to reduce citizen use and abuse of substances which make them, not just non-productive, but resource drains on society. This so-called “war on drugs” is not a “societal value.” Rather, it is the embodiment of an action to support an underlying societal value. Has this exposition clarified the issue for you?

Sure, the WOD's "discourages non-productive, resource draining citizen activity such as abuse of drugs"; -- at the cost of ~losing~ the "societal value" of our Constitutional rule of law..

Perhaps, you could cite the portion of the US Constitution that specifically prohibits Congress from restricting/regulating the interstate and intra-country trade in recreational hallucinogens and narcotics. Conceivably, you were thinking of the Tenth Amendment? However, surely you must know that the “Commerce Clause” gives Congress certain regulatory powers that the Tenth Amendment does not abrogate. Additionally, nothing in the US Constitution, of which I am aware, prohibits state governments from regulating and/or restricting such drug use.

Legalization of recreational drug use is a de facto "encouragement," rather than "discouragement" of non-productive, resource draining citizen activity.

The initial criminalization of recreational drug use was a de facto, unconstitutional "discouragement" of productive government activity.

While I certainly agree that the … initial criminalization of recreational drug use… was a de facto… "discouragement", I must disagree that it was either, unconstitutional, or a discouragement of productive government activity. Rather, such criminalization was discouragement of societal resource draining behavior. The relative success of the discouragement is certainly debatable. However, this discouragement’s bases, in both, law and philosophy, is not uncertain at all.

[Dumb_Ox]

The big one in the constitution is that it was formed without a consciousness of political parties. Publius derided parties as "factions" in the Federalist Papers, while arguing that the Constitution would limit factional effects and produce statesmen of independent judgement. I don't think that was successful. For instance, if a president and a congressional majority are from the same party, there's no real limitation on factional capriciousness.

The Constitution itself recognizes its imperfections, leaving open the possibility for amendment.

As for the Declaration, I'm not sure much weight should be placed on its claims. It was written in what, one month's time?

First, it relies on "rights talk," a blunt instrument for any sort of political philosophizing. Second, it seems to change the Tory Divine Right of Kings to the Divine Right of the People. As with any sovereign, its high quality cannot always be presumed. A people, like a king, can become unfit to rule. The Declaration can keep that fearful possibility from even being considered, and so it seems to be a blind spot.

[DugwayDuke]

The big reason I can't support the libertarian party is that I've read their platform. I also found their position on 9/11 to be absurd. Harry Browne, who has now passed away, was their party candidate for president in 2000. His position on 9/11 was that we should 'follow the constitution' and 'issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal'. In effect, he wanted to hire bounty hunters to respond to Al Qaeda.

[Sam Cree]

"The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order. Ultimately, disagreements and conflicts among the various advocates of differing governmental systems stem from what should be the proper “social order” that is to be maintained."

Of course, for a libertarian, the desired social order is, as you described, simply one in which a man is free to do anything that does not infringe the freedom of another. My personal twist on it is that the primary, and almost the only, function of the state is to protect liberty, since anything else it does tends to infringe that liberty. That's my personal philosophy, but even I recognize that the definition is broad enough to allow quite a bit of interpretation, as you noted.

Regarding capitalism and monopolies, my belief is that large companies tend to enlist the aid of government in their efforts at becoming monopolies...likely they'd be much less successful at it otherwise. Marxbites posted a couple interesting articles on the subject recently. Otherwise, I'm willing to accept the need for antitrust laws, though they give the state a large a opportunity for abuse.

"Once again, with this concession, the pure libertarian is lumped together in the same competition with all other advocates of differing forms of government."

There may be some truth in that, but it's like saying that the USA is lumped together with differing forms of govenment. We are becoming that as we abandon our tradtions of liberty, but weren't always.

"However, if a “society” does not encourage its members to be “productive” by penalizing, or, at least, discouraging, non-productive behavior, it risks collapse from starvation."

No, I don't think so, people, with some exceptions, will be productive, to varying degrees. The need to accomplish is innate; the need to survive cannot be denied. It's only when the state becomes involved, an example being our welfare state, that entire segments of the population become unproductive and inactive. The same goes for procreation, I've noticed a pretty strong drive for that exists in most of us.

I lean pretty strongly to libertarian views, but prefer to call myself a classical liberal, since I'm generally a believer that the codification of some tradtional rules of conduct are justified. Many of them, like the idea that marriage is between man and woman are there for good reason.