The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism

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

[DugwayDuke]

Granted that such Letters are normally given to privateers but Harry's point was that we should essentially place a bounty upon Bin Laden and send bounty hunters after him. Exactly how these bounty hunters were supposed to enter Afghanistan while the Taliban maintained control was never explained to my satisfaction. You will have to admit though that such an approach is in alignment with that portion of the libertarian party that believes that the government can accomplish nothing as well as private enterprise.

I don't doubt that there is some disagreement within the libertarian party on the proper response to terrorism. That's why I tend to rely upon things like their party platform or statements from nationally recognized leaders such as Harry Browne.

Speaking of their platform, what do you think about their position in favor of free and open unrestricted immigration?

[Durus]

There is no “belief” required. I suggest you consult some reference books such as Jefferson's Declaration of Independence: Origins, Philosophy and Theology by Allen Jayne or Declaration of Independence : A Study in the History of Political Ideas by Carl L. Becker. Regardless of your belief, or lack thereof, the point is the same.
As you were the first to use the phrase "belief" I will leave it to you to determine it's place in this discussion. I still claim that founding documents text determine it's meaning.

I said no such thing. I used the existence of such to establish the fact that monopolies come to exist under capitalistic systems. The requirement for government involvement exists only if there is a conflict of rights as the result of the existence and practices of a monopoly.
And my point was that monopolistic systems are not a natural occurrence of capitalism but a reflection of manipulation of market almost always with Government involvement such as the "robber barons" who, by the way, were not actually monopolies.

The very existence of a monopoly gives it the power to control prices and, thus, the potential profit margins of any competitor. It has been a standard business practice of, not just monopolies, but any large competitor confronting a smaller, potentially better competitor to lower prices long enough to drive the smaller competitor out of business. In fact, historically, that is typically the way monopolies have achieved their monopolistic status.

If it is a monopoly then there isn't a need to manipulate prices because by the definition of the term the monopoly doesn't have competitors. In fact in a free market system determines prices not the organization producing the goods or service. Further price manipulation only works if the competitor wants to play the game of cutting prices. Not everyone buys the cheapest item in the market.

On the contrary, it is neither force nor fraud, but perfectly legal, for a monopoly to lower its prices to drive a competitor out of business in a situation without market regulation. It may unethical and unfair, but not illegal, because, by definition, without market regulation, there is no governing law for such a practice.
Your example doesn't work. Price control (to the limited extent the monopoly can exert it) is not enough to maintain a monopoly. Further if a company can provide a good or service cheaper then everyone else who is harmed? The person that wants to produce a good or service for more? If an individual wants to enter into a market they have to produce a good or service that is competitive in price or value. If they can't they have no place in the market.

An individual owning a monopoly denies another the individual the right to ethically compete on a “level playing field.” How is this situation any different from the “enjoyment of private property” conflict of rights I cited earlier? Was not that situation a conflict?
An individual that owns a monopoly isn't necessarily restricting anything including the "economic" liberty of others. A level playing field is the market free from manipulation and regulation. Show me a monopoly that has existed without force, fraud or Government involvement. It almost sounds as if you consider free market economics a restriction of liberty...which borders on Orwellian.

The morality, or lack thereof, for monopolies is not the issue. Rather, the issue is their ability to arbitrarily restrict the economic liberties of others.
Restricting the liberties of another isn't immoral? Regardless the fantasy monopoly boogy man that can control the market and unfairly compete with it's competitors doesn't exist unless you have an example. No the "robber barons" don't count as I have already demonstrated that they were the product of Government manipulation.

[Plutarch]

16 year old Son of Plutarch is essentially a South Park Conservative. He thinks he may be Libertarian.

I need to convince him of the folly of his ways. ;-)

Can anyone direct me to the Libertarian version of Free Republic?

[Lucky Dog]

Gentlemen:

Sorry, I must leave the forum until tomorrow...

Regards,
Lucky Dog

[Marxbites]

Yeah, jeez, he's just twisting in the wind without a foundation, educational to be sure.

There were no monopolies until Govt created them.

Were there corrupt politicians in Rockefeller's & Morgan's pockets? You know it. They put the politicians in that served their purposes.

Like Wilson, who after being railroaded into signing the Federal Reserve Act he didn't initiate, later admitted what a grave mistake he had made. But Edward Mandel House, saw to it he did it when Wilson hesitated.

Col. Ed M House - Wilson's alter ego, founder of the CFR, author of the fantasy novel about autocrat "Philip Dru, Administrator", an admitted socialist and believer in expert central planners running everyone else's lives. As the progressives always have and still believe.

These traitors also talked Wilson out his promise to keep the US out of WWI, which if we had not entered it, WWII would not have happened.

[Publius Valerius]

In response to your comments on predatory pricing, as I noted earlier, it's an interesting idea in theory, but it's been rejected by most legal scholars and economists and has little practical value in the real world for a couple of reasons.

First, leaving aside the difficulties with calculating marginal cost, the main hurdle to predatory pricing is, again, free flow of capital. I think the problem with your example is that you assume only one market entrant. Let's assume, for a moment, an established company ("EC") engages in predatory pricing and drives a new entrant from the marketplace (A large assumption, I think, since I'm not aware of any successful real life example of predatory pricing, ever). Now, since EC has suffered losses over an extended period of time due to its predatory pricing tactics, it will have to raise prices to supracompetitive levels in order to recoup those losses. But, whenever EC prices products above competitive levels, capital will again be attracted to the industry and new entrants will appear: it's a vicious cycle that never allows EC to recoup the losses it suffers in a predatory pricing scheme.

Second, assuming that EC is a public company (a pretty safe bet if we assume EC has market power), and assuming that EC decided to pursue a predatory pricing scheme, investors would be intolerant of an extended period of losses--capital would flow out of the industry and in order to continue operations, EC would have to raise prices back to its marginal costs: competitive levels. Even if predatory pricing were possible--and I'm not saying it is--it's just impossible to get millions of investors on the same page. An extended period of losses would drive away investors. It's just not practical.

Second, to address cross-elasticity of demand, I agree that it's certain a company would attempt to price its product just below the point at which people begin to switch to an alternative, but as a business, isn't that the idea? That's the market price; that's the price people are willing to pay for the product.

While I note that you are correct in saying that there are high barriers of entry in the steel industry, there are also alternatives for the product: titanium, aluminum, and scrap metal come immediately to mind. While I recognize these aren't suitable alternatives in every situation, they are in many, and that's the idea.

But again, all these ideas aren't isolated--if a steel monopolist were charging supracompetitive prices, even if below the point at which consumers would seek alternatives, then capital would flow to the industry and new entrants would appear, despite the high barriers to entry that clearly exist in the steel industry.

While I agree that the government does have a purpose and should do things, it does not need to meddle in the marketplace, and it assuredly does not need to pass antitrust laws for the protection of the marketplace; you only need those for redistribution of wealth.

[Publius Valerius]

I think that given the success of the war in Iraq, native mercenaries might not be such a bad idea. It's certainly something, at least in retrospect, that should have been (should be?) considered. The only problem is that I don't see such an idea going over well with the rest of the world. It's decidedly very 18th Century, but who's to say it's a bad thing?

As far as immigration goes, I've got no problem with the LP's stance. First, from a purely capitalist perspective, it's not a bad thing: more immigrants means bigger markets and more opportunity for division of labor. Those are unquestionably good things.

Second, from a moral perspective, I frankly don't think it's very Christian to tell someone that simply because they didn't have the good fortune to be born in the same country I was that they shouldn't have the opportunity to be (relatively) free and enjoy a form of economy that can loosely be described as capitalist. I just don't think it's right: if people are suffering in other countries and they want to come here to make a better life for themselves and their family, I say: "welcome." People are an asset, not a liability.

If your beef with immigrants is that they are a "drain" on social programs (I'm not sure that's the case, but assuming it is), then I think the answer is not to restrict immigration, but eliminate the social programs.

[jess35]

Consequently, it is logical to conclude that legalization “encouraged” the behavior.

Okay....so by your reasoning, if we do not have a federal law in place that prohibits citizens from picking their noses, the government is encouraging people to do so.

[DugwayDuke]

Would it be correct to assume that your Christian benevolence towards all immigrants would also extend to other rigths such as voting? After all, to be consistent, on what basis would you deny those rights?

[Lucky Dog]

Let’s recap and summarize before continuing the discussion:

We agree (correct me if I am misstating your position, please) on the following:

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

E. [A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.

Where we disagree (again, correct me if I am misstating your position, please) is the following:

1. Exactly what constitutes an individual or group of individuals coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups.

It is my position that it is possible for another individual, or group of individuals, to coercively impose their will on other individuals or groups through nominally legal, economic means (as opposed to fraud or force) such as monopolistic practices (or other means such as abusive, expensive litigation as a mere “cost of doing business”).

Based upon the above position, I further maintain that some government proactive, market regulatory actions (although not necessarily those currently existent) are appropriate to prevent such coercive manipulation.

2. Exactly what government actions and principles are appropriate to coercively balance individual rights when they are in conflict.

It is my position that it is appropriate for government to prophylactically establish very limited, procedural safeguards to forestall, as much as possible, the necessity for post coercion, government intervention via judicial dispute resolution. Small businesses cannot easily afford expensive, drawn out litigation and, thus, can be forced by larger competitors who can afford the legal expense (a mere “cost of doing business”) into not pursuing a remedy for a coercive restriction of individual rights.

3. Another area (directly germane to the economic vein) not yet discussed where you may disagree with me is related to the government’s responsibility to provide for the common defense.

It is my position that in order to maintain a strong and diverse industrial base in military equipment essential to national defense, that government may actively interfere in the economy to ensure that essential defensive capabilities are available in time of need. However, it is further my position that the most appropriate means of government intervention is not as a regulatory agent, but as a “customer,” i.e., by contracting with a variety of firms to provide the requisite equipment even at the expense of not necessarily, always choosing the “lowest bidder.”

4. Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.

5. Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.

[Lucky Dog]

Okay....so by your reasoning, if we do not have a federal law in place that prohibits citizens from picking their noses, the government is encouraging people to do so.

You are correct. However, to my knowledge, "nose picking" has no detriment to society in general beyond "grossness." Consequently, restricting it is beyond the legitimate interest of society, i.e., government.

[Durus]

I don't even agree with your recap. It allows repetition of discussion points already discussed and dismissed while bringing up new topics that I don't consider germane to the original discussion...however I'll play for the moment.

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…
The function of our Government is what is being discussed and its functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution.

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …
I'm not a libertarian, however I think that the majority holds that the government should be restrained to it's constitutionally mandated powers.

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.
Uh-huh

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…
Again I'm not a libertarian...and I won't speculate on what forms of government they can or can not support.

[A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.
That makes sense to me.

Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.
Where is that power listed in the Constitution

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.
Where is that power listed in the constitution?

[Marxbites]

Unbelievable what tries to pass for cogency these days.

Good job fending off the inculcated myths of the edukrats on generations of mush heads.

Uh, I guess they all forgot that what was not specifically an enumerated power of the Fedl Govt, was left to the states or to it's citizens.

That's why Roe is bad law - it is judicial fiat, just as were the FDR court's rulings allowing SS, among many, and all manner of NON-general spending by Congress.

A battleship is an expenditure that fits the Gen'l Welfare definition because it's benefits are apportioned, it benefits ALL citizens equally. SS, Welfare & food stamps, etc. do NOT - NO entitlement passes in fact, and ergo is unconstitutional.

[Liberal Classic]

Sadly, the concept of limited government is all but dead.

[Lucky Dog]

I don't even agree with your recap.

Sorry, it was an honest attempt to briefly encapsulate points for better understanding and discussion. Perhaps, you would like to try your hand at the task?

It allows repetition of discussion points already discussed and dismissed…

Sorry, again, I was unaware that we had agreed to dismiss any points. However, if you wish to put on the table those points which you think have been dismissal items, I would be glad to review them for possible agreement with your assessment

A. The function of any, and all, governments is the maintenance of social order…

The function of our Government is what is being discussed and its functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution.

The statement listed in item A is a generality, i.e., it applies to all governments of any type, including our own. What you are apparently quarrelling over is the specific type of order that our government maintains.

As to your assertion that our government’s functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution, I invite you to consider the following fact: If these functions were so “clearly spelled out,” there would not exist all of the Supreme Courts cases that have been decided from the beginning of our government clarifying these “clearly spelled out functions in the constitution.”

B. Pure libertarians hold that government should be minimized and that government should have only that power necessary to prevent an individual or group of individuals from coercively imposing their will on other individuals or groups …

I'm not a libertarian, however I think that the majority holds that the government should be restrained to it's constitutionally mandated powers.

In principle, I agree with you. However, the question arises from some quarters as to exactly what those powers are, as well as, what means are appropriate to carry them out.

To reprise one of our forbearers, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” From this statement one can conclude that there are some things the founding fathers left to the interpretations of future generations concerning the application of the Constitution.

C. Even pure libertarians agree that some type of government must be called upon to coercively balance individual rights based upon certain principles.

Uh-huh

I assume that this response is agreement, is it not?

D. [T]he pure libertarian… can only support a constitutionally limited, democratically-elected, republican form of government with certain individual rights immutably and irrevocably enshrined in that constitution…

Again I'm not a libertarian...and I won't speculate on what forms of government they can or can not support.

However, as an item of interest, do you concur with the statement on your own (regardless of your self-identified political leanings)?

[A] pure libertarian could never support any economic system except capitalism since all others arbitrarily limit the individual’s freedom to engage any commercial enterprise of choice.

That makes sense to me.

I take it that we have another point of agreement, here.

Yet another area (indirectly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must actively discourage hallucinogenic and narcotic drugs.

Where is that power listed in the Constitution?

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”

I hold that a certain, significant percentage of the population must, of necessity, be economically “productive” or the entire population, figuratively, or perhaps, literally, “starves” and the “society” collapses or becomes too weak to resist active take-over by a competing, non-libertarian society. In the interest of justice and common sense, it is inappropriate for the government to intentionally not act in this area until a certain, critical percentage of the population has become non-productive. There are two reasons for this position. First, addiction once it occurs is difficult if not impossible to reverse for a large number of citizens. Thus the productivity problem is not solved. Second, it is intuitively unjust to let some people engage in such activity, but when the percentage becomes too high, to arbitrarily out law the activity. Therefore, for the sake of common sense, it must discouraged consistently.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the Article I, section 8.

Another area (not directly germane to the economic vein) where some other posters (and possibly you) have disagreed with a position of mine is that government must proactively prevent nominally libertarian activities which threaten to dissolve the society which, otherwise, supports a libertarian system.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Yet, again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” Again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

It is my position that government must actively discourage gay marriage (nominally an individual liberty choice) because the practice weakens the heterosexual family unit and thus, potentially causes the collapse of the “society” in which the libertarian would exist.

Where is that power listed in the constitution?

Yet, once more, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” And again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

[headsonpikes]

...the legitimate interest of society, i.e., government.

Here we have the kernel of your disorder - that little socialist meme that equates society with the state.

This is usually a French disorder, intellectually speaking, but there can be no doubt that the "ideals" of socialism have permeated American life, transmitted primarily through the organs of so-called "public education".

I realize that I am p*ssing in the wind - you socialist b*stards constitute the intellectual consensus in the U.S. - even on this site!

[Lucky Dog]

Here we have the kernel of your disorder - that little socialist meme that equates society with the state.

Your qualification to assess anyone’s so-called disorder, with the possible exception of your own, is suspect, given your obviously displayed lack of expressive ability which implies a distinct lack of intellect.

The state is a part of society not the reverse. It exists to serve society not the reverse. Over the long term, the state maintained social order is a reflection of societal values and mores.

This is usually a French disorder, intellectually speaking, but there can be no doubt that the "ideals" of socialism have permeated American life, transmitted primarily through the organs of so-called "public education".

An interesting opinion but not germane to the discussion.

I realize that I am p*ssing in the wind - you socialist b*stards constitute the intellectual consensus in the U.S. - even on this site!

Your command of vocabulary is remarkably, and abysmally, deficient, as are your manners and civility. If you find it difficult to communicate without using vulgarities, I strongly suggest a very basic course in English as well as the purchase of a good book on etiquette.

[headsonpikes]

I apologize for being cranky this morning.

To respond to your continuing socialist sloganeering - "The state is a part of society not the reverse. It exists to serve society not the reverse." - would be to confer upon this intellectual masturbation a dignity it does not possess.

[StoneColdTaxHater]

INTERESTING

[Durus]

As to your assertion that our government’s functions are spelled out clearly in the constitution, I invite you to consider the following fact: If these functions were so “clearly spelled out,” there would not exist all of the Supreme Courts cases that have been decided from the beginning of our government clarifying these “clearly spelled out functions in the constitution.”
That's absurd. The functions are clearly spelled out...so clearly in fact that a grade school student could read the constitution and derive it's meaning. The reason so many supreme court decisions exist isn't to clarify the powers of government but usurp powers that clearly were not included.

In principle, I agree with you. However, the question arises from some quarters as to exactly what those powers are, as well as, what means are appropriate to carry them out.
The questions arising typically aren't actual questions but attempts to twist the meaning of plain text as an excuse for some power grab.

It is called “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the “Commerce Clause.”
Again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” It is further delineated in the Article I, section 8.
Yet, again, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” Again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.
Yet, once more, I refer you to the Preamble’s phrase, “to promote the general welfare.” And again, I also refer you to Article I, section 8.

The preamble does not carry the weight of law. The "general welfare clause" doesn't exist as such, and that fact is quite clear in both a textual analysis and reviewing any historical documents concerning that very question. The only powers the government has are those which are specifically enumerated. Having a "carte Blanche" clause makes no sense in context of limiting the powers of government. The commerce clause is also quite specific in it's powers. It was not intended as a "Carte Blanche" clause either.

To reprise one of our forbearers, “the Constitution is not a suicide pact.” From this statement one can conclude that there are some things the founding fathers left to the interpretations of future generations concerning the application of the Constitution.
If we remove the limits on government power then that will be our suicide. The founding Fathers never intended the Constitution to be changed by "interpretation" or why would they have included a mechanism within the constitution to change it. If the government requires a power then the amendment process exists to give them that power without destroying, twisting and perverting the the very foundation of our society ie: the constitution. Your demonstrably wrong "theory" of the constitution, while popular, is the basis of the problems we face, and no matter how much we continue to pervert the constitution, it will never be enough to correct the problem.