The United Front Against Liberty

Defenders of liberty are prone to despair, perhaps always, and certainly since the end of the 18^th century, when the hopes of the last Enlightenment generation were dashed as the French Revolution descended into tyranny and war, and the American Revolution was betrayed by a centralizing coup against the Articles of Confederation. Then, as now, the evidence that our side was losing the battle seemed overwhelming. Old-style liberalism lost defenders, not because the idea of a free society was false, but because the cause seemed hopeless.

So it is in our time, when wars and party politics are forever on attack against the individual and the common good (there is nothing incompatible about the two). The mistake is to believe that somehow our efforts are in vain, that liberty stands no chance in the battle of ideas, that the situation would not be even worse without our efforts. This is precisely what the enemies of liberty seek, so libertarians must be the last to grant them satisfaction. Adhere to principle, even if only to bug those who hate you for your principles!

Nonetheless, a crisis on the current scale always reduces our ranks. Because of this thinning, in every generation the idea of liberty must be reasserted by those with the vision to see through the fog, and rediscovered by the young and courageous. "Most men are accessible to new ideas only in their youth," wrote Mises. "With the progress of age the ability to welcome them diminishes." This is why we put so much of our efforts into education. Only victory in the battle of ideas will secure a future of freedom.

Just as the prevalence of murder and theft is not a reason to abandon the fifth and seventh commandments, so the constant tendency of the State to grow provides no reason to jettison the libertarian ideal. After a murder, we don’t say: that’s it, making the case against murder is hopeless! No, we see the violation of the moral rule as evidence for the need to constantly reassert the right to life. So it is with liberty: without the State, there would be no need to constantly push for the right to freedom.

But discouragement is not the only reason people abandon the cause of freedom. Often, people just get tired of being attacked for holding the very unpopular view that liberty offers a better way. The criticisms can be brutal, but they are no different in character from what they have always been. The fundamental tactic is to question our motives, and to disparage our cause as only another special interest. By exposing the supposed malice behind the motive, they believe they have made their case.

This year alone, the Mises Institute has been accused of being on the wrong side of many political fashions. It has been charged with standing up for price gougers and profiteers; promoting the interests of large corporations and monopolists; currying favor with the Chinese, the Iraqis, and the Taliban; providing an intellectual cover for racists and "neo-Confederates"; working as a shill for Wall Street; justifying moral deviancy; favoring pollution; signing up with the Christian Right; having our heads in the clouds; putting our heads in the sand; and of being in the pay of big banks and multinationals, among a thousand other claims.

LewRockwell.com has been similarly charged with every manner of treachery. I have received many ominous emails, some even threatening death. Every angry correspondent seems to believe that he has discovered my special interest, which includes all the above plus a few more, like being in the pay of drug merchants, stumping for Ultramontanists, and "providing cover for the Jews."

I’ve left out many accusations because they become tedious after a while. The accusations have about as much substance as those of the 1930s Marxists, who believed that winning arguments was all about exposing your opponents as apologists for capital. It is a dishonest tactic that stems from a sincere belief that nobody could possibly be involved in political commentary without a secret desire to reward some group at the expense of everyone else. Exposing this interest, the Marxists believed, is identical to undermining the credibility of the argument.

But liberty is not the demand of a special interest. It is a plea for the good of the entire society. This makes it unique in politics. Think of the debate over the stimulus package. One side wanted special breaks to help the capital sector, combined with subsidies for the same. The other side wanted special breaks for the working class, combined with subsidies for the poor. These two sides, the only ones involved in the debate, fought it out for months before reaching an impasse.

This shouldn’t surprise us. Mises wrote in 1927 that the origin of all modern political parties and ideologies represents a reaction to the claim of old liberalism, that no group should be allotted a privileged legal status. The ideologies then were socialism and fascism, and each rejected the liberal idea. Today, the options are more insidiously respectable–left- and right-social democracy–but no less incompatible with the old liberal ideal.

The true friends of freedom, the ones who believe it in as a matter of hard-core principle, are always few. We have been reminded of this in recent days. The much-vaunted civil libertarians of the left can be counted on to defend the rights of every anti-bourgeois segment of society, except when that segment crosses the State to which the left owes its primary loyalty. Thus did these civil libertarians recently see the light on the need to censor and spy on anything the State deems politically deviant. So too with the political right, which sponsors and promotes treatises on the need for traditionally morality, but isn’t at all troubled when the State murders thousands of innocents in the course of a war.

Through it all, the libertarian theme has been the same: liberty for everyone, State privileges for no one. This is a message that no faction within the apparatus of the ruling class wants to hear. No matter how divided the factions are among themselves, they form a united front against the libertarian idea, which is the one thing they find most intolerable. This is why criticisms against us seem to have more sticking power: all members of the ruling class, and their intellectuals and wannabes, are pleased to see any rhetorical weapon used against us.

There are two reasons for this: intellectual and political. Intellectually, our contemporaries cannot conceive of a movement that seeks not the triumph of a special interest, but only the common good. They simply cannot believe that anyone would be involved in intellectual affairs who doesn’t have some axe to grind. Idealism, they think, belongs in monasteries, not public affairs. The second reason, discussed often in the work of Murray Rothbard, is political: the triumph of liberty against power would undermine their own special interest, so they fight this prospect with everything they have.

In times of crisis, in particular, we are reminded of just how unified the ruling class is, and how it is willing to put aside internal bickering for the sake of preserving power and its ability to shuffle wealth around. This is why, for example, after September 11, the ruling class was so united in its call for war: nothing solidifies power against liberty like a war, and the State never misses a chance to use events to confer moral legitimacy on what it would like to do anyway. There were many horrible aspects to September 11, but that it seemed to provide a rationale for the dramatic expansion of the State, for its killing and looting, is the one least questioned.

To sign up with the party of liberty is to take a principled step. It means rejecting the dominant strain of politics of our time. What is that strain? That the State ought to be used to promote the agenda of some special interest, whether it be those who benefit from welfare, regulation, inflation, war, or the consolidation of the police State generally.

The party of liberty rejects all of this, not because we have a special interest but because we stick by the most unpopular claim of all: that society ought to be organized so that it benefits everyone in the long run. There is only one system that does so, and that is the natural order of liberty. That’s why we believe in it, and why we will neither give up the ideal, nor yield the slightest in the face of attacks.

This is not rhetorical technique. You must have slept through every American history class you ever took to not know that the current constitution was preceeded by the Articles of Confederation. We were the Confederated States before we were the United States and I learned that in the fourth grade for the first of about eight times. How is history "rhetorical technique"? That's like saying ignorance is "bliss."

I hate Mieses to pieses!

Actually, I don't, but there is something about these thinkers who are made into cult objects, or who create a cult of personality around themselves: Marx, Chomsky, Rand, Mises. Better to contribute what you can than to have others bow down before your work as the true Holy Writ.

What people object to in the Rockwellites isn't that they cling to principle when others don't. And it isn't that they're narrow and dogmatic in their views. It's that they are like everyone else, picking and choosing their own preferences to make up an ideology -- which they then presume to treat as though it were a holy dogma. Starting from similar principles to Rockwell, one could come up with very different views about the Civil War or World War II, immigration or tariff barriers, but to the Rockwellites, all their opponents are heathens. Rather than shed an even light over the world, so that we can figure out what should be done, Rockwell uses his zine to project his own view of the world, blinding his followers with it, and obscuring the view for his readers. That's his prerogative in a free society, but it goes a long way to explaining why he and his gang are so loathed. As with a lot of political sectarians, Rockwell.com is too impractical and utopian for activists, and too dogmatic for any but the most rigid of theorists.

"Much like a precious gem, is a good savaging of LEWser. You can turn the vehement trashing in the sunlight and each facet of the argument shines dazzlingly, only to be replaced by yet another brilliant facet.

A good trashing of LEWser Rockdrone is a treasure, a trophy of great value, and a thing to be cherished forever. My best ones, I print and frame and place above my mantel, in a manner reminiscient of a safari hunter of yore.

You are being carried away in literary fantasy. I think it is better to keep such fantasies to oneself. But that's just a personal view.

"A good trashing of LEWser Rockdrone is a treasure, a trophy of great value, and a thing to be cherished forever. My best ones, I print and frame and place above my mantel, in a manner reminiscient of a safari hunter of yore.

Would you pick for me one of your particular favorites among those you have framed - the one that you are most proud of - and copy it to me, so that I can apprediate it also.

Illustrate for me how:

"You can turn the vehement trashing in the sunlight and each facet of the argument shines dazzlingly, only to be replaced by yet another brilliant facet."

Thank you in advance.

The State will even go to the lengths of perpetrating, goading or allowing events to occur in order to achieve its goals. Problem-Reaction-Solution, resulting in a consolidation of power.

Such has been the behavior of corrupt oligarchies throughout history.

Any fool who chooses to believe this could not be happening now is either paralyzed by fear or engaged in purposeful collusion.

Notice how when anyone refers to the attack they talk about the WTC. You'd think the Pentagon never happened. Odd.

Expect a visit from the "Ashcroft Regime" for asking these questions.

It is also interesting that this "masterminded plot with years of planning" didn't consider that GW was in Florida. And where was everyone else? We have never been told, really. Guess they were just lucky like the BATF and FBI in Oklahoma City, and just decided not to come to work that day as a group.

Uhhhh-huh. The founders, the people who wrote and enacted the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, were tyrants. Riiiiight. Tyrants always allow their opponents to speak, write and assemble to protest against them. Don't they? Tyrants always enact limits on their own powers. Don't they? And once they do that, they always, but always respect those limits. Don't they?

Please. No. Get real. Describing the Constitutional Convention as a coup is just ignorant.

Well, now that Rockwell is knocking the Constitution in favor of the Articles of Confederation, we'll all have another reason to loathe him.

I'm sure that the herd of "independent thinkers" who swallow his stuff will soon enough be parroting this line.

Meanwhile, I'll be waiting for him to publish a piece that reflects a different point of view.

"He doesn't really mean to suggest that the Founding Fathers were against liberty, does he? "

It is my own personal view that Alexander Hamilton, for one, wasn't a great friend of liberty. Actually, he was a lot like Clinton in many respects. Although Hamilton at least knew who his father was, his father was not his mother's husband. Hamilton was also an adulterous womanizer, though probably not to the same extent as Clinton. Like Clinton, Hamilton was more interested in power than money, but was always ready to facilitate others out to enrich themselves at public expense. His part in enabling speculators who for pennies on the dollar had bought up worthless paper money (Continental dollars ?), from merchants who had supplied the army, to obtain full face value from the government is one of the more egregious examples.

Regarding your post 22:

Maybe Lew does believe that. I do. Maybe you will too if you are willing and able to research the background of these five quotes:

"I smell a rat." --Patrick Henry

“The Constitution is swollen with dangerous doctrine; doctrine that will be taken advantage of by the Federalists, a faction of monarchy men, military men, aristocrats and drones whose noise, impudence and zeal exceeds all belief."—Richard Henry Lee, letter to George Mason, 1 October 1787

"When all government, domestic and foreign, in little as in great things, shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated." –THOMAS JEFFERSON

**”Stripped of all its covering, the naked question is, whether ours is a federal or consolidated government; a constitutional or absolute one; a government resting solidly on the basis of the sovereignty of the States, or on the unrestrained will of a majority; a form of government, as in all other unlimited ones, in which injustice, violence, and force must ultimately prevail." –Calhoun, 1831**

"What was once a Constitutional Federal Republic, is now converted in reality into one as absolute as that of the autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any absolute government that ever existed." --John C. Calhoun, Southern statesman and visionary in his last speech to Congress, 1850

Luck in your trek!

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.