Lew Rockwell and Hans-Hermann Hoppe: Together They Have
Opened the Gates of Hell and Welcomed the Most Extreme Right
-Wing Racists, Nationalists, and Assorted Cranks
The nutty professor from Las Vegas who has had such problems with his remarks about “undesirables” has been interviewed in the right-wing extreme nationalist German publication, Junge Freiheit, which celebrated his attacks on “democracy,” a concept which, it turns out, they also oppose. Junge Freiheit describes itself as follows:
Die JUNGE FREIHEIT h��?���¤lt die gro��?���¸e kulturelle und geistige Tradition der deutschen Nation in Ehren. Ihr Ziel ist die politische Emanzipation Deutschlands und Europas und die Bewahrung der Identit��?���¤t und der Freiheit der V��?���¶lker der Welt.
Translation: The YOUNG FREEDOM (paper) upholds the honor of the great cultural and spiritual tradition of the German nation. Its goal is the political emancipation of Germany and of Europe and the protection of the identity and the freedom of the peoples of the world.
Hmmmm…. “Emancipation” from…whom? Maybe from that group of alleged oppressors from which an earlier German nationalist movement sought to emancipate the Fatherland? The identity of the oppressors is coyly left unspecified, but those who understand German history should have no doubts. (Note also that there is no discussion of individual identity or freedom, but that of the “peoples of the world.” In the “PC Politics” that Hoppe and Junge Freiheit deride, that is known as “identity politics.”)
The paper has the distinction of having just won on June 28 a court case that has at least temporarily lifted its pariah status as being under the observation of the office for protection of the constitution, as Der Spiegel has reported. (The interviewer made a joking reference to the issue by asking “Sind Sie ein Fall für den Verfassungsschutz?” “Are you a case for the Office of Constitutional Protection?”) Perhaps a victory for freedom of speech that that they are no longer under observation, but when publications in Germany have been put under observation it is for some reason. Junge Freiheit promotes the ideas of holocaust denier David Irving, for example, although it’s always careful to stay juuuuussst on the legal side of the line. Perhaps holocaust denial, for example, should not be illegal at this time in Germany (I disagree with those who think that it should have been legal in 1945 or 1950), but allowing people to say something doesn’t mean that it’s true. Its writers also promote “revisionism” over long settled border issues regarding Poland and the Czech Republic.
The text of Hoppe’s zany interview has been posted online by an evidently similarly minded crank (also Geistes-Kranken in the German sense of that term) named Heinrich Kraemer, whose handle shows a charming little sign with a crescent and star attacking a German eagle and the words “Yesterday Bosnia, Today Kosovo, Tomorrow Germany.”
A commentator named “Prediger” [“Preacher”], who adorns his handle with the phrase “Freedom for Ernst Zündel” (Zündel is a notorious neo-Nazi currently being held in Germany awaiting trial for “Volksverhetzung,” incitement of the masses, which includes holocaust denial) posted Hoppe’s remarks and added “I like him!” Kein Wunder! No surprise!
Hoppe offers an inane attack on “democracy” per se, identifying it with unrestricted mob rule and not distinguishing such a system from the constitutional liberal idea of a limited republican government based on A) constitutionally protected freedoms and B) democratic voting for the choice of representatives.
It seems that Hoppe is not the only one opposed to democracy, for the upholders of the honor of the German nation at Junge Freiheit also oppose democracy. Imagine that! Junge Freiheit had also run a gushing review of one of Hoppe’s parodies of philosophy and social science last year.
Hoppe offers a particularly dumb comparison of democracy with monarchy, in which the former is simply a system of uncontrolled theft and redistribution, whereas under the latter justice is respected:
VerschÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤rfend kommt hinzu, daÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¸ die Partei, die gerade herrscht, dazu nur vier Jahre Zeit hat — bis wieder gewÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤hlt wird. Um so schneller und verantwortungsloser vollzieht sich diese Umverteilung. In der Monarchie dagegen, als deren “glückliche” Ã?Â??Ã?Â??berwindung die Demokratie zu Unrecht gilt, war der Staat potentiell für immer in den HÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¤nden ein und derselben Dynastie. Dementsprechend schonend geht ein Monarch mit seinem “Besitz” um. In der Demokratie gehÃ?Â??Ã?Â?Ã?¶rt der Staat dagegen keinem, dementsprechend hemmungslos saugt ihn die gerade herrschende Partei aus.
Translation: Aggravatingly added to that is the fact that the party which currently rules has only four years until there are elections again, meaning that that redistribution will be carried out all the more quickly and irresponsibly. In contrast, under monarchy, of which democracy is unjustly considered the “fortunate” overcoming, the state was potentially forever in the hands of one and the same dynasty. Correspondingly a monarch treats what he possesses [sein Besitz] quite carefully. In contrast, under democracy the state belongs to no one; correspondingly the currently governing party exhausts the state without restraint.
Not only does Hoppe fail to understand a basic distinction (in his native language!) between “Besitz” (posession, tenure, or occupancy) and “Eigentum” (property), but he shows barely any understanding of why property generates economic growth. Property (rather than mere possession) is the foundation of markets, through which goods are traded and capital values are established; the right to capture the residual (e.g., the difference between the purchase price and the sale price) is what leads people to take actions that will maximize the capital value of their property; since there is not much of a market for the buying and selling of monarchical “Besitz,” there’s damn little incentive for monarchs to act so as to increase the capital value (since there’s no market to establish one) of what they “possess.” Moreover, there is a connection between the legal security of property, as distinct from mere possession, and economic growth and prosperity. (One might compare the experiences of monarchies the rulers of which considered the entire realm their “Besitz” with the republican/democratic U.S. during the nineteenth century to see how that worked.) The late Mancur Olson, who was an economist (in contrast to Hoppe, whose knowledge of economics is profoundly cartoonish), understood the relation between the institutions necessary to economic freedom and those of democracy:
Interestingly, the conditions that are needed to have the individual rights needed for maximum economic development are exactly the same conditions taht are needed to have a lasting democracy. Obviously, a democracy is not viable if individuals, including the leading rivals of the administration in power, lack the rights to free speech and to security for their property and contracts or if the rule of law is not followed even when it calls for the current administration to leave office. Thus the same court system, independent judiciary, and respect for law and individual rights that are needed for a lasting democracy are also required for security of property and contract rights.” — Mancur Olson, “Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 87, No. 3, September 1993, p. 572
(It turns out that another Lew Rockwell writer, Paul Gottfried, writes for Junge Freiheit and “defends the magazine for rejecting ‘the view that every German patriot should be evermore browbeaten by self-appointed victims of the Holocaust.’“)
There’s more to be said, but people can figure out the implications for themselves. Hoppe and his promoter, Lew Rockwell, have done their best to open the gates to the nastiest denizens of the fever swamps. They have laid out the welcome mat to holocaust deniers, anti-Semites, bigots, racists, neo-Confederates, and others who are understandably unwelcome elsewhere. Decent people should take a stand against them.
P.S. I expect the usual comments about being an “idiot,” a “queer,” and the like. What I urge fair minded readers to ask is whether eager defenses of the free-speech rights of Junge Freiheit and their ilk are equivalent to defenses of what they believe and of Rockwell and Hoppe for associating with the racist, nationalist, extremist fringe of German and American politics.
P.P.S. Well, my fears were realized. Rather than defend Hoppe’s strange and economically ignorant views about “Besitz,” “Eigentum,” and prosperity, or his flirtation with extremist German-nationalists, or the call for “the political emancipation of Germany and Europe” and the associated “identity politics” of nationalism associated with it, the defender (well, one and a half defenders) of Hoppe have tried to paint me as a denier of free speech because…..in 1945 and 1950 I would have kept the ban on the National Socialist party. So let me repeat just to be clear: just because a party should not be banned doesn’t mean you should admire them. Just because they defend their freedom to speak it does not follow that they would defend yours. My point is not to ban or to maintain observation of Junge Freiheit, but to insist that decent people don’t get in bed with them.
P.P.P.S. Someone writing under the name of “Clement Goettel” (who, when googled, shows up in one and only one place, this blog posting) has taken up the bulk of the comments, so new readers might scan them (not to take them lightly, of course) and find a variety of other commentators, as well, some of whom offer corroboration of what I document or who pose other but related issues.
Mr. Palmer,
1. You haven’t over-turned my argument that arguing Hoppe’s a fascist because he was interviewed by an (allegedly) neo-fascist paper, is the fallacy of guilt by association. Irrelevant of the prospects for winning individuals over, it is quite plausible, especially considering that every group has its marginal members who can be dissuaded. Fortunately, Mises talked to those who weren’t hard-core supporters of the free market, like himself. Because of that, Hayek converted from socialism.
2. Your quote of the discussion of Stalin vs. Hitler is referenced as something Prof. Hoppe said. You said, “an attitude that Hoppe has expressed in the past in a revie of ‘The Failure of America’s Wars.'” I pointed out that Prof. Hoppe was comparing atrocities during peacetime, and that even if we include war-time, Stalin is still far worse than Hitler (as difficult as that is to imagine). The holocaust may not have been something that “just happened” during the war, but the war aggravated the situation. I think it obvious why war makes something like the holocaust more likely.
Regarding Prof. Rummel, I am not attempting to denigrade his scholarship by noting that he isn’t an anarcho-capitalist. I mentioned that to distinguish his position from mine. His work on State-atrocities is excellent. I mentioned that he wasn’t anarcho-capitalist to try to briefly imply that he takes different conclusions from his work than I do. I think his work provides an excellent argument against *all* States. He, instead, argues for Democracies (a position I disagree with).
3. My point remains. That someone denies the holocaust, or denies it’s scope, does not make them an anti-Semite. It also doesn’t make them a bad person. You can argue that most people who deny the holocaust are anti-Semites, and that most anti-Semites are bad persons, an empirical argument. I would note that I personally know, and am very good friends, with some people who say that they believe the holocaust happened, yet retain doubts about the enormous number of people murdered. This does not make them “bad people”, in my opinion, and I’d assert it’s rather intolerant to say that I shouldn’t associate with them (after all, they haven’t actually hurt anyone). I believe a very good rule of personal conduct is the Golden Rule and tolerance (while not a Christian, I believe there are many worthwhile ideas on how to conduct one’s personal life in Christianity).
4. Denying the holocaust as it is understood (which is a mass murder</EM) or denying the magnitude of it, is not making a mockery out of the testimony of survivors. It is not the testimony of holocaust survivors that establishes statistics; it is historians and researchers who do that.
In any event, as a libertarian, and an anti-state, anarcho-capitalist one, I am not interested in downplaying the atrocities committed by the State. Rather, I believe in highlighting, exmplifying, and emotionalizing these atrocities (as I’ve done in an unfinished short-story of mine, http://tinyurl.com/8lzxt).
5. You are taking Prof. Hoppe out of context, and misunderstanding him. What he is saying is that he thinks that there are some things a covenant cannot tolerate if it is to remain a covenant (that is, is not to be destroyed internally). No-where does he say that those who are personally “liberal” (modern socio-connotations) could not form their own covenants, with their own rules (or lack thereof). During the whole drama over Prof. Hoppe’s comments on time-preference, I’d posted the *complete* context of the relevant portion of _Democracy: The God That Failed_. I shall see if I can find it on the LvMI Blog.
6. The idea that the LvMI is filled with, and allied with, racists, fascists, and holocaust-deniers is an absurd and outrageous slander. Likewise, to assert that Rothbard flip-flopped is ridiculous. As Justin Raimondo points out in _Enemy of the State_ (http://tinyurl.com/cbo2r), he was amazingly steadfast in the ideals he held to, although making shifting alliances with the times.
Also, regarding those who supported the LvMI, they were with it for some time, Margit von Mises living (remarkably) until she was 103 in 1993.
Many people at the LvMI are of Jewish background. To assert that these people would associate with and endorse an anti-semitic organization is absurd; yet those people have associated with, spoken at, and promoted LRC and LvMI.
To assert that they’ve all been duped is ridiculous, as these are intelligent and good people. To assert that they’re all anti-semitic Jews (like Bobby Fischer) is also ridiculous.
Incidentally, Rothbard wrote an article defending Bobby Fischer against the sanction on him playing chess. I suppose that makes Murray Rothbard, who was Jewish, an anti-semite too?
7. I explicitly separated my criticisms of your position on free speech from my argument against your opinions on Prof. Hoppe, noting that your opinions on Hoppe are wrong for the reasons I mentioned above, not because of your unlibertarian stance on free speech. Ignoring this, you went on a tirade of red herrings, wrongly asserting that I was engaging in an ad hominem.
You make a few good points, but they are not necessarily of any relation to the issue of whether individuals in Germany from ’45-’50 should have been able to argue for fascism or deny the holocaust. Doing such is *not* the same as a mob boss saying “kill him” (which obviously constitutes the initiation of aggression under libertarianism, and is thus punishable under double-proportionality [restitution + retribution]).
It is quite a different matter to argue that the Nazi’s shouldn’t have been allowed back in power. Your discussion on a possible resurgence of fascist ideas sounds like a pretty good argument *against* Democracy to me.
8. We may not be able to determine when something becomes initiation of aggression a priori. That doesn’t mean that all bets are off, however. Walter Block has discussed this in some detail on a paper on gun rights and libertarianism (noting that someoen running towards you and screaming “die! die! die!” may or may not be defensibly argued to be the initiation of aggression, depending on the situation). Certainly, writing pro-fascist philosophical work and denying the holocaust doesn’t consitute the initiation of aggression, deplorable as these may be*.
Regarding the LvMI, I haven’t seen anything on that website (not including the comments section, where anyone can and does post) that I’d be ashamed to say I’m associated with. I see excellent work, which provides a monumental defense of private property rights and freedom, and an opposition to Statism and war on all fronts. This is something I am extremely proud to be associated with.
* Of course, in Prof. Hoppe’s system of complete privatization and community covenants, anyone espousing fascism, national socialism, communism could be immediately expelled due to private property rights and the terms of the covenant. But I suppose that this discrimination right Hoppe defends by private property owners is deplorable.
Mr. Heinrich manages to hit all the Rothbardian talking points…pretty good for not having a “Party Line.”
Mr. Palmer would be best served to simply link to a few past discusssions/posts, as all of these points have been well covered in the past. He is wasting his time arguing with a True Believer, who will simply spout the same points over and over. The Rothbardian believes it’s true and he is pure of heart, etc., so it has to be true.
You are doing a wonderful job Mr. Palmer, but don’t you know that to these people it’s elephants and turtles all the way down?
Also, how odd is it to watch these “libertarians” defend the collective tooth and nail, falling back to leftist “Vision of the Annointed” illogical nonsense? Weirdness. The similarity to the LaRouchites is astounding. Sadly, they delude themsevelves that such associations will increase the number of recruits?
Finally, Mr. Heinrich comes right out and admits he is proud to associate with allegedly non-anti-Semitic holocaust deniers, allegedly anti-holocaust anti-Semites, people who want to kick gay people “out of society,” Neo-Confederate fetishists, Institute for Historical Review scribblers, et al. What is the point of having a discussion with such a person?
Mr. Heinrich manages to hit all the Rothbardian talking points…pretty good for not having a “Party Line.”
Mr. Palmer would be best served to simply link to a few past discusssions/posts, as all of these points have been well covered in the past. He is wasting his time arguing with a True Believer, who will simply spout the same points over and over. The Rothbardian believes it’s true and he is pure of heart, etc., so it has to be true.
You are doing a wonderful job Mr. Palmer, but don’t you know that to these people it’s elephants and turtles all the way down?
Also, how odd is it to watch these “libertarians” defend the collective tooth and nail, falling back to leftist “Vision of the Annointed” illogical nonsense? Weirdness. The similarity to the LaRouchites is astounding. Sadly, they delude themsevelves that such associations will increase the number of recruits?
Finally, Mr. Heinrich comes right out and admits he is proud to associate with allegedly non-anti-Semitic holocaust deniers, allegedly anti-holocaust anti-Semites, people who want to kick gay people “out of society,” Neo-Confederate fetishists, Institute for Historical Review scribblers, et al. What is the point of having a discussion with such a person?
Well, I am German and have already read quite a few articles published in the Junge Freiheit.
Let me point out a few things:
1.) These offices “for the protection of the german constitution” exist in each one of germany’s 16 states. In other words, there are 16 different “offices” and only one of them has critized the Junge Freiheit. The only “office” which has done so is located in and responsible for the most socialist German state, which has been governed by the SPD (social-democrats/socialist) for the past 40 years! Therefore, everyone who is conservative has been called “right-wing-extremists” by the mentioned “constition-protecting-office”. This office is not independent, it is controlled by the left-wings government of the mentioned state. Moreover, none of the other 15 “offices” in Germany’s other states has supported the critique.
I’m sure that the Junge Freiheit is far more “moderate and liberal” than Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan and the American Christian Right.
2.) The same German journal has already interviewed many congress-men of the “Green party” and of the Social-democrats. Many well-known politicians and artists – socialists, environmentalists, jews, foereigners, social-democrats, unionists… have been interviewed by that papar or have been able to publish an article in it. Hence, the Junge Freiheit is a politically incorrect paper, but it stands up for freedom of speach!! And beeing interviewed by the Junge Freiheit doesn’t force anyone to adopt the paper’s political opinions. I would be willing to talk to a comunist paper which sure wouldn’t turn me into a comunist. If you want to spread out your opinion you should not only talk to people who already share your views. Do you seriously think that liberals should only talk to other liberals?
3.) Why is a libertarian a nazi, if he only critizes democracy? Comunist, anarchists, monarchists… all of them critizise, for different reasons, democracy. “nazis” are national-socialists, and socialism is the opposite of libertarianism! Hence, Hoppe critizes democracy for totally different reasons, which makes him an anti-democrat, but not a fascist!
4.) Liberalism is all about respecting the opinions of others and freedom of speech – it’s not about being politically correct!
Well, I am German and have already read quite a few articles published in the Junge Freiheit.
Let me point out a few things:
1.) These offices “for the protection of the german constitution” exist in each one of germany’s 16 states. In other words, there are 16 different “offices” and only one of them has critized the Junge Freiheit. The only “office” which has done so is located in and responsible for the most socialist German state, which has been governed by the SPD (social-democrats/socialist) for the past 40 years! Therefore, everyone who is conservative has been called “right-wing-extremists” by the mentioned “constition-protecting-office”. This office is not independent, it is controlled by the left-wings government of the mentioned state. Moreover, none of the other 15 “offices” in Germany’s other states has supported the critique.
I’m sure that the Junge Freiheit is far more “moderate and liberal” than Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan and the American Christian Right.
2.) The same German journal has already interviewed many congress-men of the “Green party” and of the Social-democrats. Many well-known politicians and artists – socialists, environmentalists, jews, foereigners, social-democrats, unionists… have been interviewed by that papar or have been able to publish an article in it. Hence, the Junge Freiheit is a politically incorrect paper, but it stands up for freedom of speach!! And beeing interviewed by the Junge Freiheit doesn’t force anyone to adopt the paper’s political opinions. I would be willing to talk to a comunist paper which sure wouldn’t turn me into a comunist. If you want to spread out your opinion you should not only talk to people who already share your views. Do you seriously think that liberals should only talk to other liberals?
3.) Why is a libertarian a nazi, if he only critizes democracy? Comunist, anarchists, monarchists… all of them critizise, for different reasons, democracy. “nazis” are national-socialists, and socialism is the opposite of libertarianism! Hence, Hoppe critizes democracy for totally different reasons, which makes him an anti-democrat, but not a fascist!
4.) Liberalism is all about respecting the opinions of others and freedom of speech – it’s not about being politically correct!
Patrick,
Thank you for the sanity, and for providing an argument that I (not reading German) was unable to provide.
Not a Libertarian,
You’ve managed to say absolutely nothing of substance. My point was that there was no party line at the LvMI (aside from, of course, Austrian economics, freedom, property), not that I have no position. This is quite obvious by the fact that there are different strands of modern Austrianism there. If there was some kind of Rothbardian party-line at the LvMI, it would be hard to explain why they publish articles and papers by George Reiseman. It would also be difficutl to explain why they have favorable reviews of his book, Capitalism, and highly recommend it, despite the fact that Reiseman is critical of Rothbard in it.
I have no problems defending a voluntary association of individuals, which is what the LvMI is. I even — gasp — support the right of people to voluntarily associate and live socialistically (e.g., I support the right of people to associate in voluntary* anarcho-socialist or syndicalist communities/organizations, even if this may be a foolish idea). Smearing this institute amounts to broadly smearing all those associated with it, and discourages people from visiting it. The quality of scholarship in articles, papers, books, and online lectures is excellent. Daily blog items are also of high quality, and interesting.
Finally, your little rant about my opinion on association with those in the LvMI is duly noted. Nothing more than tripe, which any thinking person can easily see is wrong by visiting Mises.org and randomly sampling some of the work available there. There are no fascists or anti-semites at the LvMI. The support for Southern secession comes from a general support for secession and decentralization (DiLorenzo has done excellent work on Lincoln and the non-Civil war; Hoppe has also discussed secession, arguing that the Southern strategy [centralized regional secession] was doomed, and that what’s needed is massive decentralized secession). And Prof. Hoppe was describing voluntary community covenants, and what he thinks would be practical for a conservative, family-centered covenant. Even there, he said that those espousing ideas contrary to the purpose fo the covenant would have to be expelled (if the covenant wasn’t to disintegrate); that is, those advocating a homosexual lifestyle** in a conservative, family-centered, Christian covenant.
* For an excellent discussion of anarcho-socialism/syndicalism in practice, see Caplan, Bryan. The Anarcho-Statists of Spain. http://tinyurl.com/2b3hq In short, when people are free to act of their own will, they usually *choose* to act capitalistically, not socialistically; and it is only via coercive force that “anarchist” socialism can be imposed. Exception: Mondragon.
** I’m ignoring the debate here about whether homosexuality is genetic, environmentally determined, or a personal choice. Although I personally think genetic, alot of this depends on what we mean by “homosexual”, and it is irrelevant to the point.
btw, giving the slandered an opportunity to defend themselves, Paul Gottfried has written, in regards to this non-sense:
QUOTE:
I find that there is nothing to justify or to retract either in my remarks, which accurately describe the merits of Junge Freiheit, or my association with a German weekly, which has nothing to do with the Nazis. The decision in 1995 by the ultra-leftist Verfassungsschutz in Nordrhein-Westfalen, acting in response to the Socialist Internal Ministry, to give JF a black mark, for publishing authors who threaten the liberal democratic foundations of the Federal Republic, was overthrown by the German Federal Court last week. According to the Court’s decision, the Social Democratic government had absolutely no substantive grounds for its accusation and was judged to be acting in violation of Article 5 of the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of the press. The provincial government was forced to make full restitution for all expenses incurred by the grieving party. Given the radically PC nature of German federal institutions, a subject that I discuss at length in a review article in the latest issue of Orbis, this decision was truly singular and testifies to the nonsense that Palmer has been frenetically spouting– presumably while under the influence. Please feel free to publish my scornful remarks anywhere inside or outside of the Washington “conservative policy community.” —Paul Gottfried
You will also note that there are numerous blog entries on Palmer’s website insulting and slandering Prof. Hoppe. However, you won’t find one mention of Mr. Palmer on Prof. Hoppe’s website. People should feel free to visit the website — http://www.hanshoppe.com — for themselves, sample his work, and decide for themselves. You will find great work.
I posted this on a another thread, but it seems relevent here:
—
Jeff Goldstein points out the reactions of some your “libertarian” bretheran:
“update 16: Predictably, Justin Raimondo is already seeing Joooos in the Shepherd’s Pie. Now, I’m not one to tell the Zionists how to run their international cabal, but if it were me who was in charge of running the world, I’d sacrifice up a few Hebes at each of these bombings, just to keep Justin Raimondo and his tireless investigators off my ass. Hell, I might even throw in a Likudnik from time to time, just to really confound the Truth Seekers.
Like Fox Mulder, had his sister been abducted by hooknosed bankers or orthodontists, this guy is.”
(http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18624/)
I posted this on a another thread, but it seems relevent here:
—
Jeff Goldstein points out the reactions of some your “libertarian” bretheran:
“update 16: Predictably, Justin Raimondo is already seeing Joooos in the Shepherd’s Pie. Now, I’m not one to tell the Zionists how to run their international cabal, but if it were me who was in charge of running the world, I’d sacrifice up a few Hebes at each of these bombings, just to keep Justin Raimondo and his tireless investigators off my ass. Hell, I might even throw in a Likudnik from time to time, just to really confound the Truth Seekers.
Like Fox Mulder, had his sister been abducted by hooknosed bankers or orthodontists, this guy is.”
(http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/18624/)
SERIOUS QUESTION:
Who funds Lew Rockwell, Mises.org and Anti-War.com? Are they the same group? Do they disclose who funds them? I am helping a journalist with a story on them.
Dear Orcfist,
These websites/organizations are not the same group. They are related. Lew Rockwell is the President of the Mises Institute. I’m not sure who Anti-War.com is run by. Each organization shares many common members, although it is not the same. LewRockwell.com is Rockwell’s personal blog, and it features anything he finds of interest, focusing on liberty, anti-statism, and pro-free-marketism. There are also occasionally personal advice columns on there, particularly by Burt Blumert (with regards to gold-investing) and Gary North (also gold investing, and some matters of personal finance). Although a libertarian website run by a supporter of the Austrian school, LRC features articles by non-libertarians and non-Austrians when they make interesting points (e.g., Chomsky).
Mises.org is funded by private donors. I do not believe their names are disclosed in some place on the website. You’d have to contact the LvMI about that. However, they only accept private donations, and not donations from the government or corporations. The LRC column is, however, listed as a publishing opportunity in Mises.org’s About webpage (http://tinyurl.com/bpunj). Whatever information they have on funding, that I know of, is available on their “Become a Member Page” (http://tinyurl.com/84zrj).
Mr. Heinrich writes:”The idea that the LvMI is filled with, and allied with, racists, fascists, and holocaust-deniers is an absurd and outrageous slander. Likewise, to assert that Rothbard flip-flopped is ridiculous.”
I can’t say how “filled” LVMI is, but “allied with” is obvious. As just one example, I attended a joint LVMI-Rockford Institute conference some years back. The final addresses were given by Rothbard and Tom Fleming of Rockford. After Rothbard spoke of how refreshing it was to have finally purged the neolibertarians and neocons so that the paleolibs and paleocons could finally have real discussion. Then Fleming got up and stated that the one obvious conclusion of the conference was that individual rights doctrine is nonsense and that only white christian males should rule. Rothbard never let out a peep, even though he had ample opportunity.
Tom: I believe this is the 100th post on this thread… do I win anything?
Mr. Heinrich writes:”The idea that the LvMI is filled with, and allied with, racists, fascists, and holocaust-deniers is an absurd and outrageous slander. Likewise, to assert that Rothbard flip-flopped is ridiculous.”
I can’t say how “filled” LVMI is, but “allied with” is obvious. As just one example, I attended a joint LVMI-Rockford Institute conference some years back. The final addresses were given by Rothbard and Tom Fleming of Rockford. After Rothbard spoke of how refreshing it was to have finally purged the neolibertarians and neocons so that the paleolibs and paleocons could finally have real discussion. Then Fleming got up and stated that the one obvious conclusion of the conference was that individual rights doctrine is nonsense and that only white christian males should rule. Rothbard never let out a peep, even though he had ample opportunity.
Tom: I believe this is the 100th post on this thread… do I win anything?
Mr. Steele,
The one thing all of these allegations against those affiliated or associated with the LvMI is this: no proof. No references. And when references are given (see Palmer above), the conclusion isn’t obviously what it’s stated to be, or they’re taken out of context. This is particularly so in regards to Prof. Hoppe’s discussion in _Democracy: The God That Failed_ on community covenant and expulsion.
As for Thomas Fleming, all that we have is an assertion. Perhaps you could refer to something in his published work — which, to my knowledge, is largely excellent, including works such as _The New Dealers’ War_ — that would be meaningful. Hearsay is not.
Mr. Steele,
The one thing all of these allegations against those affiliated or associated with the LvMI is this: no proof. No references. And when references are given (see Palmer above), the conclusion isn’t obviously what it’s stated to be, or they’re taken out of context. This is particularly so in regards to Prof. Hoppe’s discussion in _Democracy: The God That Failed_ on community covenant and expulsion.
As for Thomas Fleming, all that we have is an assertion. Perhaps you could refer to something in his published work — which, to my knowledge, is largely excellent, including works such as _The New Dealers’ War_ — that would be meaningful. Hearsay is not.
I believe that Mr. Heinrich has made another error. He has confused two Thomas Flemings. One is the editor of Chronicles, a “hard right” (their term) publication (e.g., http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/HardRight/HardRight060402.html ) and author of such books as “Morality of Everyday Life: Rediscovering An Ancient Alternative to the Liberal Tradition.” The other is the well known historian (http://us.penguinclassics.com/nf/Author/AuthorPage/0,,10_1000011088,00.html ) and author of many books, including The New Dealers’ War: FDR and the War Within World War II (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0465024653/103-9177061-5195827?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=507846&s=books&v=glance ). Same name, two very different men. Mr. Steele was referring to the former.
To David Heinrich: It’s not hearsay — I’m the eyewitness. Anyone can post anything, so don’t take my word for it — but follow the various links posted in this thread and see what you find. Incidentally, the LVMI-Rockford meeting was at Princeton U. in the early 1990’s; the Egalitarianism Conference. Perhaps it’s possible to look it up.
(Also, if you haven’t selected courses yet, take the Int’l Econ — it’s one place where the neoclassicals have done good work.)
Ok, I was talking about the wrong Flemming. But, talking to people, that other Flemming, editor of Chronicles, is no racist either, and hates racists. In fact, an issue of Chronicles was devoted to criticizing white nationalists.
Well, a lively discussion. Let me add just a few notes. (I hope at some time to draw out some extracts, as the over 100 posts makes this quite a lot to evaluate.)
First, Mr. Heinrich refers to Paul Gottfried as “the slandered.” Then he posts a remark in which Mr. Gottfried denounces “the nonsense that Palmer has been frenetically spouting– presumably while under the influence.” That’s rather telling in regard to his standards. His earlier reference to “self-appointed victims of the holocaust” was even more telling; the Zwangsarbeiter who were liberated from the camps were not “self-appointed victims,” they were appointed victims by the National Socialist state. What kind of person would write such a thing? Ugh. And, please, the description of the Verfassungsschutz as “ultra-leftist” is over the top, as were JustinRaimondo/Clement’s claims that it is a Stasi (i.e., Communist East German Security Service) front. It is, moreover, a diversion from the question of what they believe and what they promote, and what they promote is illiberal and anti-libertarian.
Patrick (posting at July 8, 2005 09:04 AM) also makes some assertions, including that the Junge Freiheit should have the right to publish what they want (agreed), that “I’m sure that the Junge Freiheit is far more “moderate and liberal” than Newt Gingrich, Patrick Buchanan and the American Christian Right.,” and so on. The thread of his argument is rather tangled. Yes, they have the right to freedom of speech, but that doesn’t make their views palatable or acceptable in polite company. That they might be more moderate than Gingrich, Buchanan, and “the American Christian Right,” is laughable (unless you have an unusual definition of the last term). I don’t think that Gingrich and Buchanan (smart guys for whose views I have little sympathy, just as I’m sure they have great antipathy for each other) are really interested in spreading the lies and distortions of David Irving, loudly deny that the holocaust happened while filling their lives with Nazi memorabilia, and so on. But stranger still is the claim that the JF interviews union activists and Greens, it’s just an open forum without any agenda, and anyway, if you want to reach people, why not, and you know, so maybe they are kind of fascist-oriented, but gosh, how do you change the minds of such people if you don’t talk to them? “:I would be willing to talk to a comunist paper which sure wouldn’t turn me into a comunist. If you want to spread out your opinion you should not only talk to people who already share your views. Do you seriously think that liberals should only talk to other liberals?” That is an admission that JF is not in fact like the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung or the Sueddeutsche Zeitung (which interview lots of people and run op-eds and letters from many viewpoints), but is in fact a paper with a clear agenda, and that agenda is….well, the closest that Patrick can say is “politically incorrect,” but what does that mean in context? It means denial of the holocaust, whitewashing of the German past, a desire to revise Germany’s borders, and on and on and on. And we know what that is. JF is not “politically incorrect” in the sense that “The Onion” or the “National Lampoon” are politically incorrect; JF actively promotes an agenda of rehabilitation of Germany’s past (say, starting in 1933…), revising the borders of Europe, kicking out foreign trash, etc., etc.
I’m afraid that Patrick let out more than he intended. (And on the basis of that, Mr. Heinrich thanked him for “the sanity.”)
I’ll let others judge the quality of the scholarship associated with Mr. Rockwell’s enterprises. The fact is that it varies and I could not properly characterize all of it. A great deal that is hailed as brilliant is in fact an embarrassment, but is mixed in with reprints of works that are excellent or with invited papers by scholars unaware of the strange political fetishes of Lew Rockwell. My concern has been that the ideas of “Austrian economics” are associated with Rockwellian causes that have no affinity with the ideas of the Austrian economists. When I asked why the cause of the Confederacy was somehow deeply associated with the ideas of a group of Viennese economists about monetary policy, trade cycles, and similar topics, another Rockwell disciple replied hotly that out of 36 papers at the last “Austrian Scholars Conference,” only 9 were about the Confederacy. Um, right.
Responding to Tom Palmer’s comment on July 9, 2005 01:19 PM…
1. Firstly, and most importantly, I again restate that this is all nothing more than meaningless fallacy, namely guilt by association. This applies both to Palmer’s comments and to those by Steele. Having read the work of Rothbard and Hoppe, there is nothing racist or fascist in them. No quotes have been provided from the work of Rothbard or Hoppe that show, in any way, that either has such tendencies. It is ridiculous to think such, given the advocacy of each for liberty and private property.
2. I posted the remark by Gottfried to voice the response of the accused; incidentally, he wrote that *after* he’d read the stuff on this site. His hostile remark is understandable.
3. Regarding to Junge Freiheit, I refer to Patrick’s statement:
QUOTE:
“there are 16 different “offices” and only one of them has critized the Junge Freiheit. The only “office” which has done so is located in and responsible for the most socialist German state, which has been governed by the SPD”
Also, Gottfried (in the quote I provided) noted that the German court over-threw that 1 office’s decision.
4. Palmer then engages in a *non-sequitar*, claiming that because, in making a point about Prof. Hoppe being interviewed by JH, Patrick said he’d be willing to talk to a communist paper (and that wouldn’t make him a communist). Patrick’s point was that *even if* JH was a paper with fascist-leanings, that wouldn’t make anyone who’s interviewed there a fascist. It was not, as Palmer equivocatingly states, an admission that JH is a fascist paper.
That is, briefly summarized, Patrick’s argument is that:
a. JH is not a fascist paper.
b. Even *IF* it were, it does not follow from that that anyone granting JH an interview is a fascist.
That is, Patrick has engaged in a “layered” argument, or a fallback strategy. From this, Palmer tries to draw the conclusion taht Patrick’s “admitting that” JH is a fascist paper. This is complete non-sense, and I think Palmer knows it.
5. Palmer continues repeating the assertion that the work published by the LvMI is “an embarassment”. In particular, he thinks Hoppe’s work is “an embarassment”. At one point in the past, he argued that Prof. Hoppe’s claim that “on a free market, all unemployment is voluntary” was an embarassment to Austrian economists. Stephan Kinsella responded by quoting a statement of Ludwig von Mises saying the same thing. Palmer then facetuously accused Kinsella of an “appeal to authority” (http://tinyurl.com/ba5e4) Also, in that regards, see *The Ludwig von Mises Legacy: A Reality Check* by J.H. Huebert (http://tinyurl.com/d6kjz).
6. Regarding the study of the Civil War, this is perfectly legitimate for Austrians. Scholars like DiLorenzo and Woods have produced excellent historical scholarship, applying unique Austrian insights and using libertarian judgement to (rightly) cast history as a struggle of liberty against tyranny. Mises was more than just an economist. He was a warrior for liberty, peace, and truth. Part of the war against tyranny involves over-turning common deceptions about the past. That is, historical revisionism, as Rothbard practiced and advocated (_Conceived in Liberty_ is Rothbard’s history of the colonial period). Also, regarding secession, Mises was a great proponent of it:
QUOTE:
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them.
Nation, State, and Economy: 2. Militant or Imperialistic Nationalism. http://www.mises.org/nsande/pt1iich2~a.asp
QUOTE:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
Liberalism: 3. Liberal Foreign Policy: 2. The Right of Self-Determination
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp
As Hoppe notes,
QUOTE:
——
“The objections Mises has against unlimited secession are solely technical in nature (economies of scale, etc.). Thus, for instance Mises admits having difficulty imagining “in a nationally mixed city to create two police forces, perhaps a German and a Czech, each of which could take action only against members of its own nationality.” _Nation, State, and Economy” p53. On the other hand, Mises notes that
quote:
‘the political ideas of modern times allow the continued existence of a small state to appear rather more secure today than in earlier centuries…There can be no question of a test of economic self-sufficiency in the formation of states at a time when the division of labor embraces broad stretches of land, whole continents, indeed the whole world. It does not matter whether the inhabitants of a state meet their needs directly or indirectly by production at home; what is important is only that they can meet them at all…Even at the time when the state structure was unified, they [seceding inhabitants] did not obtain [their imported] goods for nothing but only for value supplied in return, and this value in return does not become greater when the political community has fallen apart…The size of a state’s territory therefore does not matter.’ (pp. 81-82)”
——
Hoppe. Democracy: The God That Failed. p80 footnote.
Responding to Tom Palmer’s comment on July 9, 2005 01:19 PM…
1. Firstly, and most importantly, I again restate that this is all nothing more than meaningless fallacy, namely guilt by association. This applies both to Palmer’s comments and to those by Steele. Having read the work of Rothbard and Hoppe, there is nothing racist or fascist in them. No quotes have been provided from the work of Rothbard or Hoppe that show, in any way, that either has such tendencies. It is ridiculous to think such, given the advocacy of each for liberty and private property.
2. I posted the remark by Gottfried to voice the response of the accused; incidentally, he wrote that *after* he’d read the stuff on this site. His hostile remark is understandable.
3. Regarding to Junge Freiheit, I refer to Patrick’s statement:
QUOTE:
“there are 16 different “offices” and only one of them has critized the Junge Freiheit. The only “office” which has done so is located in and responsible for the most socialist German state, which has been governed by the SPD”
Also, Gottfried (in the quote I provided) noted that the German court over-threw that 1 office’s decision.
4. Palmer then engages in a *non-sequitar*, claiming that because, in making a point about Prof. Hoppe being interviewed by JH, Patrick said he’d be willing to talk to a communist paper (and that wouldn’t make him a communist). Patrick’s point was that *even if* JH was a paper with fascist-leanings, that wouldn’t make anyone who’s interviewed there a fascist. It was not, as Palmer equivocatingly states, an admission that JH is a fascist paper.
That is, briefly summarized, Patrick’s argument is that:
a. JH is not a fascist paper.
b. Even *IF* it were, it does not follow from that that anyone granting JH an interview is a fascist.
That is, Patrick has engaged in a “layered” argument, or a fallback strategy. From this, Palmer tries to draw the conclusion taht Patrick’s “admitting that” JH is a fascist paper. This is complete non-sense, and I think Palmer knows it.
5. Palmer continues repeating the assertion that the work published by the LvMI is “an embarassment”. In particular, he thinks Hoppe’s work is “an embarassment”. At one point in the past, he argued that Prof. Hoppe’s claim that “on a free market, all unemployment is voluntary” was an embarassment to Austrian economists. Stephan Kinsella responded by quoting a statement of Ludwig von Mises saying the same thing. Palmer then facetuously accused Kinsella of an “appeal to authority” (http://tinyurl.com/ba5e4) Also, in that regards, see *The Ludwig von Mises Legacy: A Reality Check* by J.H. Huebert (http://tinyurl.com/d6kjz).
6. Regarding the study of the Civil War, this is perfectly legitimate for Austrians. Scholars like DiLorenzo and Woods have produced excellent historical scholarship, applying unique Austrian insights and using libertarian judgement to (rightly) cast history as a struggle of liberty against tyranny. Mises was more than just an economist. He was a warrior for liberty, peace, and truth. Part of the war against tyranny involves over-turning common deceptions about the past. That is, historical revisionism, as Rothbard practiced and advocated (_Conceived in Liberty_ is Rothbard’s history of the colonial period). Also, regarding secession, Mises was a great proponent of it:
QUOTE:
Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them.
Nation, State, and Economy: 2. Militant or Imperialistic Nationalism. http://www.mises.org/nsande/pt1iich2~a.asp
QUOTE:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
Liberalism: 3. Liberal Foreign Policy: 2. The Right of Self-Determination
http://www.mises.org/liberal/ch3sec2.asp
As Hoppe notes,
QUOTE:
——
“The objections Mises has against unlimited secession are solely technical in nature (economies of scale, etc.). Thus, for instance Mises admits having difficulty imagining “in a nationally mixed city to create two police forces, perhaps a German and a Czech, each of which could take action only against members of its own nationality.” _Nation, State, and Economy” p53. On the other hand, Mises notes that
quote:
‘the political ideas of modern times allow the continued existence of a small state to appear rather more secure today than in earlier centuries…There can be no question of a test of economic self-sufficiency in the formation of states at a time when the division of labor embraces broad stretches of land, whole continents, indeed the whole world. It does not matter whether the inhabitants of a state meet their needs directly or indirectly by production at home; what is important is only that they can meet them at all…Even at the time when the state structure was unified, they [seceding inhabitants] did not obtain [their imported] goods for nothing but only for value supplied in return, and this value in return does not become greater when the political community has fallen apart…The size of a state’s territory therefore does not matter.’ (pp. 81-82)”
——
Hoppe. Democracy: The God That Failed. p80 footnote.
Well, this is getting a bit tiresome. Mr. Heinrich insists on bringing in more red herrings. No one has suggested that Rothbard has written anything racist or fascist. I don’t know where that came from. That he had poor judgement is one thing, but he was a far better thinker than the pathetic Hoppe.
I leave others to judge the quality of the arguments offered in defense of JF and of Hoppe’s eagerness to make common cause with their rejection of “democracy.”
And regarding Mises on secession, the response is sadly inadquate. One can dispense with it fairly easily: 1) Admit that when “the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time” they should be free to do so; 2) Ask whether that applies to the people of South Carolina, half of whom were not asked in any kind of plebescite what their views were, since they were enslaved and not allowed to vote, to speak their minds, to leave, or to do anything not approved by their “owners.” To apply Mises’s criterion to the South Carolina resolution to secede, such persons would have to be considered non-persons. I disagree with the answer given to that question by the eager defenders of South Carolina’s decision to secede. The attempt to connect the remarks of Ludwig von Mises concerning rights to secession to the utterly bizarre fetish of the Rockwell people and the institute so sadly named after the great man is a failure. (And Mr. Heinrich, be careful of what you quote, since the quotation from my personal correspondence of a few years back with the odd Mr. Kinsella contains quite a few of those little dots […]. The claim that in a free market all unemployment is voluntary is not a tenable thesis; insisting that it must be true because Mises said something that could be interpreted that way is mere evidence of cultishnes, and nothing more. My response was not, by the way, facetious.)
Mr. Heinrich’s attempt at a defense does not convince. Still, he’s done better than any of Hoppe’s other sad coterie of defenders, such as Justin Raimondo (the one who’s now insisting that the Jews were involved in the London bombings — just another little thing add to the list of things that must be explained away, of course). At the end of the day, why would any decent person want to associate with such a crowd?
Tom, you know enough economics to understand diminishing marginal returns; you’re past that point. Time to cut this thread off. It’s too long to read as it is. Anyone who’s gone through it is by now convinced that the Hoppe and Rockwell Show is bad news for liberty. That’s enough, it seems.
1. There are many who have long been willing to denigrade Rothbard and Hoppe. This list has been doing that from the beginning of this thread to the end of it. Anyone who doubts the vile things said about them can merely read back a few postings, and see the either outright accusations or insinuations.
2. Luwig von Mises *was* clearly an advocate of secession. Your quibbling non-sense about S. Carolina doesn’t refute that. The only answer to that would be that those in S. Carolina who didn’t agree, should *secede* from S. Carolina itself. I was merely pointing out that there is nothing counter-Mises about looking fondly on secession. He rightly saw it as a good thing, and so should we. Indeed, Hoppe showed that he might even be sympathethic, although skepitcal, of unlimited secession.
3. Furthermore, my point was also that Mises was a warrior for liberty. Decentralization and secession are one thing promoting that, all the ridiculous BS about the Civil War being a “war to end slavery” aside (it was no such thing, and there’s no reason why ending slavery required the murder of more than 600,000 Americans).
There is nothing shady about applying Austrian insights on economics to a study of history. As anyone reading DiLorenzo should know, Lincoln’s reign as dictator seems to provide ample opportunity to highlight economic fallacy and despotism.
4. Tom Palmer continues to lie about the point of Stephan Kinsella’s quote from Mises on unemployment. Kinsella’s point was not that “Mises said it, therefore it must be true”. His point was that it is difficult to call Hoppe an “embarassment to Austrian economics” if Mises held the same view, unless you also want to call Mises an “embarassment to Austrian economics”.
In any event, Palmer can’t seem to get his story straight. He seems to randomly oscilate between, “they’re unloyal to the ideas of Mises” and “they’re cultists who hold blindly follow Mises”. You can’t consistently make both claims at once. Of course, both claims are ridiculous. The reality is that students build on the work of their mentors, not hold it as sacrosanct.
5. Btw, there was an active discussion of the merits of Mises’ statement on the Mises Blog, started by myself: http://blog.mises.org/blog/archives/002545.asp
6. Regarding Justin Raimondo:
a. As usual, no references, no quotes, nothing. I assume, however, you are talking about this: http://antiwar.com/justin/ It seems, here, that Raimondo is attacking the Israeli State. What’s wrong with that? He’s also raising some questions about who benefits from terrorism. Aside from terrorists, the obvious answer is this: Statists. For example, 9/11 has been one of the best things that’s ever happened to the US government: it has allowed a great increase in State-power, and has benefitted G.W. Bush enormously.
b. Arguing that the State of Israel may have had foreknowledge of the London attacks hardly constitutes anti-Semitism.
c. It is difficult to argue for Justin Raimondo being a flaming anti-Semite when he’s written an entire biography (and a very positive one) on Murray N. Rothbard.
Regarding Raimondo: http://catallarchy.net/blog/archives/2005/07/09/i-did-not-think-it-possible/#comments
David Heinrich writes: “Luwig [sic] von Mises *was* clearly an advocate of secession. Your quibbling non-sense [sic] about S. Carolina doesn’t refute that. The only answer to that would be that those in S. Carolina who didn’t agree, should *secede* from S. Carolina itself.”
By this logic, I and 1000 friends could declare everyone else in Montana slaves and secede from the union. That would be a legitimate act of secession? Are you not aware that slaves outnumbered free people in South Carolina by about 100,000 in 1860?
http://www.civilwarhome.com/population1860.htm
David H.: Mises states that Southern plantations operating on slave labor were economically inferior to firms that hired free workers, and persisted *only* because the state protected them.
He then says “Slavery and serfdom were abolished by political action dictated by the spirit of the much-abused laissez faire, laissez passer ideology.” (Human Action, LVMI Sholar’s Edition, pp. 627-8)
Conflating any sort of apology for Southern secession with Mises’ love of freedom is wrong. No state or person has the right to secede in order to preserve slavery.
I can’t believe this is still going on. Dr. Palmer had made his point, and what’s truly amazing is that his attackers have made his point, too. Something really fishy is going on at the Mises Institute, and that is a terrible shame.
Mr. Steele,
That’s nonsense. They weren’t seceding to preserve slavery. They were seceding primarily because of economic reasons (tariffs). Slavery was ended peacefully everywhere in Europe, why no the US?
It is quite remarkable that anyone here could buy the non-sense about the LvMI. Any fair-minded person would take a look at some of the great work on Mises.org, and conclude the stuff here is ridiculous.
Oh, Mr. Heinrich, you really have swallowed all of the Rockwell Koolaid. Have you ever read the South Carolina Declaration of Secession? It’s ALL ABOUT SLAVERY: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/csa/scarsec.htm . Mr. Heinrich, I hope that some day, perhaps a few years from now, you will wonder how you could have been so naive as to be gulled by Rockwell, DiLorenzo, and the rest of that gang into believing so much nonsense. In this case, they go from the correct claim that the secession had a number of causes to the easily refuted claim that “They weren’t seceding to preserve slavery.” You should learn to read on your own and to think for yourself. Someday, you may even thank me for the advice. You have a mind, but you’re not using it.
That goes for simply accepting as truth everything said by Mr. Kinsella. My advice is that you be more careful about labelling someone a liar based on one person’s heavily edited extracts from personal correspondence to which you have no access.
Finally, how can someone both be in a cult and depart from the ideas of the person for whom the cult was named? It seems that it’s not all that hard to do. It starts with calling oneself a “Misesian” (or a “Marxist,” or a “Rothbardian,” or a “Randian,” or a “Jonesian,” or whatever). That requires a commitment to ideas of one person, rather than following your own reason and considering evidence. Then one spends one’s time combing over the sacred texts, the only keys to truth. But often it doesn’t stop there. For the new prophet arrives, who teaches the truer version of that truth, while others have fallen away: say, Hans-Herman Hoppe, who has “proven” that merely to open your mouth to contradict him is to affirm what he believes, and therefore to contradict yourself. Presto! A new prophet. Moreover, by using the works of the original great thinker to draw people in (and anyone who has learned from a book by Mises and done a google search lands at some time on the Rockwell virtual real estate), the cult leaders can enlist the gullible (and you have shown yourself as easily gulled, Mr. Heinrich) in whatever spooky causes they may also have, such as whitewashing the slave-holding Confederacy, or, oh, “physically removing and exiling from society” (see above for the whole statement and the precise translation) those whom Messrs. Hoppe and Rockwell believe cannot be tolerated.
But it’s time to close this thread off. It’s too long to read as it is. If anyone, however, desperately believes that he or she has something to add, email me and if it’s new, I’ll post it. Mr. Hoppe’s defenders have certainly had their chance to offer a vigorous defense. (There is no comment section at lewrockwell.com or at antiwar.com, where people might defend themselves from the outrageous claims or distortions served up by Rockwell, Raimondo, and their merry band of kooks and crackpots.)
So for anyone who has read this far — or skipped to the end, I hope that you will think about the matters raised here and make up your own mind. Do you want to be associated with people who are so happy to embrace the sorts of characters and causes described above? If you are interested in learning more about those persons and causes, take a little trip through The Fever Swamp: http://www.tomgpalmer.com/archives/cat_the_fever_swamp.php Think about it. And then make up your own mind.
Bis zum n��?���¤chsten Mal!
[…] of Hell and Welcomed the Most Extreme Right -Wing Racists, Nationalists, and Assorted Cranks Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the German Extremist Nationalist Right […]