Libertarian Party blog: Ludwig von Mises Institute added to Liberty Links

Posted by Libertarian National Committee Chair Mark Hinkle at Libertarian Party blog:

In an effort to re-establish many of the links to the broader libertarain movement that some of our older web sites use to contain, I’ve contacted many leaders to ask if we can link to their organization’s web site.  The latest addition to viagra sildenafil dosierung i ' m doing my homework today he said how do you setup the email on iphone 6s plus source site good topics to write an argumentative essay computer vision thesis topics coursework vs master degree source link http://wnpv1440.com/teacher/myself-essay/33/ creative writing workshop paris dissertation acknowledgement sample https://grad.cochise.edu/college/thesis-template-stanford/20/ resume synonyms for responsible source cytotec abortion vs cytotec at walmart source site https://lynchburgartclub.org/the-tempest-shakespeares-farewell-to-the-stage-literary-analysis/ low cost viagra online click here cialis levitra link viagra blogspot com scholarship essays for college see url go to site follow url viagra 100 brand name viagra erowid creative writing tasks ks3 how do i sync my iphone mail with my mac http://teacherswithoutborders.org/teach/how-to-write-a-film-essay/21/ dot matrix printer custom paper size http://bookclubofwashington.org/books/article-review-sample/14/ thesis example about working students www.lp.org/liberty-links is the Ludwig von Mises Institute (www.mises.org). 

For those new to the libertarian movement, I commend this site to both for it’s knowledge of the Austrian School of Economics and it’s historical view of the roots of modern Libertarian thought.

From their web page:

"The Ludwig von Mises Institute was founded in 1982 as the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. It serves as the world’s leading provider of educational materials, conferences, media, and literature in support of the tradition of thought represented by Ludwig von Mises and the school of thought he enlivened and carried forward during the 20th century, which has now blossomed into a massive international movement of students, professors, professionals, and people in all walks of life. It seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate as the foundation for a renewal of the free and prosperous commonwealth.

It is the mission of the Mises Institute to place human choice at the center of economic theory, to encourage a revival of critical historical research, and to advance the Misesian tradition of thought through the defense of the market economy, private property, sound money, and peaceful international relations, while opposing government intervention as economically and socially destructive."

Yours in liberty………………Mark Hinkle, LNC Chair

26 thoughts on “Libertarian Party blog: Ludwig von Mises Institute added to Liberty Links

  1. Robert Capozzi

    Yes, I s’pose this is appropriate. My cursory reviews of LvMI is that they generally avoid the dark, ugly side of some of their principals, e.g., paleo hatemongering.

    If this is an accurate pickup of Hinkle’s words, someone might let him know that it’s “its” whenever it’s not “it is.”

  2. George Phillies

    @1

    Is this a reference to one of the new LNC not-so-super-secret email lists, or to one of several other alternatives, or to something else? Which was your particular reason for picking on Dan Karlan?

  3. George Phillies

    Libertarian Master Race theory is that LNC committee email debates should not only be kept secret from the party members but they should be kept secret from parts of the LNC, different parts for each secret list.

  4. Red Phillips

    “My cursory reviews of LvMI is that they generally avoid the dark, ugly side of some of their principals, e.g., paleo hatemongering.”

    Congrats Robert. When I read the title of this post I thought to myself “I wonder how long it will take before someone plays the PC card?” You brought it in by the second post. Impressive.

    Please give me an example of paleo “hate.” Do all thought crimes against PC dogma automatically constitute hate? Or do they actually have to be … oh I don’t know … hateful maybe?

  5. Doug Craig

    At anytime someone has a question they can call me 770-861-5855 I am the LNC rep.for region 1
    I am not trying to hide anything from follow Libertarian and do not believe anyone else is

  6. Robert Capozzi

    rp: Please give me an example of paleo “hate.” Do all thought crimes against PC dogma automatically constitute hate? Or do they actually have to be … oh I don’t know … hateful maybe?

    me: I’d refer you to Rockwell’s column — never retracted — about the Rodney King beating. Rockwell was associated with the Ron Paul Letter when several racist and homophobic were published under Dr. Paul’s name. The Stormfront episode was not one of liberty’s finer moments, IMO. And while not “hateful,” LRC’s fixation on the Confederate Elite Insurrection rounds out a picture that I believe is injurious to the cause of liberty, and can easily be misunderstood.

    I have not suggested that there are or should be “thought crimes,” have I? So, no, I don’t think non-PC statements are hateful, per se. But I do happen to believe that liberty will be won with a more respectful stance toward minorities than I often see on sites associated with LRC.

  7. Erik G.

    RC @7 is on the money. There are also a number of dubious associations with the League of the South.

    Does this mean I dislike LvMI or LRC? No. I read them both often, and like many/most of their articles.

  8. Red Phillips

    “There are also a number of dubious associations with the League of the South.”

    Dubious? What’s wrong with the League of the South? Do you disagree with the right of secession?

  9. Erik G.

    Red @ 9:

    I’m all for decentralization, but have you met members of the LotS? (btw, nice attempt at re-framing the debate around secession, as if that’s all the League stands for. Obviously, that wasn’t my objection).

    My issues with the League are as follows:

    The League…

    -has said that slavery is “God-ordained”
    -is opposed to interracial marriage
    -has called for “general European hegemony” in the South
    -has a president, Michael Hill, who once said about affirmative action, “Yesta-day I could not spell ‘secretary.’ Today I is one”
    -published an article in its magazine ‘The Free Magnolia’ depicting an Obama-Hillary marriage fantasy with Obama dressed in only in a leather African tribal thong while carrying a rubber spear
    -has among its leadership one Michael Tubbs, a convicted felon, who robbed fellow (black) Green Berets, claiming “This is for the KKK.” Tubbs was also found to have plans for a group called the Knights of the New Order, where he planned to target businesses owned by Jews and blacks.
    -has regularly had anti-Semitic jokes in its magazine ‘The Free Magnolia’
    -initally worked with ‘White Revolution’ to set up a ‘Whites Only’ tent city during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Wiggins, MS. It later withdrew its support amid fears of bad PR.

    I could go on and on, but I think you get the point.

  10. Red Phillips

    “have you met members of the LotS?”

    Hmmm… I wonder what that is supposed to mean? (But of course it is the League that is guilty of bigotry.) I guess you could say I have met members of the LoS because I AM ONE.

    I have no idea how to answer everyone of your points because I don’t know the details. I suspect you got them from the SPLC or some similar Cultural Marxist organization and they are embellishments and half truths.

    I know for a fact that the LoS has repeatedly disavowed “a spirit of malice,” but of course that will never satisfy the thought enforcers at the SPLC. But I suspect most LoS members are neither 1.) complete idiots nor 2.) PC thought slaves so they recognize that the constituency for their message is almost entirely white and predominately Christians. This fact makes the LoS (like the TEA Party) inherently nefarious according to the Cultural Marxist thought cops, just as diversity conversely demonstrates inherent virtue.

    “nice attempt at re-framing the debate around secession”

    If I am guilty of “re-framing” the debate, it is because you initially framed it with your implicit assumption that the LoS was somehow inherently nefarious.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    rp: Do you disagree with the right of secession?

    me: Yes. Secession is not a right, for rights are reserved for individuals, not states or groups within territories.

    I recall a moment during a LP Platform committee meeting in 08 when we were recrafting the platform, after most planks had been deleted in 06. A move was made to add the old “Secession” plank back in. My preference was to not do so, but, failing that, I suggested and the committee agreed, to substitute in the term “Self Determination.” The convention agreed.

    Thankfully, the word “secession” continues to not be in the LP platform. It evokes images of bull whips cracking, tall white mansions and little shacks, and that is not an association that I believe advances the cause of liberty. Perhaps we disagree on the matter — so be it.

    There is nothing magical about nation-states. Territorial lines are contrivances, but they may well be useful contrivances to facilitate the rule of law.

    Secession was attempted in 1861 first by SC, a state in which half the (male) population was not only disenfranchised, but in bonds. No, sir, there was no “right” to secession in that fact set that I see.

    The procedural rule of law in force then and now is the US Constitution, which does NOT mention a procedural power of secession. It DOES, however, include the “insurrection clause,” which was invoked by the federal government. That led to many most unfortunate outcomes, but it also led to the end of chattel slavery, which, for me, is the single biggest blot on US history, with the possible exception of the slow holocaust of killings and forced relocations of Native Americans.

    If that makes me “PC” in your eyes, then I am proudly PC!

  12. Thomas L. Knapp

    “I suspect most LoS members are neither 1.) complete idiots nor 2.) PC thought slaves so they recognize that the constituency for their message is almost entirely white and predominately Christians.”

    Well, yes — if you talk exclusively to whites and Christians and if your message to them is that they’re better than non-whites and non-Christians, it kind of naturally follows that your audience will be mostly white and predominantly Christian … and that non-whites and non-Christians will view your message with suspicion at best.

    “This fact makes the LoS (like the TEA Party) inherently nefarious according to the Cultural Marxist thought cops, just as diversity conversely demonstrates inherent virtue.”

    Diversity is certainly not sufficient demonstration of virtue.

    Tolerance of diversity, on the other hand, is necessary to any demonstration of virtue.

  13. Robert Capozzi

    tk, well said. Personally, my practice is not to use the word “tolerance,” as it’s too close to “tolerate,” which assumes that something unpleasant is grudgingly accepted, or some such.

    I frankly applaud diversity, voluntary diversity. Perhaps it’s in a sense unPC of me, but people from different backgrounds do tend to have different perspectives, and I happen to believe that truth needs to be triangulated, since it can be so evasive, subjective, and open to interpretation. The desire for diversity of opinion and perspective is one of several values, of course.

  14. Thomas L. Knapp

    Bob,

    I use “tolerance” precisely because it assumes that something unpleasant is grudgingly accepted, with “accepted” defined as not opposed through coercive means.

    The devout evangelical Christian is probably never going to be persuaded that the devout Shiite Muslim’s religion is just as fine a religion as his own, or vice versa, nor do I see the point in attempting such persuasion.

    Ditto the racist who cares enough about the subject of race to have reached the conclusions he has. No amount of reasoning is going to convince him he’s wrong.

    In society at large, the best we can hope for is to get all these people of different convictions to tolerate — to grudgingly accept the unpleasant presence of — other people with other convictions, of other complexions, etc., instead of resorting to aggression to eliminate that presence.

    Obviously a voluntary association such as a political movement has to decide for itself whether to incorporate the “grudging” parts for political gain, or to ask its members to leave those parts at home when they show up for movement activities. I favor the latter approach, but others have been making hay with the former approach ever since politics has existed.

  15. Tom Blanton

    States may not have natural rights, but they certainly have contractual rights.

    Groups within territories also have rights – the same rights as everyone else. For example, Muslims in NYC have the right to build a cultural center.

  16. RedPhillips

    “It evokes images of bull whips cracking, tall white mansions and little shacks, and that is not an association that I believe advances the cause of liberty.”

    RC, it “evokes” that image because you have allowed (or maybe even aided and abetted) the Cultural Marxist to define the terms (and imagery) of the debate. It has not always been so. Even as little as a few decades ago Southerners were allowed to celebrate their heritage without being told that made them guilty of wrongthink. Read this.

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/wilson3.html

    “The procedural rule of law in force then and now is the US Constitution, which does NOT mention a procedural power of secession.”

    Agreed, but more importantly there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.

  17. Robert Capozzi

    tk: In society at large, the best we can hope for is to get all these people of different convictions to tolerate — to grudgingly accept the unpleasant presence of — other people with other convictions, of other complexions, etc., instead of resorting to aggression to eliminate that presence.

    me: I hear you, but I hope for more, a LOT more. As a Taoist, I completely respect other paths others take. Taoism works for me, but it may not work for others. (Technically, I’m not a Taoist, btw, but I use this as illustration.) As a TAAAList, I respect abolitionists, constitutionalists, and other flavors of L.

    Perhaps my acceptance of other creeds is rose-colored-glass-ism, but for me I find it the indicated way to be. I recognize that “tolerance” is preferable to INtolerance, but I’d suggest and recommend going further than mere toleration.

  18. Steven wilson

    Mises had some good ideas, but economic theory is not that hard to apply for yourself. I can appreciate Mark Hinkle’s open door policy for websites, but in my opinion, he should focus on application of those ideas.

    If the CP is the expert on the constitution, the DP is the expert on taxation and lenin, the RP is the expert on war and terror, then the LP should be the expert in economics.

    In capitalism, if don’t have a job, you don’t have any freedom. I don’t think there is a second chapter.

  19. Steven wilson

    Mises had some good ideas, but economic theory is not that hard to apply for yourself. I can appreciate Mark Hinkle’s open door policy for websites, but in my opinion, he should focus on application of those ideas.

    If the CP is the expert on the constitution, the DP is the expert on taxation and lenin, the RP is the expert on war and terror, then the LP should be the expert in economics.

    I don’t think there is a second chapter. No work, no freedom.

  20. Robert Capozzi

    rp: RC, it “evokes” that image because you have allowed (or maybe even aided and abetted) the Cultural Marxist to define the terms (and imagery) of the debate.

    me: Red, good for you that you can read minds. In this case, I’ve reached my own conclusions. But, even if it’s true that the association between “secession” and “slavery” has been distorted, shocking the mass of people holding such a widely held view is IMO contra-indicated. It’s poor strategy, poor communications, poor marketing for what I consider to be the prize, which is liberty. The power to secede, I concede, COULD be a way to attain more liberty, but there are paths with fewer obstacles. Why fight that battle?

    rp: Agreed, but more importantly there is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting it.

    me: Disagree, with ADR. Read the insurrection clause and the preamble.

  21. RedPhillips

    “for rights are reserved for individuals, not states or groups within territories.”

    Oh really? Says who? Rights are not real things. You can’t touch them. You can’t see them. They are an abstract philosophical construct. Therefore, since they are a philosophical construct, you can invest them in whomever or whatever you want. Hence you have PETA talking about animal rights and Calhoun talking about states’ rights. So then it comes down to whether they make a good philosophical and historical/practical case for the existence of such rights. The historical case for states’ rights (perhaps more accurately termed retained sovereignty or something like that) is overwhelming.

    Libertarians often trot out the arguments “States don’t have rights, only individuals do” as if it is some sort of trump card. But it proves nothing because it is based on a premise. It just reaffirms the premise.

    An individual can stand around foot stomping and finger wagging about his rights all he wants and where will that get him? They are powerless under the boot of the state. Just ask the tax protesters who are yelling about their rights as they are dragged off to jail. You have to have competing sovereignties (such as states, the Church, guilds, etc.) that are jealous of their own sovereignty standing between the individual and the state. Competing sovereignties have power. The individual is powerless.

    I’ll answer Tom when I get more time.

  22. JT

    Steven: “In capitalism, if don’t have a job, you don’t have any freedom.”

    Nonsense. Freedom is the social condition in which individual rights aren’t violated. You have no “right to a job”; you have to get one yourself. Nobody is violating your rights by not giving you one.

    Of course, if you’re an adult and you don’t have a job, you might not have any income (unless you get private charity or government welfare), which will make living independently very difficult. But that doesn’t mean “you don’t have any freedom.”

    Red to Eric: “I have no idea how to answer everyone of your points because I don’t know the details. I suspect you got them from the SPLC or some similar Cultural Marxist organization and they are embellishments and half truths.”

    Are you aware if *any* of those points are true? Which ones are half-truths?

    Red: “Therefore, since [rights] are a philosophical construct, you can invest them in whomever or whatever you want. Hence you have PETA talking about animal rights and Calhoun talking about states’ rights.”

    Rights are a concept logically derived from the nature of existence and man. Many people can *claim* rights for other things, but those people are wrong on logical grounds (this does require a long philosophical argument to prove though). That’s the difference.

    That said, Tom’s assertion that things can have contractual rights without natural rights may be correct. When states in this country united under the Constitution, it was understood that they did have the power to leave the union. They clearly don’t have that power anymore, even though none of them willingly forfeited it. Of course, that’s a separate issue from whether libertarians should talk about secession from a strategic point of view.

  23. Erik G.

    Red @11:

    I love how League members always try to re-frame the debate back to the SPLC and/or claiming that any negative source must be a ‘Cultural Marxist’ organization. F’n really? So everyone who criticizes y’all must be a cultural marxist?

    For the record, most of my criticism of the League comes from interacting with shit-tons of its members while living in SC. Not only did I meet tons of them during campaigns (including one particular campaign where the campaign director somehow thought y’all were *the* critical vote, and courted y’all to the extant that your members flooded campaign HQ constantly), but I met a good number of League members in my profession at the time (bartending).

    Some of the most vile, hateful, racist things I’ve ever heard anyone say have come out of the mouths of League members. This occurred not only in campaign conferences, but also after members have been liquored up a little, or in the heaven-only-knows-how-many countless debates over the Confederate flag that I had to endure.

    So yes, I think a lot of League members are despicable, hateful trash. Does this mean all League members are this way? No. I don’t collectively say that “if you’re a member of the League, you’re racist.” However, I am quite comfortable that because of the high number of racists in the League, and its leadership’s association with racism, to say that the League itself is racist.

    I can’t even tell you how many times people in SC thought I was ‘one of them’ and decided to give me the ‘closed doors’ talk since we were in ‘similar company.’ The shit that came out of their mouths was astounding.

    And, for the record, this is no knock on SC. I love the state, consider it my home, and truly believe it to be my favorite place in the world. I probably have more friends in SC than in the rest of the country combined, but I assure you we all stay away from the loonies who associate with the SC League of the South.

  24. Robert Capozzi

    rp: Libertarians often trot out the arguments “States don’t have rights, only individuals do” as if it is some sort of trump card. But it proves nothing because it is based on a premise. It just reaffirms the premise.

    me: Yes, some Ls do this. I prefer to say that rights are constructs and require some prevailing amount of agreement for them to be recognized and respected. Individual “rights” are more elemental and useful in creating a healthy civil order.

    State (I prefer) “powers” should be restricted to protecting individual “rights” to the maximum extent possible. Individual liberty should be presumed unless State power restricting individual liberty is absolutely necessary (in the short term) toward maintaining domestic tranquility through the rule of law.

    How state powers are procedurally established and checked is an interesting technical question. Sorting out, for ex., whether individual liberty and domestic tranquility are maximized by limiting the territory in which the rule of law is in force might be sensible, but it’s hardly a panacea. Small states can often restrict individual liberty more than large states.

    The paleo Ls I’ve discussed this with can’t help but agree that that’s true, but they seem to believe that the path to world liberty and peace is through secession (or, at least, the threat of secession, i.e., the power to secede and subdivide).

    Not only do I remain unconvinced by their argument, but it seems obvious that liberty will only be won by large numbers of people wanting it. Like it or not, few buy the curious revisionist interpretation on the Civil War that the paleos hold; my sense is that most are alienated by such themes, associating it with apologists for, at minimum, white separatism and at worst, overt racism.

    I suggest to my latter-day Calhoun friends that they consider a less unpopular path. Few have the inclination to reflect on the assumed implications of the 9th and 10th Amendments, the Resolves, and other obscure arguments that were lost 150 years ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *