Confused and seeking help: Mises Institute vs. Freedom Force International

Economics Political Theory
1

I have recently discovered two websites that do a fantastic job analyzing the most important problems in the world and providing a course of action to achieve liberty. First, I found Freedom Force International, and shortly afterward I found The Mises Institute. Yet, there seems to be a fundamental point of conflict between the two organizations which has been confounding me for the past month or so. I will try to explain:

Freedom Force International was founded by G. Edward Griffin in 2002. Mr. Griffin is 78 years old and has been fighting for freedom since the 1950s. Freedom Force is his attempt to create an organization that will eventually halt the current trend toward totalitarian government all over the world and usher in a new era of freedom. The strategy of FFI is simple: Why fight city hall when you can be city hall. Griffin demonstrates how a small group of collectivists have taken control of the power centers of society: governments, universities, the mainstream media, etc. Working within the organizations that determine public policy and public opinion, a minority of people can direct the course of an entire nation. The only way to achieve liberty is to take back the power centers of society, replacing collectivist leaders with individualist leaders who believe in a statement of libertarian principles called The Creed of Freedom. Taking the long view of history, Griffin believes this is possible. He believes that 3% of the population will always rule, so we must make sure that the 3% is made up of individualists willing to stand for liberty. The motto of FFI is: “Those without power cannot defend freedom.”

An overview of the strategy of Freedom Force can be read here.

The Creed of Freedom can be read here.

Griffin also believes that a new word must be added to the political lexicon: protectorate - a state limited to the defense of life, liberty, and property. He believes that a protectorate is the next model of freedom, rather than a government or anarchy. You can read his arguments in favor of a protectorate here and here.

After becoming a dedicated follower of Griffin’s work, I discovered the Mises Institute, an organization that claims to be “the best hope for liberty in the long term that is available in our times.” And it is hard to disagree, given the educational and intellectual power of the organization. Yet, the main strategy of the Mises Institute is different than that of Freedom Force. Many supporters of the institute are anarchists or anarcho-capitalists, who believe that the state is inherently unjust, and that change must come from outside the system in the minds of the people. Eventually, enough people will come to realize the true nature of the state and will withdraw their support of government. Without a public willing to enslave itself, the ruling elite will collapse under their own weight. This sentiment is expressed by Etienne de La Boetie in The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude:

“I should like merely to understand how it happens that so many men, so many villages, so many cities, so many nations, sometimes suffer under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him; who is able to harm them only to the extent to which they have the willingness to bear with him; who could do them absolutely no injury unless they preferred to put up with him rather than contradict him.”

“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break in pieces.”

So, are these two organizations mutually exclusive? Can one be an anarchist and also uphold Griffin’s Creed of Freedom? Of the two strategies: taking back the power centers vs. education of the masses, is only one feasible? Will 3% of the population always lead, or will governments inevitably crumble when the masses decide to be free?

Thanks, everyone, for your time and insight.

I've been toying around with the idea of constitutional anarchism.
2

THE CREED OF FREEDOM

INTRINSIC NATURE OF RIGHTS

I believe that only individuals have rights, not the collective group; that these rights are intrinsic to each individual, not granted by the state; for if the state has the power to grant them, it also has the power to deny them, and that is incompatible with personal liberty.

I believe that a just state derives its power solely from its citizens. Therefore, the state must never presume to do anything beyond what individual citizens also have the right to do. Otherwise, the state is a power unto itself and becomes the master instead of the servant of society.

It’s great that people are interested in liberty, but “just state” is a contradiction in terms. A state is a territorial monopoly on the provision of justice and security. Why must one accept any form of statism in order to “take back the power centers”? One must recognize that “the state” is just a mythological construct of society, and society can prosper without belief in a state. The “power centers” of society must be untangled from state criminal “power centers” for any lasting free society.

I think that a minarchist state will possibly grow from the US insurrection, at least it is much more likely than what I advocate. I’d prefer such a state to what I live in now, but I won’t advocate it. I consider myself a voluntarist because I don’t believe in compulsive capitalism or anarchy. You could very well partake in a hypothetical “voluntary government” or live in a primitive, moneyless commune for all I care. I don’t think that such a thing would prosper large-scale without forbidding seccession down to the individual level (thus becoming a state versus voluntary government).

3

This depends on your definition of ‘state’. If you replace it with ‘chappachuppu’, and you look at what he is describing then I don’t see a problem. That is, if he consistently believes in the “solely deriving power from it’s citizens”.

My guess is that this is his way of saying the “-capitalism” part of “anarcho-capitalism”. He doesn’t want to say “anarchy” because people (including himself?) believe anarchy is nothingness.

However,

It is not us that LeeO should be asking. He should be asking Freedom Force International. The question is: “does a protectorate have to comply to it’s own rules? Is it an expropriating property protector”.

4

It’s great that people are interested in liberty, but “just state” is a contradiction in terms. A state is a territorial monopoly on the provision of justice and security.

Yes, that is the key to what is bugging me. But you must understand that Mr. Griffin is perfectly aware of the philosophy of anarchy and the definition of the state held by Rothbard, Hoppe, anarcho-capitalists and voluntarists. He agrees with the sentiment of these people, but disagrees on the definition of the state. In an email to me, he wrote: “In the final analysis, that is a pretty good definition of a state: an organization authorized by the citizens to use coercion on their behalf.” He also wrote that he believes defense will always be organized by the state “because if it is organized privately, it will not be long before it becomes the state.”

If you replaced the word “state” with “private defense organization” in the Creed of Freedom, there would be no contradiction. That’s how Griffin envisions a just state - like a giant PDA serving the public.

Why must one accept any form of statism in order to “take back the power centers”? One must recognize that “the state” is just a mythological construct of society, and society can prosper without belief in a state.

Good point.

The “power centers” of society must be untangled from state criminal “power centers” for any lasting free society.

That is Griffin’s goal: to change the power centers of the state from criminal organizations to organizations that protect life, liberty, and property.

I think that a minarchist state will possibly grow from the US insurrection, at least it is much more likely than what I advocate.

My fear is that a collapse of the US as we know it now could result in absolute tyranny. That’s why I’m interested in Freedom Force. It seems like a worthwhile task to help make sure that a future state will be as libertarian as possible. Otherwise, the people in power will continue to mold countries to their tyrannical will, and freedom will become a distant memory.

I’d prefer such a state to what I live in now, but I won’t advocate it. I consider myself a voluntarist because I don’t believe in compulsive capitalism or anarchy.

I also consider myself a voluntarist. The Creed of Freedom expresses this sentiment, I think.

You could very well partake in a hypothetical “voluntary government” or live in a primitive, moneyless commune for all I care. I don’t think that such a thing would prosper large-scale without forbidding seccession down to the individual level (thus becoming a state versus voluntary government).

Are you saying that there must be a state apparatus for large-scale prosperity?

5

Sounds like minarchy to me.

6

This depends on your definition of ‘state’. If you replace it with ‘chappachuppu’, and you look at what he is describing then I don’t see a problem. That is, if he consistently believes in the “solely deriving power from it’s citizens”.

Yes! I pointed this out in my last post.

My guess is that this is his way of saying the “-capitalism” part of “anarcho-capitalism”. He doesn’t want to say “anarchy” because people (including himself?) believe anarchy is nothingness.

Yes. Along with most people, he believes that anarchy means “might makes right.” Although he is aware of the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism, he doesn’t want to scare people away. So he uses the word “state.”

However,

It is not us that LeeO should be asking. He should be asking Freedom Force International. The question is: “does a protectorate have to comply to it’s own rules? Is it an expropriating property protector”.

You’re right. I sent a letter to Mr. Griffin recently, and I asked him about how a protectorate would work. I wrote:

“In a protectorate, do you also envision a market of private security and defense companies? Would there be private companies to negotiate disputes? Would the court system be private or provided by the protectorate? How would the tax system work, and does a tax system exist that is not coercive and does not violate The Creed of Freedom? Since the concept of a protectorate is new to the political lexicon, it is difficult to envision exactly how it would work.”

He responded:

“This is the key. Details such as these would have to be worked out, but I have no doubt that they could be provided the underlying philosophy in the Creed is honored throughout the creative process. Even so, I would expect that imperfections would creep in and, eventually, a whole new structure would have to be built upon the ashes of the old. However, I would think that the second model would have a good chance of lasting and working well for 500 or more years, which is not too bad in an imperfect world.”

So, he is saying that yes, a protectorate would have to comply by it’s own rules. It is not an expropriating property protector.

7

Sounds like minarchy to me.

I know. That’s what is bothering me. I can’t figure out if I can join the organization and remain true to voluntarism. In order to help Grffin’s cause, which I believe is a fantastic one, must I become a dreaded “minarchist” and endure the wrath of everyone on this forum?

8

You won’t endure my wrath, lol.

My guess is that we will have to go through stages, slicing away at the state like a salami, to get anywhere. So that both of your two options will have to happen at some point.

9

You won’t endure my wrath, lol.

Thanks!

My guess is that we will have to go through stages, slicing away at the state like a salami, to get anywhere. So that both of your two options will have to happen at some point.

Yes, that makes sense. Why can’t I support both organizations? Time to get slicing! :slight_smile:

10

You can join any organization that you think will help the cause.

The consideration is this though:

Analyzing the state from an austro-voluntarist perspective simply has much more explanatory power than from a constitutional/minarchist perspective.

To have real change, the state must be viewed with utmost cynicism. They have to stand on the back of their heels. They should feel the wrath of the involuntary serfs. If the idea is held up that the nature of the state is really one about protection and social progress then this functions simply as a way to get people to comply. And this myth is what allowed all growth of state power from the very beginning.

11

@Lee0, if you haven’t read Rothbard’s reply to Nozick on his argument that a PDA (a protectorate, as you call it) will become a state, you should. Rothbard’s rebuttal is very good: http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

12

He responded:

“This is the key. Details such as these would have to be worked out, but I have no doubt that they could be provided the underlying philosophy in the Creed is honored throughout the creative process. Even so, I would expect that imperfections would creep in and, eventually, a whole new structure would have to be built upon the ashes of the old. However, I would think that the second model would have a good chance of lasting and working well for 500 or more years, which is not too bad in an imperfect world.”

Tell him Celtic Ireland lasted 1,000 years…

…

Capitalism versus Statism - MNR

"In a profound sense, the free market is the method and society “natural” to man; it can and does therefore arise “naturally” without an elaborate intellectual system to explain and defend it. The unlettered peasant knows in his heart the difference between hard work and production on the one hand, and predation and expropriation on the other. Unmolested then, there tends to grow up a society of agriculture and commerce where each man works at the task at which he is best suited in the conditions of the time, and then trades his product for the products of others. The peasant grows wheat and exchanges it for the salt of other producers or for the shoes of the local craftsman. If disputes arise over property or over contracts, the peasants and villagers take their problem to the wise men of the area, sometimes the elders of the tribe, to arbitrate their dispute.

There are numerous historical examples of the growth and development of such a purely free-market society. Two may be mentioned here. One is the fair at Champagne, that for hundreds of years in the Middle Ages was the major center of international trade in Europe. Seeing the importance of the fairs, the kings and barons left them unmolested, untaxed, and unregulated, and any disputes that arose at the fairs were settled in one of many competing, voluntary courts, maintained by church, nobles, and the merchants themselves. A more sweeping and lesser-known example is Celtic Ireland, which for a thousand years maintained a flourishing free-market society without a State. Ireland was finally conquered by the English State in the seventeenth century, but the statelessness of Ireland, the lack of a governmental channel to transmit and enforce the orders and dictates of the conquerors, delayed the conquest for centuries.[2]

The American colonies were blessed with a strain of individualist libertarian thought that managed to supersede Calvinist authoritarianism, a stream of thought inherited from the libertarian and anti-statist radicals of the English revolution of the seventeenth century. These libertarian ideas were able to take firmer hold in the United States than in the mother country owing to the fact that the American colonies were largely free from the feudal land monopoly that ruled Britain.[3] But in addition to this ideology, the absence of effective central government in many of the colonies allowed the springing up of a “natural” and unselfconscious free-market society, devoid of any political government whatever. This was particularly true of three colonies. One was Albemarle, in what later became northeastern North Carolina, where no government existed for decades until the English Crown bestowed the mammoth Carolina land grant in 1663. Another, and more prominent example was Rhode Island, originally a series of anarchistic settlements founded by groups of refugees from the autocracy of Massachusetts Bay. Finally, a peculiar set of circumstances brought effective individualistic anarchism to Pennsylvania for about a decade in the 1680s and 1690s.[4]

While the purely free and laissez-faire society arises unselfconsciously where people are given free rein to exert their creative energies, statism has been the dominant principle throughout history. Where State despotism already exists, then liberty can only arise from a self-conscious ideological movement that wages a protracted struggle against statism, and reveals to the mass of the public the grave flaw in its acceptance of the propaganda of the ruling classes. The role of this “revolutionary” movement is to mobilize the various ranks of the oppressed masses, and to desanctify and delegitimize the rule of the State in their eyes."

…

13

@Lee0, if you haven’t read Rothbard’s reply to Nozick on his argument that a PDA (a protectorate, as you call it) will become a state, you should. Rothbard’s rebuttal is very good: http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_1/1_1_6.pdf

I have listened to The Ethics of Liberty on audiobook. Chapter 29, “Robert Nozick and the Imacculate Conception of the State,” is the same as that journal article, I think. That argument, and the rest of Rothbard’s arguments in the book, were very convincing to me. That’s why I began to see problems with the protectorate idea and sent Mr. Griffin a letter seeking clarification. I did not mention that specific chapter, but I asked Griffin what he thought about Rothbard’s conception of anarchy. Griffin wrote that he is a “great fan” of Rothbard (he quotes Rothbard in his book on the Federal Reserve The Creature From Jekyll Island) and that “there are no serious ideological differences.”

Griffin often posts specific rebuttals on the FFI website. I would love to hear his rebuttal to Rothbard’s rebuttal of Nozick, but I don’t think it’s likely he would write it at this point in his life. There is always a chance, and I will definitely contact Mr. Griffin again, especially if I decide to join Freedom Force.

14

Tell him Celtic Ireland lasted 1,000 years…

Thanks for the links. I have yet to learn about historical examples of anarcho-capitalism, and they provide a very powerful argument. Griffin wrote, “I am unaware of any beta model of anarchy that has produced anything other than…well, anarchy.” I will bring this up next time I contact him.

Also, that is a great passage by Rothbard. I feel like the problem now is that there is nowhere for a laissez-faire society to spring forth. Coercive governments enforce their monopolies in every geographical territory, such that desperate libertarians have resorted to “sea-steading” to escape government rule. Rothbard provides a solution:

Where State despotism already exists, then liberty can only arise from a self-conscious ideological movement that wages a protracted struggle against statism, and reveals to the mass of the public the grave flaw in its acceptance of the propaganda of the ruling classes. The role of this “revolutionary” movement is to mobilize the various ranks of the oppressed masses, and to desanctify and delegitimize the rule of the State in their eyes.

I think this makes sense, but I am not convinced it will work. It seems like the masses are just not interested or incapable of understanding libertarian principles. They have always been willing to be dependent on the state, and this does not seem likely to change anytime soon. That’s why Griffin’s strategy is appealing to me. He believes that we must accept the reality that 3% of the population will always rule, and that we cannot depend on Ghandi’s “critical mass” in the face of a mainstream press that will demonize us as lunatic extremists any chance they can get.

15

No. But I never employ them when talking to people. Prudential anarchism >> Libertarian anarchism

We aren’t asking for mass-rule. We’re trying to change mass ideology and worldviews.

I thought ghandi was pretty successful? Anyway, I don’t think any ideas have gotten more bad press than anarchism, and I do pretty well for myself.

16

No. But I never employ them when talking to people. Prudential anarchism >> Libertarian anarchism

So people are interested and capable of understanding? Then why don’t you employ these principles when you talk to people?

We aren’t asking for mass-rule. We’re trying to change mass ideology and worldviews.

Anarchists ask for no rule. The only way this can be achieved is through a mass ideology of anarchy. That’s what strikes me as unrealistic and perhaps unattainable.

I thought ghandi was pretty successful?

He was successful because he did enjoy a favorable press, unlike anarchists.

Anyway, I don’t think any ideas have gotten more bad press than anarchism, and I do pretty well for myself.

You have been successful convincing the masses you are right? You have been able to disseminate your ideas through the mainstream media?

17

You have been successful convincing the masses you are right? You have been able to disseminate your ideas through the mainstream media?

I don’t think these questions highlight anything other than that the job is not yet done.

18

The problem I have with FFI is that it fails to consider the failure of the greatest experiment in liberal governance in the history of the world, the United States of America. While we can know from the science of human action that this experiment was doomed to fail, its actual failure lends all the more weight to the a priori reasons which could be given. It seems that Griffin is a minarchist and still wants to salvage some vestige of the “night watchman” state, but this time done really really really really really right, no mistakes, as the Founding Fathers made. But the FF thought they were doing it really, really, really, really right, too. What they failed to face up to is the Rothbardian reality of any State, no matter how organized - it is legitimized aggression.

The “night watchman” is the thug patrolling the neighborhood, shaking down honest businessmen for “taxes” to “fund defense.” The military is the raison d’etre for the State, it is the spine of the State apparatus. The problem is not violence - the threat and use of violence are indispensable components of the natural order - the problem is the socialization of security and law and the two-tiered law implicit in even the most minimal of night-watchman States. The question must be answered: if the night-watchman State is so small, why can its essential functions not be produced through the natural order??

I don’t care how you organize a territory, so long as you don’t come at me and my family with this bullshit that you get to act according to a different set of rules than everybody else because you’re the designated “night watchman”. Anybody should be free to produce security, law, banking and any other service that governments currently license through the system of personal privilege but nobody should be free to run around with tanks and guns forcing others to accept rules that those with the tanks and guns are not also subject to. If you point your tank at me, I am free to point my tank at you, no matter what patches you have stitched onto your shoulder.

This shows that the root problem is not the government itself. Governments are a symptom of a deeper problem and that is the immorality of popular attitudes. In every nation, people believe that there ought to be a set of specially-empowered individuals who are permitted to live by different rules than everybody else. Governments are just the individuals who step up and fill this socially-accepted role. Look at all those movies about cops who “cross the line” because they have to “do what it takes” to stop crime, even if it means committing crimes themselves! Look how popular such movies are (e.g. Die Hard/Lethal Weapon-style movies). That is the root problem. In my view, there’s no point fussing about how to organize security and law in a natural order so long as a natural order society remains impossible because of the corruption of popular morals. We need to confront the moral apologists (religious leaders, social leaders, etc.) who promote and propagate these immoral beliefs and attitudes. That’s where the battle lies and the Mises Institute is the “strategy room” of that battle.

Clayton -

19

LeeO, when I have time tonight, I can give you a lengthy response, but it will probably cause this thread to devolve into this week’s forum battleground. I think I know what the important difference between Griffin’s institute and LvMI is though and some things we can learn from it.

I don’t think these questions highlight anything other than that the job is not yet done.

I think nir is spot on about this. It gets really old hearing this as an objection around here. If everyone approached problems like this, we’d all be still cracking animal bones for marrow in a cave somewhere. Read this. I especially like this part:

As John Adams (1856, pp. 172, 197, 285) reminisced in a series of letters many years afterward: “What do we mean by the revolution? The war? That was no part of the revolution; it was only an effect and consequence of it. . . . [T]he revolution was complete, in the minds of the people, . . . before the war commenced in the skirmishes of Concord and Lexington on the 19th of April, 1775. . . . This radical change in the principles, opinions, sentiments, and affections of the people, was the real American Revolution [emphasis original].”

20

Normal people aren’t interested in grand ideologies. They want clear choices laid in front of them that doesn’t force them to live an alternate lifestyle. The laziest way to accomplish this is to put libertarian candidates on the ballot and get people to vote for them.

Most people will only embrace a paradigm shift in their political ideology once it fails them - when it arrests them in the middle of the night, seizes their assets, shuts down their business, fails to deliver on welfare promises, denies their court case, etc. These people will find their hand forced, they will change their lifestyle, and likely their ideology as well.

Being an anarchist and advocating minarchy is not contradictory if you believe that minarchy is a means to establish anarchy…and vice versa. Anarchists and minarchists should ally.