Well does he belong to League of the South or not? League of the South is an organization with those characteristics. If he ‘teaches’ there regularly, it seems suspicious. Since it would seem to indicate his views are not even limited to libertarianism… but towards the specifically cultural views of the LoS. Which are not libertarian at all. And, in fact, are not even economical either. This is the same as Gary North who is also on this website and is not a libertarian. But, like the LoS, wants a theocracy. If Dilorenzo has no such goal in mind, he either has not been a part of this group. Or mistakenly was a part of this group.
And has he been spending more time on history than economics? Both of these questions seem fair points. Though, his work or classes on economics would speak for themselves. no matter when they were written.
I find it also ridiculous that anyone would want to be in League of the South. And his history and ideological views would seem to indicate that he doesn’t have any intent on working within state system. Which is the point of discourse between politicians: to make the state run more efficiently. But instead he wants to dismantle it. He can’t call the state names and be a tireless rebel, and then want to play nice and demand respect from it. The state, in his own view, is a ‘criminal organization’. Does Dr. Dilorenzo try to engage with the Mafia or Yukuza? Al-Qaeda? The Juggalos?
This is why Ron Paul’s crusade against the Fed is a waste of time. People who want anarchism or whatever are wasting their time in politics. People have been conditioned, especially politicians, to want the government. Paul’s whole beef with the fed is that it creates larger government through printing. But politicians want government; it’s why they are in the game.
People here just have to face that anarchism is not acceptable within the statist paradigm. The statists know where even ‘limited government’ is headed: for them finding another or harder job. In addition to this, the statist paradigm relies on a ‘margins’ of society: nazis, gang members, anarchists, communists, pedophiles, neo-confederates, hippies, punks, terrorists, etc. The louder these people are the better for them. And so regardless of content, they can all be lumped together in order to further the myth of state’s directive of order. They are protecting the Silent Majority against these beasts. The longer you are a political person outside of the paradigm, the more likely you are to fall victim to this. Though, obviously many people are in these groups.
Austrian economics makes sense. But it is very unlikely that someone will take to it, unless they want to. The ideology of the majority is too compelling to switch to some economic theory like it. Someone posted an article in Public choice from the 80s about political revolution. Something called ‘sparks and prairie fires’ by Timur Kuran. Most people will accept or reject Austrian economics, based simply on how risky it is to do so. Ron Paul had a small window of doing this during the 2008 election when he could ride the coat tails of anti-war sentiment, pulling liberals over into something they didn’t expect: a conservative consistent on non-violence. But this has long since passed. His glaring weaknesses combined with the Tea Party’s disastrous johnny come lately ‘anti-government’ rhetoric have stolen his thunder. During the election it seemed like no one was talking about government but him. But now every empty suit in town is trying to ride that gravy train. Including his son; who also turned out to be a disaster for Libertarianism. So he just seems like that short guy from Texas.
