“All government, in its essence, is a conspiracy against the superior man: its one permanent object is to oppress him and cripple him. If it be aristocratic in organization, then it seeks to protect the man who is superior only in law against the man who is superior in fact; if it be democratic, then it seeks to protect the man who is inferior in every way against both. One of its primary functions is to regiment men by force, to make them as much alike as possible and as dependent upon one another as possible, to search out and combat originality among them. All it can see in an original idea is potential change, and hence an invasion of its prerogatives. The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out for himself, without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos.” - H.L. Mencken
One of the most widespread but rarely discussed divides within libertarianism is between the Populists and the Elitists. The former tend to have a fantasy version of the American Revolution, and thereby imagine that we can somehow convert the masses to think for themselves and stop parroting popular tropes they don’t understand. The latter tend to have very low hopes for the masses, and are more likely to blame the majority than the tyrant for slavery. The Populists also tend to be more inclined towards political action (with the possible exceptions of left-Agorists), whereas the Elitists tend to consider political activism to be something like trying to convince fish to go for a walk. Thomas Paine would be a perfect example of the Populist libertarian mentality. I consider myself firmly in the second camp, and I would say that Mencken and Albert Jay Nock would probably fit in there, too.
This divide also tends to polarize along other lines, such as people with republican-democratic vs. aristocratic-upper class leanings.
There are interesting mixes of both, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a democrat and an elitist; probably on the theory that agrarian communities are naturally kept in line by their local elites.
There are interesting mixes of both, such as Thomas Jefferson, who was something of a democrat and an elitist; probably on the theory that agrarian communities are naturally kept in line by their local elites.
I always thought of him as a populist/ elitist intellectual. I think as far as the “spirit” of things is concerned, Hamilton was spot on, even if some of his policies were catastrophic. If you actually look at the logic and limits of knowledge, he was far more well reasoned than any of his other American comrades. He was also really the most isolated of the group, and not really in the group of the cultural elites that was the founding fathers.
Even if he was wrong on so much, he is certainly the most interesting of the bunch. I think if somehow these men were “transfered” to our times Jefferson would be some form of loopy leftist, I honestly don’t know what Hamilton would be, other than something more interesting than Jefferson.
“your people sir, are a great beast” - Alexander Hamilton
I may only ad that ‘elitists’ also include those who seek advancement toward a free society through actual business, and not just aristocratic-leaning minarchists.
I may only ad that ‘elitists’ also include those who seek advancement toward a free society through actual business, and not just aristocratic-leaning minarchists.
I despise populism, I also happen to have a grudge against self appointed aristocrat-libertarians like Hoppe and his ilk. Seriously, learn basic etiquette and then try to position yourself as some dying breed of upper class Europeans.
I despise populism, I also happen to have a grudge against self appointed aristocrat-libertarians like Hoppe and his ilk. Seriously, learn basic etiquette and then try to position yourself as some dying breed of upper class Europeans.
The wanna be Feudalists are basically elevating the aristocrat-by-luck over the truly superior man, just as the old patriarchs in Calvinist towns were. When I think ‘elite’ I have a much more individualistic and personalist conception. Such an elite finds its purpose neither in dominating nor in serving the ‘majority’; they are not ‘leaders’, though they may attract followers (whom they often despise)1. They are ‘above’ the crowd, they can be physically dominated by resist submitting their minds to ‘popular opinion’; which is almost synonymous with ‘false opinion’ (“The majority is always wrong,” writes Ibsen).
" I now go alone, my disciples! You also now go away, and alone! So will I have it. Truly, I advise you: depart from me, and guard yourselves against Zarathustra! And better still: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he has deceived you. The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies, but also to hate his friends. One repays a teacher badly if one remains only a student. And why Then should you not pluck at my laurels? You venerate me; but what if your veneration should someday collapse? Take care in case a statue crush you! You say, you believe in Zarathustra? But of what account is Zarathustra! You are my believers: but of what account are all believers! You had not yet sought yourselves: then did you find me. So do all believers; therefore all belief is of so little account. Now do I bid you lose me and find yourselves; and only when you have all denied me, will I return to you." - Nietzsche, So Spoke Zarathustra
I think many libertarians could learn to look more critically at their ‘great masters’.
I think a lot of people are turned off from libertarianism when they see libertarians look down at “the masses”, “the sheeple”, etc. If you want to persuade people, the last thing you want to do (typically) is call them idiots or worse.
I think a lot of people are turned off from libertarianism when they see libertarians look down at “the masses”, “the sheeple”, etc. If you want to persuade people, the last thing you want to do (typically) is call them fools or worse.
But this is the populist fallacy in itself: the presumption that people can be persuaded to a doctrine that fundamentally contradicts many inborn and learned norms, and which - if true - would imply that the majority of people are ignorant herd animals who are incapable or unwilling to distinguish reality from fantasy.
The populist says, “the masses are deluded, let us instruct them.” The elitst says, “the masses are deluded, because they can not learn.” Elitists tend to be rather more pessimistic about the prospects for liberty, because when it occurs we see it more as a historical accident than any popular ideology.
Elitism is at once an appeal to probability, base rate fallacy, conjunction fallacy, a false dimemna, and an is-ought problem all at the same time.
Not to mention it is incompatible with liberty. You simply can’t have a free society where the “strong” rule the “weak.” Because it implies one group ruling another. And as far as I know, that’s the opposite of “liberty” and “freedom”… which also makes elitism an equivocation of terms.
Elitism is at once an appeal to probability, base rate fallacy, conjunction fallacy, a false dimemna, and an is-ought problem all at the same time.
Explain what you’re talking about, and what you mean by ‘elitism’.
Not to mention it is incompatible with liberty. You simply can’t have a free society where the “strong” rule the “weak.”
No other sort of society ever did or could exist. Those with the material and intellectual capital will control the rest, that’s just how humans work.
A liberal-propertarian elite, due to fact 1) would be the means by which liberalism was established and maintained; because the elite found it in their interest to prevent the jealous mob from overrunning civil order.
Your terms are extremely ambiguous, if you’ve followed the discussion so far I have already distinguished from the ‘domination-warlord’ type and the ‘individualist-egoist’ type of ‘elite’.
Because it implies one group ruling another.
So does a corporation. Just because it’s a propertarian-voluntary organization does not eliminate hierarchy or superiority of command.
Do you consider yourself a Left-Libertarian? Because that might explain your equivocations.
Those with the material and intellectual capital will control the rest, that’s just how humans work.
no…the capitalists are at the mercy of the consumers. the command of a capitalist over a worker is a more obvious but ultimately subordinate principle to that of consumer sovereignty.
no…the capitalists are at the mercy of the consumers.
I’m not talking about the structure of production, I’m talking about social norms and the nature of any civil order. Those who are funded and capable of generating ideological doctrines are the people who decide public opinion.
He does not himself create his ideas and standards of value; he borrows them from other people. His ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him. Only very few men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing the traditional body of creeds and doctrines.
Common man does not speculate about the great problems. With regard to them he relies upon other people’s authority, he behaves as “every decent fellow must behave,” he is like a sheep in the herd. It is precisely this intellectual inertia that characterizes a man as a common man.
Human Action, Chapter 2: Part 6
Even in regards to the structure of production, the business man produces for consumption by the masses but not at their behest. As Mises states in his letter to Ayn Rand,
You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions
which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who
are better than you.
He does not himself create his ideas
and standards of value; hc borrows them from other people. His
ideology is what his environment enjoins upon him. Only very few
men have the gift of thinking new and original ideas and of changing
the traditional body of creeds and doctrines.
Common man does not specdate about the great problems. With
regard to them he relies upon other people’s authority, he bchavcs
as "every decent fellow must behave,‘’ he is like a sheep in the herd.
It is precisely this intellectual inertia that characterizes a man as a
common man.
I’m not talking about the structure of production, I’m talking about social norms and the nature of any civil order. Those who are funded and capable of >>generating ideological doctrines are the people who decide public opinion.
the institutions of civil order do not stand apart from economics. If the monopoly on defences and justice was broken, and the market was permitted to function; consumer sovereignty would hold sway here as elsewhere.
Those who are funded and capable of generating ideological doctrines are the people who decide public opinion.
Why the divide, couldn’t one just support a multi-tiered approach similar to Rothbard?
No, because it is a fundamental view of 1) how society actually functions and 2) what human beings are like. Rothbard promoted a mixed ‘hard core’ and ‘populist’ strategy; yet if you believe that the populai are vain, illiberal and stupid it seems that trying to educate them may be a waste of time.
the institutions of civil order do not stand apart from economics. If the monopoly on defences and justice was broken, and the market was permitted to function; consumer sovereignty would hold sway here as elsewhere.
Utterly missing the point.
Do they decide it, or offer it?
There is no difference. The masses do not, and can not, form coherent ideas of their own. They absorb them, and those they absorb are the ones with the physical and intellectual capital to impress themselves. If you think the majority of people formed ideas like anti-discrimination laws, you’re pretty out of it.
The masses do not, and can not, form coherent ideas of their own. They absorb them, and those they absorb are the ones with the physical and >>intellectual capital to impress themselves.
…or they don’t absorb them…I’m sorry but the way you are writing is as if men are not of different grades of intelligence but rather that some men have intelligence and some are mere animals dressed up in clothes; machinery for their betters to manage. Perhaps you did not intend it but you are sending out a misanthropic vibe.
No, because it is a fundamental view of 1) how society actually functions and 2) what human beings are like. Rothbard promoted a mixed ‘hard core’ and ‘populist’ strategy; yet if you believe that the populai are vain, illiberal and stupid it seems that trying to educate them may be a waste of time.
One could easily believe that people do adopt ideas from elites (Like Hayek) yet they can be educated about the basics.
You are confusing the structure of production with the inclinations and divisions of natural ability. Sure, a market will reflect these differences in ability and temprament but it is the people involved that determine the content of ideas; not some magical hand-wavy ‘market’. ‘Markets’ are just shorthand for what people do within the bounds of civil order.
I’m sorry but the way you are writing is as if men are not of different grades of intelligence but rather that some men have intelligence and some are mere animals dressed up in clothes
There are grades of intelligence and variations in personality. The majority of people are both dull and herdish. The intelligent and herdish form most of what Hoppe calls the ‘natural elite’, these are those of a theocratical bent; the independent and stupid probably tend towards criminal occupations and sloth. Those who are intelligent and independent are generally considered dangerous by everybody else.
All humans are animals dressed up in clothes. What else would they be?
machinery for their betters to manage.
Their betters are going to manage them, at least in broad outline, if for no other reason than the propensity of the common man to submit to ‘authority’.
Perhaps you did not intend it but you are sending out a misanthropic vibe.
So does every person who has faced the reality of the human condition; the fact is that for all their gifts and potential the average run of mankind is a pretty sad sack. Most real progress occurs not only without their intending it, but with their violent disapproval. That being said I don’t hate ordinary people, I just find them pathetic and obstructionist.