I was just wondering what people the posters here would consider to have done most harm to the liberty movement, and why.
Demagogues, of course. It’s rather difficult to for statism to sustain itself when the idiot masses have no one to lie them into dependence and thinking their best opportunities lie in the state.
Vanguards, pundits (offline & online), a self-reinforcing movement of general ignorance, etc.
For making an apologia for empire and mass murder.
I’m gonna go with JM Keynes, for obvious reasons.
The question doesn’t specify intellectuals, so I think I would say, in general, Republican presidents (Nixon, Reagan, Bush)
Speaking of intellectuals, I’m going to throw my piece of paper into the hat for “Noam Chomsky” (his contribution to linguistics being an exception, methinks).
I wouldn’t use Nixon or Bush as examples, but Reagan is the perfect example. A so-called proponent of “free markets,” he supported the War on Drugs, huge expansions in the military, and deficit spending. So much for free markets… sighs
Moar like fee markets, amirite?
I should have some coffee now…
Though I am a Randian, I will say Ayn Rand, as she was irrational when it came to the topic of anarchism and government. Friedman also did much to damage the cause of liberty.
-Jon
I think we can safely say, political opportunists, of all stripes and backgrounds. Educators. Clergy.
Anyone with a position of social (not necessarily economic or military) authority can be very dangerous.
I always wanted to make a rogue’s gallery of bad guys to promote the other side of the story, and to pressure them to behave themselves.
I think has done more good than harm. For a lot of libertarians it was her works that put them (I include myself in this) on the road to liberty. True, she was not a market-anarchist but her arguments logically lead to market anarchism. The main problem with her works is that their harsh tone is off putting to some people. Her harsh tone also is sometimes adopted (and exaggerated) by her followers - which is bad for libertarian PR at times. Politics, whether we like it or not, is a PR war. If we are right but we are unable to persuade others, being right accomplishes very little.
Agreed - I wouldn’t be a Randian otherwise. [:P]
-Jon
Alexander Hamilton, Lincoln, Keynes, the LP and Reagan
Haha, I actually imagined that by now, something like that would’ve appeared online somewhere, in the form of printable collectable trading cards, with stats like “Coercive Power + 10” for “:insert name of politican / political opportunist/ etc.”, as well some either intentionally absurd background info (“He achieved the Power of the State by throwing the ring into the volcano…”), or a randomly true fact that typical person isn’t aware of (along with sources printed on the bottom of the back of the card).
Would be a bit of fun, methinks 
I prefer to call her “harsh tone” as elitism, but in some rare cases it was rather endearing / entertaining (such as her nickname to a younger Greenspan as “The Undertaker”; various moments in The Virtue of Selfishness, etc.).
Her “followers” are who I would dub as the main culprit towards Objectivism being counter-productive towards liberty, especially with the recent Neo-Objectocon’s clamoring for war via various rationalizations.
With that, I would throw Lenoard Peikoff’s name into the hat, and Nathaniel Branden as a victim of Ayn Rand’s elitism (which was in denial of her own emotions). It’s a shame Peikoff is the one designated as the “heir”, when (imo) Braden clearly was the more civilized person.
Haha, I almost sounded like a Randian using “civilized”.
Ayn Rand certaintly helped, but I have to credit Inquisitor for getting me intially interested, actually.
I wouldn’t say she’s elitist. She was attacking some of the most arrogant individuals in the realm of ideas. Hoppe is similar in this regard. Both are harsh and unforgiving, but not elitist - neither alienates their readers, by keeping as much as possible to understandable English and a commonsense philosophy. If you want elitist, check out Bertrand Russell.
-Jon
Wizards of the Coast could put out a new game called Politics: The Gathering.
I thought her attitude towards libertarians & anarchists was rather elitist & somewhat ignorant, despite her objections being based on her philosophical disagreements, honestly. Especially when her own philosophy was one or two steps from concluding anarchism.
That being said, you are right in that there are most likley other individuals far more elitist. Her “followers” really out did her on that, I must admit.