When I came into libertarianism, I quickly realised there were different groups or camps within the movement. Randians, Rothbardians, minarchists, Christians, anarcho-capitalists, constitutionalists, Chicago School econs, Austrian School econs. Some groups got along well, some groups intersected with others, some groups hated other groups (“we’re the real libertarians, they aren’t”). You had the various magazines (reason, inquiry, freeman, etc) out there, think tanks/advocacy groups (FEE, IHS, Cato, etc).
For me, the LRC/Ron Paul/LvMI group strick me as mainstream libertarianism. You have the more extreme sorts (mainly your anarcho-capitalists). You have, sadly, your ‘libertarian in name only’ types who claim to be libertarians, but then take on stands that really AREN’T libertarian (thinking of certain tv personalities here). Cato started out as mainstream when Rothbard was involved with them. Over the years they’ve drifted away from mainstream libertarianism to align themselves with mainstream political groups, to the detremint of their libertarian beliefs. Lew calls these sorts “beltway libertarians”, and I have to agree. I would probably put Cowen in that crowd. They really aren’t libertarians, and to claim that THEY are the “mainstream” of libertarianism is ridiculous.
To a degree, LRC & Campaing for Liberty is bring in people from other political points to libertarianism, hopefully helping these people realise that what they REALLY believe in is libertarianism, and not 'Republican" or “Democrat”, because I think too often people join a party without really understanding what that party stands for or what they stand for.
Tom Woods put up a recent article on LRC site on the Palmer/Cowen presentation. I have to say I agree with what he says.
That’s my earlier take on it from Dr. Murphys blog:
"+to comment on the whole cato/LvMI thing: I think the issue here is that the ‘radical’ sees the political system as (mainly) structured by power, whereas the ‘moderate’ thinks the system is (mainly) a derivative of debate and discussion. (otherwise the radical would probably try to convice the rulers and the moderate would respectively refrain from it, aight?)
So the moderate seeing his own motives as being good and intellectually honest - but not recognizing or acknowledging the dynamics that made him influental/put him into his position in the power structure, views the radical as some sort of conspiracy nut and
Tyler Cowen in that case as a former ‘radical’ has to be seen, by his former friends, as a sellout - right?"
I think this is the difference between the ‘establishment’ crowd and the radicals.
I suspect that theoretical diffrences in economics have very little to do with it. (+ the earlier personal problems and histories of the people involved are for the most part a result of this distiction, not it’s cause)
Yepp, this is nothing new. Limousine liberals scold hardline progressives. Neo-cons scold populist conservatives.
Everywhere the mainstream establishment or those seeking to enter it, having sold their souls, try to errect barriers that would shield them from critique by presenting their non-sellout counterparts as unreasonable nutters for their unwillingness to bargain with the devil. To their own misfortune it succeeds only in making them lose what common touch they have.
When the push comes to shove you are better off rellying on a brave anti-establishment type of diametricaly opposed views (as Paul has done), than a devil`s petitioner of superficialy similar views.
I don’t recall people who have this beliefs on LRC, but do see it crop up on the Campaign for Liberty site (but there is no control of who posts there…). I would say that its people opposed to ILLEGAL immigration, not any immigration. I do see on occasion people pushing a ‘9/11 truth’ type nosense. There was a great article someone posted on the C4L site about 9/11 that had ZILCH to do with the causes of it, and there was a long comment that went into that topic, obviously from a 9/11 truther. It was tiresome, as it had nothing to do with the topic.
I have developed a rough version of the food chain of libertarian radicalism using Cowen as a benchmark:
Rabid Cowen Groupies → Tyler Cowen —> Tea Parties ----> Tom Palmer-------------> There be dragons here----------------------------->Libertarian Usurpers: Ron Paul and Lew Rockwell
I agree with you there, and I’d like to add that the fellow is right about Austrian theory not progressing, though I suppose there isn’t much more ground to cover that I can think of at present. Mises > Rothbard though. =]
Can an economic school of though progress? If it does doesn’t that imply that it was incomplete?
Economics is about addressing silly economic policies. It may be naive for me to question perhaps but still I wonder. What progression is needed and in what sectors of Austrian Economics should those progressions be made?
I’m not talking about regular writers, but you can quite often find links to the (for the most part) obviously racist ‘v-dare’ crowd and to articles questioning the consensus on HIV/AIDS. +The 9/11 people came with Alex Jones supporting Ron Paul.
That’s not what I said. Sure you can check if your government (or any government) was involved in the bombing. But you check the facts and then you move on. The 9/11 conspiracy theory is based on half truths and a misunderstanding of how governments work. (altough there should be an investigation of the israeli ‘art students’)
‘Facts’ provided by agencies / committees with government funding.
It’s been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that at the very least there are many unanswered questions about 9/11, that the government hasn’t answered them, that the government benefited more than any other entity as a result of 9/11 and that there are contradictions in different versions of the official story given by different members of the government, which must mean that at least some people are lying.
Given all that, I can’t see why any reasonable Austrian would ostracize himself immediately from those who dare question the government story.
No story the government tells can be wholly true. in fact, the entire official history of 9/11 and its aftermath is nonsense. But there is some other type of being called a “9/11 Truther” who wears this funny hat and yammers on about this and thinks that there were no terrorists but rather that the government blew up its own building or that there was no building at all or something or other, I don’t really know. I’m not sure what it is that they believe. In any case, this is a sociological type I’ve seen here and there and they are among the most tedious people in the world apart from global warming zealots.