Interesting, I had to retrace this. Ron Paul got me going economically, then Lew Rockwell got me going philosophically.
Along the way, there was Rothbard who explained STV, the fallacies of Marxism (I already knew it wasn’t quite right). Hoppe gave me a proper sense of class conflict and he always frames things as the ugly naked truths they are.
Rod Long for polycentric order.
Personally, I think some people have more convoluted paths. For example, initially I was born left-liberal. My first impulses were anti-Bush but I extended this to anti-Rightism. Then I went searching for other philosophies. I knew communism and full, honest, socialism were absurd choices. I had seen Ron Paul on TV and Murray Rothbard/Karl Hess mentioned when I googled libertarianism. At the time, from my vaguely left viewpoint I was pretty much all the way there except past my anti-rightism and my distrust of capitalism. The wikipedia page of them talked about AnCap but I reflexively gravitated towards mutualism after comparing their wikipages. I stayed this way for 3 days. I can’t stress this enough but while I was at all these choices I was never quite at home. Never quite impassioned about the philosophy as a whole. Then I saw the JLS PDF blowing Carsons arguments right open. Anarcho-Capitalism ever since. And it actually feels like home. There’s nothing missing, it’s holistic and comprehensive. More importantly one point follows from the other.
As such, I think even if you don’t win the argument you should try something like this. However, in simpler form. Bet someone that if they read Economics in One Lesson they will see the err of their ways. Or some similar short book. Defending the Undefendable. Those books put up an argument with you. They dare you to make a counter. But you can’t. That solidified my stances more than anything and changed a few of them on blackmail and a few others.
For as long as I can remember being politically aware, I have supported the Libertarian party above all others. I became very apathetic towards politics and the like for a while, and then Ron Paul started creating a stir and peaked my interest again. Soon I delved deeper into Libertarian philosophy and found Rothbard, which pretty much sealed the deal for me. From there I found things that just solidified the framework I got from him (Hoppe, Long, Block, etc). What a fun intellectual journey.
That JLS issue is indeed amazing, and it played a large role in affirming my ancapism as well. I also flirted with classical individualist anarchism a bit, back in the day. Ancap is just…well…better. It’s a modernized, upgraded, superior form of individualist anarchism without all the crappy parts and anachronistic baggage. I figured, why settle for anything less?
Block’s response was brilliant. Reisman’s article was not just a critique; it was a slaughter. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a political philosophy torn to shreds so mercilessly (or masterfully). Carson did the best he could, but I don’t think he got out of the choke hold.
Mises and Rothbard made me an Austrian. Rothbard, Murphy, Hoppe and the Tannehills made me an anarcho-capitalist. Rand made me a rational egoist.
You are right! It was a great critique that totally cruches mutualism.
Oddly, Rand convinced me to be an Agorist, and Heinlein convinced me to be an egoist (more or less from the consequentialist point of view).
That was hilarious.
Link?
Putting Carson up against Block and Reisman is like putting your average suburban white boy up against a pack of gray wolves. It wasn’t a far fight. At all. Loved reading it though.
Mazel tov!
It is counter to her own intentions, but only fitting. With the notion of positive rights out of the way, any objections to anarcho-capitalism withered in turn too, including her own.
Utilitarian economics and ethics are not mutually exclusive.
As Mises pointed out, the many different causal factors in a given economic situation cannot be disentangled. Which is one of the problems of showing cause and effect in economics. And in general why economic argument often times fails to convince anyone. For instance, statists often think about policy based on “growth” (though not compared to anything, since they advocate monopolies) – which they attribute to public schools, universities, public roads, union control by state, city planning boards, subsidies, etc. instead of to free markets that lower prices, make quality goods, that hire university students, that train people who’ve wasted their time in public schools, etc. All the while, in the Hazlitt sense, ignoring some of the bad effects of these “public goods”: like what their costs were to possible competition for schools, roads, wages, etc. that could have been far better (but that we can’t really measure just how different even if all other things were equal).
I think it’s a personal preference. Some people are bothered by fiat currency and inflation (and think the Fed is the sole evil). While others may be more shocked about the shere number of individuals murdered by the state. The former you may not even need a deep knowledge of economics to understand and the latter you don’t need a PhD in philosophy to know is perhaps beneath human dignity or most people’s ethical standards. You may notice that lewrockwell.com has people in both camps. The state is generally a mix of evil and bad economic thinking, so there’s room for both arguments.
I had a feeling that you might be starting to feel that way. Keep in mind that there are three kinds of people in this forum, anarchists, minarchists, and those of us who choose not to participate in the debate. My personal opinion is that no political or economic system can solve all the world’s problems. I think that one major divergence is that, as far as I know, no one on this forum has claimed that free markets can solve the problem of scarcity. I agree with Mises that free markets will not solve crime problems, although if victimless and speech crimes were eliminated there would be fewer criminals. Resources are certainly wasted in free markets but, perhaps counter-intuitvely, more resources are wasted in any other economic system. I do think that oppression is greatly reduced and freedom greatly increased when the state is reduced or eliminated, but there will still be some people who beat their spouses, for example.
You’re comment kinda reminds me of the public choice argument, where the loudest voices take precedence over the majority.
No Austrian worth his salt would ever claim this. Scarcity is a condition of the universe we live in. It is the very reason we must act and why a science studying and explaining this action exists.
This issue is how best to deal with problems, whether they get solved or not.
AnCap will not change human nature. Of course there will be people who beat their spouses. How is this to be dealt with best is the question we need to ask.
Well, in my experience most converts to libertarianism have heard a mixture of both moral and economic arguments, and I don’t think there is any reason to exclusively focus on one of them. And I don’t think that it’s the case that only one of them have merit (though I’m not saying that you think so!).
You are correct that “it is far more simple to demonstrate that minimum wages cause unemployments and that inflation harms the poor than it is it even begin to explain natural rights…”, but the argument from effect, i.e. that capitalism/the free market is more efficient, may not always be the most effective argument. Capitalism, in order to become accepted by a majority of people, must be founded on morality. If not people may accept that capitalism is more effective, but that it’s immoral or amoral. As long as socialism/egalitarianism and closely related ideologies are viewed as the more moral social systems capitalism will never triumph. In many debates I have had with center-left people they have agreed that capitalism is effective, but that it’s unfair, and as long as they think that how are they going to be converted?
There are also groups that won’t accept the economic argument at all, just because of the argument itself. I am of course talking about environmentalists. They are against capitalism because it’s effective, and they regard that as immoral. So I think it’s safe to say that when it comes to them the economic argument won’t work at all.
I don’t think it is wise to limit oneself to either of the choices. I merely pointed out that philosophy tends to be a deeper subject. If you’re speaking to somebody educated about philosophy (and I mean, educated) by all means adopt the appropriate angle. However, most people you speak to don’t care for your natural rights, whether or not they’re correct. They’d rather a system that prevents widespread poverty and unemployment than anything else.
Why? One might say capitalism will cause less destruction to the enviromnent. I wouldn’t advise even talking to those people about these issues though…
Because time is scarce and there are better things to do. Actually I think this is one of the greatest contribution of Professor Hoppe. Most people are convinced of the omnipotence of democracy. Monarchy, dictatorship or whatever else one can think of are, correctly, understood to be flawed. Whereas most individuals worship democracy to the extent that it is seen as the institutionalization of freedom. Now it is merely necessary to prove that the incentive structure of democracy is inferior to that of monarchy and from then proceed to the conclusion, applying the same logic, that the natural order is superior to both.
Ron Paul and Gene Callahan did everything for me. Then came Rothbard and finally, and most importantly, Hoppe.