I was just wondering, the fans of the Mises Institute were also fans fo the Cato Institute, and vis versa. I really haven’t pinned down the defining differences of the two organizations, I have an idea, but I don’t know if that is the only thing or not. So if anyone wants to do a compare and contrast? It would be good for the website and helpful to any new people who come across it.
Sigh, the divisions within Austrianism… Auburn vs GMU vs Cato (the former two being closer than the latter; Cato isn’t strictly Austrian.) I definitely prefer the LVMI of the three. I find it invaluable as a source of knowledge. GMU scholars do on occasion publish some very interesting papers, as do Catoites. I am somewhat of an eclectic in that I value all three, just the LVMI and GMU much more than Cato.
As far as I can tell LvMI is concerned entirely with theory and does not involve itself in politics. The Cato Institute seems to be much more practical and actually engages in policy debate and participates in politics, but is somewhat of a mix of different minarchist libertarian traditions (more neo-classical than Austrian). Also I think the guys at GMU are having more of an influence on traditional economics but LvMI is more pure in its theoretical foundations.
anti govt - pro govt, or
anarchist - (min)archist, or
capitalistic - socialistic, and
intellectual - political
But, it is better for a person to read and develop his own impression. Rothbard was there and wrote about the beginning of the Libertarian Party and Cato with its Craneacs. And of course, those writings are thoughfully provided by Mises. Their reading is recommended.
I don’t see the Cato/Mises question as a split within Austrianism, there’s nothing particularly Austrian about Cato. While Cato doesn’t endorse candidates, it’s director has endorsed Guiliani, which should tell you all you need to know. Cato in general has no interest in freeing people from government, instead, it operates on the idea that through market-based reforms (Mises called this playing market) government can perform more efficiently. It favors fascism over socialism, i.e. they would like the government to contract with private corporations to waste money on needless projects instead of doing it directly.
True, I exaggerated somewhat. As I said, Cato occasionally publishes interesting articles, but I’m not fond of the institution.
My suspicions have been confirmed. At first I didn’t realize that LvMI was so anarchal. I guess I thought that there was just a sect of anachists within the LvMI. I am about 3/8th of the way through Socialism, and I haven’t read a single thing that I disagree with.
Now there are a few things that need to be addressed.
LvMI seems to be pretty solid anti governmet… completely anti government, but are yall pushing for the repeal of government in a legal sense? or through a revolution, either one day violent, or in a way where every one just starts ignoring government and refuses to pay taxes? or some other way? Or again is all this just theoretical? lol.
The next question is whether or not people adhering to Mises ideals take part in politcs? do yall vote? are there mises people who run for office?
I would much rather debate with a person who wants to abolish government than with a person who wants to use the government to tell me every little thing that needs to be done, or not done. I had a dream where The Republican and Democrate parties did not exist and in their place were the Mises party and the Cato party. I don’t know if that would ever really be possible for yall to do but it was just an idea.
Lastly let me repeat, I would like to debate whether or not we should abolish government. perhaps it would be possible to privitize all aspects of society. but I don’t see the point in debating it now. Not now when between 1 out of 10 and 1 out of 5 people work for the government directly, and probably even more than that if you count contractors, and there are even more people who don’t work but get money from the government.
When the government pays your check, or gives you benifits, or even retirement and so on, its hard for people to even consider life without gov’t. We first need to shrink the government down to size. get it out of people’s lives, eliminate the IRS which directly ties each man to the federal government. We must go back to the day when Federal City is out of mind and far away, and not front and center in the papers every day.
Should we not first all work together towards these ends, bring america back to a pre 1865 mindset. Lets work first to restore federalism, and then bring to debate Jeffersonian Anti Federalism, and then it might be possible to bring about… anarchy?
But I really don’t see how it is even worth discussing under our current situation. Maybe by the time I am an old man. but not when near 50% of our population is preparing to vote for 1 of 3 socialists for what will be a quasi-dictatorship, we have a common enemy to defeat.
That doesn’t seem wrong, although I wouldn’t use the word sect. It is the case that not everyone at LvMI is an anarchist. One of the moments I remember best from Mises University is watching Roderick Long debate with George Reisman, informally, at night, about anarchism/miniarchism.
I wouldn’t presume to speak for LvMI, but my opinion is removal of government through 2 streams: education, and market replacement. We need to teach people about economics, about private solutions to problems, and suggest possibilities for how it would work, without making the fallacy of trying to describe what freedom would look like. Also, we need to create firms which directly perform services which now are seen as public goods, not just to demonstrate that it can be done, but because such a firm would easily outcompete the government in terms of efficiency, and this process would make government obsolete, which is how we eliminate it. I’m certainly not interested in legal repeal, which is a contradiction in terms, nor in bloody revolution. Nor is it just theoretical - we aren’t describing market solutions to problems for our health, we’re doing it both as a framework for the future, and as part of an educational mission.
I think most of us would follow Rothbard in arguing that voting is not evil, although it may frequently be pointless. There are many anarchist who consider voting illegitimate, but I don’t go down that path - I see it as an act of self-defense, when there is a reasonably better candidate. There aren’t many Mises people who run for office, but there are some - one is a top candidate for President. Before someone jumps on me, I am not implying that the Mises Institute in any way, shape, or form supports, endorses, or assists Ron Paul. I am noting simply that Paul has spoken at many Mises events, has published through Mises before, and was a student of Mises.
Let me repeat my prior point - I don’t see much of anything libertarian coming from Cato. The operative philosophy there seems to be an interest in “playing market” and helping government to operate more efficiently.
I’m not sure how this follows. If people have trouble picturing life without government, we need to help them picture it. That is, this underscores the importance of the educational approach. How would shrinking the size of government, while it still provides what most people consider “essential” services, help people to understand how to eliminate the government entirely?
That said, I certainly would be in favor of anything at all that moves in the right direction. Government actions have real victims, and eliminating the harmful actions would help those victims. If we can eliminate one bad aspect of government, we should. But anarchy as a goal is important, because if you’re not 100% clear on where you want to go, sometimes it’s hard to tell to know if your’e going if in the right direction or not. Furthermore, there are some policies that people insist are “libertarian” that I think are moves in the wrong direction. For example, consider vouchers. I oppose vouchers, and I’m accused by many libertarians of “making the perfect the enemy of the good.” But that isn’t it at all - I don’t oppose vouchers because they don’t go far enough, or because they aren’t perfect - I oppose them because I think they would be bad, and would be a move in the wrong direction, because they’d increase government control of nominally private schools.
But is changing policy the same thing as changing mindset? I maintain that the mindset must come first. Is it possible to force something through, or to put it in by “stealth”? Sure, but stealth libertarianism has a downside - it can’t possibly last, and is likely to produce an anti-libertarian backlash.
There will be no stealth. Stealth is the action of sneaky socialists when it comes to passing legislation. Neo cons are out in the open with what they want to do, but deceptive in regards to the reason why the legislation is passed. a Libertarian is proud of his cause, we are on principle, not issues. the issues; whether gay butt sex is wrong or not, or weed, or cock fighting or smoking is wrong doesn’t matter. the point is that the individual should get to decide that for himself and not the state.
And so yes mindset is the key. all I was trying to say earlier is that its hard to get to a person’s mind when their wallet is in the way. how do you even get a person to talk to you when their way of life is dependant upon the government? An accountant might not like the IRS, but he can not vote against it, if he does… it will put him out of a job. This is why our oversized govt has to be attacked a little at a time. we have to wean the public off of government. I’m tired.
from “Betrayal of the American Right” by Murray Rothbard
The winter of 1949–50, in fact, witnessed the two most exciting
and shattering intellectual events of my life: my discovery of “Austrian”
economics, and my conversion to individualist anarchism.
…
My conversion to anarchism was a simple exercise in logic. I
had engaged continually in friendly arguments about laissez-faire
with liberal friends from graduate school. While condemning taxation,
I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision of
police and judicial protection and for that only. One night two
friends and I had one of our usual lengthy discussions, seemingly
unprofitable; but this time when they’d left, I felt that for once
something vital had actually been said. As I thought back on the
discussion, I realized that my friends, as liberals, had posed the following
challenge to my laissez-faire position:
They: What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government,
for this political entity confined solely to defending
person and property?
I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such a
government.
They: But if “the people” can do that, why can’t they do exactly
the same thing and get together to choose a government that
will build steel plants, dams, etc.?
I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissezfaire
was logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal,
or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist.
…
Anarchism, in fact, was in the air in our little movement in
those days. My friend and fellow Mises-student, Richard Cornuelle,
younger brother of Herb, was my first, and willing, convert.
Anarchist ferment was also brewing at no less a place than
FEE. Ellis Lamborn, one of the staff members, was openly referring
to himself as an “anarchist,” and Dick smilingly reported from
Leonard E. Read, “Students of Liberty”
his own stay at FEE that he was “having increasing difficulty in
coping with the anarchist’s arguments.” Dick also delightedly
reported that, amidst a lengthy discussion about what name to call
this newly found pure-libertarian creed—“libertarian,” “voluntaryist,”
“individualist,” “true liberal,” etc.—this pioneering staff
member cut in, with his Midwestern twang: “Hell, ‘anarchist’ is
good enough for me.” Another leading staff member, F.A. Harper,
on one of my visits to Irvington, softly pulled a copy of Tolstoy’s
“The Law of Love and the Law of Violence” from under his desk, and
thereby introduced me to the absolute pacifist variant of anarchism.
Indeed, it was rumored that almost the entire staff of FEE
had become anarchists by this time, with the exception of Mr. Read
himself—and that even he was teetering on the brink.
…
The libertarian idyll at FEE came abruptly to an end in 1954,
with the publication of Leonard Read’s booklet “Government—An
Ideal Concept”. The book sent shockwaves reverberating through
libertarian circles, for with this work Read moved decisively back
into the pro-government camp.
…
But here, despite heavy
and virtually unanimous staff opposition, Read had highhandedly
broken this social compact and had gone ahead and published his
praise of government under FEE’s imprimatur. It was this attitude
that launched a slow, but long and steady decline of FEE as a center
of libertarian productivity and research, as well as an exodus
from FEE of all its best talents, led by F.A. Harper.
So, one might say that LvMI ("Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises
(1881-1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995)…") is a continuation of this old FEE.
Its self-chosen niche seems to be supporting the Austrian School’s tradition (Menger-Boehm-
Bawek-Mises-Rothbard) among the Court Intellectuals (university) and more broadly too (among
us, the People).
One thing is for sure, the government will never repeal itself. The government never acts unless there is some kind of crisis. We must create the crisis. We must make it such that the government has to give up its power. This is not the same kind of revolution as the French or Russian revolutions. It is a revolution like American revolution. It is a revolution that is philosophical. We aren’t trying to seize the state. We do not need to employ violence, although violence will be employed against us.
The models for this revolution are Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. They suffered to win.
A lot of people seem to believe that history can run backwards. We can roll back the clock to previous epochs and then we’ll be safe once more. But history only runs forwards. Monarchy grows out of feudalism, and democracy grows out of monarchy, Federalism cannot be restored. It can only be regrown from the revolutionary seeds.
No empire has ever grown into a federation. They have collapsed under their own corruption and then were pieced apart by the barbarians. Our goal is to be better organised than the other barbarians.
Mises Institute: Anarchist
Cato Institute: Sane.
Attackdonkey, from the things I have read Murray Rothbard was one of the founding members of the Cato Institute (I think that it says this in the introduction to “The Ethics of Liberty”), but he was forced out for being “too radical”. I don’t personally have anything against the Cato Institute, and I went to see John Stossel at a Cato event in Atlanta that was very good. Also David Boaz’s Libertarianism: A Primer is a great book in my opinion. Rothbard’s Anarco-Capitalism is the logical social organization of a completely free society (see “For a New Liberty”, and “The Ethics of Liberty” -Both of which are down-loadable for free from the Institute in audio format). To see the merit of this argument it is helpful to think about how things might work in a completely free society. “Chaos Theory” by Robert Murphy attempts to describe some possibilities of a society free of government.
I saw that you said you were reading Socialism, I think a great place to begin your understanding of Austrian Econ. would be Man, Economy, and State, but I don’t think you have to understand economics to believe in Liberty and that people should be free to interact. There are only two principles that people must follow for a society to function, they are based on old British Common Law (exposited by Richard Maybury)
1-Do all you have agreed to do. (This is the basis of contract law)
2-Do not encroach on other persons or their property (this is the basis of tort law and some criminal law)
For further elaboration on these principles see Maybury’s excellent series of Uncle Eric books.
As far as Mises people who are in Politics, Ron Paul is the only politician I know of who is affiliated with the Mises Institute.
Hope this is helpful.
Clearly we have found in Nathyn an individual with a sharp, biting intellect.
Cracked me up enough to log in and compliment it.
I have to say, I think I much prefer Cato in terms of political practicality.
I have to say, I think I much prefer Cato in terms of political practicality.
Name one policy proposal of Cato’s which came to be.
Like I would know the entire history of Cato public policy proposals and which ones were adopted into law. No one’s policy proposals ever come to be exactly as they’re proposed, the political process is about compromise. So while it’s entirely possible that nothing Cato has ever recommended has been adopted word for word (and I can’t confirm or deny that because I don’t know), I think that by participating in the political process. they at least have an influence in the debate.
But of course uncompromising liberty will not be achieved through the political process and so a lot of libertarians prefer the more academic strategy one finds at LvMI because they know they won’t get what they want through politics.
If you don’t have uncompromising libertarians, then you don’t have a libertarian movement. We’re the foundation for the philosophy. That there will be compromisers is unnecessary but also unavoidable. Was it Garrison or Spooner who said, “Push for immediate abolition of slavery it will - alas! - be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery will be ended by a single blow; that it ought to be will forever be our contention”? This same scenario may play out with government, and it may be compromisers who bring it about, but just as with the movement to abolish slavery, the unbending radicals are indispensable to the movement.
The only thing CATO has for it, IMO, is Pen and Teller.
I say we intellectually convince them to come our way so we can have some magic tricks with a potato more often.