I always enjoy the content at mises.org and have recently started reading “Human Action” after having read “The Road to Serfdom” last year. While I find the Austrian approach to economics preferable to any other (and particularly relevant today), I sometimes find myself at odds with the extremes of libertarian theory, particularly in the realm of ethics and morals. I am open-minded enough to examine a wide variety of philosophies although I freely admit my personal bias is toward a fairly fundamental Christian worldview. I am typical of my American Midwest roots in that regard. I understand there are degrees of orthodoxy within any philosophy, be it religion, economics, or politics, and that there can be differences of opinion, which I consider to be healthy when they are civil.
I mention these things in the hopes that I can link something I read elsewhere for the purpose of generating a healthy and sincere discourse without being subjected to too much personal abuse. I’m honestly seeking to balance the values I’ve held for many years with the new knowledge I’m gaining from a variety of sources, including Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, et al, without becoming dogmatic or slavishly devoted to theories I don’t fully understand. The following column is one of the more direct and well-written criticisms Austrian liberalism that I’ve read, and I was hoping to hear some comments from anyone who is willing to take the time to read it.
I apologize as I didn’t read the whole article, so, if that’s not in your favor, I understand.
“…that are really horrifying.” That’s what the author of the article says in regards to conclusions or maybe he said some conclusions of libertarian theory, first off, to paint with a broad brush that all libertarians think within a certain theory is false. That’s counter to the whole concept of liberty, and the fact that humans don’t know all.
So he is horrified by what exactly? I would say he’s horrified by what he doesn’t agree with, so, he chooses otherwise. That’s his natural right of liberty. That’s human action. Glad to see he’s a libertarian after all, unless he chooses to not reason this out and would rather instead initiate physical aggression for no reason whatsoever other than he finds some things in life “horrifying”. I’d rather have a conversation with a fellow human being that can articulate and reason, and not slap me in the head whenever such a person finds something horrifying. Now what happens if reason doesn’t solve the issue? Do people simply give up and go to war, yet, both sides are willing to talk it through, but one side finds talk increasingly becomes cheap, so enough with the talk time to take the gloves off?
Another criticism that didn’t know what it was critiquing. Austrian economics is not linked with libertarian ethics -how many times must this be repeated!
Well I read it but to me it does not seem a very direct (ie clear cut) critique at all. True it sounds very hostile, but reading it I am left scratching my head about what Fleming is talking about more than anything else. Maybe if you yourself pointed out the parts of the text that had an impact on you?
In any case there are many notable people who are Austro-Libertarians or fellow travellers (Vance, Woods, Sobran, North come to mind) who take their faith very seriously so there is no inherent incompatibility. In fact they would probably tell you that it makes the most sense for Christians to be libertarians.
Maybe you should throw an eye on a different 2002 article. This one by Joe Sobran, another Midwesterner who felt there was some conflict between his conservative and Christian sensibilities and fully fledged libertarianism, but who finally resolved this by becoming no less than a (reluctant) anarchist. In the piece he tells how this came to be.
OK, read the article, found it quite silly, as it is just an ideologue razzing proponents of a different ideology. This paragraph is the biggest giveaway:
Let’s break it down.
Couldn’t the same be said of Christianity, or any ideology?
Why does the author think that there has to be?
This guy is really starting to froth here… I’m surprised he doesn’t start typing in tongues. Who gets to decide what is appropriate morality? Let me guess, the rules are probably clearly delineated in the most popular book in the world.
I’m not really sure what he’s trying to say here. He seems to be looking for some sort of “fusionism” that he rejected earlier. I would read some Gary North if you want some Libertarian/Christian hybridization.
Here it is. This is the giveaway “crazy guy” sentence. It is odd that he would expect Mises (who he just finished bashing for being an amoral liberal) to come up with a theory that would be “subversive to the regime” (I think he’s referring to Liberalism here). Then he goes off the fundy deep end, spitting meaningless, random venom towards those he perceives as “humanists”, or “Liberals”, or “Intellectuals”. This guy is a major creep, and a bit frightening.
This article was just a Jesus Fundy hating upon the Market Fundies. If you are still confused about which kind of Fundy to be, just flip a coin, or become “Ideologically Agnostic”, and call the whole thing off.
Here are some instances of Glossolalia in Catholic history.
In any event, I was using the “tongues” reference to emphasize the author whipping himself (and some readers) into an ecstatic foam of righteous indignation against the infidels. Hence the “frothing” (although I have to credit Zappa for that one).
Jackson LaRose: I had hoped to avoid argumentum ad hominem in the discussion, but to your points, I somewhat agree with you that any ideology can become so dogmatic that it becomes crystallized. My intention is not to choose one dusty, crystallized ideology over another but to glean the truths that exist in a number of philosophies. I’m not attempting to resolve some dissonance about whether to be an Austrian anarcho-libertaral or a literalist, fundamentalist Christian. I reject that as a false choice; however, someone like Fleming seems to perceive the philosophical foundation of Austrian economics as somehow opposed to Western, Christian tradition (at least the Catholic portion of it), and I’m trying to weigh arguments on both sides of that proposition.
Marko: I think one of the key arguments Fleming attempts to make has to do with objective vs. subjective determinations of value when he says:
He later states:
Is it true, as “fakename” suggests, that there is no link between Austrian economics and libertarian ethics? If this is the case, I can see that Fleming makes no point at all, but if Austrian economic theory is merely a subset of libertarian philosophy, then I can understand how it may find itself at odds with some Christian (substitute other religions if you want) principles.
In seeking the source of truth, it may be that Fleming simply believes that liberty is not the result of rational philosophical investigation but rather circumstance and luck, thus the following:
That all of these great civilizations descended, or are in the process of descending, into tyranny is reason to think that cultural heritage alone is not enough to preserve liberty, though.
An Ideology is a set of personal beliefs resting on a foundation of external dogma. They are crystallized from the get-go.
Bully for you, keep the blinders off.
That’s all that article you posted attempts.
Because Liberalism and Deism have different objects of veneration, Man, and God. From a strict fundamentalist point of view, they are opposed. As Mises said, his economic science is value-free, so I don’t really see how a Christian can fault it as “un-Christain”. That’s probably why the author of your critique spends almost no time critiquing Austrian Economic arguments, only “Liberalism” as a belief system, which he seems to think is inextricably connected to AE, although he never bothers to say why he thinks that.
We both profess a faith in certain definitions of words. Call it, semantic ideologues. And no, I don’t see how it’s irrelevant. If you want to start it back up, I suggest reviving our hijacked thread.
I’m trying to figure out what this guy is trying to say. First it seems that we are all dogmatic zealots seeking an unobtainable sense of freedom…then it seems that we are all amoralists who imply a sense of nihilism.
‘Libertarian theory, as Ludwig von Mises insisted, was a morally neutral science. Certain courses of action might well be regarded as suicidal, but “praxeology and economics do not tell a man whether he should preserve or abandon life.” If some libertarians find the conclusions offensive, they might begin to reconsider the premises.’