Mises was indeed the better economist, and I think also philosopher. And so with Hayek. And so with Hoppe. And so with Reisman. Rothbard, on the other hand, was a system-builder. He integrated Aristotelian views on ethics and epistemology with Misesian economics, which is a great project. It needs to be taken forward though and given a more powerful defence, which I think Long and Plauche have begun doing in the realm of epistemology. I agree by the way on the labels “libertarian” (I hate it) &c. They are in need of replacement.
I agree that we don’t need to convert all the “sheep”, which is a mathematical impossibility, anyway.
We need to concentrate on converting a few of them, & try to create more small groups of intellectuals, so that in the grand scheme, we do not have a centralized tier of “elites”, but rather co-operating & competing groups of intellectuals that both represent a movement, but by no means monopolize a voice over it.
I also agree on the new label; the utilization of a new, existing label, or the creation of an entirely new one, might help further the change in tactics that will be required (as well as possibly reduce infighting), so as the reduce the probability of people reverting to the same old ways (and subsequently, falling to the will of the elites) due to the oncoming series of changes (collapse of USA economy, the arrival of newer superpowers “policing” the world, further steps towards a global government, etc.).
Well I’ve still to read a lot of Mises. I intend to getting around to Human Action sooner or later. Although from what I understand Rothbard’s improved the Austrian theory of monopoly, Rothbard was also far better at putting his arguments more clearly than Mises. Nonetheless from what I know Mises was the better economist and philosophy (not read any of his works on epistemology mind).
As for Hayek, as far as I know his major contribution to Austrian theory was building on Mises business cycle theory so as to incorperate the theory of capital structure. I’m not sure if that’s correct though. I’ve only really read Individualism and Economic Order by Hayek, as well as some articles on here so I can’t say I know much about him. Although, his work on the socialist calculation debate was somewhat detrimental to the Austrian cause and his chapter on free banking in Individualism and Economic Order is nonsense from what I can tell. His views on politics are even sillier, what are his works of law like? From what I’ve read Hoppe is highly critical of Hayek. This said my biggest problem with Hayek is just that he is incredibly dull to read. Out of interest what is his The Counter Revolution of Science like?
Hoppe is wonderful and I’m looking forward to reading The Ethics and Economics of Private Property and A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism. D:TGTF is an absolutely brilliant book and by far my favourite piece of libertarian literature, I also need to reread his Economic Science and the Austrian Method, which I read a while ago and didn’t understand completely but nonetheless found very informative. I’m also very fond of his writing style. In regards to his epistemology, as I understand he is a Kantian like Mises, how do you view that in regard to Rothbard’s attempt to integrate Aristotlean views on ethics and epistemology that you mentioned?
As for Reisman, I know very little about him, his work on exploitation seems very interesting so I think I’ll read that soon. I have to say he is extremely obnoxious though, which whilst amusing at time grows old.
I think libertarianisms biggest problem is that it has always been dominated by those it has chosen to form alliances with and has really failed to distinguish itself. Most people see libertarians as socially liberal and leftist and fiscally conservative, most of its mainstream proponents say just that. They claim that it is the best of Republicans and the best of the Democrats, which is simply not true. Libertarianism rightly understood is radically different from anything else out there. Most people aren’t even aware that libertarianism actually entails anarchism.
In this I think that the adoption of a new lable and new tactics would do wonders. Unfortunately libertarians have no natural allies, there may be some groups that will be more prone to libertarian ideas than others but this doesn’t mean they can be trusted to be our allies. It merely means we need to focus on converting them whilst being wary of being coopted by them.Most of all we need the stay the away from the LP and anything associated with mainstream libertarianism. We are far more radical than anything else out there. I’ve always been in favour of Ron Paul, but I think it was luck, and the political process will only ever corrupt the movement.
I definately agree with what you said in terms of US economy collapsing, it would be greatly helpful for libertarians to distance themself from the “free markets” of the Republicans etc. The great depression helped the spread of Austrian ideas, unfortunately the Keynesian revolution made all the progress disappear, but I don’t see there being another one of those.
I like what you said about small groups of intellectuals. I think there needs to be an emphasis on radicalism, ultimately radical ideas will create an emotional response that moderate ideas just won’t get, combined with the dying of the US economy I think it could advance the movement. I think small groups will also have the advantage of being difficult to co-opt and relatively focused. Especially if the small groups choose to focus on specific geographical areas leading to secession, since there wouldn’t be the need for as great a number of people to participate as there would in anything national and these groups would focus on areas that agree with them in terms of culture.
Anyway, I’m sure I missed a lot out and this was a rather incoherent post, so, sorry.
I think this is (depending on how we use it) potentially a blessing. One of the most effective tools in the libertarian toolbox is the World’s Smallest Political Quiz. You can criticize its accuracy if you like but the World’s Smallest Political Quiz is an excellent recruitment tool in my experience. Once people realize they fall somewhere within the libertarian quadrant, in my experience, they tend to gradually drift northward within that quadrant as they start interacting with other libertarians and reading libertarian books. There is nothing wrong with identifying oneself as a libertarian if you are an an-cap. If you are an an-cap you are a far-north libertarian according to the Advocates for Self Government. It is a tool that has brought many, many, many libertarians into the libertarian movement.
There are samples taken from it on the Mises website. It’s generally very accurate in diagnosing the problems faced by scientism and the mentality that inheres in it. Apparently Hayek’s Law, Legislation and Liberty (I think that’s the title) is his superior work, whereas the Constitution of Liberty is manifestly inferior. As for Hoppe, he is a Kantian but many of his arguments stand regardless as far as methodology goes. I think the Kantian framework is misleading and makes Austrianism sound too idealist (in the ontological/epistemological sense.) If you read Plauche’s paper on Aristotelianism and praxeology you should get an idea of what I mean.
Long goes into detail in Chapter 8 of Wittgenstein, Austrian Economics, and the Logic of Action. To summarize, logic is not something that we constrain on the world (impositionism), or that the world constrains on us (reflectionism), because to think of logic as a constraint is to imply that one could imagine either an illogical world or illogical thought, both of which are impossible. Logic simply is.