10 posts tagged “mises”

Reading Dr. David Gordon's review of the fairly popular book Crunchy Cons by Mr. Rod Dreher over at Taki's Magazine is what encouraged me to type up this blog entry. The objective of this entry is to address what I believe are some confusions in what we can call the "anti-capitalist wing" of traditional or paleo- conservatism.

Life is More than the Market

It is not uncommon to find among some traditional conservatives the creating of caricatures when they identify advocates of a free market economy. They depict supporters of laissez-faire as genuinely believing that all of life is "economic." That market supporters think there is nothing more to life than "economics" and that life is nothing but a seeking of "maximum utility" in the workforce.

Of course, no advocate of a purely free market really believes that. One does not find Ludwig von Mises even remotely saying that man acts for money profit alone, or anything of that sort; on the contrary.

It is said that conservatism hates "terrible simplifiers." Frequently this is justifiably so. I'm with them. When looking at most schools of thought in economics it almost appears that they truly view man as a so-called "economic man" who seeks, like some kind of drone or robot, greater and greater money in his life and nothing else. The Austrian school of economics, in contrast, rejects the existence of the "economic man" because it views value as meaning more than the dollar sign. It understands that value derives from man's subjective preferences. That is to say, that value is not derived objectively through some equation but is determined in the minds of men. Because man acts for things that have nothing to do with buying or selling in the market place is a sign that man values non-monetary (non-"economic") things.

At the same time, though, the goal of an action which attempts to obtain a non-monetary satisfaction is still under and subject to the laws of economics. A man that acts towards such a goal is doing so because he, at the moment, thinks that end-goal is greater than other end-goals he could instead be acting or aiming towards. Hence acting always involves preferences. In addition, it involves costs because time is scarce. Doing X instead of Y costs not doing Y. Yet, even given this, this obviously does not parallel the silly caricatures that are created by those who are anti-market. There is nothing anti-conservative about Austrian economics. It does not at all imply, for example, that Church and family life is not part of the social order, or that it is "inefficient" to the social order.

Society and the Individual

Russell Kirk wrote that:

The cosmos of the libertarian is an arid loveless realm, a "round prison." "I am, and none else besides me," says the libertarian. "We are made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet," replies the conservative, in the phrases of Marcus Aurelius. [The Essential Russell Kirk.]

"Mr. Libertarian," Murray Rothbard, would reply that this is an "authoritarian straw man." As an economist, he understood full well we are "made for cooperation, like the hands, like the feet." Neither did he understand that only in an "economic" sense. As Dr. Paul Gottfried writes in American Conservatism: An Encyclopedia, Rothbard had "characteristics linking him to a traditionalist conservative position." For instance, he had a "fierce defense of marriage and the family and [a] stated dislike for feminism."

Still, it is a grave mistake to put the "individual" and "society" at two opposite poles, as if they were antagonistic towards each other and incompatible with each other. "If the conflict," wrote Ludwig von Mises, "between the community interests of the whole and the particular interests of the individual really existed, men would be quite incapable of collaborating in society." In actual fact, the very idea of peace and civilization would be quite foreign to our minds if that conflict existed. A healthier society is a healthier individual, and vice versa.

There is another problem with this idea of conflict; although, this is particularly seen more with left-liberals than traditional conservatives. An individual conflicting with the collective is equally akin to varying collectives conflicting with each other and a collective itself having conflicts from within. As Mises said, collectivists rarely think about that and make a leap of faith that the "collective" will be astonishingly filled with no conflicts. Capitalism, instead, recognizes that interests, wants, and desires differ in society. That society is about variety; not leveling or pure conformity. (This is in agreement with Kirk's fifth principle of "Ten Conservative Principles.") Private property brings, versus top-down collective ownership, harmony between men who do not have the same exact needs and wants.

Because of the false idea that market supporters only support "the interests of particular people" versus the "public welfare" at large, Mises has said that "Capitalism [as a term] is better suited to be the antithesis of Socialism than Individualism."

And what we can call "conservative harmony" is produced in the market. Here is Mises:

[T]here is a tendency to forget that the physiological structure of mankind and the unity of outlook and emotion arising from tradition creates a far-reaching similarity of views regarding wants and the means to satisfy them. It is precisely this similarity of views which makes society possible. Because they have common aims, men are able to live together. [All Mises quotes are from Socialism.]

Indeed, tradition brings man a much needed stable environment to live and work in. It brings man a sense of belonging. Furthermore, as capitalism develops a diversified and complex division of labor, men become more interdependent on each other. It therefore, in a way, actually enervates (detached and isolated) "radical individualism." Correspondingly, as will be briefly argued below, capitalism encourages the development of "practical wisdom" and conservative "prejudices." They provide men a helpful guide in acting, i.e., in making good decisions.

The Family

Von Mises, far from thinking society is only made up of "economic men," described radical feminism as "a spiritual child of Socialism." He said that promoters of socialistic feminism do not confine themselves to supporting equality of law, as the classical liberals do, but wish to abolish the institution of marriage and family in a way which will "free" women of the inequalities they perceive as being produced through the social order of capitalism.

But they fight against reality, said Mises:

Pregnancy and the nursing of children claim the best years of a woman's life, the years in which a man may spend his energies in great achievements. ... It is clear that sex is less important in the life of man than of woman. ... Her destiny is completely circumscribed by sex; in man's life it is but an incident. ... It is not marriage which keeps woman inwardly unfree, but the fact that her sexual character demands surrender to a man and that her love for husband and children consumes her best energies. By "abolishing" marriage one would not make woman any freer and happier; one would merely take from her the essential content of her life, and one could offer nothing to replace it. ... All mankind would suffer if woman should fail to develop her ego and be unable to unite with man as equal, freeborn companions and comrades. To take away a woman's children and put them in an institution is to take away part of her life; and children are deprived of the most far-reaching influence when they are torn from the bosom of the family.

Feminists fight against natural inequalities which capitalism tries to nourish and direct for the good.

[Differences between men and women are not "social constructions"; read, e.g., Taking Sex Differences Seriously by Steven Rhoads.]

Mises in his Socialism book explained that "the principle of violence dominates" the sexual relationships of pre-capitalist times. The traditional and non-violent ideal of marriage today is a product of capitalism. It is where "marriage and love are united" together based on mutual consent and free will. Where there are equal legal rights. When "the principle of violence dominates," though, there is no mutual consent or free will. Polygamy is widespread in such a violent domain. On the other hand capitalism takes the ideal of monogamy, and mutual fidelity.

On top of this, this ideal, which free market capitalism promotes, is a weapon against prostitution----what Mises called "a remnant of ancient morals":

The most powerful influence against it today----the demand for man's abstinence outside marriage----is one of the principles involved in equal moral rights for man and woman, and is therefore altogether an ideal of the capitalist age.

The policies of socialism, according to Mises, work against the tendencies of capitalism. By socializing society and family functions, sexual promiscuity and "liberation" will be elevated. (As with many other things, I think it is safe to say that Mises was prophetic on what happens to family life when it is socialized, like it has been today to a great extent. Statistics are well-known in documenting the high number of broken families in today's day and age. It is a very sad thing to see. [Read, e.g., Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950-1980 by Charles Murray; Overcoming Welfare by James Payne; Family Questions: Reflections on the American Social Crisis by Allan Carlson; The Case for Marriage by Linda Waite & Maggie Gallagher.])

Why go into this? I do so because certain traditional conservatives have tried to portray capitalism as the enemy of the family. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is not capitalism that has made it almost impossible for mothers of families in the middle class to be "stay-at-home-moms." Or that has made it difficult for adequate family and home investment. A wealthier, i.e. capitalistic, society can afford it. Fathers can earn wages without having almost half of their wealth being stolen directly (and indirectly) from the government.

Moreover, it is not capitalism but statism with civil "rights" and egalitarian "ideals" that have promoted the blurring of gender roles or differences. Various social engineering programs have further enhanced the present state of affairs. Affirmative action is one example. Government has also loosened the important bond of the nuclear family by other programs, for instance public education and subsidized childcare. It artificially, from the outside, as you might say, breaks family up and promotes feminism. The responsibility and importance of motherhood has thus been systematically attacked.

Accordingly, it is not incorrect to say that in so many ways government has literally taken (stolen) money away from families that raise their own children and given it (redistributed it) to those families who do not do so. That is, fiat has made it increasingly expensive for the traditional, natural family in comparison with the un-traditional, un-natural family. Clearly the consequence of such statism has been a pushed shift from the former to the latter.

The inheritance tax, for yet another example, is a direct attack on family. It makes families become less future orientated, and more unstable. The incentive to be good to your elders diminishes, since inheritance as an incentive to treat your elders well diminishes. It thus promotes disloyalty and bad behavior. Familial relationships, then, artificially loosen and breakup. These kinds of statists programs result in, in the individual family, less focus on family tradition and less overall family investment for the future. And, parenthetically, capital build-up in a society starts to correspondingly decline.

And with this Managerial State has come the Therapeutic State. The statist establishment pushes the idea of seeing traditional values as "bigoted," "sexist," and so on. Today we have what the late paleocon Sam Francis would call anarcho-tyranny.

Even the military (which is by definition a socialist enterprise), as family advocate Dr. Allan Carlson has shown, has engaged in massive social engineering when it comes to the family.

By the State weakening more constant and organic groups, which help provide a bulwark against advances from statist interventions (because they are natural outgrowths of civil society and are generally autonomous that live and breathe detached from the central government), its power increases vis-à-vis civil society. And from this, there is a systematic stimulation for a form of atomistic individualism that is detached from the attachments and bonds of civil society.

All of this should be expected in a statist society. It is in the interest of the State to engage in these destructive policies for a simple reason: the State can then fulfill its incentives of expanding itself.

A "Crunchy Con" Life

In 2006 Mr. Jeffrey Tucker over at the Mises Institute wrote a devastating review of Crunchy Cons and its economic nonsense.

It goes without saying that a man and his family that wishes to live a "crunchy con" life cannot do so without the ability to do so. The pre-capitalist era would not have the capability to have a population living life in such crunchy con luxury. When a crunchy con speaks ill of capitalism he bites the hand that feeds him. It is the market that allows people to live such a life.

While, as Mr. Tucker shows in his review, I think there are very serious problems with many of Mr. Dreher's ideas, this does not mean I do not agree with him on many other things. We all believe in the importance of social and cultural conservatism in general.

And, to note, the TAC issue (June 30) that focused on "culinary conservatism" I enjoyed very much. Mr. Dreher was in that issue. And on this blog I have voiced my support for Grace Before Meals.

Additionally, no thinking and spiritual man should applaud a life of pure materialism, consumerism, selfish egotism or narcissism, or childish hedonism.

The way crunchy cons want to see society organize around some of their principles and beliefs, nonetheless, is subject to question. Their view of capitalism as it relates to this topic is also subject to question.

Take for example healthy living. Obviously any rational man is supportive of healthy eating and living. However, high quality food, clean water, and high quality dietary vitamins are costly. Only when men have accumulated enough wealth in the market can the market then enter these lines of production. It is likewise for the construction of health clubs, gyms, or what have you. At first the outcome of these enterprise productions only the wealthy can afford. If an increasing number of men demand healthy food of this sort and other health products of this sort, entrepreneurs will see that there is great profit to make in these specialized industries and will thus enter them. As this happens the costs and prices will tend to go down and it will be easier for non-wealthy people to live a "crunchier" life.

It is (thankfully) true that under capitalism there is a tendency that the input costs involved in production lowers downwardly in competition. From this, however, it plainly does not follow that the quality of output in the form of consumer goods ready to be sold on the market lowers as well. The quality is based on consumer demand and can only be objectively identified as based on consumer demand. It is therefore subjectively determined from the frame of reference of consumers. Economically speaking, quality can only be determined based on this criterion, and this criterion alone. Based on this criterion, there is a capitalistic tendency that the output of goods to be sold on the market raises upwardly in competition. If a group of men do not like such a given criterion that currently exists in the minds of the public that consumes such-in-such good or goods, and are willing to pay for a business that works based on their respective criterion, then this opens up a hole that can be filled by the entrepreneur.

An added problem that many crunchy cons----not to mention many traditional conservatives in general----have is that all business should be local (or, at least, it should be close to this "ideal"). This is in contradiction to healthier and stronger living. It would produce poor conditions for family life. Community would be damaged more than helped in the long-run. One must understand that the market is about dividing up labor so as to increase wealth and prosperity. It is by comparative advantage that trade develops in a local and non-local sense. There is no dualism.  The logic is the same for all trade; just as the laws of arithmetic are true at all places and at all times.

Mises wrote:

It is clear that such an argument proceeds from the view that natural ownership in these means of production is undivided, and that only those benefit from them who have them physically. It does not realize that this view leads logically to the socialist doctrine with regards to the character of ownership in the means of production. For if it is wrong that Germans do not possess their own cotton plantations, why should it be right that every single German does not possess his coal mines, his spinning mill? Can a German call a Lorraine iron ore mine his any more when a German citizen possesses it than when a French citizen possesses it?

Then there is the argument that capitalism promotes incontinent hedonism and in so doing so disregards non-"economic" aspects of life. That it hurts the moral values of a people and that it results in surfeit. Mr. Samuel Gregg in The Commercial Society would argue otherwise. (See a review of this book here.) Many values that conservatives see important are presuppositions and reflections of a vibrant market economy. Civility, peace, restraint, tolerance, practical wisdom (prejudices), and trust are all characteristics of the "commercial society." (With tolerance, though, does come some needed intolerance against "bads.") In fact, all of these things become enhanced with capitalism as it increases social mobility beyond a privileged few. For instance, eleemosynary work can increase to a larger amount of people.

Gregg writes, for example:

Another feature of civility in commercial society is the quality of self-restraint. "Self-command," [Adam] Smith wrote, "is not only itself a great virtue, but from it all the other virtues seem to derive their principal lustre." The emphasis upon self-control flows, in part, from the realization that self-improvement in commercial orders requires much delayed gratification. ... In commercial society, the self-restraint associated with civility is closely linked to the pursuit of self-interest, self-improvement, and especially prosperity. It extends, for example, from entrepreneurs deferring much satisfaction if they are to accumulate the capital that they need for a loan, to those in a small business who need to work long and disciplined hours if their business is to grow significantly, to middle class property owners who voluntarily put aside considerable resources to fund their retirement or to help their children acquire the expensive education they need if they are to enhance their chances of success in a market order.

He continues:

The incentives for self-restraint in commercial society are thus more considerable and also accessible to larger numbers of people that any previous social order. Thus while it is true that in commercial society, as Helmut Kuzmics writes, "the society of the working bourgeois adopts the rituals of the courtly society," this is partly because manners and habits of politeness smooth the process of market exchange and the daily intensity of business and often become broadly associated with the achievement of prosperity.

And here is Max Weber:

The impulse to acquisition, the pursuit of gain, of money, of the greatest possible amount of money, has in itself nothing to do with capitalism. ... This naïve conception of capitalism ought to be given up once and for all in the nursery school of cultural history. Unbridled avarice is not in the least the equivalent of capitalism, still less of its "spirit." [Quote from The Commercial Society.]

In actuality, it is through time that capitalism promotes the opposite qualities of "consumerism" and "materialism." In its place, capitalism through times promotes what are called "non-material," i.e., nonexchangeable, goods. To turn to Murray Rothbard, in Man, Economy, and State he praxeologically deduced that the "marginal utility of exchangeable goods tends to decline over time, while the marginal utility of nonexchangeable goods increases. ... [Thus] Rather than foster 'material' values, then, advancing capitalism does just the opposite." [Emphasis mine.]

Little Platoons and Permanent Things

I believe Russell Kirk said that if one were to summarize traditional conservatism in one word it would be community. The question, then, is of asking how community can be revived.

A central point of this entry is that wealth creation can enhance conservatism. After all, how can the prospect of a "crunchy con" organic ideal of food develop in the modern world of billions of people without the existence of a market place? Or, how can mothers be "stay-at-home-moms" without pushing for a free market that will get rid of all of the statist restraints that have made this increasingly more difficult for the middle class? Or how can motherhood become more common without all of the various statist disincentives being destroyed once and for all?

Similarly, how can man spend more time with his family or at Church functions or at community functions without a free market that increases productivity which allows the possibility? How can local market diversity exist without the development of wealth and specialization that can make this possible? How can "the little platoons" of civil society exist without them being allowed to exist as the things that they are? That is, things that are independent and exist as non-government entities. And how can they exist without wealth being created in the free market that frees man to put more effort (time, labor, and resources) into them? How can we have community if community's functions and roles are taken over by the central government? Et cetera.

The same reasoning applies to promoting fiscal conservatism and responsibility. How can these important characteristics and work ethics be promoted when social security and the welfare state exist? What they do is attack personal responsibility and lower the value of the family (and other intermediate institutions). In a recent blog entry I quoted Mises in saying that inflation is an attack against "'old-fashioned' morality and thrift." How can we encourage those values without then fighting inflation?

Capitalism, what is more, actually opens up the "higher arts" to a larger amount of men. Hence Johann Sebastian Bach becomes not a luxury that is limited to the very wealthy. It also must be remembered that a genuine free market system will always benefit the poor and the middle class the most. This is because, among other reasons, the entrepreneur who serves the greater amount of people will become richer than the entrepreneur who does not. And, obviously, the "marginal satisfactions" that are increased with increased wealth are always more substantive for the poor than the rich.

Now all of this should show the vital importance of private property. Something Richard Weaver, who was a supporter of Austrian economics (even though he would make a distinction between 'hard' and 'soft' private property), recognized. In Ideas Have Consequences he called private property "the last metaphysical right." He said that private property for man promotes responsibility, stewardship, imagination, innovation, and a commitment to something beyond himself.  That private property develops man's character and gives him a sense of honor, and in so doing so fights against dishonor and sloth. That it gives man the ability to practice virtue.

Let me also point out that Robert Nisbet, wanting to make more vital the intermediate institutions, did not see capitalism as the enemy of traditional conservatism but statism in the Leviathan form:

Capitalism has more often than not been declared the culprit in [the] historical destruction of communities. Marx and Engels gave that supposition dogmatic status, and others, including so conservative a thinker as Schumpeter, have followed, seeing in capitalism a process of continuing destruction of its social foundations in kinship and locality. But the truth is, the political state, by its incessant centralization and bureaucratization of power, has done far more than capitalism to effect this destruction...  [From Prejudices.]

True, he called for a "new laissez-faire"----and believe it or not, I pretty much agree with him, as I understand him-----but it was a call to put the intermediate institutions into context when it comes to a market order. And, for Nisbet, to make more vital these institutions is to dismantle much of statism.

With all of this said, it thus appears to me that far from looking to the State, social and cultural conservatives should look to Civil Society and Capitalism. Yes, this means an "extreme" anti-statist outlook. But if there is anything that real conservatives should have learnt, then it is that statism is no friend to conservative values. Conversely, it is private property that provides the best defense. Moral socialism is destined to fail just as much as economic socialism. Looking at the current gang in power is not something to look to for moral virtue. To make families strong and fruitful is not going to happen if man concedes to the State control or management over them.

There is a time and place for more scholarly and rigorous books, for example, Hoppe's A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism and Mises's Socialism, but there is also a time and place for more popular works.

The Economics of Liberty edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is one of those books, filled with little treasures.

Mr. Rockwell in this 1990 book collected essays from a variety of authors, including essays authored himself. (His articles are a little more "punchy" than the normal article Rockwell writes today.) The essays range from "the truth about economic forecasting," "the source of the business cycle," "government garbage," to ending "the war on drugs." And for only $5 at the Mises Institute's online store it is a bargain.

Below are a few topics from the book, with an emphasis on the importance of why markets and its price system must exist. (The reason I did not review or summarize any of Rothbard’s essays is because I read them before. I decided to review/summarize "new" material.)

Free-Rider
[“The Free-Rider Confusion” by Tom Bethell, pp 35-41.]

A common attack on free markets is the alleged "free-rider" problem. The irony is, however, when the issue is looked at wholly it clearly is a government problem dealing with collective, public ownership and areas of the market where undefined or ambiguous private property rights exist.

Certain goods, it is said, on the market produce "positive externality" because their benefit is difficult to restrict to those directly paying for them. They therefore produce free-rider problems, and State or collective ownership is claimed to be the solution.

What is never looked at or talked about in statist textbooks, argues Bethell, is how this condition applies in spades to collectivism, not capitalism. A community that is communally owned allows men to benefit from those communally owned goods while not contributing to production. They can "free-ride" at the expense of everyone else. This kind of community will make laziness less expensive and those inclined to be lazy will increase. Why work, if you can get the good for free?

In contrast, environmentalists complain that the overutilization of fishing lakes is a free-rider problem in the free market. But it is precisely that they are owned collectively that causes these kinds of problems. No one suffers capital loss if fish disappear. The only ownership of the fish is the fish one person or company takes right now. Someone that does not take as many fish as they can get now might not have the opportunity in the future. Thus, overutilization.

Solution? Privatize----"internalize the externalities." A private owner would then not just own the value he can derive from the lake in the present but also in the future. The incentive would then be to derive present income without destroying the capital (future) stock. It is only private ownership and private calculation that makes this possible.

Commercial radio gets along just fine in the market place, even though it would be classified as producing "positive externality." Lighthouses have historically been private, despite the misleading propaganda.

So instead of statist textbooks talking about market failure, why not government failure? Even, hypothetically, if it is a large problem in society, it seems the State can only compound the problem by doing what States do, i.e., collectivizing. Moreover, these textbooks often claim "market failures" using examples which are government failures: e.g., overutilization of fishing lakes---a clear government failure!

Road Socialism
[“What To Do about Traffic Congestion” by Walter Block, pp 207-211.]

Walter Block, no coward he of the free market, is the libertarian authority on privatizing the highways and streets. An entire book, by the way, on the subject is coming out from the Mises Institute this year by Block.

In Rockwell's book, Block argues that congestion "is not unique" to traffic. On the market we are dealing with different forms of congestion at different places all the time. When we go to a restaurant, bowling alley, movie theater, etc. we are dealing with congestion. So are the owners of these private establishments, who have to pander to consumer demand.

We have to choose between private establishments which offer low costs but high congestion of people to ones that offer low congestion but high costs. Most of them have "peak-load congestion." Meaning there are certain times of the day or days of the week where they are busiest. Bowling alleys, Block says, cut prices "during the less busy hours" to solve this. "The fast-food restaurant," he writes, "with long lines hires additional workers." A movie theater charges according to peak-loads. And if that is not enough to meet all of the consumer demand, the owner seeks additional profits by expanding it. There is always a drive to meet the needs, and then reap the awards, of consumers.

Thus for the free market, unlike governmentally run operations, "'congestion' is a golden opportunity for expansion of output, sales, and profits." The trouble with State roads is that they do not have to meet the demands of the consumers. There is no way that they can register those demands because there are no market prices or competition. Without this, it is impossible. There cannot be a real market test to see if there are some consumers that are willing to pay more for less congestion and see if some would be willing to save money by paying less for more congestion. And there is no way to see if running roads one way is more efficient (more profitable) than other ways.

Drug War
[“End the War on Drugs” by Joseph Sobran, “Drugs and Adultery” by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, “Would Legalization Increase Drug Use?” by Lawrence W. Reed, pp 221-234.]

There was a time, a freer time, when hard painkillers and other drugs were readily assessable to the public on the open (legal) market, and there was no discussion of any major national problem or crisis.

"Informal social sanctions, as always," writes Sobran, "did most of the work of governing society." Then the so-called "war on drugs" became a priority for the State. Like the war on poverty, it is only a "war" in an abstract sense. This gives it the benefit of eluding a definition of "victory." (Sound familiar?)

But now there is talk of a national crisis. And, despite trying, society is not a fairy tail where drugs can be waved away by the State or any other institution. "The choice," as Rockwell writes, "is not between a society that is drug-free or drug-ridden." A drug-ridden society is what we already have.

Instead of eliminating them, all the State has done is surged the price of these drugs making drug dealing artificially more lucrative. Even within prisons, the pure essence of socialism in action, the drug war has failed. A conservative or liberal seeking evidence of the futility of this war should look no further.

And the State will always fail, because its attack is on the supply side, to lessen drug usage because it is a demand problem. Because it is a demand problem attacking the supply side will only worsen the issue.

Prohibition did not evaporate the supply of alcohol, but instead pushed it into the black market, much to the delight of Al Capone and other friendly characters. Lawrence Reed, in the book, reports that in Rochester, NY the number of licensed saloons numbered 500 and during Prohibition the number of underground speakeasies was twice that. In Detroit, he says, "drunkenness arrests increased steadily."

Liquor was made "much more potent (as with drugs today)." "Alcohol-induced deaths," in addition, "increased." And, naturally, crime rates went up.

More or less it has been the same with today's Prohibition.

If the drug war were to be ended, then, in a free market, the prices of these newly legalized drugs would fall to their market price and move out of the black market's criminal aspect. That means away from the hands of gangs and thugs, and would restore a healthy hierarchy of wealth. Addicts would be less likely to enter the criminal world to get their "fix" with lower prices. (Wealthy drug users, Rush Limbaugh for example, generally do not enter criminal activity to pay for their drugs and are able to live productive lives.) This would also give them a greater chance to seek help.

Cutting crime down alone should justify ending this needless and evil war. Also note that the usage of such narcotic drugs generates less violence from individual users than alcohol. Narcotics lower these tendencies and alcohol raises them.

As for children, tobacco and alcohol often is more difficult for the young to get than hard illegal drugs. Reintroducing these drugs to the free market would likely bring the same (relative) result because the price would plummet making the risk of public backlash too high.

Finally, we must all understand that there is a difference between morality and legality. It may be immoral to waste one's life away using drugs (and it is), but this is true for other things as well which are considered legal. We cannot make all immoral acts illegal. This is a recipe for tyranny.

Enforcing morality, says Rockwell, should be "the job of families and churches" and not the State. The importance of their authority and responsibility should be restored. (Collectivizing it, I say, only leads to increased immorality, the "freeing" of the individual from these institutions into unnatural atomism, increased hedonism, and increased all-around social decay.)

(One question I have asked myself is if drug usage would increase. While I believe the answer, if history on the Prohibition, the market incentives against high time preference lifestyles and the increased role of intermediate institutions under less statism are to be any judge, is a definite no in the long-run; it is also true that there probably would be some initial "blowback" if the war were to be ended tomorrow. So short-term usage might indeed increase, but that is what happens when the State gets into this business in the first place.)

Civil Rights
[“Civil Rights and the Politics of Theft” by Sobran, pp 182-187.]

Civil Rights and its logical consequence, affirmative action, introduce a new type of discrimination. This makes voluntary discrimination the only kind of discrimination the left (and neoconservatism) hates. They are thus all for discrimination, as long as it is based on State compulsion.

Now granting some of the premises of the left, the left becomes all wet on the idea that somehow affirmative action can "correct a wrong." Something, for instance, that is truly evil----i.e., violence against man's person and property----is to be outlawed, period. Slavery, of course, was one of those things. It was a grand deficit in our originally classically liberal society. But the point is that we must end and not redirect evil.

Accordingly, when murder happens the murderer is gone after. We do not try to "correct a wrong" by redirecting evil to allow descendants of the victim to create a "balance" by murdering a descendant of the murderer.

Here we see the folly of the left's view. Their goal is not to "end" discrimination or something of this nature, but seek, what Sobran calls, "tribal revenge." Moreover, their attempt at redirecting what they consider evil is not even analogous to the murder example. Instead they wish this tribal revenge to be enforced collectively on those who do not all fit the permanents of this redirected revenge attack. And obviously trying to "correct" the truly evil history of slavery today could only be done on people who were born far after slavery.

Anti-Human Environmentalism
[“Government Garbage” by Rockwell, “The Environmentalist Threat” by Rockwell, pp 197-201 & 289-312.]

Recycling, to its most basic level, is a question of economics, which is the social science of human action and his allocation of finite resources. To separate or not to separate is a question of economics, nothing more. For the question to be answered there must be in place the pricing system to allocate resources in efficient ways. But, as you guessed, the only way this can be done is to privatize the whole operation first. So if it is best to allocate paper (or anything else) away from landfills and into recycling, then there will be a market price that shows it. It will show the costs involved---that is what is needed.

This is lost on environmentalists because their philosophy is socialist at heart.

The history of environmentalism and politics started with Teddy Roosevelt, according to Rockwell, with the help of special interest groups. "[T]imber and railroad interests associated with J. P. Morgan, Roosevelt's mentor," he writes, "cheered on establishing national parks because this, neighboring the lands of these interest groups, artificially increased their values."

Like all areas of life politics gets its hand into, this was not enough political involvement, and another Republican administration opened the door wider. This was Richard Nixon. By executive order he (unconstitutionally) created the Environmental Protection Agency. "Not surprisingly," says Rockwell, "the EPA's budge has been dominated by sewage-treatment and other construction contracts for well-connected big businessmen."

Different governmental programs, for example, the Clean Water Act, puts Mother Nature, the goddess Gaia, ahead of humans. Wetlands have been made sacrosanct by it, as an immigrant from Hungary found out. By buying some old junkyard land and putting topsoil on it, he "face[d] three years in prison and $200,000 in fines" because it has been "classified as wetlands under" this act.

The much talked about topic of conservation of resources is also an economic issue. Free markets act like traffic signals with their prices. Something that become scarcer, i.e., the supply lowers, results in higher prices signaling consumers to conserve. If oil (one of the most heavily regulated and statist areas of the economy, btw) is about to run out, then, without any statist interventionism, prices will go up and force consumers to be more fiscally wise and give businessmen an incentive signal to look for substitutions. That is to say, the market will direct people out of oil, if needed.

And no matter what the merit of, for example, acid rain as a subject, its primary causes, and its impact the issue of this and cases like this have to be dealt as private property issues. It was government and big business alliances that took pollution off the table as being an issue of property and trespassing. But government is the place that these environmentalists want to turn to?!

(Say, for example, that a stream of water runs through my property. Later a factory moves into town and then dumps waste in this stream. Now if this waste enters my property then the issue is one of trespassing. Likewise, if I am a farmer and then a factory moves into town and its pollution destroys my property [some of my crops], the issue comes back to being a property issue. But these natural property laws were deliberately changed by the State---the supposed solution to environmental issues.)

There is, however, one good thing about environmentalists, says Rockwell:

The environmentalists are forever telling us to be poorer and use less water, less gasoline, less toilet paper, etc. But if they reduce their consumption, it lowers the price for the rest of us, and we can use more. (P.S.: don't pass this on to the environmentalists; it's the one favor they do the rest of us.)

America First!
[“A New Nationalism” by Patrick J. Buchanan, “Time for An American Perestroika” by Robert Higgs, pp 363-368 & 211-216.]

Buchanan says that today we have an "extra-national" agenda from left-liberals and neoconservatives that extends our national interests into other nations and their internal affairs. It uses "our Republic as a means to some larger end." Instead, he says, we must return to a nationalism of the founding fathers.

The advice from George Washington, Ben Franklin, and John Quincy Adams was basically taken until the Philippines. Making the world safe for democracy led the U.S. to join the ranks of empire. The world wars came and went. Demands from the public called for the return to an America First position. Next the Cold War came.

That too ended and the justification of American troops in Europe diminished. Likewise in Korea---the South, FYI, "has twice the population, five times the economic might of North Korea." But troops are still there.

Economic resources continually bleed for empire, spending that includes bases in economically wealthy nations. Propping up dictators here and there also continues---a recipe for "endless conflict." Nonetheless, empire is still excused. A chief reason being the "democratist temptation."

"Like all idolatries," writes Buchanan, "democratism substitutes a false god for the real, a love of process for a love of country."

Even with the Cold War ended (which was when this book was published) empire was still pushed by special interests dependent on the war machine. Cutting back military spending, for them, would put them out of a job.

The "military-industrial congressional complex" (MICC), which includes congressmen, contracting firms that sell weapons and the military, could not have that, as Robert Higgs writes. . . . There must be a bogyman to justify the MICC!

The MICC is a statist operation. After all, it's fully dependent on the government and, hence, has nothing to do with the free market or capitalism. They give millions to the campaigns of politicians and do other special favors to those in power in their symbiosis relationship.

This has pushed defense spending out of genuine national security. No one, though, can say exactly to what extent or degree. Some money has been squandered into weapons that are not needed. There is money that goes directly into defense and other that just benefits the MICC. The result being a poorer society with rich and powerful special interest groups.

Obstacles to Liberty and the Path to It
[“Back to First Principles” by Sobran, “Why Government Grows” by Rockwell, “Breaking Up the Opinion Cartel” by Rockwell, “Mises’s Blueprint for the Free Society” by Sheldon L. Richman, pp 159-174 & 280-284 & 359-362.]

Ronald Reagan has been presented in public discourse, by both conservatives and liberals, as a revolutionary president who turned the tide of big government and its growth. Yet during his administration "Federal spending," Sobran writes, "had doubled across the board." There was not the hint, in action, of anti-statism. (Reagan was not an improvement from Carter, but deterioration.)

Nevertheless presenting Reagan as a "radical" was beneficial for the powers that be in two ways. First, it was beneficial for Reagan himself. He got the glory of being a radical who accomplished something. Reagan could also continue to lull the public with his pseudo rhetoric of limited government. Second, it was beneficial for the establishment of statists because now they had a "bogeyman." Someone that they could point to and say "additional" cutting (or deregulation) of any program would go too far and that there needs to be a cooling down period from the "radical" Reagan administration.

As a whole anti-statist ideology has become complacent with left-liberal philosophy, reasons Sobran. Supply-side economics is a perfect example. It presents the goal of lower taxation and increase government revenue. In this way anti-statist conservatism and libertarianism presents its ideology as a "superior methods for achieving collectivist goals."

Today a liberal program is matched by a conservative one. For this reason the goals of leftism are not challenged principally, and consequently conservatism has helped spread left-wing ideology and the growth of government. Instead what is needed is "an independent rival principle to collectivism."

(For those that want that, look no further than the tradition to be found in the libertarianism of Lew Rockwell and company.)

A number of other things have insulated the growth of statism, you will read in the book.

Earning wealth can happen in two basic ways: voluntarily in the free market or coercively through politics.

Special interest groups have chosen the second method so they can use the government to fund their own interests at the expense of everyone else. They will fight tooth and nail if their funding is to be cut.

Indeed, 8% of the money in politics goes to the poor directly and the rest goes to the politically well-connected and the bureaucrats in on the deal. (Power is a rich man's game, despite left-wing fantasies of a pure egalitarian State.) And that which does go to the poor, and (mainly) the bureaucrat managers, has created a dependent class, and, Rockwell writes, "[t]hanks to [this] welfare state, there is virtually no social mobility from the bottom."

Those filling the seats of bureaucracy want to increase their position, wealth, and power authority. But by not operating in a free market they do not need to respond to profit and loss. Overspending is not penalized. In fact, it is encouraged. So what is the expected result from that? Bureaucracy increasing in size!

States have also grown in power "thanks" to times of crisis.

Politicians can claim that they need more money and power from society and the public, looking for answers, is easier to be lulled in. Opposition is crushed, since power and money is on the side of the State and its friends. (Interestingly enough if it is an economic crisis, when people have less money on hand, the government demands more money! And when government fails to protect "its" citizens the government then demands a bonus of more money. Imagine if private enterprise worked that way.)

Obviously the media franchise, a pro-establishment franchise, is another contributor to the increasing power of the State, since they generally work hand-in-hand. Talking points and press releases they are dependent on. Government officials patronize the media outlets that give soft-ball interviews and who propagate statism.

Through the process of increased statization come distortions in the pricing system and a host of unintended consequences. Politicians then use this to call for more interventions. One intervention is followed by another.

And finally the trends of growth are shaped by the government in the education system. They are the masters of opinion making----education and State should then be viewed as a dangerous thing.

What must be done to fight for liberty?

Rockwell writes, that we (1) must relentlessly show all government crimes and abuses; (2) understand that compromise and moderation doesn't defeat evil, instead abolishment of government programs must be fought for; (3) support alternative news sources and not the mainstream media; (4) get free market thought in higher education.

The only way to beat today's "opinion cartel," displayed in the media, is to spread ideas around it.

It then might be possible to move to a truly (classically) liberal society.

What would that look like? For Ludwig von Mises, writes Sheldon Richman, this means an understanding that private property is the foundation to society.

As Mises wrote, "the program of liberalism . . . if condensed into a single world, would have to be property, that is, private ownership of the means of production. . . . All the other demands of liberalism result from this fundamental demand."

This means, as a necessary result, the freedom for man to interact with others in a voluntary setting.

In addition, a liberal society means the backdrop of peace and impartiality of law.  It is only under peace that a division of labor is possible. Tolerance must be a cultural trait. And for tyranny, from the left and right, to be limited a liberal society thrives at applying justice and law to all men equally.

Governance that goes beyond protection of property will let loose oppression, wrote Mises:

We see that as soon as we surrender the principle that the state should not interfere in any questions touching on the individual's mode of life, we end by regulating and restricting the latter down to the smallest detail.

I.

The decline or degeneration of social and cultural values in society has not happened in a vacuum. This decline has come about part and parcel with the rise of the Almighty Leviathan State. Through the State's meddling in society, the institution of the family has systematically eroded. It perverts the natural inclinations of men and women, their bond together, and familial relations in general.

Today we observe high rates of divorce, illegitimacy, abortion, and all-around family dysfunction. Birthrates of Western peoples have sunken below even the bare minimum of replacement level, as contrast to other peoples. (At the same time floods of third world peoples are moving in, without the need to assimilate.) The intergenerational bond of the extended family has also become increasingly weak. Single parent households are becoming increasingly common. Alternative lifestyles are also higher than ever. Atomization of individuals from all social and cultural restraints has taken place. We are increasingly detached and isolated from family and community. Indeed, we barely even know the name of our next-door neighbors. Family, community, church, and other institutions are no longer looked to-------instead man looks to the centralized State for the answers or solutions to various problems.

This entry to The Paleo Blog will outline the natural development of the family institution under a free market; discuss how the State perverts the family institution away from its natural tendencies; and look at what the Sweden welfare state has done to the family institution there, and how the United States is moving in that direction. The only way to stop the deterioration of the family and morals is to drastically cut government's interference. This may be wishful thinking, but short of that, to steal the title of a book, the death of the West is certain.

II.

As Ludwig von Mises recognized, the family institution is naturally nourished under capitalism. Von Mises did not come about or derive his principles in understanding the importance of the family institution based on "tradition" as a guide, but by his powerful and genius understanding of the economic reality and limitations the world and mankind possess. Mises reasoned that there is a division of labor for sex. It is marriage that harnesses the natural flows.

Society exists because of the inegalitarian nature of mankind and of the world. No division of labor is speakable if this were not true; that men are different and unequal to each other is a requisite. It is by comparative advantage that allows social cooperation between men that are different, men that are truly and fully human as unique individuals unlike the Brave New World of the fantasies of extreme egalitarian leftists, to all socially and economically gain in cooperation. The setting that makes this most possible is one where there is equality of the law; this is the only equality in which Mises supported. Mises reasoned that when one tries to socially engineer all men to be "equal" automatons, then it becomes impossible to enforce equality under the law. You cannot have both.

Man, unlike mere animals, must learn how to control sexual desires and instincts. There are clear differences between the male and female genders. Sex is much more important for the female than that of the male. To quote Mises in his book Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis: "Satisfaction brings him relaxation and mental peace. But for the woman the burden of motherhood begins here. Her destiny is completely circumscribed by sex; in man's life it is but an accident. . . . For woman . . . sex is the greatest obstacle." There is, of course, great inequality or dependence of the woman to the man. This makes her more sexually conservative and cautious. She will have to weigh what she is doing to a greater extent. Under a complete free market men could not be forced into providing support, in case of birth. Trying to remove market conditions will only weaken the traditional bond and will encourage out-of-wedlock births and single parenting. In a free market, naturally then there will also arrive great stigmas of social and cultural pressure that will be more inclined to respect and encourage traditional norms.

Unfortunately, today the State, through such programs as TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families), take away responsibility and encourage destructive behavior. Women no longer need to be as worried in sexual relationships. Since TANF gives large amounts of money to single mothers, women can now more easily get rid of the man. This type of government program subsidizes this type of behavior. As the welfare system looks for a fault or deficiency in the family (or quasi-"family" or individual) in which to give welfare, society will by inevitability enlarge that deficiency or irrationality. As stated in a previous entry, as one gets sucked into dependency by way of government and loses his (or her) independence of freewill, all of the things seeking to be eliminated by government intervention will only amplify in the long-run, and man's actions will become distorted into a confused haze of lowered morals and economic good judgment. Indeed, as Murray Rothbard wrote about, the welfare state in New York has dramatically increased single welfare mothers. By providing incentives for this behavior, it puts a disincentive and punishes good behavior. People will then move into increasingly bad behavior. Present-orientation becomes the norm and long-term thinking is no longer encouraged.

Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell wrote a magnificent essay explaining the insights that Mises had in cultural questions called "The Cultural Thought of Ludwig von Mises." [PDF] To quote them, as it relates to the subject now being covered:

It was the “ideal of capitalism” [quote from Mises] that contributed to producing the “demand for man’s abstinence outside marriage” by insisting on “equal moral rights for man and woman.” Thus capitalism, argues Mises, discourages prostitution. Here he applies his model that whatever is in accord with man’s nature----such as sexual fidelity within marriage----is fostered by the only economic system, capitalism, that is also in accord with man’s nature.

. . . Mises viewed marriage as an inescapable social institution, part of “an adjustment of the individual to the social order by which a certain field of activity, with all its tasks and requirements is assigned to him.” Marriage, said Mises, reins in the sexual instincts of man and allows woman to achieve what nature and biology tell us is her primary occupation, bearing children and caring for the family.

It was before capitalism where women were thought as objects to be possessed of or to be slaves to men. This type of affair cannot stay for long as long as capitalism develops. Marriage develops into a form of contract, with both man and woman of equal rights. In capitalism, the sex drive is calmed and diverted for the good.

Under a free market environment, marriage would be completely privatized. The State in history is a relatively new invention in the area of marriage. It was the social intermediate institutions that defended marriage, for the majority of history. (Traditional conservatives, of all people, should know that the State could only corrupt marriage! Marriage is not to be put up to a vote. It is of no business of the sinful and secular State.) In freedom, marriage would, as Steven LaTulippe puts it, "reinvigorate those institutions of organic culture which have traditionally administered it."

LaTulippe says that

As should be no surprise, marriage has weakened in direct proportion to the advancing interference of the state. In addition, those institutions of organic culture which have historically functioned to define and enshrine marriage are withering in the face of this assault (yet another example of the maxim that statist “culture” drives out authentic culture). [emphasis his]

III.

The family institution, as Hans Hoppe says in Democracy - The God That Failed, "testifies to the enormous productivity of the family-household that no other institution has proven more durable or capable of producing such emotions!" Family brings children. They depend on their parents for support and guidance, both financially and emotionally. As the children depend on their parents, in old age the parents often depend on their now grownup children. It thus pays; there is an incentive, to instill good values and judgments. It pays to have children-----many children. Parents thus attempt to build a good relationship. They teach their children about responsibility and convey to them a good work ethic. They want them both physically and mentally strong. The more the parents be in charge of this, the more incentive and the more developed experience they have to do this successfully. It is here, with both a mother and father, that children are best taken care of. Both roles (father and mother) fill different needs of their children. It is futile to argue that the natural family is inferior (or equal) to other household arrangements. Children developing emotional or mental problems are more common outside of the traditional household. Insofar as the State subsidizes that development, it contributes to the decline of emotional strength and maturity to society.

The family system is also strongly connected with property and capitalistic production. Civilizations with strong families look to the future for preservation and continuation of their families. They thus adopt future-oriented attitudes. It is under this environment that enormous capital growth and economic advancement can take place [pdf], since the time preferences of people will tend to be low. In addition, since growth of civilizations is heavily dependent on time preference, the vitality of the family institution in society is bond to the rise and fall of society. Therefore, a good way to "measure" a society's place is to look at the family institution and the state of the culture at large.

Children provide labor potential. They not only have the potential to become independent self-sufficient adults, but also have potential to labor as children. This increases their value as children. Laws that forbid child labor weakens the family by gutting some value children have. No longer can they work to preserve the family, especially in the case of hardship. Compulsory laws of government-approved school attendance for children likewise "socialize their time." Under this statist environment children's loyalty and their education and guidance turns away from their parents and their family and instead to the government bureaucrats.

And today mothers can no longer even be mothers! Taxation and various regulations have made all of us one-half of a person. It is no wonder that both parents today have to go into the workforce. Economically the State has made it much more difficult for the mother to take her natural role to raise her children. This not only creates family dysfunction between parents and children, but also makes it more difficult to have children or to have as many children as in the past. While both parents must now be in the workforce, the children are sent off to the secular bureaucrats, to be "taught" by them, away from family.

Family life does not just consist of the nuclear family, but also consists of the extended family. It provides a framework and bond in the family to provide support between each other. It is similar to an "insurance policy." The old and elderly depend on the young and strong in the extended family. The sick and troubled on the strong and firm. There is great incentive, in a free market, to preserve a strong and healthy extended family. However, Social Security has helped shatter and cut this bond. No longer does the extended family have to be strong and healthy. The incentive to maintain this bond has decreased. To quote Allan Carlson:

The underlying act here was the socializing of another dependency function, this time, the dependency of the "very old" and the "weak" on mature adults. For eons, the care of the elderly had been a family matter. Henceforward, it would be the state's concern. Taking all of these reforms together, the net effect was to socialize the economic value of children. The natural economy of the household, and the value that children had brought their parents----be it as workers in the family enterprise or as an "insurance policy" for old age----was stripped away. Parents were still left with the costs of raising the children, but the economic gain they would eventually represent had been seized by "society," meaning the bureaucratic state.

"The end result," says Carlson, "of state intervention . . . is progressively diminished fertility, with living individuals left alone in a dependent relationship with the government." [emphasis mine] As Oskari Juurikkala writes in his "Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis," there is a direct correlation between birthrate declines and the destruction "Social Security" has caused the family. It no longer pays to have children because the government takes away the economic rewards. No longer, as in "traditional societies" are " family values and mutual altruism" "deeply held values."

Instead of relying on the extended family for support, individuals look to the all centralized State. The old, in a family, no longer need to look to the young for support or vice versa. The extended family loses meaning. Economically it is wise to have a large extended and nuclear family, but this is no longer true. Indeed, as just mentioned, fertility rates have fallen dramatically in those nations with a Social Security system. It is no wonder that people will thus adopt a lifestyle that is oriented to the present (i.e., time preferences will rise).

To quote Hans Hoppe:

In conjunction with the even older compulsory system of public education, these institutions and practices amount to a massive attack on the institution of the family and personal responsibility. By relieving individuals of the obligation to provide for their own income, health, safety, old age, and children's education, the range and temporal horizon of private provision is reduced, the value of marriage, family, children, and kinship relations is lowered. Irresponsibility, shortsightedness, negligence, illness and even destructionism (bads) is promoted, and responsibility, farsightedness, diligence, health and conservatism (goods) are punished. The compulsory old age insurance system in particular, by which retirees (the old) are subsidized from taxes imposed on current income earners (the young), has systematically weakened the natural intergenerational bond between parents, grandparents, and children. The old need no longer rely on the assistance of their children if they have made no provision for their own old age; and the young (with typically less accumulated wealth) must support the old (with typically more accumulated wealth) rather than the other way around, as is typical within families. Consequently, not only do people want to have fewer children----and indeed, birthrates have fallen in half since the onset of modern social security (welfare) policies----but also the respect which the young traditionally accorded to their elders is diminished, and all indicators of family disintegration and malfunctioning, such as rates of divorce, illegitimacy, child abuse, single parenting, singledom, alternative lifestyles, and abortion, have increased.

To continue with Hoppe:

At the same time, as should be clear as well but has not been sufficiently noted, from the point of view of the government's rulers, their ability to interfere in internal family matters must be regarded as the ultimate prize and the pinnacle of their own power. To exploit tribal or racial resentments or class envy to one's personal advantage is one thing. It is quite another accomplishment to use the quarrels arising within families to break up the entire----generally harmonious----system of autonomous families: to uproot individuals from their families to isolate and atomize them, thereby increasing the state's power over them. Accordingly, as the government's family policy is implemented, divorce, singledom, . . . [see above] and the variety and frequency of . . . homosexuality, lesbianism, communism, and occultism [lifestyles] . . . increase as well.

Looking at the numbers is always shocking. For example, in The Death of the West by Pat Buchanan, Buchanan documents that "nuclear families account for fewer than one in four households, while single Americans who live alone are now 26 percent of all households." "Marriage," Buchanan says, "is out of fashion." Today the culture places the joy of sex higher than motherhood for women. "One in four children born to white women are out of wedlock. In 1960, it was 2 percent." Abortions, he reports, are about 1.2-1.4 million per year. And births "to married women in the United States, [were] 4 million in 1960, fell to 2.7 million in 1996." The divorce rate "is up 350 percent since 1962, and one-third of all American children now live in single-parent homes." The signs of family dysfunction is all too evident.

As Mark Owens says: "Government programs have not only created dependency [between individuals and the State], but have allowed people to escape the social norms that were the result of centuries of successful social behavior."

When the government steps in and subsidizes behaviors that in previous generations would have resulted in great hardship or even death, a sort of social Gresham’s Law takes place where bad behavior chases out the good. Why have a father and husband around when the state will assure your financial situation? Why find a new job when you can collect unemployment for some time? The changes in societal incentives have resulted in a change in societal rules. . . . . A high school girl could get pregnant and the state would provide her with her own apartment. It would be difficult to argue that this did not exert a powerful influence on social norms.

We see that social pressures and stigmas have virtually disappeared. It is no wonder that this is so, as the State takes the functions of social intermediate institutions, there is little standing in the way to encourage people out of destructive behavior. On top of that, the State by its very interventions subsidizes these activities. The individual is no longer connected with any social norms or pressures. Interestingly or maybe ironically, one becomes like an atom-----a (false) criticism that some have against genuine hard-core libertarianism. [Robert Nisbet is right on the triangle of authority.]

IV.

The damage that statism has on the family is vividly illustrated in Sweden. To not go down the same road calls for drastic change in the operations of government here in the United States. The entire welfare system (which includes Social Security) must be gotten rid of. As Allan Carlson writes in his important essay called "What Has Government Done to Our Families?," the natural dependency and bond between members of both the nuclear and extended family have been cut off and replaced by statist interventionism in Sweden. The individual there is cut off and isolated.

The ball started rolling in the 1840s with compulsory school attendance laws. Next came laws banning child labor in 1912. Government then implemented a system of "old-age or retirement pensions." With their massive welfare state, a population crisis developed. By 1935 the "Swedish fertility went into free-fall," says Carlson, and "had the lowest birthrate in the world, below the zero-growth level where a generation just managed to replace itself."

Given the incentives set up by the state, the very persons who contributed the most to the nation's survival by having children were dragged down into poverty, shoddy housing, poor nutrition, and limited recreational opportunities. A voluntary choice between poverty with children or a higher living standard without them was what young couples now faced. Young adults were forced to support the retired and the needy through the state's welfare system, and also the children to which they have life. Under this multiple burden, they had chosen to reduce their number of children as the only facto over which they had control.

In the essay Carlson writes that the situation is a good example of what Mises meant when he said that there is no "third way" or "middle ground" between socialism and capitalism. It is either one or the other. As this crisis came into a forefront, Gunnar Myrdal and Alva Myrdal came into the spotlight with a bestselling book called Crisis in the Population Question.

The Myrdals said that there were two alternatives: one was to get rid of the welfare state or to complete the welfare state dominion over society. The first option they said was (their words) "not even worthy of being discussed." They called the family "pathological" and that these "old ideals must die out with the generations which supported them." They also said that "we must free children more from ourselves" to turn (Carlson's words) "them over to state certified experts for care and training. The collective day nursery run by state-controlled experts, rather than the pathological little family, was more in line with the proper goals of eliminating social classes and building a society based on economic democracy"

What were the specific results? With the family stripped, by state fiat, of all productive functions, of all insurance and welfare functions, and of most consumption functions, it should cause little surprise that ever fewer Swedes chose to live in families. The marriage rate fell to a record low among modern nations, while the proportion of adults living alone soared. In central Stockholm, for example, fully two-thirds of the population lived in single-person households by the mid-1980s. With the costs and benefits of children fully socialized, and with the natural economic gains from marriage intentionally eliminated by law, the bearing of children was also severed from marriage: by 1990, well over half of Swedish births were outside of marriage.

William Anderson in "Liberty and the Atomistic Welfare State," speaks of how left-liberal Tyler Cowen praises this atomized individualism in Sweden, knowing perfectly well that the welfare state brought it about. This society, however, goes "hand-in-hand with an all-powerful state that enforced political correctness with an iron hand," so correctly says Anderson. Sadly, the signs that we are moving closer to Sweden in the U.S. is all too clear. Further socialization of areas where family dominates (or use to dominate) will reap more havoc on the family.

Carlson reports that the "pre-eminent neo-conservative publishing house" book called When the Bough Breaks, uses much the same language as the Myrdals used. For example, take this: "relying on irrational parental attachment to underwrite the child-rearing enterprise is a risky, foolhardy, and cruel business. It is time we learned to share the costs and burdens of raising our children. It is time to take some collective responsibility for the next generation."

V.

Restoring the health of the family requires a freer society, one based on voluntarism and the naturally or organically arising institutions that come about through that. To end this entry, here is a good way to sum this up by Hans Hoppe:

Combining cultural conservatism and welfare-statism is impossible, and hence, economic nonsense. Welfare-statism—social security in any way, shape or form—breeds moral and cultural decline and degeneration. Thus, if one is indeed concerned about America's moral decay and wants to restore normalcy to society and culture, one must oppose all aspects of the modern social-welfare state. A return to normalcy requires no less than the complete elimination of the present social security system: of unemployment insurance, social security, Medicare, Medicaid, public education, etc.—and thus the near complete dissolution and deconstruction of the current state apparatus and government power. If one is ever to restore normalcy, government funds and power must dwindle to or even fall below their nineteenth century levels. Hence, true conservatives must be hard-line libertarians (antistatists). . . . In order to restore social and cultural norms, true conservatives can only be radical libertarians, and they must demand the demolition—as a moral and economic distortion—of the entire structure of the interventionist state

Articles to Read:

• The Cultural Thought of Ludwig von Mises by Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell
  
• What Has Government Done to Our Families? by Allan Carlson
• Making Kids Worthless: Social Security's Contribution to the Fertility Crisis by Oskari Juurikkala
• Old-age Security Without the State by Oskari Juurikkala
• The Welfare State's Attack on the Family by Vedran Vuk
• The Welfare State: Shredding Society by Mark Owen
• Liberty and the Atomistic Welfare State by William Anderson
  
• Statism, Post-Modernism, and the Death of the Western World by Steven LaTulippe
• Post-Modernism by Steven LaTulippe
• Four Steps To Restoring the Culture by Steven LaTulippe

This week at the Mises Institute, Jörg Guido Hülsmann presented a seminar on the "life, times, and work of Ludwig von Mises."

It consisted of ten lectures [MP3 downloads]:

1. Formative Years
2. The Austrian School Around 1900
3. Theory of Money and Credit
4. The Great War and Its Aftermath
5. A Copernican Shift
6. Mises in His Prime
7. Years in Geneva
8. Nationalökonomie
9. New Life in America
10. Birth, Decline, and Rebirth of the Second Mises Revolution

"Jörg Guido Hülsmann spent nearly eight years on his seminal biography of Ludwig von Mises. In this weeklong course, he explains how Mises's life took dramatic turns, what contributions he made to the social sciences, how Mises never gave up and never gave in."

Recently I was watching a program on PBS that was very revealing. The program was a documentary on a family that was practically picked up and imported into the United States from a Third World nation. Suffice to say, my views on the matter were politically incorrect from beginning to end.

There were many revealing scenes. None of them were intentionally revealing by the leftist producers, of course. One of these revealing scenes gave a lesson on the welfare state. And it is this: Government welfare produces and subsidizes irresponsibility and irrational behavior.

It was interesting as well as blunt. The family needed more handouts. Instead of conserving, saving, cutting back, and/or looking for private (rational) charity they went to the government. The social worker attempted to find some reason he could give them all the welfare they demanded. That is to say, the welfare system looked for a fault or deficiency in the family in which to give welfare. Such governmental action in society will by inevitability enlarge that deficiency or irrationality. As man gets sucked into dependency by way of government and looses his independence of freewill, all of the things seeking to be eliminated by government intervention in the first place will only amplify and man’s actions will become distorted into a confused haze of lowered morals and economic good judgment.

In the case example on television, it came down to this: The social worker suggested having additional children. And that is exactly what the family did.

How can this be considered sane action? A fiscally troubled family does not have more children. It is this kind of interventionism in which statism reverses a more natural flow of rational action and behavior and turns it on its head. Much the same applies to the call for people to spend-spend-spend in times of economic downturn. When I am near bankruptcy, rational action does not consist of going out on a spending spree to cure me of bankruptcy!

Another related example was that of the mother of this family even speaking of how she would start stealing if she did not get her welfare. Maybe she should realize that her receiving welfare is by methods of the same doing? The only difference is that a middleman is involved. And middlemen do not make the coercive practice of “from Joe to Bob” any more justifiable or moral.

***

Murray Rothbard on the Subject: "Economic Incentives And Welfare"

Rothbard:

The conservative organization Change-NY has recently issued a study of the economic incentives for going on, and staying on, welfare in New York. The "typical" welfare recipient is a single mother with two children. This typical welfare "client" receives, in city, state, and federal benefits, the whopping annual sum of $32,500, which includes approximately $3,000 in cash, $14,000 in Medicaid, $10,000 in housing assistance, and $5,000 in food assistance. Since these benefits are non-taxable, this sum is equivalent to a $45,000 annual salary before taxes.

Furthermore, this incredibly high figure for welfare aid is "extremely conservative," says Change-NY, because it excludes the value of other benefits, including Head Start . . ., job training (often consisting of such hard-nosed subjects as "conversational skills"), child care, and the Special Supplemental Food program for Women, Infants, and Children (or WIC).

. . . Given this enormous disparity in benefits, is it any wonder that 1.3 million mothers and children in New York are on welfare, and that welfare dependence is happily passed on from one generation of girls to the next?

Read Rothbard's entire essay here.

***

Evidence like this, among other things, helps to clarify the now soaring family dysfunction. As statism and various feminist ideologies endeavor to bring about sexual and gender egalitarianism, it breaks apart the natural sexual relationships between females and males on the issue of children and the raising of them.

Family is the cornerstone of civilization. Ludwig von Mises, the great classical liberal and economist, recognized that it was capitalism and the development of contracts and private property which propelled marriage relationships. (See this.) And people like Hans-Hermann Hoppe have written about how one of the State’s ultimate victories, from its frame of reference, is its intrusion into the family unit. It has atomitized the individual loose from family ties. The amount of damage cannot be fully calculated, but it sure is there.

The best way to starve a people in a Third World nation is to have their government ratify laws forbidding child labor. Asking the typical man on the street would give one the impression that child labor was the birth child of the laissez-faire Industrial Revolution.

Far from being the “birth child” of evillll capitalist pigs, child labor has existed since the beginning of history. Requirements to live made its existence necessary. So credulous and ignorant are people that they cannot see that the only way, like in the United States, societies’ can “grow out” of child labor is to actually engage in capitalism to build up capital and increase production capabilities.

Government cannot magically transform a society to do this. The very life of government is a life of a parasite. No wishful thinking or hoping can transform a society except through the capitalist method. This method requires people to recognize the natural right of person and property. For this very reason, instead of booing capitalism, it should be cheered. It was not the State that ended child labor, but the capitalist pigs.

Although, I fail to see what is so intrinsically “evil” about child labor.

What is the capitalist method?

Free-market capitalism is a network of free and voluntary exchanges in which producers work, produce, and exchange their products for the products of others through prices voluntarily arrived at.

There you have it from the great Murray N. Rothbard.

A developing society with little to no capital requires more people in the labor force. This cannot be wished away. Low production output will require a larger supply of labor. No ifs, ands, or buts. Period. The way to change this is through capitalism. Capitalist advances in raising production capabilities will increase the output of labor.

What will this do? For one, it will free up labor into more productive activities. Obviously child labor becomes less and less a necessity. Secondly, it will, due to the disutility of labor (i.e., in a nutshell, people like and want leisure), increase leisure. (It is not government that allowed people to cut down the work week.)

Third Worlds

How is it possible that we can condemn the businessman that hired or today hires in Third World nations children, away from the worse alternative conditions of starvation, excessive and worse conditions of farm life, or prostitution? Instead of hissing capitalism we should be speaking well of it. We should thank the capitalists and innovators who were alone responsible for the evolving of us, here in the U.S., beyond the need for child labor.

It is deplorable for leftists and other all-around statists to demand an end to child labor. I would not call the very real alternative of a child entering prostitution or starving as something to be preferred to working in a factory.

Economist Ludwig von Mises in his giant Human Action describes the single way that Third Worlds can “evolve” out of child labor and out of less-than stellar working conditions:

It is a sad fact indeed that in Asia many millions of tender children are destitute and starving, that wages are extremely low when compared with America or Western European standards, that hours of work are long, and that sanitary conditions in the workshops are deplorable. But there is not means of eliminating these evils other than to work, to produce, and to save more and thus to accumulate more capital. This is indispensable for any lasting improvement. The restrictive measures advocated by self-styled philanthropists and humanitarians would be futile. They would not only fail to improve conditions, they would make things a good deal worse. If the parents are too poor to feed their children adequately, prohibition of child labor condemns the children to starvation. If the marginal productivity of labor is so low that a worker can only earn in ten hours wages which are substandard when compared with American wages, one does not benefit the laborer by decreeing the eight-hour day.

The problem under discussion is not the desirability of improving the wage earners’ well-being. The advocates of what are miscalled prolabor laws intentionally confuse the issue in repeating again and again that more leisure, higher real wages, and freeing children and married women from the necessity of seeking jobs would make families of workers happier. They resort to falsehood and mean calumny in calling those who oppose such laws as detrimental to the vital interests of the wage earners “labor-baiters” and “enemies of labor.” The disagreement does not refer to the ends sought; it concerns solely the means to be applied for their realization. The question is not whether or not improvement of the masses’ welfare is desirable. It is exclusively whether or not government decrees restricting the hours of work and the employment of women and children are the right means for raising the workers’ standard of living. This is a purely catallactic problem to be solved by economics. Emotional talk is beside the point. It is a poor disguise for the fact that these self-righteous advocates of restriction are unable to advance any tenable objections to the economists’ well-founded argumentation.

Developed Nations

Technological and economical advances in time always makes the past look relatively harsh. Hours were long. Conditions were poor. By today’s standards if we look back, say, 50 years, sure, conditions did not match today’s. Going back even further we observe historically the absolute necessity children in the labor force.

If history is to be a guide here, then it is arduous and, frankly, erroneous to call child labor exploitation. Exploitation it was not. What it was, was a necessary to live. Government did not sprinkle in some magic dust to change this. It is economically unattainable. We have shifted away from this because of the evolution of our civilization.

Child labor was decreased naturally in the market place before any government laws dictated to people what to do.

Consequences

Favoring child labor laws by economic necessity will hurt some people (some families), even here in the U.S. The degree to which it will hurt people depends on how advanced the society in question is. If we are talking about the U.S., then it will be a very small minimum. If we are talking about a Third World nation, then it will be great (ceteris paribus).

Nothing is wrong with businesses hiring children. Should they (children and parents) not have the option available to them? Or should Caesar decide? Certain circumstances may require it, but this would be relatively more rare because, as I have noted, we have moved beyond the necessity of children labor.

And what about families with a work ethic of farm life or maybe even an Amish life. They surely are engaged in hard labor. (Besides, children these days probably could use some hard labor!) It is not my right or yours to stop them by the point of the gun. You can disprove. Fine, whatever. You can try to talk them out of it. Fine. But you have no right to rule over them and run their own lives.

Then there are the children who cannot mentally succeed in education for long. It is a fact of life, if you like it or not, that the mentally handicapped can only benefit for just a few years of formal education (if that). Besides wasting years and years of education, they should be taught a skill----even a very simple one. They would get further in life. They can get a simple job and feel useful. Their labor should be welcomed. If, for example, their mental capabilities are of a nine year old, then why not let them try to establishes themselves? A free market division of labor makes them useful. (That is one of the problems with government regulations because many of them regulates these people out of the work force. How compassionate is that?)

Others, maybe not considered mentally handicapped, are just not cut out for school. What happens with these students? They create a bad environment for the ones that can and do benefit. Many of them join gangs and take drugs. They would be better if they could drop out of a formal education. The chances that they would join gangs or take drugs would decline. Compulsory laws are evil and unnecessary. If they spent time picking up a skill, their life would be much better. Who cares if they enter the market place at a less than X government-approved age?

X is arbitrary. Yes, it has some basis in reality of empirical evidence. But it is still arbitrary. A 50 year old can be less mature and/or less mentally competent than a 13 year old. Children should not be slaves of the State anymore than adults. Of course, authority should exist. (It does need to exist.) Children are under the the household of their parents. Good parents will raise their children well and instill in them good values and the ability of be independent when they get older. That authority is to be with the parents not the big daddy government. We must strength that.

Murray Rothbard wrote:

Not only is the child prevented from laboring, but the income of families with children is arbitrarily lowered by the government, and childless families gain at the expense of families with children. Child labor laws penalize families with children because the period of time in which children remain net monetary liabilities to their parents is thereby prolonged.

This is especially true in Third Worlds. But it is also true here to a degree. It helps weaken the traditional family, along with so many other government laws and programs.

As much it offends most modern sensibilities, we must free up the labor market and allow people to be free. Economics can be counterintuitive. A law gets past. We expect no consequences or unintended ones. But there are consequences----even if they are unintended. We might hate something or an activity, but banning it by the gun too often makes the aftereffects of the ban worse.

Utilitarianism is not the only defense or the primary one. The freedom answer is the defense. "Freedom is the Answer. What's the Question?" (As Ernest Hancock says.) It is time for people to grow up and stop being children in its view of big daddy government.

The issue has been obfuscated by the endeavors of governments and powerful pressure groups to disparage economics and to defame the economists. Princes and democratic majorities are drunk with power. They must reluctantly admit that they are subject to the laws of nature. But they reject the very notion of economic law. Are they not the supreme legislators? Don’t they have the power to crush every opponent? No war lord is prone to acknowledge any limits other than those imposed on him by a superior armed force. Servile scribblers are always ready to foster such complacency by expounding the appropriate doctrines. They call their garbled presumptions “historical economics.” In fact, economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics. - Ludwig von Mises; Human Action, p 67

(Secondary Note: The Robert Murphy & Politically Incorrect books blog entry has been updated.)

Immigration: It is about time that I threw my two-cents into this libertarian polemic. My arguments will be familiar to those that have read Hans-Hermann Hoppe. It boils down to the fact that no one has a right to trespass. Immigration must not violate that. (There is no right to immigrate. And in a libertarian order there would be no such thing as “open borders.”) Pat Buchanan’s State of Emergency is valuable on this topic. I’ll add some of his points too.

Paleolibertarianism: There are some articles and interviews from Lew Rockwell that I would like to post up here at The Paleo Blog. It should benefit those that would like to know more on paleolibertarianism and paleoconservatism. For instance, those new will learn about the paleoconservative-paleolibertarian alliance during the 1990s.

Education: We have had a “Private Marriage” and a “Private Money” entry. Next will probably be a “Private Education.” Arguments will parallel Rothbard in Education: Free and Compulsory and a chapter in his For a New Liberty. This topic has become kind of the equivalent of the smoking topic. Both are topics that can drive me to the edge. The more I think of government school, the more radical I get. Instead of learning the classics and the greats, and without washing them into political correctness, kids learn very little. ... What an abomination government schools are! If I ever wake up to a world that believes in Freedom and Liberty, then I won’t be able to find a single government “education” camp.

Nisbetian Conservatism: Robert Nisbet, at least right now from my readings, is my favorite conservative intellectual. I'll post a entry in the future on Nisbetaian Conservatism using his book Conservatism: Dream and Reality.

Richard Weaver: I will be also throwing in some more Richard Weaver. A resource center (like the one of Nisbet) will be here sooner or later.

Side Stuff:

Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute sent out a letter about a future book by Jörg Guido Hülsmann. It is a 1,000 page biography of Ludwig von Mises.

The story has never been told with the flourish and level of detail we find in Guido’s book, and never before in a way that demonstrates that Mises is far more important in advancing the science of liberty than we ever knew. Eight years in the making, this is a book for the ages, about a man for the ages.

Very impressive! It is quite a long book, but with reading the short overview by Mr. Rockwell, it seems that it will be well worth the read.

There is a new way to contact me, if you so need to or wish to, that is at paleolibertarian (at) yahoo (dot) co m. I will probably use Geocities at Yahoo to put together a simple resource center on all things paleolibertarian. ---- Anything I publish on the webpage, I will publish here.

I stumbled into a good article at the Mises Institute that I would like to share here at The Paleo Blog with you all. It is by Jude Blanchette. What are Misesians? Conservative? Libertarian? Liberal? What?

Part of the confusion is due to the limits of postwar political classification, which tend to shoehorn people into roles as created by the two dominate political parties. They don't account for someone like Mises who was, as Rothbard argued, a political radical, and yet rather conservative on cultural and social matters. He championed drug legalization but not use, defended the family as a market-based institution; loved global trade but hated war, despised feudal institutions and egalitarian political ethics.

The key to understanding this is lost on many people. It comes down to the distinction between force and voluntarism. He believed that one could find a certain behavior or practice abhorrent, all the while defending the individual's right to engage in it. Today, most of our contemporaries tend to think all behavior should be either required or forbidden with little room for choice.

It is the trouble with binary thinking in politics.

Blanchette then provides some great resources on the Old Right all the way to today.

Aritcle - Click Here.
(A modified version of it appeared on LRC here. ~ "What Libertarians and Conservatives Say About Each Other: An Annotated Bibliography")

Hans-Hermann Hoppe gives an introduction to Ludwig von Mises here [mp3].