UNR Students for Liberty » The State

Happy Birthday, Mr. Libertarian.

Barry Belmont — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 06:09:00 +0000

In 1926, somewhere in the Bronx, Murray Newton Rothbard was born today, March 2. His life’s work has made thousands and thousands of other people’s life work seem possible and important. His philosophy, economics, determination, and thought have profoundly influenced me as well as millions of other people (indeed the entirity of modern libertarianism!)

In rememberance, we present a portion from his book “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto” (one of the best books written about anything by anybody ever). It is about the strategy towards liberty and how libertarian thought can eventual triumph.

Thank you, Mr. Rothbard, for all you’ve ever done, and what your work has continued to do.

Education: Theory and Movement

And so we have it: a body of truth, sound in theory and capable of application to our political problems — the new libertarianism. But now that we have the truth, how can we achieve victory? We face the great strategic problem of all “radical” creeds throughout history: How can we get from here to there, from our current State-ridden and imperfect world to the great goal of liberty?

There is no magic formula for strategy; any strategy for social change, resting as it does on persuasion and conversion, can only be an art rather than an exact science. But having said this, we are still not bereft of wisdom in the pursuit of our goals. There can be a fruitful theory, or at the very least, theoretical discussion, of the proper strategy for change.

On one point there can scarcely be disagreement: a prime and necessary condition for libertarian victory (or, indeed, for victory for any social movement, from Buddhism to vegetarianism) is education: the persuasion and conversion of large numbers of people to the cause. Education, in turn, has two vital aspects: calling people’s attention to the existence of such a system, and converting people to the libertarian system. If our movement consisted only of slogans, publicity, and other attention-getting devices, then we might be heard by many people, but [p. 298] it would soon be discovered that we had nothing to say — and so the hearing would be fitful and ephemeral. Libertarians must, therefore, engage in hard thinking and scholarship, put forth theoretical and systematic books, articles, and journals, and engage in conferences and seminars. On the other hand, a mere elaboration of the theory will get nowhere if no one has ever heard of the books and articles; hence the need for publicity, slogans, student activism, lectures, radio and TV spots, etc. True education cannot proceed without theory and activism, without an ideology and people to carry that ideology forward.

Thus, just as the theory needs to be carried to the attention of the public, so does the theory need people to hold the banner, discuss, agitate, and carry the message forward and outward to the public. Once again, both theory and movement become futile and sterile without each other; the theory will die on the vine without a self-conscious movement which dedicates itself to advancing the theory and the goal. The movement will become mere pointless motion if it loses sight of the ideology and the goal in view. Some libertarian theorists feel that there is something impure or disreputable about a living movement with acting individuals; but how can liberty be achieved without libertarians to advance the cause? On the other hand, some militant activists, in their haste for action — any action — scorn what seems to be parlor discussions of theory; yet their action becomes futile and wasted energy if they have only a dim idea of what they are being active about.

Furthermore, one often hears libertarians (as well as members of other social movements) bewail that they are “only talking to themselves” with their books and journals and conferences; that few people of the “outside world” are listening. But this frequent charge gravely misconceives the many-sided purpose of “education” in the broadest sense. It is not only necessary to educate others; continual self-education is also (and equally) necessary. The corps of libertarians must always try to recruit others to their ranks, to be sure; but they must also keep their own ranks vibrant and healthy. Education of “ourselves” accomplishes two vital goals. One is the refining and advancing of the libertarian “theory” — the goal and purpose of our whole enterprise. Libertarianism, while vital and true, cannot be merely graven in stone tablets; it must be a living theory, advancing through writing and discussion, and through refuting and combatting errors as they arise. The libertarian movement has dozens of small newsletters and magazines, ranging from mimeographed sheets to slick publications, constantly emerging and dying. This is a sign of a healthy, growing movement, a movement that consists of countless individuals thinking, arguing, and contributing.

But there is another critical reason for “talking to ourselves,” even if that were all the talking that was going on. And that is reinforcement — the psychologically necessary knowledge that there are other people of like mind to talk to, argue with, and generally communicate and interact with. At present, the libertarian creed is still that of a relatively small minority, and, furthermore, it proposes radical changes in the status quo. Hence, it is bound to be a lonely creed, and the reinforcement of having a movement, of “talking to ourselves,” can combat and overcome that isolation. The contemporary movement is now old enough to have had a host of defectors; analysis of these defections shows that, in almost every case, the libertarian has been isolated, cut off from fellowship and interaction with his colleagues. A flourishing movement with a sense of community and esprit de corps is the best antidote for giving up liberty as a hopeless or “impractical” cause.

Why I Am Thankful For Wasteful Government

Barry Belmont — Fri, 28 Nov 2008 04:12:00 +0000

Government, by its nature, must seek to expand itself. A government must give reasons for its existence, it must point to problems that it wishes to solve. In so far as many problems now facing us have their origins with government intervention, we can see truly that this is a wonderful time to live in.

As much as I may point to the contrary (which I am prone to do) government is not inhabited by bad people. Sure, most are men of impotence, men of “the public good,” men with little noble virtues and even less knowledge to act on them, but I truly believe that most men in government become involved because they feel a genuine desire to help their fellow man. I would be willing to say that all government officials do not start out their careers with the hopes of “seizing power” or of controlling others, rather they want to make the world a “better” place. Unfortunately for them, their plan must necessarily backfire because they are individuals who care above all else about themselves and those closest to them.

Let me first explain how I view the political situation of America as simply as I can. Certain men are elected by some sort of majority to have agreed upon powers over everybody. It is expected that these certain men will represent the will of this majority. The will of the majority is betterment for itself (or this is assumed because the will of the individuals who make up this majority is betterment for their individual selves). Thus the men elected will wish to make the individuals better by the means granted to him by the majority. And while this may sound all well and good, the tricky bit comes when means selected for the general “public” are applied to the specific.

Take for instance the past election and the selection of the president. It is hoped that what the president promises for the country will be enacted, at least in part. But the problem is, which parts? by whom? where? when? And the state level, how will these initiatives be enacted? In the county, what needs to be fixed? On the city level, what is there to do? Certainly there is plenty to do even at the localest of levels: my neighborhood street could use a new paving, my block could use some new paint, the city could use better trash removal, new streetlights, better sewer drainage, cheaper electricity, better education, better courts, less crime (generally meaning more police). The city government needs more funding for these things, but I as a citizen want to pay less taxes. I suppose I’m selfish, but who doesn’t want more stuff, more benefits, at a lower cost? Quite a dilemma.

And this is just the city/county level, what happens when we start talking about the state level? Cheaper travel, better higher education, good insurance rates, low cost of living, all things we want the government to do simply because we want more stuff for less effort. There are few people who would rather work hard for a miserable life than work little for a great one. This is what the voting populace is assuming when it elects its representative: the government has the power and the will to accomplish what we want accomplished with the only effort coming from us being the minor nuisance of voting. But something from nothing is as valid here as anywhere and the lunch we thought was free will be paid for by us with a handsome tip to the waiter who spilled our drink and gave us the wrong food.

So we’ve got all these cities with all their own issues in states with all their own issues in a big country with all its own issues in a world that’s got its own issues. Not just political or economic issues, but ethical, moral, religious, social, psychological, scientific, and environmental concerns are all relevant to a lot of somebodies somewhere. Who decides which concerns are more valid, relevant, solvable? The tentative answer generally ascribed to (at least in this country) is that a group of men concerned will vote and whatever the majority decides, such will be the case and this will be corrected by another group of men known as the government.

But just as most people do not have just a single concern, a government cannot be bogged down caring about a single enterprise. A government must attempt to solve issues of education, defense, justice, sanitation, infrastructure, and many more because these are the issues for which there exist enough people with enough influence to convince someone to get something done. Lobbyists, constituents, personal friends, ultimately it makes no difference who does the pulling of the strings: the more strings that keep the marionette dancing the harder it will be to control. Imagine it this way, everybody wants to play the puppet master, everybody has their own opinion on what is important about it: how it dances, how graceful it is, what the eyebrows do, how the hands moves, the color of its clothes, should their be facial hair, what play should it perform in, what kind of music, the instruments that music should be played on. How can such a small doll really show all the intricacy that everybody wants to show? Make a bigger puppet! With a bigger stage! Ridiculous? Well, kinda, but so is the government.

Sure, some of the lines might get crossed and maybe it won’t all be as perfect as we’d like, but it still gets the job done and look at all the stuff we get! I mean, even the eyelash polisher’s brush maker now has a job working for this puppet. The dirty little secret behind all of it is the cost. Where is the money for this monstrously extravagant doll coming from? Well in just world, the cost would be paid for voluntarily. However, in this world, the cost will be taken through a physical coercion taxation. Taxes are when the government takes money from you under the threat of harming you (imprisonment, etc) for the delusion of helping you (all these wonderful programs!). The things it gives you are things they assume would not be exchanged for voluntarily: if they could be, they would be without the government, if they couldn’t be, then there is no reason for their existence. The price of the puppet will increase with the size of the puppet: labor and materials must be paid for with other labor and materials. You don’t get something from nothing.

The price of an object is a general measure of the effort that went in to making it, thus the higher the price the more labor expended. If something can be made cheaper, that means in the end less money will give one more products. It’s the “less effort-more stuff” mantra that we stated at the beginning. But the price of this puppet will be a little more coming from the government than it would be in a free market. The cost of being able to carry out the threats, the cost of “organizing” the labor, and the cost of inefficiency imposed by a forced monopoly (which includes sloppy labor and shoddy materials since the people involved have no incentive to do well: they will get payed the same for a “good” job as well as a bad. Remember “there are few people who would rather work hard for a miserable life than work little for a great one.”) all factor in and show that people do not benefit from government. Rather it seems that unnecessary work comes from trying to sustain the leviathan that is the State.

All all th
is unnecessary work is hidden in taxes. People work and are payed for their work. The government says that because you live in “their” land that they are entitled to a piece of your labor. The taxes that pay the wages of the government are taken under their implicit threat of gun point. What distinction then is there between them and the basest of criminals? By taking away the fear the government has over its citizens it rids itself of the only sway it has. No one but the most naive still believes in the benevolent government. That’s the nugget of truth: there must be fear of the government to sustain the government.

However, the government can’t survive on fear alone or eventually the people would lash out: when you’ve got nothing to lose, you’ve got everything to gain. So what the government does is try to show that without it, people would be impossibly out of luck. Who would make the roads, who would provide the justice system, the military defense? Who would make affordable housing possible, eliminate discrimination, bolster the minimum wage? If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about answers. In order to make these things issues, the government must step in and make the problem. Civil rights wouldn’t have been an issue if the government hadn’t instigated the problem. Pollution wouldn’t be an issue if the government had upheld property rights. Education wouldn’t be half the problem it is without the government mandated public education. Thus the government must show that there are problems that only it can solve, in order to stay relevant. But more and more problems are increasingly the result of government: the economy, the war, the roads. All the government.

And that’s what I love about it. The problems that we experience in our country today are not of our own doing. It is not from our effort to hold down a job, pay a mortgage, or strive for an education that’s shooting this country to hell. It is the growing, inefficient government. Spinning our wheels only makes sense, but with the weight of government, I am surprised we are able to make it anywhere at all.

So thank you government for taking my money without my consent, thank you for providing me with services that I don’t want, thank you for providing legislation that bogs me down, thank you for not caring about me personally, thank you for giving your friends favors that they could not come to by legitimate means, thank you for your remarkable inefficiency in every avenue you wish to purse, thank you for being not only untrustworthy, but reliably so. Thank you most of all for every injustice you foist upon the public, for every bit of apathy we feel when you do something dumb, for every time you are indifferent to the direction you wish to steer this country as long as you are the one at the wheel. I am thankful because every time you show just how pointless you are, another person questions your legitimacy. Every bad decision you make, every increase to your girth, every thing you do is leading to your inevitable collapse. Through out time we have seen your cleverer and cleverer ways to show that we need you…but the truth has a way of interrupting that sad delusion: we don’t need you. I am thankful because the more you show yourself, the more we get to see of you, the more we get to see how unnecessary you really are.

Georgia on my mind…but only because the State put it there…

Barry Belmont — Mon, 18 Aug 2008 10:34:00 +0000

Jack Handey in one of his more famous (and funny) bits of “Deep Thoughts” once said, “I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they’d never expect it.” Little did he know, but in his mind a new war will be fought.

On August 13, 2008 the National Research Council (a committee made by the Department of Defense) released a report “Emerging Cognitive Neuroscience and Related Technologies,” that explores such disturbingly brave, new technologies as lie detectors, brain-machine interfaces, and mind controlling and altering drugs. And while I applaud the use of technology and science to grasp the farthest (and ironically, innermost) boundaries of humanity, having the military do it is a little scary, to say the least.