Rothbard is Iron Man! So we learn at the end of this piece by Jeff Tucker.
Now there’s an image that sticks in the mind ….
Tag Archives | Anarchy
Tax Radar
[Note: “Tax” is functioning adjectivally rather than imperatively in the above title.]
William Gillis writes today:
A Desperately Needed Note To Anarcho-Capitalists From The Poor
Guys, the more y’all make taxes the center and end-all of your critique the less we give a damn. Some of us don’t make enough to pay them. And some of us have never bothered paying them anyway, especially in states without sales tax. What are they going to do, audit us?
Taxation is simply not on our radar.
The more it matters to you, the less you matter to us.
I think he’s partly right and partly wrong on this.
Where he’s right is that libertarians and anarcho-capitalists too often stress issues affecting the middle class (and all too often the rich!) and say far too little about those affecting the poor.
But my gripelets are these: first, he makes it sound as though “the poor” and “anarcho-capitalists” are non-overlapping groups – whereas I’ve known plenty of desperately poor anarcho-capitalists (and have been one myself, for that matter). And second, he makes it sound as though taxes hurt only those who pay them – whereas every dollar transferred from the voluntary to the coercive sector makes the economy slower, less competitive, and less productive, cements the already-rich in their positions of privilege, depresses wages, increases costs (and thus prices), and makes it harder to start new enterprises, thus closing off the principal means by which the poor can escape poverty (namely either being hired by such enterprises or starting such enterprises themselves).
If taxes aren’t on the poor’s radar, they should be – since those too poor to pay taxes are in fact the principal victims of taxation.
Click Here For Punishment!
I see that my 1999 Social Philosophy & Policy article “The Irrelevance of Responsibility” (which is mostly about the application of libertarian rights theory to issues of legal responsibility and punishment) is now online at Google Books. (The preview of the issue is limited, but my article is complete.)
Nock on Radicalism
[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]
Check out a great Albert Jay Nock piece from 1920, resurrected today on the Mises site. Here’s an excerpt:
The liberal believes that the State is essentially social and is all for improving it by political methods …. Hence, he is interested in politics, takes them seriously, goes at them hopefully, and believes in them as an instrument of social welfare and progress. He is politically minded, with an incurable interest in reform, putting good men in office, independent
administrations, and quite frequently in third-party movements. … The radical, on the other hand, believes that the State is fundamentally antisocial and is all for improving it off the face of the earth; not by blowing up officeholders … but by the historical process of strengthening, consolidating and enlightening economic organization. The radical has no substantial interest in politics, and regards all projects of political reform as visionary. He sees, or thinks he sees, quite clearly that the routine of partisan politics is only a more or less elaborate and expensive byplay indulged in for the sake of diverting notice from the primary object of all politics and political government, namely, the economic exploitation of one class by another; and hence all candidates look about alike to him …. The liberal looks with increasing favor upon the socialization of industry …. The radical keeps pointing out that while this is all very well in its way, monopoly values will as inevitably devour socialized industry as they now devour what the liberals call capitalistic industry.
(Note: I don’t necessarily endorse Nock’s particular terminology. If we think about what the central principles of (classical) liberalism originally were, then a radical, in Nock’s sense, is just a consistent liberal. Herbert Spencer and Gustave de Molinari, for example, were surely both liberals and radicals; and the individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker described himself as an “unterrified Jeffersonian democrat” and a “consistent Manchester-man.”)
If You Vote, Vote for Ruwart
Okay, I promise I don’t want this blog to become Ruwartcentric in the way that LRC for a while was Paulocentric; but bear with me for a moment. I just want to note that I’ve offered the Ruwart campaign the following endorsement, or quasi-endorsement-ish thingy. (Whether they will post it on their endorsements page I don’t know.) See my clarificatory note afterward, below.
I was delighted to learn that Dr. Mary Ruwart has declared her candidacy for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination.
We sometimes hear that in choosing a Libertarian Party candidate there’s a necessary trade-off between consistency and persuasiveness – that an unswerving adherence to libertarian principle is incompatible with presenting libertarianism to newcomers in a non-off-putting way, so that candidates must either be thoroughgoing libertarians who alienate voters, or else wishy-washy moderates who water down the ideas to win people over.
Mary Ruwart’s candidacy represents an ideal opportunity for the Party to avoid both horns of this dilemma. On the one hand, in her longstanding commitment to liberty she is uncompromising – arguably more so (and certainly no less so) than any previous LP presidential candidate. But on the other hand, she is extraordinarily gifted at presenting radical ideas in a compelling and non-threatening way; in this respect she contrasts positively with all too many LP candidates who present far more moderate positions in a manner that makes them sound far more extremist!
A crucial part of Dr. Ruwart’s effectiveness as a libertarian communicator is her ability to bring out the pro-common-people, anti-privilege aspect of libertarian economic ideas. Because, let’s face it, libertarianism has a reputation problem. Many non-libertarians see it as a philosophy for those who glorify the corporate elite and have little concern with poverty, racism, or the environment – and libertarians’ own rhetoric can all too often contribute to this perception.
I can’t think of any candidate who could do more to combat this stereotype than Mary Ruwart. In particular, Dr. Ruwart is better than any other candidate I know of at dispelling the charge that free market principles benefit the rich at the expense of the poor; in fact, nearly every chapter of her excellent outreach book Healing Our World (buy lots of copies and distribute them widely!) has a section explaining how in fact the “rich get richer” and “poor get poorer” thanks to government intervention. Her approach might best be described as the pursuit of Green ends by Libertarian means – and it’s an approach whose attractiveness she has a remarkable ability to convey.
Thanks to Dr. Ruwart’s decision to enter the race, there is no need for the “Party of Principle” to choose between principle and practicality. I enthusiastically urge all Libertarian Party members to support Mary Ruwart’s candidacy for the presidential nomination.
Roderick T. Long
Philosophy Professor at Auburn University,
and Editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies
Does this mean that Mary Ruwart has lured me back to believing that a focus on electoral politics is the most effective strategy for the libertarian movement? Nah. But I think self-identified libertarian political candidates definitely affect public awareness and perception of libertarian ideas, and thereby have an impact on the success of non-electoral libertarian strategies as well, so as long as there’s an LP it matters who its candidates are. And as an effective communicator of a (relatively) left-oriented, Green-tinted, “bleeding-heart” version of libertarianism that is nevertheless at the same time fairly radical/consistent/plumbline/purist, Mary would help to build and shape a libertarian movement that is all those things as well – which is the kind of libertarian movement I want. Moreover, as Less Antman points out, Mary’s campaign should also boost sales of her books and thus help to spread radical libertarian ideas, a welcome result even for anti-electoral libertarians.
Good Cult, Bad Cult
The supposedly moderate Cato Institute is promoting a book called The Cult of the Presidency, even as the supposedly radical Libertarian Party quakes in perpetual terror of the phrase “cult of the omnipotent state” in its own platform for fear it will make the party look immoderate. Go figure.