politics and politicians
See other politics and politicians Articles
Title: What Libertarians Get Wrong About American History
Source:
Reason
URL Source: http://reason.com/archives/2015/04/ ... tarians-must-get-history-right
Published: Apr 12, 2015
Author: Sheldon Richman
Post Date: 2017-07-08 01:11:19 by Gatlin
Keywords: None
Views: 5094
Comments: 22
American history is not an essentially libertarian story. Understanding history as best we can is important for obvious reasons. It’s particularly important for libertarians who want to persuade people to the freedom philosophy. In making their case for individual freedom, mutual aid, social cooperation, foreign nonintervention, and peace, libertarians commonly place great weight on historical examples most often drawn from the early United States. So if they misstate history or draw obviously wrong conclusions, they will discredit their case. Much depends therefore on getting history right. Libertarians naturally sense that their philosophy will be easier to sell to the public if they can root it in America's heritage. This is understandable. Finding common ground with someone you’re trying to persuade is a good way to win a fair hearing for your case. Well-known aspects of early American history, at least as it is usually taught, fit nicely with the libertarian outlook; these include Thomas Paine’s pamphlets, the opening passages of the Declaration of Independence, and popular animosity toward arbitrary British rule. The problem arises when libertarians cherry-pick confirming historical anecdotes while distorting or ignoring deeper disconfirming evidence. The drawbacks to grounding the case for freedom in historical inaccuracies should be obvious. If a libertarian with a shaky historical story encounters someone with sounder historical knowledge, the libertarian is in for trouble. The point of discussing libertarianism with nonlibertarians is not to feel good but to persuade. If the history is wrong, why should anyone believe anything else the libertarian says? The damage done to a young person new to libertarianism is particularly tragic. Discovery of the libertarian philosophy, especially when combined with the a priori approach of Austrian economics, can make young libertarians feel virtually omniscient and ready for argument on any relevant topic. When such libertarians venture into empirical areas—such as history—they are prone to use ideology or the a priori method as guides to the truth. If libertarians with this frame of mind run into serious students of history, the results can be traumatic. The disillusionment can be so great that a young libertarian might decide to keep quiet from then on or give up the philosophy entirely. A libertarian who might have become a powerful advocate is lost to the movement. Thus we owe young libertarians the most accurate historical interpretation possible. Gross oversimplification sets them up for disaster. It's like sending a sheep to the slaughter. Where are libertarians likely to go wrong when it comes to history? By and large, it’s in presenting American history as an essentially libertarian story. [This goes for the industrial revolution in England also.] We’ve all heard it: British imperial rule violated the rights of the American colonists, who—fired up by the ideas of John Locke— drove out the British, adopted limited government and free markets through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and pursued a noninterventionist foreign policy; this lasted until the Progressives and New Dealers came along. It’s not that everything about this overview is wrong; it contains grains of truth. Americans were upset by British arbitrary rule (which violated the accustomed "rights of Englishmen"), and Lockean ideas were in the air. But much of the rest of the libertarian template is more folklore than history. For one thing, the early state governments were hardly strictly limited. Libertarians too readily confuse the desire for a relatively weak central government with the desire for strict limits on government generally. For many Americans a strong central government was seen as an intrusion on state and local government to which they gave their primary allegiance. But that is not a libertarian view; it depends on what people want state and local governments to do. (Jonathan Hughes's The Governmental Habit Redux is helpful here.) Libertarians also wish to believe that the early national government was fairly libertarian-ish. With the exception of slavery and tariffs, it is often explained, government was strictly limited by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Slavery of course was an egregious exception, which was enforced by the national government, and passionate opponents agitated against it. Tariffs were part of a larger system of government intervention, which many libertarians simply ignore. Nor were these the only serious exceptions to an otherwise libertarian program. But before getting to that, we must say something about the Constitution. Libertarians of course know that the Constitution was not the first charter of the United States. But many of them rarely talk about the first one: the Articles of Confederation, which was adopted before the war with Britain ended. Under the Articles the weak national quasi-government lacked, among other powers, the powers to tax and regulate trade, which is why I call it a quasi-government. It obtained its money from the states, which did have the power to tax. So while it could not steal money, it nonetheless subsisted on stolen money. [The Articles were no libertarian document.] Advocates of a unified nation under a powerful central government, such as James Madison, tried immediately to expand government power under the Articles but got nowhere. The centralists eventually arranged for the Federal Convention in Philadelphia, where the Constitution—the acknowledged purpose of which was to produce more, not less, government—was adopted. The libertarian Albert Jay Nock called the convention a coup d’etat because it was only supposed to amend the Articles. Instead, the men assembled tore up the Articles, crafted an entirely new plan that included the powers to tax and to regulate trade, and changed the ratification rules to permit merely nine states to carry the day, instead of the unanimous consent required for amendments to the Articles. The Constitution that was sent to the state conventions for ratification drew the opposition of people who soon were known as Antifederalists. (Those who favored the Constitution’s strong central government were the real antifederalists, but they grabbed the popular "federalist" label first.) The Antifederalists lodged many serious objections to the proposed Constitution, only one of which was the lack of a bill of rights. They saw danger in, among other things, the broad language of the tax power, the general-welfare clause, the supremacy clause, and the necessary-and-proper clause—all of which, in their view, harbored unenumerated powers, contrary to Madison's declaration. The Bill of Rights, which the first Congress later added to the already-ratified Constitution, did not even attempt to address the Antifederalists’ major objections. [History, I submit, has confirmed their predictions of tyranny.] Many libertarians who presumably know this story are strangely silent about it. On the rare occasion they mention the Articles, they say little more than that unspecified problems with them prompted the Philadelphia convention and adoption by the assembled demigod-like Founding Fathers of that ingenious architecture of limited government we know as the Constitution. Then, the story continues, the libertarian masses’ objection to the lack of a bill of rights led to the adoption of the first ten amendments to protect our liberties. All was well until ... One would expect a "government" that lacked the power to tax and regulate trade to be of more interest to libertarians. One would also expect libertarians to be suspicious of a plan to address those alleged deficiencies. Instead, the Articles typically are shunted aside and the Constitution is lauded as a historic achievement in the struggle for liberty. That is odd indeed. I think we can explain this lack of interest in the Articles by noting that it fits poorly into the mainstream libertarian narrative about America. After all, it would be hard to praise the Constitution as a reasonably good attempt to limit government while acknowledging that it replaced a political arrangement under which the government could neither tax nor regulate trade. In that context the Constitution looks like a step backward not forward. This also explains an otherwise inexplicable phenomenon: the lack of interest among many libertarians in the most libertarian of the early Americans: the Antifederalists. [Admittedly, not all Antifederalists were as libertarian as the best of them were.] Libertarians who have what has been called a Constitution fetish could hardly embrace the principled libertarian opponents of their beloved Constitution. The story wouldn't make sense. [See Jeffrey Rogers Hummel’s "The Constitution as Counter- Revolution" (PDF).] Many libertarians also like to paint the early national period in pacific colors, quoting Washington, Jefferson, and Madison against standing armies, alliances, and war. In contrast to today, we’re told, the American people and their "leaders" hated empire and imperialism. But this is misleading. From the start America’s rulers, with public support, were bent on creating at least a continental empire, including Canada, Mexico, and neighboring islands. Some had the entire Western Hemisphere in their sights. Americans were not anti-empire; they were anti-British Empire—or, more accurately, anti-Old-World Empire. They did not want to be colonists anymore. America’s future rulers saw their revolution as a showdown between an exhausted old imperial order and the rising imperial order in the New World. [Of course, it was called an Empire of, or for, Liberty.] Continental expansion—conquest—required an army powerful enough to "remove" the Indians from lands the white population coveted. "Removal"of course meant brutal confinement—so the Indian populations could be controlled—or extermination. This government program constituted a series of wars on foreign nations in the name of national security. Continental expansion also was accomplished by acknowledged unconstitutional acts, such as the national government’s acquisition of the huge Louisiana territory from Napoleon, which placed the inhabitants under the jurisdiction of the U.S. government without their consent. The War of 1812 was motivated in part by a wish to take Canada from the British. [See my "The War of 1812 Was the Health of the State," part 1 and part 2.] A few years later, American administrations began to built up the army and navy in order to bully Spain into ceding another huge area. The U.S. government thus gained jurisdiction over a vast territory reaching to the Pacific Ocean, from which the navy could project American influence and power to Asia. [In light of this empire- building, the Civil War can be seen as empire preservation.] National security was always on the politicians’ minds: the exceptional nation, whose destiny was manifest, could never be safe if surrounded by Old World monarchies and their colonial possessions. American politicians generally hoped to acquire those possessions through negotiation, but war—which major political figures believed was good for the national spirit—was always an option, as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams let the Spanish know in no uncertain terms in the years before 1820. Had Spain been more defiant of Adams, the Spanish-American War would have occurred 78 years earlier than it did. We can acknowledge that leading politicians were domestic liberals, relatively speaking, in that they did not want the national government to intrude (as the British did) arbitrarily into the private affairs of Americans. The resulting personal freedom can account for the rising prosperity. But libertarians tend to push this point too far. In fact, with the War of 1812—slightly more than two decades after ratification of the Constitution—America’s rulers, including former Jeffersonians, favored expanded powers for the national government, including a central role in the economy to create a national market and a national-security state. A pushback by the older Jeffersonian wing of the American political establishment took place briefly, but the centralists soon won the day for good. Alexander Hamilton and Henry Clay were surely smiling.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Gatlin (#0)
(Edited)
This guy has a lot of pro-BigGovernment articles masquerading as libertarian ideas. Reason long ago lost most of its former influence. They are now considered a nest of statist and pro-war "libertarians". IOW, not libertarian by any meaningful measure. I think Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell's crew are much more influential, especially among the under-40 crowd. Really sloppy nonsense. How does he know what Adams would or wouldn't do or even how much support he could muster from the new states in America to take over the Spanish colonies? But, sure, if Spain had defied Adams, he would have invaded. And if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. I notice a fair amount of very weak reasoning sprinkled throughout this article. This guy's grasp of history is not very strong. Reviewing some of his other writings show this consistent with his work. And all of that explains why no one even knows who he is or that he took over Will Grigg's Libertarian Institute after he died this year. Given that this is who is running it since Grigg's death, I expect that the Institute will close shortly, probably within a year.
The messenger is only the beginning of the problem. The article itself meanders between outright error and unprovable assertions into historical commonplaces and stating the obvious. So, yes, I will shoot the messenger if he's no good.
And only YOU will determine if he is good....got it.
How do Libertarians think the federal government was funded back then? Payroll deductions?
And Ayn Rand.
Her books were surprisingly strong sellers and widely read by teens and college kids for a long time. But after the turn of the century, the Millennials just aren't nearly as interested. I would say that Milton Friedman is as widely read or more widely read than Ayn Rand, for instance. Even among young people. Today, you have three camps of libertarian types. You have the von Mises/Hayak/Friedman/Rothbard libertarians (Ron/Rand Paul, Amash, Massie); sometimes just called Rothbardian libertarians. Then you have the crowd at Reason who feels free to advocate for Big Government and a lot of foreign wars (a much smaller group but with Koch money propping them up for decades). Then you have the Left libertarian types who mostly just seem confused to me, I think they're just libertines who crave a respectable label for their immoral behavior (an even smaller group). Then you have the dead and dying remnants of Rand's Objectivist cult (which comprises far less than even the number of registered LP voters).
Aren’t they actually one and the same since Lew Rockwell founded the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn Alabama of which he remains chairman? LewRockwell.com is a blog that is not an open platform where anyone can publish. I see it as a propaganda machine in that every article is entirely subjected to full editorial control. There are never any open debates and every side of a discussion can be be presented. It is easy for anyone to read the title and clearly foresee exactly what the bias of the opinion going to be presented is. So, all anyone can get from LewRockwell.cm is exactly what the editor wants to spoon feed the reader. Given all of this, it’s really surprising that libertarians never wonder why such strange issues and predisposed opinions are being pushed so hard to the libertarian sheeple who are brainwashed into being foolishly docile and easily led. Libertarians are imply gullible and totally accept what they read from Lew Rockwell as the libertarian gospel. So, if they are perfectly ok with a top-notch libertarian propaganda site then LewRockwell.com is the place for them. But it will be best that they try to remember that since no debate takes place there, they are ending up at a dogmatic place that will lead its members into the wrong direction, as TC said….especially among the under-40 crowd, a group that is much more easily influenced. I contend that one needs to have an open debate of issues and that never really happens at LewRockwell.com or the Misses Institute. If it does, then it only happens at an inner sanctum where outsiders cannot see. This is why they have increasingly appeared to me to be so cultish and one reason I see libertarianism as a cult. JMO …
You government teat suckers are the "inner sanctum" ... getting infinite payola for doing nothing in a "career." And America wonders why this nation is broke.
That's waaay right. That's anarchy right. You put yourself in that group?
It is a stable of writers that Rockwell chooses, no doubt. Same as plenty of other outfits like Weekly Standard or The Hill or whoever. I don't see how you fault the publisher for that since they all do it. I would say that it is the scholarly types like Hoppe and the classic writers and scholars like Von Mises and Rothbard whose work is offered by the Von Mises Institute that are the real meat and potatoes of the operation. The blog is just daily commentary from writers that Rockwell thinks are lively. However, the blog writers don't ever really contradict the more scholarly offerings of the Institute. Frankly, I think you don't know the operation well enough to offer an informed opinion. Again, you seem to have no idea of the role played by the Institute. It is the center of their work and scholarship, not their little daily blog. This merely confirms my opinion that you have no idea of the Institute's central role. I would say you have never downloaded or read a single article or book from their site. The Institute offers quite a number of classic books for free. Great stuff too.
Rothbard was no anarchist. At least not in the modern sense. You do see him referred to as an anarcho-capitalist sometimes but that is not some black-shirted anarchist hippie in the modern sense.
Different clothing. Same philosophy -- no government.
You're wrong but we won't settle that on some chat board.
What. You wanna step outside or somethin'?
No. I'm too nice to kick your ass.
On this one I'll be brief. First, I have had conversations with Shel. To his credit he knows banking history and about the centuries long war the Jews have been waging against Christendom via their mastery of banking. I once had a chat going with Shel and Gilad Atzmon which covered that subject, among other things. Shel is an anarchist who sits on the board of the Center for a Stateless Society. So his comments above about how the founders were less libertarian than modern libertarians like to think is in the context of his anarchism -- they weren't anarchic enough for him, and his comments about being libertarian only for white guys is more than a little anachronistic (heh). Still he acknowledges the points I make in my reply to you here where he writes: His close fails to acknowledge the push-pull that went on for 75 years over centralization and taxation. Indeed, in 1834 Jackson "killed the bank" that Hamilton, Webster, and Clay championed. Overall, this article is more scattershot than a shotgun with a short barrel at long range. Few pellets hit the mark. Looks to me like he cranked it out in a hurry for a paycheck.
The founders were “less” libertarian?
Yes ma'am. (Your sentence may as well be "talk to the hand". I can't believe that you've got some of the guys here thinking that you're a man. Well, maybe male-ish LOL).
It would be easy to pick this article to pieces, but I'm not going to. I do agree that Rothbard introduced the Jewish "non-coercive" imposition of costs (on others) into libertarian thought, for which he is roundly criticized. I've been on Rothbardians for libertine- ism since '96. That does not negate the principle of libertarian political philosophy that I sketched on the other thread. Edit: BTW, most Rothbardians identify as an-caps over the last 15 years. Although they have recently been abandoning that label and are attempting to reclaim the libertarian label.
Great....some less bullshit from you.
Awwwww.
Author: Sheldon Richman
American politicians generally hoped to acquire those possessions through negotiation, but war—which major political figures believed was good for the national spirit—was always an option, as Secretary of State John Quincy Adams let the Spanish know in no uncertain terms in the years before 1820. Had Spain been more defiant of Adams, the Spanish-American War would have occurred 78 years earlier than it did.
#2. To: Tooconservative (#1)
(Edited)
Author: Sheldon Richman
#3. To: Gatlin (#2)
#4. To: Tooconservative (#3)
So, yes, I will shoot the messenger if he's no good.
#5. To: Gatlin (#0)
Tariffs were part of a larger system of government intervention, which many libertarians simply ignore.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#1)
I think Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell's crew are much more influential, especially among the under-40 crowd.
#7. To: misterwhite (#6)
And Ayn Rand.
#8. To: Tooconservative, misterwhite (#6)
(Edited)
I think Von Mises Institute and Lew Rockwell's crew are much more influential, especially among the under-40 crowd.
#9. To: Gatlin (#8)
inner sanctum
#10. To: Tooconservative (#7)
Rothbardian libertarians
#11. To: Gatlin (#8)
LewRockwell.com is a blog that is not an open platform where anyone can publish. I see it as a propaganda machine in that every article is entirely subjected to full editorial control. There are never any open debates and every side of a discussion can be be presented. It is easy for anyone to read the title and clearly foresee exactly what the bias of the opinion going to be presented is.
So, all anyone can get from LewRockwell.cm is exactly what the editor wants to spoon feed the reader. Given all of this, it’s really surprising that libertarians never wonder why such strange issues and predisposed opinions are being pushed so hard to the libertarian sheeple who are brainwashed into being foolishly docile and easily led.
Libertarians are imply gullible and totally accept what they read from Lew Rockwell as the libertarian gospel.
I contend that one needs to have an open debate of issues and that never really happens at LewRockwell.com or the Misses Institute.
#12. To: misterwhite (#10)
(Edited)
That's waaay right. That's anarchy right. You put yourself in that group?
#13. To: Tooconservative (#12)
You do see him referred to as an anarcho-capitalist sometimes but that is not some black-shirted anarchist hippie in the modern sense.
#14. To: misterwhite (#13)
#15. To: Tooconservative (#14)
You're wrong but we won't settle that on some chat board.
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
#17. To: Gatlin (#0)
We can acknowledge that leading politicians were domestic liberals, relatively speaking, in that they did not want the national government to intrude (as the British did) arbitrarily into the private affairs of Americans. The resulting personal freedom can account for the rising prosperity.
#18. To: Anthem, nolu chan (#17)
So his comments above about how the founders were less libertarian than modern libertarians like to think is in the context of his anarchism …
That libertarians are still trying to claim the American founding as theirs in the sense of any degree is ridiculous. No, The American Founders Were Not Libertarians.
PERIOD. A closer look at the Founders’ thought about government shows their political philosophy that culminated in the Constitution was anything but libertarian.
I have no stomach for any propaganda attempt to turn such a heaping helping hand of historical revisionism appended to the libertarian cause that tries such foolish talk and deceptive nonsense to show that the Founding Fathers were libertarians in any way whatsoever.
#19. To: Gatlin (#18)
(Edited)
I have no stomach for any propaganda attempt to turn such a heaping helping hand of historical revisionism appended to the libertarian cause that tries such foolish talk and deceptive nonsense to show that the Founding Fathers were libertarians in any way whatsoever.
#20. To: Gatlin (#18)
(Edited)
#21. To: Anthem (#20)
It would be easy to pick this article to pieces, but I'm not going to.
#22. To: Gatlin (#21)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]