In a time where freedom's back is firmly pressed against the wall with a knife at its neck, some publications continue to fight the good fight. The Freeman is one such publication - brush up on your von Mises. Here's a link to the "Bailout Reader" at the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
To some, as one fine economic thinkers put it here a while ago, von Mises is essentially anarchism but he seems far more classical liberal to me. Remember that term? Von Mises was too astute, I believe, in understanding human nature to fall into the anarchist ranks.
Here's an interesting explanation (one I've made on this blog):
"In the following excerpts from the works of Ludwig von Mises, American readers must keep in mind the differences in terminology which are sometimes encountered between the way Americans use political labels today and the way those same words were used by Nineteenth Century and early Twentieth Century European scholars such as Mises. For example, the term "liberal' does not here refer to the Big-Government, welfare-statist tax-and-tax, regulate-and-regulate, and spend-and-spend modern American "liberalism" which characterizes political life in the United States at this time and which is advocated most avidly by the American Democrat Party. Quite the contrary, what Mises means by "liberalism" is classical liberalism -- the system of limited constitutional government, politically unhampered markets, respect for private property, and freedom for the adult individual who lives at peace with his neighbors. In the United States, these ideals are generally called "conservatism" today as the U.S. has strong classical liberal traditions and institutions including the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, private ownership of property, free enterprise (in earlier times of our history at least), respect for the rule of law, etc. When Mises extols the benefits of what he calls "liberalism" here, he does not mean the Big-Government authoritarian leftism of modern American liberalism as demanded by such politicians as Teddy Kennedy, John Kerry, Albert Gore, Barbara Boxer, Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, or the Clintons, but rather the free and open society that emerged as a result of imposing on government (both kings and parliaments) constitutional and legal restrictions -- and especially the general policy of laissez faire with respect to non-violent activities of production and trade -- so that individual freedom and enterprise could thrive without coercive interference."
Those pragmatic voices among us will say it's counter productive to yell against government interventionism. It's better to accept that government has a role to play in today's society since they're not going anywhere.
Socialism is the idea of having no faith in your fellow man to make the right decisions or choice. For socialists, government is the soul and conscience of a people.
All is a matter of balance. Absolute freedom and absolute control are dangerous to our well being and security. Communisme, Socialism, Capitalism are all ways of organizing society, none of them in their pure state can bring well being to the people and peace to the world. We need flexible social and political systems with politicians and citizens wise enough to use the right mix at the right time. Unfortunately we tend to work more on opposition of systems than in complementary terms. But tyhe, this is an utopia.
ReplyDeleteYes form Paul but how and in what form is balance achieved? Where's the source?
ReplyDeleteFor example, is mixing socialism and capitalism "balance?"
I fear that it isn't. It's like putting cheese on your cereal.
I submit balance comes from the individual. If individuals can pursue, as an example, their self-interest with an eye on the universal principle within a capitalist framework then is this not a form of balance?
Capitalism - more to the point, individual liberty - gives humans a shot at improving themselves in a meaningful way. Socialism suffocates it and only finds expression through the construct of a bureaucratic state. The free thinking mind is weeded out.
That is not to suggest people in a socialist state cease thinking, they just lose sense of their intellectual, moral and economic purpose since they live vicariously through the state.
Socialists pass this as being "partners" with the people.
I'm not yet convinced.
Balance is a delicate thing and is not easily achieved. In small societies, individuals taking care of their neighbour is facilitated by proximity. In large contemporary states and quasi state populous cities the neighbour is usually an anonymous and abstract concept. Hence some sort of social and state care is necessary if we don't want to have everything for the few and nothing for most. Call it a form of socialism if you wish but I consider it essential in our modern individualistic societies...although "society" here is a dubious term since it calls for some solidarity, not a readily available commodity.
ReplyDeleteThe state does have a role to play - it's inevitable giving the size of communities/nation-states as you point out.
ReplyDeleteMy only argument is it should be limited. I fear we rely on it too much.
Who knows, common sense might help to find a balance. While falling in love with pure ideas (capitalism, socialism) is against common sense and can lead to disaster.
ReplyDeleteSimplistic, I know.