Realizing Freedom: Cato Institute Scholar Tom G. Palmer on Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice

[Foreshadow44]

What if I said that Libertarian philosophy is sociopathic politics

[Pretendeavor1337]

@Foreshadow44 I can see why you might think this, honestly. However, the most important aspect of any libertarian system is a lack of coercion. Can you really call a lack of coercion sociopathic?

[d0ubtfu]

This guy is a disgrace. I've just read his `obituary' of the late socialist philosopher G. A. Cohen on his blog. I urge people to read it to see what an amoeba. (I also urge people to read Cohen's book "Self-Ownership, freedom and equality", a devastating critique of libertarianism - and probably the reason for Palmer's hostility.

[Shrunkenhead61]

Wow this guy is well groomed! Aside from it, yeah, we should be angry in a healthy direction. Emotions that are "negative" are more than likely repression of a higher cause. It's healthy to discuss and talk about it. I don't think depression is ultimately "genetic" I think it is the sad state of your environment.

[truevoice08]

The problem with Palmer and other beltway libertarians is they think they can work within the system. It makes them woefully underproductive and even counterproductive to the cause of liberty.

[GeorgiaNatoUkraine]

Mr Michael C. Moynihan is son of bitch dirtty asshole and his family is bordel. his mother was prostitute and his children are gaylesbians :))

[memtx]

@GeorgiaNatoUkraine That is such a non intelligent comment. Attacking his family??? Calling his mother a prostitute???

[DRPatJon]

We need a bunch of Happy Hooligans for Free Trade!

[Offatwork]

Anarchy is a stupid idea. An idea that most anarchists haven't fully thought out.

Democracy is quite possibly the best system ever designed. Simply because it is designed, from the bottom up, recognizing methodological individiualism - individuals elect people who best represent them. When their policies don't work for the individuals anymore, the system changes.

It is the only governmental system that seeks to prevent as much civil unrest as possible - keep the peace, so to speak.

[truevoice08]

@Offatwork I don't know about anarchy. But libertarians of the Mises Institute have developed highly sophisticated and intelligent arguments that a polycentric legal system will work. Of course, Mr. Palmer is not interested in it because he is a beltway libertarian. He gets lots of government dough.

[TheNewMusicNetwork]

i'm cuming

[DRPatJon]

As for the lessons from the 19th century, I can speak from my own historical doctoral thesis on the Swedish free traders rethoric. What is remarkable about the free trade of that century is the way it was not reduced to theory, but rather was an all encompassing GOSPEL, with moral, scientific, political and historical significance: free trade was progress and world peace. This was true all the way up to, when free trade became established in academia, then its popular appeal faded.

[natdavi]

in a lot of comments i read, many ppl seem to think that limited gvmt means small gvmt, but they're not the same things. Venezuela's gvmt will always be smaller than Brazil's gvmnt even if it's more socialist.

limited gvmt is one limited to performing only those actions necessary to protect its citizens from the use of force. limited gvmt is not limiting things like the Dept Of Education to a smaller size, it means education is outside the scope of what a proper gvmt should do.

[FRSFreeStateNow]

@natdavi

Brazil's economy is something like 20 times larger then Venezuela so of course their Federal Government is going to be bigger. They also have 7 times as many people. 

[Jaspian]

Wow. I really like this guy. I might just have to buy his book O.O

[darkwhitedirewolf]

"Ineffective peopel feel good about themselves." I like that

[oiuoiu988]

that was a pretty inneffective comment as i have no idea what youre talking about...

[darkwhitedirewolf]

No. Just because YOU do not understand does not make the comment ineffective.

[oiuoiu988]

haha sorry if you took offense i was just kinda looking for an explanation of what it means. is there some other group of people who it makes more sense to?

[ab1tchslap]

Is Tom related to Barney Franks?

[Aurini]

His quote about "We should be proposing a radical free-trade agenda... shouldn't be so afraid of taking risks" - this is the problem I see here in Canada all the time; we are more socially free than you, our American brothers, but we are incredibly complacent.

I agree; all of us need to push, and influence, our countrymen in the distance of greater freedom; it is not enough to say that "This is enough."

[furyofbongos]

"Limited government" = "limited theft" = "limited cancer". Let's not get rid of the cancer, let's just shrink it. A little cancer is a "good" thing.

To have a goal as weak as limited government is morally irresponsible.

Taxation is the initiation of the use of force.

Government can do nothing without taxation (in all its forms including inflation)

Government of any size is the initiation of violence.

Government of any size is fundamentally immoral.

[furyofbongos]

Government must be abolished as a matter of principle.

Just like slavery was abolished.

Abolitionist never settled for "limited" slavery.

[capitalist4life]

What would enforce contracts or stop me from robbing you at gunpoint? I would prefer no government to our current state, but I wouldn't mind a tiny government.

[oiuoiu988]

because the tiny government our founding fathers gave us has turned into the monstrosity you see in 2009. are you under the impression that the state stops people from robbing people? are you seriously under the impression that nobody in a state gets robbed at gunpoint. thats just not the case. even a super-intensive police state wouldnt stop people from robbing you at gunpoint. so the answer to your question of what would stop you from robbing me at gunpoint? my gun.

[FatherTime89]

Yes, a police force good at catching criminals will be good at deterring some would-be robbers but it will never deter all of them, there's always someone desperate/stupid enough to take the risk.

[oiuoiu988]

it would be pure speculation for you to pretend you know it deters anyone, and private police would certainly work better than government police.

[furyofbongos]

@capitalist4life - check out the free audio book called "Practical Anarchy" on freedomainradio dott comm. It's a great read and answers your question directly and also answers just about any other concern regarding a society free from the sanctioned initiation of the use of violence.

-Cheers

[ScottcNehrer]

Good point. Well said.

[FatherTime89]

Then we'd descend into anarchy and a government will form from it. I cannot think of a single society that has existed in an extended state of no government.

[oiuoiu988]

the state only exists if enough people in the territory project legitimacy on it. that is to say they agree with the ideology of the state. participation is enforced only on the margin. if enough people realize the violent and inneficient nature of the state then no group will be able to gain legitimacy as a state. violence isnt enough, they need most of the people to agree with their ideology.

[droogie76]

Anarchy doesn't work, never will.

[ScottcNehrer]

wow. pretty bold statement. How about some support. ? I'm not saying I disagree with you completely I just wonder what kind of knowledge you posses as a warrant for this statement.

[oiuoiu988]

none. hes an idiot.

[FatherTime89]

Government is like food, you can have too much or too little and you need some to survive. To say that no good comes from governments is profoundly ignorant.

[oiuoiu988]

no, its like more like slavery. its something human beings will have get rid of if they want to be free.

[FatherTime89]

anarchy makes us less free than a small government would.

[oiuoiu988]

hahahhahahahahhahah. please explain how.

[FatherTime89]

well let's see with no police force you'd have to spend 24/7 defending what's yours, whereas with a justice system to catch and punish criminals you can leave and actually do something.

[oiuoiu988]

haha, you fool. youre confusing anarchy with chaos. there would be police and they would not be a coercive monopoly so they would have to compete with other police forces to satisfy customers instead of antagonizing them. there would still be courts but once again they wouldnt have a monopoly on law enforcement or dispute resolution so they would be more efficient than state courts. do you honestly think monopolies are efficient and good for society?

[FatherTime89]

Ok how would we set up laws, and who pays for the police? The citizens who have had crime committed against them? What if they're poor and can't afford any? We still have private detectives, even today. Who would make sure the police forces don't overstep boundaries.

There are some things that just work better with public options, like firefighters. In private firefighting companies if your neighbors house is on fire and he doesn't have firemen to come there, well you can only stand there ...

[FatherTime89]

and hope the heat and smoke doesn't damage your property, since you can't call your guys unless the fire actually hits your house.

[oiuoiu988]

haha. do you honestly think we dont have answers for this? you have the common naive problem of not knowing how companies that arent coercive monopolies would do the things that coercive monopolies do. but youre still associating anarchy with chaos and thats just plain silly. im gonna send you a link that answers all these questions we all get from people who fear change.

[oiuoiu988]

do you really believe somebody makes sure the police forces dont overstep their boundaries? i know you couldnt believe that police dont overstep their boundaries, thats too naive even for you. the only reason police CAN overstep their boundaries is because it has a monopoly on law enforcement. this just wouldnt happen on a free market because if it did, people wouldnt contract the services of the infringing police company.

[FatherTime89]

Ok I'm trying to understand your proposal correctly, we the citizens make laws, these become the boundaries of what the private companies can do. If someone breaks the law, one of these companies has to be paid by the victim or on their behalf to find out whodunit. Now supposing they catch the guy, who decides the sentence? Who pays to keep him/her locked up?

[oiuoiu988]

its not a proposal, nor is it a system. the way police forces will work will emerge from free human action just like everything else already has. but here IS a proposal private police patrol streets. someone robs you, you call 911(you also have the option of bypassing 911 and just calling the police company you like dealing with or deem to be most efficient) and report it (911 is connected to and funded by all the police companies that wish to participate in it), CONT. IN NEXT COMMENT

[oiuoiu988]

all officers of the participating police companies get the 911 dispatch call on their radio and the ones that are available will respond if they choose to, the companies will all be trying to catch this guy quicker than the others instead of the closest unit responding and all the other cops continuing to eat donuts. if they catch him, you owe them money if not, you dont(unless the companies decided to charge a nominal fee for calling 911 but this probably wouldnt happen... CONT.

[oiuoiu988]

because people would be incented to direct dial a company to avoid a 911 fee). a private arbitrator would hear his case. i dont wanna get into the ethics of locking people up, but its sufficed to say that rape rooms are not any kind of complicated thing to arrange without a state. prisoners should pay for their own incarceration with their labor but i would personally prefer to see a world where retaliation(not allowed by the state so criminals dont fear it) is a legitimate risk CONT.

[oiuoiu988]

for the criminal to consider and punishment is based more on ostricization and expulsion. whether its law enforcement or dispute resolution it would work much better on a free market and out of the hands of a monopoly. and if its collectivism you are looking for, any of the things i just talked about COULD be paid for by some sort of VOLUNTARY community chest without a state but anyone who understands economics would see that this would make it more expensive and less efficient.

[oiuoiu988]

your biggest mistake is your underestimation of how a free market would vastly increase the efficiency of pursuit and investigation. you would be a lot better off. your only analog to life without a state is some sort of medival chaos but you my friend, cant see the forest for the trees.

[natdavi]

i think it's more important to focus on the moral argument because people will accept a step backward for civilization if they're convinced it's moral to do so.

[oiuoiu988]

it would be such a step forward that its much easier to demonstrate the improvement in efficiency than to convince most people of the fallacy of their collectivist ideology.

[Aurini]

@furyofbongos

I have a great deal of sympathy to the anarchist position; I think that many of us do. But is treating us as the enemy truly the best path?

Unlike most, we AGREE that police should not kick down our doors for spurious reasons; our disagreement is over whether paying taxes for the sake of courts and roadways is sensible.

Bringing up this argument, upon a video which considers plausible methods to avoid things we both hate, undermines both our positions. Please reconsider.

[furyofbongos]

Aurini How have my comments portrayed you as my enemy? I would say they are firm, and one line was slightly snarky at worse, which I do regret ("...cancer is a "good" thing).

My args are on the basis of the concept of principle. It is a principle that the init of use of force is fundamentally immoral. Reduced force is still force and is still immoral.

Coercion for roads etc is an argument from pragmatism.

We as a society have a choice: principle or pragmatism.

Abolitionists chose principle.

[oiuoiu988]

not to mention monopolies(government programs and public works projects are monopolies) are terribly innefficient because they have no incentive to please the customer.

[morty10135]

The largest problem I see with the anarchist problem is how would you prevent someone from aggregating power?

If there were private police forces, what if someone could get enough power to himself that he could initiate force without fear of reprisal. Buy off the police to protect his interests.

The only way I could see it ever working is that you had a very moral society. But I fear that eventually someone would figure out a way to create their own power base and impose "their" government.

[furyofbongos]

@morty10135 - Good question. Can't be answered in a YT comment thought. Check out the free audio book called "Practical Anarchy" on freedomainradio dott comm. It's a great read and answers your question directly and also answers just about any other concern regarding a society free legalized violence.

I think you have a point about requiring a moral society. I would say it's more of a terribly propagandized/indoctrinated society -- as I believe people are born moral, they learn to be immoral.

[morty10135]

@furyofbongos

Thanks for the link. To be honest I don't agree with anarchy, but I like to see people's arguments so I will read the book. I may learn something. I find that many times no one person or group has all the answers. It pays to read other views, if only to see what not to do in some cases.

I also know that anarchists are typically misrepresented, and I am curious to what their views are.

[furyofbongos]

@morty10135 - Much respect for your open-mindedness and curiosity!

(personally, I prefer the word voluntaryism, much less ambiguous)

[bittergunowner12]

Great stuff.

[njedinjedi]

I don't like that this guy has deployed personal attacks against Lew Rockwell & Hoppe in the past

[CommentComet]

How is it a "personal attack" to point out that they express racist ideas and to quote their writings? Rockwell, who praised the beating of Rodney King and called for banning video cameras, is a neo-confederate racist. Hoppe promotes Euro-racists and gay-bashers. It's not personal to expose that and more. Palmer wrote about them on his column on "The Fever Swamp" -- google it and read for yourself. Then ask if you want to be associated with Rockwell and Hoppe and their populist racism.

[truevoice08]

@CommentComet Mr. Palmer is exactly the kind of guy Hoppe addresses in his opening speech at the PFS so it doesn't surprise me that he is so hostile to the Mises Institute. I suggest you listen to Hoppe's PFS speech first before you side with Palmer. The fact that Palmer thinks majoritarian democracy is consistent with liberty is laughable. Not even a Ron Paul minarchist believes that!

[truvelocity]

I want a break down of every tax penny utilized.

[migkillertwo]

"Nothing good will come of this"

overall, the net effects will be negative, but its quite misleading to say that *nothing* good will come of tariffs. Some workers in the tire industry WILL benefit greatly from these tariffs.

[DoomHippie]

The workers don't benefit from tariffs. It's the big businesses that do.

[migkillertwo]

oh puh-leeze. If you work for a company that has a state-mandated monopoly, you have a pretty good chance of keeping your job.

[thomaserossi]

Tell that to California and you'll find out how wrong you are.

[DoomHippie]

Keeping your Job is not a benefit, it is not an enrichment of your life. Therefore tariffs only help big business.

[toliverfive]

xelenty, would there be any taxes in your favored type of human interactions? Would there be any government at all?

I believe that some coercion is needed for the framework needed to protect citizen from citizen and a nation from outside aggression.

[787Bisurdaddy]

"I believe that some coercion is needed for the framework needed to protect citizen from citizen and a nation from outside aggression."

Do you realize that not only was this kind of argument already refuted decades ago, but that historical examples such as anarchic Iceland and Ireland show this to not be the case?

[xelenty]

Th free market itself is a great example in itself of why govt doesn't work.. In the free market good companies prosper, bad ones are liquidated.. To hand one organisation (lets call it govt) the monopoly of violence contravenes that principle.. Which is exactly why we have the govts of today.. Govt fails, govt gets bigger and bigger.. So the sooner we remove govts altogether.. the better off we all will be..

[grraadd]

FDR pushed to war like hell...

All those socialist shitheads eventually end up at war. Centralized "European Union" and communist USA - imagine a conflict that pair can produce........

[CountArtha]

Mercantilism begets war.  Always.

[787Bisurdaddy]

It's not mercantilism, it's statism. Wars are started by states. Always.

[TheMarketAssassin]

great stuff

[xelenty]

Minarchist clap trap as always.. Libertarians have been trying this tact for 80 years to no avail.. Consistent application of the non aggression principle is the only way..

[toliverfive]

Tell us more xelenty.

[xelenty]

Well, any form of govt whether big or limited is in itself in direct conflict with the non aggression principle.. The political system only seeks to use forceful and not voluntary solutions to everyday human interactions..

[Aurini]

Damn, be careful of this language xelenty; while absolutely accurate, it seems to go against the philosophy of the speaker in this video.

While both of us agree on the innate aggressiveness of *bureaucrats* most people are upset by a distrust in *gov't*. You see what I did there?

Your comments, though brilliant, imitate the poorly-worded sentiments of the communist/anarchist fringe; and thereby devalidate your own argument (within the only court which matters).

[xelenty]

I'm sorry Aurini but that is a straw man as well you know.. If my previous comments are invalid.. Then please invalidate them from first principles and not by an argument from affectation.

[natdavi]

the "any form" of government conflicting with non-aggression is anarchistic. That part of your argument is invalid b/c a government whose powers are limited to protecting it's citizens from aggression is not only compatible with non-aggression, it's absolutely necessary.

For anyone who's interested that's also why anarchy is invalid.

A proper government must use force against aggressors b/c there's no other way to deal with them.

[xelenty]

So my argument is invalid and yet your minimal govt argument has already been proved wrong.. quite literally before our eyes.. over the last 150 years..  Minimal govt will become big govt eventually and we'll be right back at square one.. By the way please invalidate my argument from first principles not preferences

[Keylimedelight]

Good stuff, thanks.