Steve Horwitz - How Did we Get Here? (Good Read)

[AlexMerced]

http://bleedingheartlibertarians.co...-20-year-old-newsletters-matter-so-damn-much/

This article will probably piss a lot of people off, but I thought it was worth reading from a fairly regarded austrian economist

thoughts?

 

[TexMac]

Did you get the impression that Steve had to go wash his hands about 50 times to get the paleo-libertarian stink off after writing that piece?

I've always pictured Lew and Murray as down in the trenches, sleeves rolled up and willing to get down in the mud to advance their ideas, doing all the intellectual hard lifting, by the way, while people like Steve stood off to the side in their starched shirts and complained. Sure, the paleo-lib faction made some mistakes, but look where we are now, with Ron poised to win Iowa. Would we be here if Steve was the guy in charge of advancing Austrian ideas? Obviously not.

Anyway, they all wrote these same hand-wringing posts four years ago and as soon as Ron wasn't winning, they dropped it. So much for their dedication to purifying the cause of all us unsavory characters who support Ron through it all.

Politics is about building coalitions and Murray was right. Witness the success of Ron Paul.

 

[AlexMerced]

Did you get the impression that Steve had to go wash his hands about 50 times to get the paleo-libertarian stink off after writing that piece?

I've always pictured Lew and Murray as down in the trenches, sleeves rolled up and willing to get down in the mud to advance their ideas, doing all the intellectual hard lifting, by the way, while people like Steve stood off to the side in their starched shirts and complained. Sure, the paleo-lib faction made some mistakes, but look where we are now, with Ron poised to win Iowa. Would we be here if Steve was the guy in charge of advancing Austrian ideas? Obviously not.

Anyway, they all wrote these same hand-wringing posts four years ago and as soon as Ron wasn't winning, they dropped it. So much for their dedication to purifying the cause of all us unsavory characters who support Ron through it all.

Politics is about building coalitions and Murray was right. Witness the success of Ron Paul.

Yeah, I agree, I think Steves point not that you shouldn't build coalition, but that it matters who you build coalitions with.

Although I agree, Ron Paul has definetley taken a ragtag bunch and been able to break the idea of Liberty to mainstream and Ron Paul is and will always be my hero for waking me up.

 

[KingNothing]

That was a great read. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.

 

[TexMac]

Yeah, I agree, I think Steves point not that you shouldn't build coalition, but that it matters who you build coalitions with.

Although I agree, Ron Paul has definetley taken a ragtag bunch and been able to break the idea of Liberty to mainstream and Ron Paul is and will always be my hero for waking me up.

Yeah, but you know Steve is never going to build a coalition with anyone. Lew, Murray, and Ron actually did it and sure it's messy and not perfect, but when is politics ever perfect? Never.

I see even La Postrel has shown up to inject some venom. Ha, it's really burning them up that Ron's doing so well.

 

[demolama]

Been following Horwitz facebook page since yesterday. It has some interesting exchanges

 

[KingNothing]

The absolutely amazing thing is that ALL of us find the writings to be repugnant and we all know that Ron is actually a decent guy who would never feel hold those views.

...the article really does do a wonderful job of giving us some perspective on all of this, and you have to wonder why Ron -a man of immeasurable principle- would take part in such an effort with Rothbard and Rockwell. That seems very odd.

 

[KingNothing]

Yeah, but you know Steve is never going to build a coalition with anyone. Lew, Murray, and Ron actually did it and sure it's messy and not perfect, but when is politics ever perfect? Never.

Dude, you don't build coalitions on mutual hatred, ignorance, and bigotry. That is a MASSIVE failing of Rothbard. It can't be excused.

Ends do not justify the means.

 

[TexMac]

Ron always kind of stood apart from all that stuff. His goal was to advance a freedom agenda and Austrian economics in the real-world political sphere.

 

[AlexMerced]

This article doesn't diminish voting for Paul, it's about owning the past, again, we can agree that mistakes were made, that has nothing to do with being a die hard supporter now.

This just gives some history for those of us who are trying to understand the context those newsletter were born from, I don't see any reason for Steve not to be telling the truth in the this article he's pretty honest thoughtful guy.

 

[KingNothing]

Incidentally, I don't have a problem with the way Paul has handled this mess. He's said he's imperfect and made more/careless decisions. That's enough for me.

But as a movement we need to know the backstory, and I thank you for posting it.

 

[TexMac]

If you really want the backstory, read this. http://mises.org/books/irrepressible.pdf

 

[Shellshock1918]

Why are we supposed to abandon the Old Right? What is wrong about being anti-New Deal and non-interventionist?

Yes, the content of the letters are bad and libertarians should disavow them. Paul isn't a racist and did not pen those letters.

But reading this blog post made something come to light. The Bleeding Heart Libertarians (Reason included) are anxious to use this phony scandal as an attempt to destroy and association with the right and forge a new alliance with the left. Horwitz said it himself: we have to abandon the Old Right. Why? What is wrong about being a libertarian-conservative? Why is he trying to link the Old Right with racism? I think he is using this scandal to try and redirect the libertarian movement towards his own ideal. Same with Reason. The Libertarian movement should not be on one side or the other but encompass both sides. I am an admitted right-libertarian: I don't like abortion, I think marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and I believe multiculturalism leads to "balkanization" of a country. That being said, I am libertarian in that I do not wish to use force to make people adhere to my ideals. That's what libertarianism is.

 

[Johncjackson]

Did you get the impression that Steve had to go wash his hands about 50 times to get the paleo-libertarian stink off after writing that piece?

I've always pictured Lew and Murray as down in the trenches, sleeves rolled up and willing to get down in the mud to advance their ideas, doing all the intellectual hard lifting, by the way, while people like Steve stood off to the side in their starched shirts and complained. Sure, the paleo-lib faction made some mistakes, but look where we are now, with Ron poised to win Iowa. Would we be here if Steve was the guy in charge of advancing Austrian ideas? Obviously not.

Anyway, they all wrote these same hand-wringing posts four years ago and as soon as Ron wasn't winning, they dropped it. So much for their dedication to purifying the cause of all us unsavory characters who support Ron through it all.

Politics is about building coalitions and Murray was right. Witness the success of Ron Paul.

Correct me if I'm wrong. To me your post implies that, somehow, the RR forays into pandering to bigots was somehow helpful into getting to where we are now and/or that LRC/LvMI groups of Austrians are largely responsible for helping Ron Paul reach political popularity.

I don't think either is true. I think Ron Paul's increased popularity has very little to do with which scholars are advancing Austrian ideas, and I don't think his strategy has been set/influenced by any of that stuff, either. Most RP supporters probably have very little knowledge of who any of these players even are and not that much conscious interest in Austrian economics.

I think Ron Paul is popular because of Ron Paul and a few basic policy beliefs that resonate with millions of people.

 

[Johncjackson]

Yes, the content of the letters are bad and libertarians should disavow them. Paul isn't a racist and did not pen those letters.

I agree with most of your post, and I wouldn't categorize the Old Right as racist as some are doing. I guess I would say abandon those in the old Right that are ( and some do want to use force).

As far as the part I quoted, I agree completely. Unfortunately, there are a lot of supporters here and elsewhere that refuse this and are going out of their way to stick up for not just Ron Paul but the CONTENT of the newsletters. Those who are saying that he didn't write them AND that there isn't anything bigoted/wrong in the Newsletters either haven't read them, are in denial, or just completely oblivious. There are problems with the content of the Newsletters, and I would not suggest going the route of sticking up for them. Not because it "'isn't PC" or not just for political reasons, but because the objectionable content in the newsletters IS bad and not consistent with libertarianism ( political,cultural, or otherwise). Frankly, the more I see people praise the content of the newsletters and/or makeup excuses,it does dampen some of my passion. Because, it IS supposed to be about the ideas and not the just the man, and I want to make sure the right ideas are getting across.

 

[White Bear Lake]

Why are we supposed to abandon the Old Right? What is wrong about being anti-New Deal and non-interventionist?

Yes, the content of the letters are bad and libertarians should disavow them. Paul isn't a racist and did not pen those letters.

But reading this blog post made something come to light. The Bleeding Heart Libertarians (Reason included) are anxious to use this phony scandal as an attempt to destroy and association with the right and forge a new alliance with the left. Horwitz said it himself: we have to abandon the Old Right. Why? What is wrong about being a libertarian-conservative? Why is he trying to link the Old Right with racism? I think he is using this scandal to try and redirect the libertarian movement towards his own ideal. Same with Reason. The Libertarian movement should not be on one side or the other but encompass both sides. I am an admitted right-libertarian: I don't like abortion, I think marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman and I believe multiculturalism leads to "balkanization" of a country. That being said, I am libertarian in that I do not wish to use force to make people adhere to my ideals. That's what libertarianism is.

As someone who would also classify himself as an old right, Robert Taft style conservative/libertarian, I agree completely with this assessment. The movement is growing, which is great, but we shouldn't forget that we're basically an offshoot of the old right Republicans and we're still fighting a lot of the same battles that they were fighting back then: progressive foreign entanglements, interventionist social programs, currency debasement, machine politics, etc.

EDIT: Ugh. I just actually read that article. It has a few tiny good points but is largely BS.

 

[Conza88]

Dude, you don't build coalitions on mutual hatred, ignorance, and bigotry. That is a MASSIVE failing of Rothbard. It can't be excused.

Ends do not justify the means.

What a load of bs. Substantiate your claims, because you will find they are incredibly baseless.

Withdraw your falsehoods, or understand that you are incredibly ignorant and talking about matters you clearly haven't understood.

To alleviate your ignorance read this for some REAL PERSPECTIVE.

Why the Beltway Libertarians Are Trying to Smear Ron Paul​

by Justin Raimondo​

 

[eric4186]

holy wow. Been reading all this stuff for the last hour or two and I feel like I've just taken the red pill and am now starting to understand what's really going on here, the huge history and different sub-factions of the movement, and how everyone's manipulating each other to advance their views. As a young voter getting interested in libertarianism this is very interesting and shows I've got a lot of reading and learning to do to learn about what Ron Paul is really all about.

It's interesting how things aren't really so black and white in a lot of cases despite what people like to tell themselves. Most of the public sees this issue as either Ron Paul is a racist and he's lying or Ron Paul isn't a racist and the media is smearing. It sounds like this is a lot more complicated and has deep, deep roots that go back many years.

 

[AlexMerced]

holy wow. Been reading all this stuff for the last hour or two and I feel like I've just taken the red pill and am now starting to understand what's really going on here, the huge history and different sub-factions of the movement, and how everyone's manipulating each other to advance their views. As a young voter getting interested in libertarianism this is very interesting and shows I've got a lot of reading and learning to do to learn about what Ron Paul is really all about.

It's interesting how things aren't really so black and white in a lot of cases despite what people like to tell themselves. Most of the public sees this issue as either Ron Paul is a racist and he's lying or Ron Paul isn't a racist and the media is smearing. It sounds like this is a lot more complicated and has deep, deep roots that go back many years.

The bottom line, all Libertarians want to further Liberty whether it be Horwitz, Paul, Stossel, Gillespie, Rockwell, or Rothbard

The Libertarian movement has just been known for a lot of internal differences over how to further that Goal, but all these people are still good Liberty loving people even thought they have their differences which is why people who think they need to choose sides in these quarrels frustrate me.

I think it's important to understand these to seem educated and knowledgeable, but as part of a new generation of Libertarians I would rather attempt to Unite the Mises/Rockwell Right Libertarians and Reason/Cato Left Libertarians because at the end of the day they have a LOT more in common, so I'm not one to be part of this quarrel, though I think a lot of us younger folks should be aware.

 

[milo10]

That article was total bs.

One could write a similar article 20 years from now that:

-- A pro-life, anti-choice stance on abortion is wildly anti-libertarian, and that true libertarians who valued freedom sold out by working with pro-lifers.
-- Christianity and religion in general are inherently faith and violence-based, and that true libertarians who valued freedom sold out by working with Christians, and supporting a candidate who believes evolution is a theory.
-- Minarchism and constitutional conservatism are anathema to anarchism, and that the unholy alliance between anarchists and constitutionalists has set back the development of a real anarchist society.

Etc..