WEBVTT

NOTE Rothbard's 'Left and Right': 40 Years Later (video)

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:02.000
The Theory of Money and Credit

2
00:00:30.000 --> 00:00:42.560
More than any other contemporary intellectual, Murray Rothbard stood in the Misesian tradition

3
00:00:42.560 --> 00:00:49.760
of economics. Yet he knew that an intellectual enterprise is an ongoing affair. Scholars must

4
00:00:49.760 --> 00:00:55.760
build upon the foundations of the masters of the past without fracturing them. From the

5
00:00:55.760 --> 00:01:04.760
One of the best traditions in economics and political philosophy, Rothbard erected a theory of liberty that transcended left and right.

6
00:01:04.760 --> 00:01:10.760
Each year we commemorate his achievements with the Murray Rothbard Memorial Lecture.

7
00:01:10.760 --> 00:01:16.760
We are very pleased to have Roderick Long deliver this year's Rothbard Memorial Lecture.

8
00:01:16.760 --> 00:01:23.760
Dr. Long earned an A.B. from Harvard University and a Ph.D. in philosophy from Cornell University.

9
00:01:23.760 --> 00:01:34.760
He has taught philosophy at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, and at the University of Michigan, and is currently professor of philosophy at Auburn University.

10
00:01:34.760 --> 00:01:48.760
He has published scores of articles in popular and scholarly outlets, including the Review of Metaphysics, the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, and the Journal of Libertarian Studies.

11
00:01:48.760 --> 00:02:01.760
Dr. Long is president of the Molinary Institute and the Molinary Society, editor of the Journal of Libertarian Studies, and a senior faculty member at the Mises Institute.

12
00:02:01.760 --> 00:02:06.760
He will speak on the topic, Rothbard's Left and Right, 40 years later.

13
00:02:06.760 --> 00:02:16.760
Dr. Long.

14
00:02:16.760 --> 00:02:24.760
Thank you, Jeff, and thanks very much to the Rockwell and to the Mises Institute for inviting me to do this.

15
00:02:24.760 --> 00:02:33.760
What an honor and a privilege it is for me to be delivering the Rothbard Memorial Lecture here in the Mises Institute, the world center of Rothbardian thought.

16
00:02:33.760 --> 00:02:39.760
When I was first reading Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty and For a New Liberty back in my college days,

17
00:02:39.760 --> 00:02:44.760
and arguing the merits of Rothbard's title transfer theory of contract with my roommates,

18
00:02:44.760 --> 00:02:51.760
I certainly didn't foresee that one day I would have the opportunity to pay tribute to him in such a venue.

19
00:02:51.760 --> 00:03:00.760
But I'm also struck and a bit saddened at the thought that as far as I know I'm the first Rothbard Memorial lecturer never to have met Rothbard personally.

20
00:03:00.760 --> 00:03:08.760
That's not only a personal regret but also a somber reminder that the era when everyone in the libertarian movement knew Murray Rothbard is passing.

21
00:03:08.760 --> 00:03:13.760
Yet somber hardly seems an appropriate word to use in connection with Rothbard.

22
00:03:13.760 --> 00:03:20.760
Looking through the Rothbard archives upstairs, I came across his fourth grade teacher's report from 1936.

23
00:03:20.760 --> 00:03:22.760
His teacher wrote,

24
00:03:22.760 --> 00:03:31.760
Murray seems to be so exceedingly happy that it is sometimes difficult to control his activities in the class.

25
00:03:31.760 --> 00:03:38.760
He must develop a more controlled behavior in the group.

26
00:03:38.760 --> 00:03:42.760
By all accounts, he never changed.

27
00:03:42.760 --> 00:03:46.760
Tonight I want to talk about an essay that Rothbard wrote just over 40 years ago,

28
00:03:46.760 --> 00:03:50.760
an essay that had an enormous impact on my own intellectual development.

29
00:03:50.760 --> 00:03:56.760
In 1965, Rothbard published Left and Right, the Prospects for Liberty,

30
00:03:56.760 --> 00:04:01.760
the keynote editorial on the first issue of a magazine he just founded, also called Left and Right,

31
00:04:01.760 --> 00:04:04.760
the forerunner of his later libertarian forum.

32
00:04:04.760 --> 00:04:09.760
By the way, the complete runs of both the Left and Right and the libertarian forum are online and available

33
00:04:09.760 --> 00:04:39.760
written during the early years of the Vietnam War as the new left was emerging and the old coalition between libertarians and conservatives was beginning to fray, Rothbard's article placed the libertarian movement in a historical context, tracing its past and possible future and called on libertarians to gain a better self-understanding and consequently to rethink their political affiliations and alliances.

34
00:04:39.760 --> 00:04:47.760
In conversation with a piece published by the great classical liberal Herbert Spencer over 80 years earlier, titled, The New Toryism.

35
00:04:47.760 --> 00:04:50.760
The two articles might initially seem antithetical.

36
00:04:50.760 --> 00:04:57.760
Spencer was warning libertarians against the left and opening the door to an alliance with elements on the right.

37
00:04:57.760 --> 00:05:03.760
Rothbard was warning libertarians against the right and recommending an alliance with elements on the left.

38
00:05:03.760 --> 00:05:11.760
Moreover, in his article, Rothbard explicitly named Spencer as having contributed to the ideological confusion he's complaining about.

39
00:05:11.760 --> 00:05:19.760
But in a wider sense, we can see Rothbard's concerns in left and right as a logical development of Spencer's in the new Toryism.

40
00:05:19.760 --> 00:05:27.760
Writing in 1884, Spencer maintained that most of those who now pass as liberals are Tories of a new type.

41
00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:32.760
To defend this claim, he undertakes to remind us what the two political parties originally were.

42
00:05:32.760 --> 00:05:34.760
So here's Spencer.

43
00:05:34.760 --> 00:05:37.760
Dating back to an earlier period than their names,

44
00:05:37.760 --> 00:05:43.760
the two political parties at first stood, respectively, for two opposed types of social organization,

45
00:05:43.760 --> 00:05:47.760
broadly distinguishable as the militant and the industrial,

46
00:05:47.760 --> 00:05:53.760
types which are characterized, the one by the regime of status and the other by the regime of contract.

47
00:05:53.760 --> 00:06:00.000
These two are definable as the system of compulsory cooperation and the system of voluntary cooperation.

48
00:06:00.000 --> 00:06:03.920
The typical structure of the one we see in an army formed of conscripts,

49
00:06:03.920 --> 00:06:08.000
in which the units in their several grades have to fulfill commands under pain of death

50
00:06:08.000 --> 00:06:12.360
and receive food and clothing and pay arbitrarily apportioned.

51
00:06:12.360 --> 00:06:16.360
While the typical structure of the other we see in a body of producers or distributors

52
00:06:16.360 --> 00:06:20.800
who severally agree to specified payments in return for specified services

53
00:06:20.800 --> 00:06:26.520
and may it will, after due notice, leave the organization if they do not like it."

54
00:06:26.520 --> 00:06:30.960
The Tories, then, had traditionally been the advocates of hierarchy and compulsion,

55
00:06:30.960 --> 00:06:37.240
while the liberals had traditionally championed voluntary association and free trade.

56
00:06:37.240 --> 00:06:40.600
In left and right, Rothbard makes the same identification.

57
00:06:40.600 --> 00:06:42.080
So here's Rothbard.

58
00:06:42.080 --> 00:06:45.480
There are developed in Western Europe two great political ideologies.

59
00:06:45.480 --> 00:06:53.360
One was liberalism, the party of hope, of radicalism, of liberty, of the industrial revolution, of progress, of humanity.

60
00:06:53.360 --> 00:07:03.520
The other was conservatism, the party of reaction, the party that longed to restore the hierarchy, statism, theocracy, serfdom and class exploitation of the old order.

61
00:07:03.520 --> 00:07:13.800
Political ideologies were polarized with liberalism on the extreme left and conservatism on the extreme right of the ideological spectrum."

62
00:07:13.800 --> 00:07:20.800
and Rothbard is surely right in thinking that what we now call free market libertarianism was originally a left-wing position.

63
00:07:20.800 --> 00:07:27.800
The great liberal economist, Frederic Bastiat, sat on the left side of the French National Assembly with the anarcho-socialist Proudhon.

64
00:07:27.800 --> 00:07:35.800
Many of the causes we now think of as paradigmatically left-wing, feminism, racism, anti-racism, anti-militarism,

65
00:07:35.800 --> 00:07:42.800
the defense of laborers and consumers against big business were traditionally embraced and promoted specifically by free market radicals.

66
00:07:42.800 --> 00:07:51.800
So what happened to the political spectrum? This is the question that Spencer and Rothbard, from their different historical vantage points, are each trying to answer.

67
00:07:51.800 --> 00:07:58.800
The version of the question that Spencer is addressing is, how did the left become associated with statism?

68
00:07:58.800 --> 00:08:08.800
Rothbard addresses that question as well, but his primary focus is on the question, how did free market libertarianism become associated with the right?

69
00:08:08.800 --> 00:08:11.800
Let's begin with Spencer's diagnosis. Here's Spencer.

70
00:08:11.800 --> 00:08:18.800
How is it that liberalism, getting more and more into power, has grown more and more coercive in its legislation?

71
00:08:18.800 --> 00:08:29.800
How are we to explain the spreading confusion of thought, which has led it, in pursuit of what appears to be public good, to invert the method by which in earlier days it achieved public good?

72
00:08:29.800 --> 00:08:34.800
We may understand the kind of confusion in which liberalism has lost itself,

73
00:08:34.800 --> 00:08:39.800
and the origin of those mistaken classings of political measures which have misled it,

74
00:08:39.800 --> 00:08:45.800
classings as we shall see by conspicuous external traits instead of by internal natures.

75
00:08:45.800 --> 00:08:54.800
For what in the popular apprehension and in the apprehension of those who affected them were the changes made by liberals in the past?

76
00:08:54.800 --> 00:08:57.800
They were abolitions of grievances suffered by the people.

77
00:08:57.800 --> 00:09:02.800
This was the common trait they had which most impressed itself on men's minds.

78
00:09:02.800 --> 00:09:11.800
The welfare of the many came to be conceived alike by liberal statesmen and liberal voters as the aim of liberalism, hence the confusion.

79
00:09:11.800 --> 00:09:17.800
The gaining of a popular good being the external conspicuous trait common to liberal measures in earlier days,

80
00:09:17.800 --> 00:09:21.800
then in each case gained by a relaxation of restraints,

81
00:09:21.800 --> 00:09:25.800
it has happened that popular good has come to be sought by liberals

82
00:09:25.800 --> 00:09:31.800
not as an end to be indirectly gained by relaxations of restraints, but as the end to be directly gained.

83
00:09:31.800 --> 00:10:01.800
In short, Spencer's analysis is that liberals came to conceptualize liberalism in terms of its easily identifiable effects, benefits for the masses, rather than in terms of its essential nature, laissez-faire, and so began to think that any measure aimed at the end of benefits for the masses must count as liberal, whether pursued by the traditional liberal means of laissez-faire.

84
00:10:01.800 --> 00:10:06.800
In short, liberalism became the pursuit of liberal ends by Tory means.

85
00:10:06.800 --> 00:10:11.800
In Left and Right, Rothbard offers a similar analysis of state socialism.

86
00:10:11.800 --> 00:10:19.800
Quote, libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed.

87
00:10:19.800 --> 00:10:26.800
But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world.

88
00:10:26.800 --> 00:10:32.800
is a way of mistake responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world.

89
00:10:32.800 --> 00:10:36.800
As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty.

90
00:10:36.800 --> 00:10:43.800
And socialism, while to the left of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement.

91
00:10:43.800 --> 00:10:50.800
It was and still is middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means.

92
00:10:50.800 --> 00:11:04.800
Socialism, like liberalism and against conservatism, accepted the industrial system and the liberal goals of freedom, reason, mobility, progress, higher living standards for the masses, and an end to theocracy and war.

93
00:11:04.800 --> 00:11:14.800
But it tried to achieve these ends by the use of incompatible conservative means, statism, central planning, communitarianism, etc.

94
00:11:14.800 --> 00:11:24.800
This idea that libertarians and state socialists disagree about means rather than ends is also advanced by Spencer's contemporary, Gustav de Molinari, the founder of free market anarchism.

95
00:11:24.800 --> 00:11:29.800
In an 1848 letter to socialists, Molinari wrote, quote,

96
00:11:29.800 --> 00:11:34.800
We are adversaries, and yet the goal which we both pursue is the same.

97
00:11:34.800 --> 00:11:39.800
What is the common goal of economists, which is his term for classical liberals, and socialists?

98
00:11:39.800 --> 00:11:46.800
Is it not a society where the production of all the goods necessary to the maintenance and embellishment of life shall be as abundant as possible?

99
00:11:46.800 --> 00:11:51.800
And where the distribution of these same goods among those who have created them through their labor shall be as just as possible?

100
00:11:51.800 --> 00:11:54.800
Only we approach this goal with different paths.

101
00:11:54.800 --> 00:11:58.800
Why do you refuse to follow the path of liberty alongside us?

102
00:11:58.800 --> 00:12:06.800
If you became certain that you have been mistaken as to the true cause of the evils which afflict society and the means of remedying them,

103
00:12:06.800 --> 00:12:10.800
You would come over to us."

104
00:12:10.800 --> 00:12:14.800
But what brought about, among those who sought liberal ends,

105
00:12:14.800 --> 00:12:18.800
this tendency to substitute conservative for liberal means?

106
00:12:18.800 --> 00:12:22.800
Is it merely, as Spencer supposes, the natural human tendency of

107
00:12:22.800 --> 00:12:26.800
undeveloped intellectual vision to classify phenomena according to external resemblances

108
00:12:26.800 --> 00:12:30.800
instead of intrinsic structures? Rothbard suggests

109
00:12:30.800 --> 00:12:34.800
an additional factor, the abandonment of natural rights and higher law

110
00:12:34.800 --> 00:12:54.800
Law Theory for Utilitarianism. Rothbard maintains that only a theory that condemns aggression as inherently unjust, as opposed to merely inexpedient, can serve to provide a radical base outside the existing system from which to challenge the status quo and provide a sense of necessary immediacy to the libertarian struggle.

111
00:12:54.800 --> 00:13:01.800
To this we might add that only a non-utilitarian theory can make a principal distinction between negative and positive rights.

112
00:13:01.800 --> 00:13:09.800
For the utilitarian, all that matters is the final result, and not whether it came about through removing constraints or through adding them.

113
00:13:09.800 --> 00:13:16.800
Since Spencer was himself a utilitarian of sorts, it's no surprise that he did not identify this factor.

114
00:13:16.800 --> 00:13:23.800
A further fatal tendency within liberalism, Rothbard adds, was the conversion of Spencer and other like-minded liberals.

115
00:13:23.800 --> 00:13:29.800
to a doctrine of evolutionary gradualism, whereby thousands of years of infinitely gradual evolution

116
00:13:29.800 --> 00:13:33.800
would ultimately lead to the next supposedly inevitable stage of individualism,

117
00:13:33.800 --> 00:13:37.800
a process which no agitation could accelerate.

118
00:13:37.800 --> 00:13:42.800
This led, says Rothbard, to the abandonment of liberalism as a fighting radical creed

119
00:13:42.800 --> 00:13:47.800
in favor of a weary rearguard action against the growing collectivism of the late 19th century.

120
00:13:47.800 --> 00:13:49.800
in the 19th century.

121
00:13:49.800 --> 00:13:55.800
Hence those with an orientation toward activism were led to abandon the old libertarian form of liberalism

122
00:13:55.800 --> 00:13:59.800
for the more energetic and proactive state socialist version.

123
00:13:59.800 --> 00:14:05.800
While those liberals who resisted the slide towards state socialism found themselves drifting toward the pessimistic

124
00:14:05.800 --> 00:14:08.800
and reactionary outlook of traditionalist conservatism.

125
00:14:08.800 --> 00:14:15.800
A new political spectrum or a new way of thinking about the political spectrum was beginning to form.

126
00:14:15.800 --> 00:14:23.800
and State Socialism on the left, and Conservatism on the right, with former libertarians gravitating toward one side or the other according to temperament.

127
00:14:23.800 --> 00:14:36.800
For Rothbard, the things won't get better for a long while yet gradualism of the evolutionary liberals matched all too well the things keep getting worse pessimism of the conservatives.

128
00:14:36.800 --> 00:14:45.800
Part of the motivation for the liberal's weary rearguard action was the conviction that the trend of history, at least for the foreseeable future, lay with state socialism.

129
00:14:45.800 --> 00:14:51.800
But Rothbard thinks such pessimism is based on a misunderstanding of economics and of history.

130
00:14:51.800 --> 00:14:55.800
State socialism is doomed because, quote,

131
00:14:55.800 --> 00:15:05.800
Everywhere the masses have opted for higher living standards and the promise of freedom and everywhere the various regimes of statism and collectivism cannot fulfill these goals.

132
00:15:05.800 --> 00:15:10.800
Only liberty, only a free market can organize and maintain an industrial system.

133
00:15:10.800 --> 00:15:17.800
And the more that population expands and explodes, the more necessary is the unfettered working of such an industrial economy.

134
00:15:17.800 --> 00:15:24.800
Laissez-faire and the free market become more and more evidently necessary as an industrial system develops.

135
00:15:24.800 --> 00:15:28.800
Radical deviations cause breakdowns in economic crises.

136
00:15:28.800 --> 00:15:34.800
This crisis of statism becomes particularly dramatic and acute in a fully socialist society.

137
00:15:34.800 --> 00:15:43.800
And hence the inevitable breakdown of statism has first become strikingly apparent in the countries of the socialist, that is, communist camp.

138
00:15:43.800 --> 00:15:47.800
For socialism confronts its inner contradiction most starkly.

139
00:15:47.800 --> 00:15:51.800
Desperately it tries to fulfill its proclaimed goals of industrial growth,

140
00:15:51.800 --> 00:15:55.800
has fair standards of living for the masses, and eventual withering away of the state,

141
00:15:55.800 --> 00:15:59.800
and is increasingly unable to do so with its collectivist means.

142
00:15:59.800 --> 00:16:03.800
Hence the inevitable breakdown of socialism.

143
00:16:03.800 --> 00:16:09.800
Communist countries, therefore, are increasingly and ineradicably forced to desocialize,

144
00:16:09.800 --> 00:16:13.800
and will therefore eventually reach the free market."

145
00:16:13.800 --> 00:16:19.800
Yes, that's Rothbard in 1965 predicting the fall of communism 25 years later.

146
00:16:19.800 --> 00:16:29.200
Spencer ends his essay on the new Toryism by expressing some uncertainty about the prospects for a libertarian conservative alliance.

147
00:16:29.200 --> 00:16:34.800
Quote, a new species of Tory may arise without disappearance of the original species.

148
00:16:34.800 --> 00:16:39.800
While liberals have taken the course of legislation, conservatives have not abandoned it.

149
00:16:39.800 --> 00:16:47.800
Nevertheless, it is true that the laws made by liberals are so greatly increasing the compulsions and restraints exercised over citizens

150
00:16:47.800 --> 00:16:52.800
That among conservatives who suffer from this aggressiveness, there's growing up a tendency to resist it.

151
00:16:52.800 --> 00:16:57.800
So that if the present drift of things continues, it may by and by really happen.

152
00:16:57.800 --> 00:17:05.800
That the Tories will be defenders of liberties, which the liberals, in pursuit of what they think popular welfare, trample underfoot."

153
00:17:05.800 --> 00:17:11.800
Spencer himself was evidently willing to give the conservatives a try,

154
00:17:11.800 --> 00:17:15.800
for he joined in the activities of the Liberty and Property Defense League,

155
00:17:15.800 --> 00:17:19.800
a coalition of laissez-faire liberals and traditionalist conservatives.

156
00:17:19.800 --> 00:17:26.800
This sort of fusionism foreshadowed the way pro-market thinkers would view themselves throughout much of the 20th century.

157
00:17:26.800 --> 00:17:33.800
But for Rothbard, Spencer's tired shift rightward in strategy soon became a shift rightward in theory as well.

158
00:17:33.800 --> 00:17:37.800
And many of Spencer's libertarian contemporaries agreed.

159
00:17:37.800 --> 00:17:41.800
The individualist anarchist, Benjamin Tucker, for example, wrote, quote,

160
00:17:41.800 --> 00:17:50.800
Liberty, the name of Tucker's paper, welcomes and criticizes in the same breath the theories of papers by Herbert Spencer on the new Toryism.

161
00:17:50.800 --> 00:17:57.800
They are very true, very important and very misleading. I begin to be a little suspicious of him.

162
00:17:57.800 --> 00:18:03.800
It seems as if he had forgotten the teachings of his earlier writings and had become a champion of the capitalistic class.

163
00:18:03.800 --> 00:18:09.800
It will be noticed that in these later articles, amid his multitudinous illustrations of the evils of legislation,

164
00:18:09.800 --> 00:18:17.800
He in every instance cites some law passed, ostensibly at least, to protect labor, alleviate suffering, or promote the people's welfare.

165
00:18:17.800 --> 00:18:26.800
He demonstrates beyond dispute the lamentable failure in this direction, but never once does he call attention to the far more deadly and deep-seated evils

166
00:18:26.800 --> 00:18:30.800
growing out of the innumerable laws creating privilege and sustaining monopoly.

167
00:18:30.800 --> 00:18:37.800
You must not protect the weak against the strong, he seems to say, but freely supply all the weapons needed by the strong to oppress the weak.

168
00:18:37.800 --> 00:18:49.800
He is greatly shocked that the rich should be directly taxed to support the poor, but that the poor should be indirectly taxed and bled to make the rich richer does not outrage his delicate sensibilities in the least.

169
00:18:49.800 --> 00:19:00.800
Poverty is increased by the poor laws, says Mr. Spencer. Granted. But what about the rich laws that caused and still cause the poverty to which the poor laws add?

170
00:19:00.800 --> 00:19:07.800
Here Tucker is perhaps too harsh on Spencer, who opposed pro-business legislation to the end of his days.

171
00:19:07.800 --> 00:19:17.800
All the same, it is undeniably true that in his later life, Spencer focused much more of his critical ire on governmental subsidies and protections for the poor,

172
00:19:17.800 --> 00:19:25.800
and that the amount of attention devoted to governmental subsidies and protections for the rich became progressively de-emphasized by comparison with his earlier writings.

173
00:19:25.800 --> 00:19:37.800
Already with Spencer, it seems, the alliance of libertarians with conservatives against state socialism was beginning to distort libertarian self-understanding in a conservative direction.

174
00:19:37.800 --> 00:19:44.800
The distinction between defending property rights and defending the existing property classes was beginning to blur.

175
00:19:44.800 --> 00:19:52.800
As Rothbard explains, the slippage would ultimately lead to libertarians thinking of themselves as part of the right-wing or conservative movement,

176
00:19:52.800 --> 00:19:57.800
movement, aligned against the supposedly left-wing proponents of the welfare state.

177
00:19:57.800 --> 00:20:03.800
Quote, the libertarians, especially in their sense of where they stood in the ideological spectrum,

178
00:20:03.800 --> 00:20:08.800
fused with the older conservatives who were forced to adopt libertarian phraseology,

179
00:20:08.800 --> 00:20:14.800
but with no real libertarian content, in opposing a Roosevelt administration that had become too collectivistic for them.

180
00:20:14.800 --> 00:20:20.800
By the end of World War II, it was second nature for libertarians to consider themselves at an extreme right-wing pole.

181
00:20:20.800 --> 00:20:25.800
Rothbard's concern is not merely terminological.

182
00:20:25.800 --> 00:20:28.800
Rather, he contends that the new left-right spectrum

183
00:20:28.800 --> 00:20:31.800
persistently misleads libertarian-minded thinkers

184
00:20:31.800 --> 00:20:35.800
into viewing governmental regulation as anti-big business.

185
00:20:35.800 --> 00:20:38.800
And if our opponents are anti-business,

186
00:20:38.800 --> 00:20:42.800
what must we libertarians be but pro-big business?

187
00:20:42.800 --> 00:20:46.800
Defenders of what Ayn Rand, in one of her pro-big business moods

188
00:20:46.800 --> 00:21:02.800
The result is that governmental intervention on behalf of big business tends to become invisible, or at least unimportant, because libertarians' ideological blinders make it hard for them to take it seriously.

189
00:21:02.800 --> 00:21:14.800
Who would want to restrict the free market on behalf of business interests? Not those left-wingers, because they're anti-business, and not us right-wingers, because we're pro-free market.

190
00:21:14.800 --> 00:21:27.800
It's hard to recognize the significance of pro-business legislation, even when one officially sees and acknowledges it, if one has internalized a worldview that excludes such legislation from the list of major dangers.

191
00:21:27.800 --> 00:21:36.800
The truth, Rothbard thinks, is quite different. The regulatory welfare state has never been fundamentally anti-business.

192
00:21:36.800 --> 00:21:58.800
Every element of the New Deal program, central planning, creation of a network of compulsory cartels for industry and agriculture, inflation and credit expansion, artificial raising of wage rates and promotion of unions within the overall monopoly structure, government regulation and ownership, all this had been anticipated and adumbrated during the previous two decades.

193
00:21:58.800 --> 00:22:07.800
And this program, with its privileging of various big business interests at the top of the collectivist heap, was in no sense reminiscent of socialism or leftism.

194
00:22:07.800 --> 00:22:11.800
There was nothing smacking of the egalitarian or the proletarian here.

195
00:22:11.800 --> 00:22:18.800
No, the kinship of this burgeoning collectivism was not at all with the socialism and communism, but with fascism or socialism of the right.

196
00:22:18.800 --> 00:22:28.800
A kinship which many big businessmen of the 20s expressed openly in their yearning for abandonment of a quasi laissez-faire system for a collectivism which they could control.

197
00:22:28.800 --> 00:22:36.800
Both left and right have been persistently misled by the notion that intervention by the government is ipso facto leftish and anti-business.

198
00:22:36.800 --> 00:22:45.800
Failure to identify the true nature of programs like the New Deal is fatal, Rothbard thinks, to effective libertarian activism.

199
00:22:45.800 --> 00:22:53.300
For if one takes the enemy to be anti-business, one is likely to become more susceptible to pro-business legislative proposals,

200
00:22:53.300 --> 00:23:01.300
thus inadvertently backing into one flavor of fascism in order to combat what one fails to recognize as another flavor of fascism,

201
00:23:01.300 --> 00:23:07.300
the result being what Rand called in another context, poison as food and poison as antidote,

202
00:23:07.300 --> 00:23:13.300
hence the tendency among some libertarians to become knee-jerk apologists for the corporate class.

203
00:23:13.300 --> 00:23:18.300
The converse holds as well. The example of Victor Yaros is an instructive one.

204
00:23:18.300 --> 00:23:24.300
Yaros had been a Spencerian anarchist, an associate of Tucker and a popularizer of Lysander Spooner.

205
00:23:24.300 --> 00:23:29.300
But by the 1930s he had abandoned free market anarchism for social democracy,

206
00:23:29.300 --> 00:23:37.300
in part because he had become convinced that the democratic state was a useful tool in the struggle against economic privilege.

207
00:23:37.300 --> 00:23:40.300
And here's Yaros, quote,

208
00:24:07.300 --> 00:24:21.300
This is a good example of why revisionist historical work is so important.

209
00:24:21.300 --> 00:24:27.300
Thanks to the work of Kolko, Rothbard, Higgs and others, we know, as Jaros evidently did not,

210
00:24:27.300 --> 00:24:32.300
that the supposedly anti-business programs of the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations

211
00:24:32.300 --> 00:24:36.300
were corporatist, neo-mercantilist and neo-fascist to the core.

212
00:24:36.300 --> 00:24:41.300
Yeros could not have chosen examples less suited to support his case.

213
00:24:41.300 --> 00:24:47.300
Is Yeros just wrong then in claiming that business interests fought against Wilson's and Roosevelt's policies?

214
00:24:47.300 --> 00:24:55.300
No, not really. We might compare the alliance between government and big business to the alliance between church and state and the Middle Ages.

215
00:24:55.300 --> 00:24:59.300
Of course it's in the interest of both parties to maintain the alliance.

216
00:24:59.300 --> 00:25:02.300
But all the same, each side would like to be the dominant partner.

217
00:25:02.300 --> 00:25:11.300
So it's no surprise that the history of such alliances will often look like a history of conflict and antipathy as each side struggles to get the upper hand.

218
00:25:11.300 --> 00:25:18.300
But this struggle must be read against a common background framework of cooperation to maintain the system of control.

219
00:25:18.300 --> 00:25:28.300
If, as libertarians from John T. Flynn to Ayn Rand have argued, the dominant trend of liberal statism is closer to fascism than to state socialism,

220
00:25:28.300 --> 00:25:31.300
how should this affect our view of the political spectrum?

221
00:25:31.300 --> 00:25:39.300
If fascism belongs on the right, what is its opposite on the left? State socialism or libertarianism?

222
00:25:39.300 --> 00:25:50.300
Carl Hess, following Rothbard, would later argue that the overall characteristic of a right-wing regime is that it reflects the concentration of power in the fewest practical hands.

223
00:25:50.300 --> 00:25:57.300
This, he said, is the dominant historical characteristic of what most people in most times have considered the political and economic right-wing.

224
00:25:57.300 --> 00:26:01.300
The left then would logically represent the opposite tendency.

225
00:26:01.300 --> 00:26:06.300
Quote, the farthest left you can go, historically at any rate, is anarchism.

226
00:26:06.300 --> 00:26:12.300
The total opposition to any institutionalized power, a state of completely voluntary social organization

227
00:26:12.300 --> 00:26:18.300
in which people would establish their ways of life in small consenting groups and cooperate with others as they see fit.

228
00:26:18.300 --> 00:26:25.300
The attitude on that farthest left toward law and order was summed up by an early French anarchist Proudhon

229
00:26:25.300 --> 00:26:28.800
who said that order is the daughter, not the mother of liberty.

230
00:26:28.800 --> 00:26:32.800
Let people be absolutely free, says this farthest of the far, far left,

231
00:26:32.800 --> 00:26:36.300
the left that communism regularly denounces as too-left.

232
00:26:36.300 --> 00:26:39.300
Lenin called it infantile left.

233
00:26:39.300 --> 00:26:44.300
Through a series of unfortunate but certainly understandable distortions of political terminology,

234
00:26:44.300 --> 00:26:48.300
the modern liberal position has come to be known as a left-wing position.

235
00:26:48.300 --> 00:26:52.300
Actually, liberals believe in concentrated power, in the hands of liberals,

236
00:26:52.300 --> 00:26:55.300
of Liberals, the supposedly educated and genteel elite.

237
00:26:55.300 --> 00:26:59.300
They believe in concentrating that power as heavily and effectively as possible.

238
00:26:59.300 --> 00:27:03.300
They believe in great size and enterprise, whether corporate or political,

239
00:27:03.300 --> 00:27:08.300
and have a great and profound disdain for the homely and the local."

240
00:27:08.300 --> 00:27:13.300
Now, I think it's important to distinguish terminological issues from more substantive ones here.

241
00:27:13.300 --> 00:27:17.300
Well, it's an interesting question whether Rothbard and Hess are correct

242
00:27:17.300 --> 00:27:23.600
and maintaining that the terms left and right are best understood as still retaining their original 19th century meaning.

243
00:27:23.600 --> 00:27:28.600
How any particular thinker prefers using those slippery labels is not the most important issue.

244
00:27:28.600 --> 00:27:35.700
If you want to call the free market a left-wing idea, or a right-wing idea, or a neither left-wing nor right-wing idea,

245
00:27:35.700 --> 00:27:43.900
or a left-wing and since 37, but right-wing and since 49 idea, whatever, go for it, so long as you make clear how you're using it.

246
00:27:43.900 --> 00:27:46.500
I like calling the free market a left-wing idea.

247
00:27:46.500 --> 00:27:49.600
In fact, I like calling libertarianism the proletarian revolution.

248
00:27:49.600 --> 00:27:52.200
But terminology is not the fundamental issue.

249
00:27:52.200 --> 00:27:56.500
The crucial point is to track when one of these labels is being used in an authoritarian sense,

250
00:27:56.500 --> 00:27:59.500
or an anti-authoritarian sense, or a mixed sense,

251
00:27:59.500 --> 00:28:03.500
and not allow any particular preconceived stereotype of left or right

252
00:28:03.500 --> 00:28:09.200
to occlude one's thinking about where one's natural allies are to be found.

253
00:28:09.200 --> 00:28:11.800
While I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues,

254
00:28:11.800 --> 00:28:15.800
I can't resist making a point about capitalism and socialism.

255
00:28:15.800 --> 00:28:20.800
Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as anti-concepts,

256
00:28:20.800 --> 00:28:25.800
that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it,

257
00:28:25.800 --> 00:28:29.800
making it harder for us to grasp other legitimate concepts.

258
00:28:29.800 --> 00:28:33.800
One important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the package deal,

259
00:28:33.800 --> 00:28:37.800
referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition

260
00:28:37.800 --> 00:28:41.800
that certain things go together that in actuality do not.

261
00:28:41.800 --> 00:28:44.800
Although Rand would not agree with the following examples,

262
00:28:44.800 --> 00:28:47.800
I've become convinced that the terms capitalism and socialism

263
00:28:47.800 --> 00:28:51.800
are really anti-concepts of the package deal variety.

264
00:28:51.800 --> 00:28:56.800
Libertarians sometimes debate whether the real or authentic meaning of a term like capitalism

265
00:28:56.800 --> 00:29:02.800
is A, the free market, or B, government favoritism toward business,

266
00:29:02.800 --> 00:29:07.800
R of C, the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two.

267
00:29:07.800 --> 00:29:10.800
Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense.

268
00:29:10.800 --> 00:29:14.800
Individualist anarchists in the Tuckroyd tradition tend to use it in the second and third.

269
00:29:14.800 --> 00:29:19.800
But an ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

270
00:29:19.800 --> 00:29:28.800
Suppose I were to invent a new word, zaxalbacks, and define it as a metallic sphere like the Washington Monument.

271
00:29:28.800 --> 00:29:31.800
That's the definition, a metallic sphere like the Washington Monument.

272
00:29:31.800 --> 00:29:36.800
In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition.

273
00:29:36.800 --> 00:29:43.800
Now, some linguistic subgroup might start using the term zaxalbacks as though it just meant metallic sphere,

274
00:29:43.800 --> 00:29:48.800
or as though it just meant something of the same kind as the Washington Monument, and that's fine.

275
00:29:48.800 --> 00:29:55.800
But my definition incorporates both, and this conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere.

276
00:29:55.800 --> 00:30:02.800
Any attempt to use the term Zaxelbacks, meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption.

277
00:30:02.800 --> 00:30:05.800
That's what RAND means by a package deal term.

278
00:30:05.800 --> 00:30:12.800
Now, I think the word capitalism, if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package deal term.

279
00:30:12.800 --> 00:30:21.800
By capitalism, most people mean neither the free market, Simplicitor, nor the prevailing neo-mercantilist system, Simplicitor.

280
00:30:21.800 --> 00:30:28.800
Rather, what most people mean by capitalism is this free market system that currently prevails in the Western world.

281
00:30:28.800 --> 00:30:35.800
In short, the term capitalism is generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market.

282
00:30:35.800 --> 00:30:40.800
And since the prevailing system is in fact largely one of government favoritism toward business,

283
00:30:40.800 --> 00:30:48.800
the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

284
00:30:48.800 --> 00:30:52.500
And similar considerations apply to the term socialism.

285
00:30:52.500 --> 00:30:57.800
Most people don't mean by socialism anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production.

286
00:30:57.800 --> 00:31:01.300
Instead they really mean something like the opposite of capitalism.

287
00:31:01.300 --> 00:31:06.300
Then if capitalism is a package deal term, so is socialism.

288
00:31:06.300 --> 00:31:12.800
It conveys opposition to the free market and opposition to neo-mercantilism as though these were one and the same.

289
00:31:12.800 --> 00:31:18.300
And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms, to blur the distinction between the free market

290
00:31:18.300 --> 00:31:24.300
and neo-mercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment.

291
00:31:24.300 --> 00:31:30.300
Those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neo-mercantilism.

292
00:31:30.300 --> 00:31:35.300
And those who want to combat neo-mercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market.

293
00:31:35.300 --> 00:31:38.300
Either way, the state remains secure.

294
00:31:38.300 --> 00:31:45.300
I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends.

295
00:31:45.300 --> 00:31:50.300
That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary.

296
00:31:50.300 --> 00:31:54.300
Rather, a perverse invisible hand process is at work.

297
00:31:54.300 --> 00:32:01.300
The prevailing use of the terms capitalism and socialism persists because it serves to preserve the status system of which it is a part.

298
00:32:01.300 --> 00:32:04.300
Think of it as spontaneous work.

299
00:32:04.300 --> 00:32:06.300
Sorry.

300
00:32:06.300 --> 00:32:14.300
If capitalism and socialism are such potentially confusing terms, should we be even more cautious about the loaded term anarchism?

301
00:32:14.300 --> 00:32:19.380
Anarchism? Actually, I don't think so. People's initial associations with the term may be

302
00:32:19.380 --> 00:32:24.060
more negative, but they're also more superficial. People are much quicker to admit that they

303
00:32:24.060 --> 00:32:27.860
don't know much about anarchism and aren't sure what anarchists really stand for than

304
00:32:27.860 --> 00:32:32.860
they are to make analogous admissions about capitalism and socialism. The term also highlights

305
00:32:32.860 --> 00:32:37.580
the distance from other views and thus makes compromises with or backslidings into such

306
00:32:37.580 --> 00:32:42.740
views harder to gloss over. Plus, the term anarchism has the advantage of sounding exciting

307
00:32:42.740 --> 00:32:57.740
Back to Rothbard's argument. If libertarian's alliance with the conservative right was beginning to corrode libertarian principles, and if the mainstream liberal left was just a new Toryism, what of the socialist left?

308
00:32:57.740 --> 00:33:06.740
For Rothbard, the socialist left comprises two distinct strands. One is a right-wing authoritarian strand promoting statism, hierarchy and collectivism.

309
00:33:06.740 --> 00:33:13.740
This strand Rothbard dismisses as a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization.

310
00:33:13.740 --> 00:33:23.740
The other is an initially left-wing, comparatively libertarian strand, far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism, especially the smashing of the state apparatus.

311
00:33:23.740 --> 00:33:31.740
But the left socialists, he holds, are trapped in a crucial inner contradiction. They criticize not only state power, but private property.

312
00:33:31.740 --> 00:33:36.740
Yet, how was the collective to run its property without becoming an enormous state itself?

313
00:33:36.740 --> 00:33:41.740
According to Rothbard, the majority of socialists, unable to resolve this contradiction,

314
00:33:41.740 --> 00:33:48.740
quote, turned sharply rightward, completely abandoned the old libertarian goals and ideals of revolution and the withering way of the state,

315
00:33:48.740 --> 00:33:58.740
and became cozy conservatives, permanently reconciled to the state, the status quo, and the whole apparatus of neomercantilism, state monopoly capitalism, imperialism and war.

316
00:33:58.740 --> 00:34:05.740
and Human War. For conservatism too had reformed and regrouped to try to cope with the modern industrial system

317
00:34:05.740 --> 00:34:10.740
and had become a refurbished mercantilism, a regime of statism marked by state monopoly privilege

318
00:34:10.740 --> 00:34:15.740
in direct and indirect forms to favored capitalists and to quasi-feudal landlords.

319
00:34:15.740 --> 00:34:19.740
The affinity between right socialism and the new conservatism became very close.

320
00:34:19.740 --> 00:34:26.740
The former advocating similar policies but with a demagogic populist veneer."

321
00:34:26.740 --> 00:34:32.740
The result from Rothbard's viewpoint was the triumph of what is now and has for some time been the establishment,

322
00:34:32.740 --> 00:34:39.740
the permanent war economy, the full-fledged state monopoly capitalism and neo-mercantilism in the military-industrial complex,

323
00:34:39.740 --> 00:34:48.740
wherein, he said, education has become mere mass drilling in the techniques of adjustment to the task of becoming a cog in the vast bureaucratic machine.

324
00:34:48.740 --> 00:34:55.740
At the time that Rothbard was writing, however, he saw a ray of hope in the re-emergence of the anti-authoritarian left.

325
00:34:55.740 --> 00:35:01.740
In the very next issue, for example, he followed up left and right the prospects for liberty with liberty and the new left,

326
00:35:01.740 --> 00:35:05.740
contrasting the social democrats of the old left with the student radicals of the new.

327
00:35:05.740 --> 00:35:13.740
Quote, Social democracy gave a pseudo-progressive and idealistic tone to the state monopoly capitalism of the New Deal,

328
00:35:13.740 --> 00:35:22.740
comfortably assumed a large portion of power and eagerly came to give liberal and socialist coloration to the Cold War and the permanent war economy that prevails in the United States.

329
00:35:22.740 --> 00:35:40.740
While the typical old left goal is to move into the seats of state power, and maneuver the state into piecemeal reforms to be imposed upon the public from above, the new left scorns statism and social reformism, and aims to stimulate the people themselves to build parallel institutions outside of and confronting the state apparatus.

330
00:35:40.740 --> 00:35:54.240
This negative attitude toward reformism, shared by Rothbard and the anti-authoritarian left, has often been criticized as utopian, a purist all-or-nothing perfectionism that rejects any partial or immediate steps toward liberty.

331
00:35:54.240 --> 00:36:02.740
This is a serious misunderstanding. From a Rothbardian perspective, any move, large or small, in the direction of liberty is to be welcomed.

332
00:36:02.740 --> 00:36:08.240
Of course, the large moves will be welcomed more enthusiastically than the small ones, but all are improvements.

333
00:36:08.240 --> 00:36:14.240
No Rothbardian will ever say, if you can't cut government by 100%, I don't want to cut it all.

334
00:36:14.240 --> 00:36:21.240
One root of this misreading is a failure to distinguish between endorsement of a direction of change and endorsement of the stops along the way.

335
00:36:21.240 --> 00:36:25.240
Suppose there's a serial killer who murders 100 people a year.

336
00:36:25.240 --> 00:36:28.240
And suppose I manage to convince him to cut it down to 50.

337
00:36:28.240 --> 00:36:30.240
50 is his lucky number, say.

338
00:36:30.240 --> 00:36:32.240
By all means, that's an improvement to be welcomed.

339
00:36:32.240 --> 00:36:37.240
And I would even, I think, deserve some praise and gratitude for helping to make the world a little better.

340
00:36:37.240 --> 00:36:43.240
But that doesn't mean I should start celebrating this guy's new 50 murders a year rule as a great libertarian policy.

341
00:36:43.240 --> 00:36:49.240
Or that I should stop looking for an opportunity to cut it down to zero by bringing the killer to justice.

342
00:36:49.240 --> 00:36:54.240
Above all, it doesn't mean that I should help the killer implement his 50 murders a year policy.

343
00:36:54.240 --> 00:37:05.240
By the same principle, if taxation is theft, for example, then although we should welcome any diminution in the government's rate of theft,

344
00:37:05.240 --> 00:37:11.240
We cannot actually participate in the government's new, kinder, less intense thievery without becoming thieves ourselves.

345
00:37:11.240 --> 00:37:18.240
Nor should we praise these moderate improvements in such a way as to commit ourselves to criticizing more radical improvements.

346
00:37:18.240 --> 00:37:22.240
It's been said that we should not let the perfect become the enemy of the good,

347
00:37:22.240 --> 00:37:26.240
a phrase people seem to use only when they are about to recommend something dishonorable.

348
00:37:26.240 --> 00:37:33.240
But letting the somewhat good become the enemy of the even better hardly seems preferable.

349
00:37:33.240 --> 00:37:37.280
Rothbard was fond of quoting the maxim of abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison,

350
00:37:37.280 --> 00:37:41.920
gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.

351
00:37:41.920 --> 00:37:45.600
Another route of the Rothbard as utopian perfectionist myth

352
00:37:45.600 --> 00:37:48.720
is the fact that Rothbardians do indeed reject many reforms that

353
00:37:48.720 --> 00:37:51.640
are advertised as incremental steps toward liberty.

354
00:37:51.640 --> 00:37:54.240
But in such cases, the reforms are rejected not because they're

355
00:37:54.240 --> 00:37:56.100
incremental, but because they do not really

356
00:37:56.100 --> 00:37:58.000
move in the direction of liberty.

357
00:37:58.000 --> 00:38:01.240
One example is education vouchers, which as Rothbardians we find

358
00:38:01.240 --> 00:38:15.240
are problematic, not because they fall short of a free market and education, but because they threaten to extend to the private schools the kind of micromanagement control the government currently exercises over public schools, thus arguably making things worse.

359
00:38:15.240 --> 00:38:29.240
Another is so-called privatization, not in the term's original sense of a transfer of services from government provision to free market provision, but in what has come to be the prevailing sense of a conferral of governmental privilege and patronage,

360
00:38:29.240 --> 00:38:32.240
subsidies, monopolies, and the like, on private contractors.

361
00:38:32.240 --> 00:38:37.240
To the Rothbardian, far from stripping government of some of its powers,

362
00:38:37.240 --> 00:38:43.240
such privatization simply transforms private firms into arms of the state.

363
00:38:43.240 --> 00:38:48.240
Now whether a shift from a comparatively socialistic to a comparatively fascistic mode of statism

364
00:38:48.240 --> 00:38:51.240
is a move up or a move down is perhaps a matter of taste,

365
00:38:51.240 --> 00:38:54.240
but at any rate we do the libertarian cause no favor

366
00:38:54.240 --> 00:38:59.240
by encouraging potential converts to associate plutocratic political cronyism with the free market.

367
00:38:59.240 --> 00:39:06.240
Similar criticisms apply to deregulation, when the entities being deregulated are the beneficiaries of state privilege,

368
00:39:06.240 --> 00:39:12.240
as when the Reagan administration eased restrictions on savings and loans while keeping Federal deposit insurance intact,

369
00:39:12.240 --> 00:39:16.240
thus giving them carte blanche to take risks with the taxpayers' money.

370
00:39:16.240 --> 00:39:23.240
Rothbardian's refusal to engage in reformist politics can seem barred to political effectiveness.

371
00:39:23.240 --> 00:39:27.240
If you can't participate in the regular political process to where he goes,

372
00:39:27.240 --> 00:39:31.240
doesn't that leave you with only the decidedly unsatisfactory options

373
00:39:31.240 --> 00:39:36.240
of violent revolution on the one hand or defeatist passive withdrawal on the other?

374
00:39:36.240 --> 00:39:42.240
But first, once the Rothbardian position is correctly distinguished from all or nothing perfectionism,

375
00:39:42.240 --> 00:39:46.240
it's no longer clear that Rothbardians can't be involved in ordinary politics,

376
00:39:46.240 --> 00:39:49.240
voting, running for office and so forth.

377
00:39:49.240 --> 00:40:00.240
Such activities might be regarded as giving impermissible sanctions to the state, but if you infiltrate the Death Star in order to blow it up, does that really count as falling to the dark side?

378
00:40:00.240 --> 00:40:06.240
To wield political power, admittedly, is to run the risk of being corrupted, but is such corruption inevitable?

379
00:40:06.240 --> 00:40:15.240
It seems like a sizable block of Ron Paul clones in Congress could be pretty effective in scaling back the state without sacrificing any libertarian principle.

380
00:40:15.240 --> 00:40:28.240
Perhaps more importantly, however, the assumption that the only eternal alternatives to traditional politics are violent revolution on the one hand and resignation on the other, is valid only for non-libertarian political programs.

381
00:40:28.240 --> 00:40:41.240
If the realization of your agenda requires the command of state power, then the only alternatives to working within the system are seizing control of government in a coup d'etat or giving up on your political goals entirely.

382
00:40:41.240 --> 00:40:52.240
But for a libertarian, political success is less a matter of directing the state towards certain favorite ends and more a matter of blocking it from wreaking more evil.

383
00:40:52.240 --> 00:41:01.240
Hence, while withdrawal from engagement with the state would count as defeatism for statist ideologies, it need not be so for libertarians.

384
00:41:01.240 --> 00:41:13.240
Hence Rothbard's enthusiasm for the sorts of strategy he saw himself as sharing with the New Left, education, building alternative institutions, mass civil disobedience.

385
00:41:13.240 --> 00:41:24.240
The point is not to scribble libertarian amendments into the Constitution, but to make unlibertarian laws unenforceable, to make civil society ungovernable.

386
00:41:24.240 --> 00:41:27.240
What else did Rothbard find a value in the New Left?

387
00:41:27.240 --> 00:41:34.240
He was, of course, especially impressed by the work of such revisionist New Left historians as Gabriel Kolko and William Appleman Williams,

388
00:41:34.240 --> 00:41:42.240
who had shown that powerful business elites were among the principal lobbyists for the supposedly anti-business but actually corporatist cartelizing legislation.

389
00:41:42.240 --> 00:41:48.240
But it may come as a surprise to learn that for Rothbard, the New Left's, quote,

390
00:41:48.240 --> 00:41:56.240
Quote, most crucial contribution to both ends and means is its concept of participatory democracy.

391
00:41:56.240 --> 00:42:05.240
Rothbard writes, in the broadest sense, the idea of participatory democracy is profoundly individualist and libertarian,

392
00:42:05.240 --> 00:42:09.240
for it means that each individual, even the poorest and most humble,

393
00:42:09.240 --> 00:42:15.240
should have the right to full control over the decisions that affect his own life.

394
00:42:15.240 --> 00:42:23.240
This may seem less surprising once one realizes that for Rothbard, the free market is the fullest realization of participatory democracy.

395
00:42:23.240 --> 00:42:28.240
And in this, he is simply following his teacher, Ludwig von Mises, who wrote,

396
00:42:45.240 --> 00:42:49.240
only by those who keep on earning it anew by satisfying the wishes of consumers.

397
00:42:49.240 --> 00:42:54.240
The capitalistic social order, therefore, is an economic democracy in the strictest sense of the word.

398
00:42:54.240 --> 00:42:59.240
In the last analysis, all decisions are dependent on the will of the people as consumers."

399
00:42:59.240 --> 00:43:04.240
Of course, Mises has his tongue in his cheek when he calls the free market an economic democracy,

400
00:43:04.240 --> 00:43:07.240
a term borrowed from the socialist left.

401
00:43:07.240 --> 00:43:11.240
But rather than saying that Mises is giving an existing term an opposite meaning,

402
00:43:11.240 --> 00:43:16.240
Perhaps we should say that Mises is laying bare the real commitments of an existing ideal.

403
00:43:16.240 --> 00:43:24.240
The idea that markets are more democratic than political so-called democracy has also been explored by David Friedman, who writes,

404
00:43:24.240 --> 00:43:36.240
You can compare 1968 Fords, Chryslers and Volkswagens, but nobody will ever be able to compare the Nixon administration of 1968 with the Humphrey and Wallace administrations of the same year.

405
00:43:36.240 --> 00:43:46.240
It is as if we had only Fords from 1920 to 1928, Chryslers from 1928 to 1936, and then had to decide what firm would make a better car for the next four years.

406
00:43:46.240 --> 00:43:53.240
Imagine buying cars the way we buy governments. 10,000 people would get together and agree to vote, each for the car he preferred.

407
00:43:53.240 --> 00:43:56.240
Whichever car won, each of the 10,000 would have to buy it.

408
00:43:56.240 --> 00:44:00.240
It would not pay any of us to make any serious effort to find out which car was best.

409
00:44:00.240 --> 00:44:05.240
Whatever I decide, my car is being picked for me by other members of the group."

410
00:44:05.240 --> 00:44:11.240
For fans of participatory democracy, which sounds more genuinely participatory,

411
00:44:11.240 --> 00:44:15.240
the way we vote in the marketplace or the way we vote in the polling place.

412
00:44:15.240 --> 00:44:21.240
The political appeal of participatory democracy for Rothbard was its requirement of decentralization

413
00:44:21.240 --> 00:44:25.240
and its rejection of a layer of political representatives above the people.

414
00:44:25.240 --> 00:44:29.240
But Rothbard also found the idea appealing outside the narrowly political sphere.

415
00:44:29.240 --> 00:44:37.240
He wrote, quote, participatory democracy is at the same time a theory of politics and a theory of organization,

416
00:44:37.240 --> 00:44:46.240
an approach to political affairs and to the way new left organizations, or any organizations for that matter, should function, end quote.

417
00:44:46.240 --> 00:44:53.240
and he praised, quote, fascinating experiments in which workers are transformed into independent and equal entrepreneurs, end quote.

418
00:44:53.240 --> 00:44:59.240
Traditional socialist goals such as workers' control of industry then were apparently not anathema to Rothbard.

419
00:44:59.240 --> 00:45:05.240
Indeed, he would later argue that any nominally private institution that gets more than 50% of its revenue from the government

420
00:45:05.240 --> 00:45:11.240
or is heavily complicit in government crimes, or both, should be considered a government entity.

421
00:45:11.240 --> 00:45:19.240
Since government ownership is illegitimate, the proper owners of such institutions are the homesteaders, those who have already been using and therefore mixing their labor with the facilities.

422
00:45:19.240 --> 00:45:24.240
This entails, inter alia, student and or faculty ownership of the universities.

423
00:45:24.240 --> 00:45:34.240
As for the myriad of corporations which are integral parts of the military industrial complex, one solution Rothbard says is to turn over ownership to the homesteading workers in the particular plants.

424
00:45:34.240 --> 00:45:48.240
He also supported third world land reforms, considered socialistic by many conservatives, on the grounds that existing land tenure represented continuing aggression by title holders of land against peasants engaged in transforming the soil.

425
00:45:48.240 --> 00:45:53.240
And here again Rothbard is following that wild-eyed leftist Ludwig von Mises, who wrote,

426
00:46:04.240 --> 00:46:09.240
and that violence has been upheld by violence and by that alone."

427
00:46:09.240 --> 00:46:13.240
Many left-wing critics of the market, such as Elizabeth Anderson,

428
00:46:13.240 --> 00:46:20.240
would reject the idea of any serious affiliation between leftist and free-market libertarian conceptions of participatory democracy.

429
00:46:20.240 --> 00:46:25.240
One of Anderson's criticisms of the market is that it privileges exit over voice.

430
00:46:25.240 --> 00:46:31.240
That is, it gives people the freedom to act like consumers and withdraw from situations they oppose,

431
00:46:31.240 --> 00:46:37.240
has little scope for the freedom to act like citizens and shape their social institutions through shared discussion.

432
00:46:37.240 --> 00:46:44.240
But this is a false dichotomy, for it is precisely the right of exit that is the strongest guarantee of voice.

433
00:46:44.240 --> 00:46:49.240
The complaints and suggestions of an equal partner who is free to withdraw his or her productive contribution

434
00:46:49.240 --> 00:46:56.240
are bound to be taken more seriously than those of a subjugated partner who has no choice but to put up with whatever develops.

435
00:46:56.240 --> 00:47:00.240
Putting an iron curtain around a cooperative venture does not make it more cooperative.

436
00:47:00.240 --> 00:47:12.240
The sort of participatory democracy that anti-authoritarian leftists favor is thus more closely affiliated, more naturally allied with Misesian market democracy than with political democracy.

437
00:47:12.240 --> 00:47:26.240
Ever since libertarians and leftists went their separate ways back in the 19th century, libertarians have specialized in understanding governmental forms and mechanisms of oppression and the benefits of competitive, for-profit forms of voluntary association,

438
00:47:26.240 --> 00:47:31.240
Well, leftists have specialized in understanding non-governmental forms and mechanisms of oppression

439
00:47:31.240 --> 00:47:35.240
and the benefits of cooperative, not-for-profit forms of voluntary association.

440
00:47:35.240 --> 00:47:41.240
My own view is that each side has something valuable to learn about the issues in which the other side is specialized,

441
00:47:41.240 --> 00:47:47.240
and Rothbard's insight into the affinity between allegedly socialist and allegedly capitalist forms of participatory democracy

442
00:47:47.240 --> 00:47:49.240
might be a good place to start.

443
00:47:49.240 --> 00:47:53.240
Rothbard's enthusiasm for the left did not last, of course.

444
00:47:53.240 --> 00:48:00.240
By 1970, he was writing pieces with titles like The New Left R.I.P. and Farewell to the Left.

445
00:48:00.240 --> 00:48:10.240
In his view, after a promising beginning, the anti-authoritarian left had largely disintegrated into political opportunists on the one hand and cultural irrationalists on the other.

446
00:48:10.240 --> 00:48:17.240
While it had once been, he said, the most intense, the most notable and the most far-flung anti-war movement in American history,

447
00:48:17.240 --> 00:48:22.140
When they succeeded in toppling an American president and forcing a halt to the bombing of North Vietnam,

448
00:48:22.140 --> 00:48:29.240
while managing to radicalize countless numbers of Americans and reveal the imperial corporate state nature of the American system,

449
00:48:29.240 --> 00:48:35.540
all that now remained of the New Left, he said, was the final reflexive convulsions of the corpse.

450
00:48:35.540 --> 00:48:39.040
Was he right? Certainly he was in part.

451
00:48:39.040 --> 00:48:44.640
We've indeed seen all too many former 60s radicals either scrambling for the establishment political trough

452
00:48:44.640 --> 00:48:48.140
or embracing loopy, primitivist subjectivism.

453
00:48:48.140 --> 00:48:52.740
And when the Students for a Democratic Society, Rothbard's favorite leftist group,

454
00:48:52.740 --> 00:48:56.240
collapsed and gave way to the terrorist Weather Underground, for example,

455
00:48:56.240 --> 00:48:59.540
that was hardly an auspicious development for the New Left.

456
00:48:59.540 --> 00:49:02.540
On the other hand, I'm not convinced by all his examples.

457
00:49:02.540 --> 00:49:06.740
For example, Rothbard, along with many male leftists, it should be said,

458
00:49:06.740 --> 00:49:11.740
viewed the feminist movement as an example of the cultural irrationalism to which the New Left was succumbing,

459
00:49:11.740 --> 00:49:16.740
whereas I regard it as a crucial recovery of libertarians authentic 19th century heritage

460
00:49:16.740 --> 00:49:19.740
and a vital complement to any politics of liberation.

461
00:49:19.740 --> 00:49:25.740
That's an example of the importance to libertarians of understanding non-state forms of domination that I mentioned earlier.

462
00:49:25.740 --> 00:49:32.740
It's not as though the leftist elements that Rothbard liked ever completely disappeared.

463
00:49:32.740 --> 00:49:36.740
The organizational infrastructure collapsed, but not the aspiration.

464
00:49:36.740 --> 00:49:45.740
It wasn't just free market libertarians but also anti-authoritarian leftists who are left in the lurch by the deterioration of 60s radicalism.

465
00:49:45.740 --> 00:49:53.740
Rather than looking around sadly for an organized movement of the anti-authoritarian left, perhaps we should have tried to become that movement.

466
00:49:53.740 --> 00:50:01.740
From our present standpoint, what lessons should we draw from the past four decades since Rothbard first published Left and Right?

467
00:50:01.740 --> 00:50:05.740
We've seen one conservative revolution after another, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush.

468
00:50:05.740 --> 00:50:15.740
We've seen what happens when conservatives get in power and finally are in a position to scale back the state like they've been telling us for years they do if those awful liberals didn't keep blocking them.

469
00:50:15.740 --> 00:50:23.740
We've seen the purge of libertarian elements from the right, begun by Buckley and others during the Cold War, reach its apogee during the war on terror.

470
00:50:23.740 --> 00:50:33.740
It's becoming clear that in Lew Rockwell's words, conservatism has always been messianic, militarist, nationalist, bloodthirsty, imperialist, centralist,

471
00:50:33.740 --> 00:50:38.740
Redistributionist and in love with the hangman state.

472
00:50:38.740 --> 00:50:44.740
As I see it then, Rothbard's left and right has never been more urgently relevant than it is right now.

473
00:50:44.740 --> 00:50:49.740
Today we face a situation remarkably similar to the one Rothbard was facing in the 1960s,

474
00:50:49.740 --> 00:50:54.740
including shifting ideological alliances and an increasingly unpopular war.

475
00:50:54.740 --> 00:50:59.740
Rothbard writes that modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war

476
00:50:59.740 --> 00:51:03.740
and militarism had always been a left-wing tradition which included libertarians.

477
00:51:03.740 --> 00:51:07.740
So when the right-wing revealed itself as the great partisan of total war,

478
00:51:07.740 --> 00:51:11.740
the libertarians were unprepared to understand what was happening and tailed along

479
00:51:11.740 --> 00:51:15.740
in the wake of their supposed conservative allies. He was talking about Vietnam

480
00:51:15.740 --> 00:51:19.740
in the Cold War, but his diagnosis would apply equally well to those libertarians

481
00:51:19.740 --> 00:51:23.740
who have allowed themselves to be lured into support for the current administration's

482
00:51:23.740 --> 00:51:27.740
military policy. But the architects of that policy have

483
00:51:27.740 --> 00:51:38.740
The 9-11 attacks initially appeared to have killed off the so-called Vietnam Syndrome of aversion to war that the imperious elite have so long bemoaned.

484
00:51:38.740 --> 00:51:46.740
But Bush and his cronies have flatfootedly managed to reinvigorate it and to reawaken popular suspicion of presidential war rhetoric.

485
00:51:46.740 --> 00:51:51.740
Rothbard once said that Richard Nixon was one of the best organizers the anti-war movement ever had.

486
00:51:51.740 --> 00:51:55.740
Bush has a fair claim to share that august company.

487
00:51:55.740 --> 00:52:07.740
The anti-authoritarian left is becoming newly active. Even Rothbard's beloved Students for a Democratic Society has recently been revived, and has been explicitly welcoming of libertarian participation.

488
00:52:07.740 --> 00:52:17.740
Likewise, just two days ago on the LRC blog, I saw a letter from leading left-wing decentralized Kirk Patrick Sale to Lew Rockwell, informing him about an upcoming secessionist convention.

489
00:52:17.740 --> 00:52:22.740
The potential for a revival of Rothbard's left libertarian coalition is certainly there.

490
00:52:22.740 --> 00:52:27.740
But this time we have a powerful tool that Rothbard lacked, the Internet.

491
00:52:27.740 --> 00:52:31.740
We are no longer confined to short-run broadsheets printed up in someone's basement.

492
00:52:31.740 --> 00:52:37.740
We now have access to a worldwide audience and can far more easily find and coordinate with like-minded people,

493
00:52:37.740 --> 00:52:40.740
bypassing the establishment channels of information.

494
00:52:40.740 --> 00:52:44.740
I don't know what the circulation of left and right was in 1965,

495
00:52:44.740 --> 00:52:48.240
But today it's available to potentially millions of people at the click of a button,

496
00:52:48.240 --> 00:52:51.740
as are literally thousands of other important libertarian works.

497
00:52:51.740 --> 00:52:58.740
And websites exploring cross-fertilization between free market and left-decentralist ideas are multiplying every month.

498
00:52:58.740 --> 00:53:03.740
Let me close by quoting a passage I recently saw on Brad Spangler's blog.

499
00:53:03.740 --> 00:53:04.740
Quote,

500
00:53:04.740 --> 00:53:09.740
Genuine libertarianism is very much left-wing. It's revolutionary.

501
00:53:09.740 --> 00:53:15.740
The long and tragic alliance of libertarians with the right against the specter of state socialism is coming to a close,

502
00:53:15.740 --> 00:53:18.740
as it served no purpose after the fall of the Soviet Union,

503
00:53:18.740 --> 00:53:25.740
and so-called conservatives have subsequently taken to letting their true, big government on steroids colors fly.

504
00:53:25.740 --> 00:53:30.740
In the period since the demise of the Soviet Union, both the radicals and the moderates among the left

505
00:53:30.740 --> 00:53:37.740
have been subconsciously seeking a new radical creed to orient themselves upon to replace Marxism.

506
00:53:37.740 --> 00:53:49.740
I believe that radical libertarians will be most effective when they overcome any lingering right-wing cultural contamination of the libertarian views and embrace their inherent radicalism, which is most at home on the left.

507
00:53:49.740 --> 00:53:54.740
For as the radicals go, so do the moderates grudgingly follow in small steps.

508
00:53:54.740 --> 00:54:00.740
It's time for libertarians to stop fighting the left and take up the challenge of leading the left.

509
00:54:17.740 --> 00:54:19.740
I can take a few questions.

510
00:54:19.740 --> 00:54:29.740
What about this response? Sure, what you're saying about conservatism fits European conservatism, which was traditionally theocratic and so on and so forth,

511
00:54:29.740 --> 00:54:33.080
But American conservatism, or at least certain strains of it,

512
00:54:33.080 --> 00:54:37.080
part back to the liberal, the libertarian American revolution,

513
00:54:37.080 --> 00:54:42.080
the separation of church and state here in this country, et cetera, et cetera.

514
00:54:42.080 --> 00:54:48.780
Well, I guess it probably depends exactly what one picks out as conservatives or as the conservative movement.

515
00:54:48.780 --> 00:54:56.580
Certainly if we're talking about what came to be called, what is now going to be called the old right,

516
00:54:56.580 --> 00:55:01.580
which was sort of the main opposition to FDR and the New Deal.

517
00:55:01.580 --> 00:55:04.580
We call those people conservatives now.

518
00:55:04.580 --> 00:55:07.580
A lot of them didn't call themselves conservatives at the time.

519
00:55:07.580 --> 00:55:10.580
They gradually came to start calling themselves conservatives and right-wingers

520
00:55:10.580 --> 00:55:13.580
because everyone told them that's what they were

521
00:55:13.580 --> 00:55:18.580
because the left had gone for all this neo-fascist stuff.

522
00:55:18.580 --> 00:55:22.580
But when Mencken, for example, first started his career,

523
00:55:22.580 --> 00:55:25.580
I think he would have been astonished if anyone had called him a conservative.

524
00:55:25.580 --> 00:55:29.580
By the end of his career, he was willing to call himself one.

525
00:55:29.580 --> 00:55:33.580
So we have the old right to sort of get told of that,

526
00:55:33.580 --> 00:55:38.580
but once we start getting an organization, a movement that really starts calling itself conservative,

527
00:55:38.580 --> 00:55:42.580
you've got a lot of different tendencies,

528
00:55:42.580 --> 00:55:48.580
but the one that suddenly becomes dominant is sort of the Buckleyite, Russell Kirkean view,

529
00:55:48.580 --> 00:55:55.540
W, which of course always made nods, and not always sheer lip service, but always made

530
00:55:55.540 --> 00:55:59.820
nods to the founding fathers and the classical liberal tradition and so forth.

531
00:55:59.820 --> 00:56:05.380
Buckley's memoirs are titled memoirs of a libertarian journalist, whatever unearthly

532
00:56:05.380 --> 00:56:09.100
meant by that.

533
00:56:09.100 --> 00:56:15.780
So conservatives have always made these nods, actually that's true in Europe too I think,

534
00:56:15.780 --> 00:56:44.780
Do you think claims about cultural leftism have to be bound up with libertarians being leftists, so consider people that are sexually traditional, like the Quakers, the Amish, who have often been inclined to be very anti-war?

535
00:56:45.780 --> 00:56:47.780
I've stepped up with the Quakers lately, have you?

536
00:56:47.780 --> 00:57:06.780
I know you've written, though, that there's some very sexually conservative things about the Richard, conservative about the family, about the native rights, very sort of left-wing conservative.

537
00:57:06.780 --> 00:57:10.780
Do you see that as being intention, or do you think they can sort of coexist?

538
00:57:10.780 --> 00:57:15.780
Both. I think things that are in tension can certainly coexist.

539
00:57:15.780 --> 00:57:21.780
In fact, I think that's in a way a description of human life.

540
00:57:21.780 --> 00:57:31.780
I think that there are certain aspects of cultural conservatism that I think are in tension with libertarian ideas,

541
00:57:31.780 --> 00:57:38.780
that they tend to undermine the kind of culture that makes libertarian institutions stable.

542
00:57:38.780 --> 00:57:42.780
Some of those ideas are, some of those ideas aren't.

543
00:57:42.780 --> 00:57:50.780
But attention is not the same as a logical inconsistency.

544
00:57:50.780 --> 00:57:54.780
Some things are logically inconsistent, some things are logically inconsistent with libertarianism,

545
00:57:54.780 --> 00:57:58.780
others are logically inconsistent with the best grounds for libertarianism.

546
00:57:58.780 --> 00:58:04.780
Other things are not either of those things, but they might tend sort of causally to undermine certain things.

547
00:58:04.780 --> 00:58:19.780
So, by saying that libertarians should come from there to the left, it doesn't mean dump all our right-wing friends and say bye-bye.

548
00:58:19.780 --> 00:58:31.780
Libertarianism is not a monogamous marriage. I don't know if that's the best example to use in making a concession to cultural conservatives.

549
00:58:31.780 --> 00:58:37.780
I want to tell two very brief stories and offer an alternative to your views.

550
00:58:37.780 --> 00:58:45.780
The first brief story is there was the Anti-Vietnam March and there were thousands of lefties all saying US out of Vietnam.

551
00:58:45.780 --> 00:58:52.780
And there were about three or four libertarians saying US out of the Bronx.

552
00:58:52.780 --> 00:58:57.780
The other brief story is I was part of Murray's little corporal's guard.

553
00:58:57.780 --> 00:59:07.780
We were members of the Peace and Freedom Party, which was the leftist anti-war party, and the two big groups were Progressive Labor and the Trotsky Army.

554
00:59:07.780 --> 00:59:15.780
And we were part of the Progressive Labor Alliance, and we had a compromise where we voted for the gold standard and in favor of rent control.

555
00:59:15.780 --> 00:59:23.780
I was on the station on rent control, and Murray said, vote, you know, vote in favor of rent control. I said, Murray!

556
00:59:23.780 --> 00:59:32.780
The point is that in those days, you could have libertarians on the fingers of one or two hands, or maybe three or four hands.

557
00:59:32.780 --> 00:59:36.780
Now we have tens of thousands of libertarians, depending on how you count them.

558
00:59:36.780 --> 00:59:39.780
I don't see why we should have an alliance with anyone.

559
00:59:43.780 --> 00:59:48.780
I think that when the lefties are good on war, anti-war, we support them.

560
00:59:48.780 --> 00:59:51.780
When the righties are good on something, don't ask me what.

561
00:59:51.780 --> 00:59:57.780
I don't support him. I don't see why we should be going after alliances.

562
00:59:57.780 --> 01:00:01.780
Hans takes the opposite point of view. He says, well, you know, we're really conservative.

563
01:00:01.780 --> 01:00:07.780
You take the, you know, we're really leftish. I sort of take the fun-line view that we're really libertarians.

564
01:00:07.780 --> 01:00:11.780
And there are no left-wing libertarians or right-wing libertarians. We're only libertarians.

565
01:00:11.780 --> 01:00:17.780
And those supposedly left-wing libertarians aren't really libertarians. And the right-wing libertarians, the pro-world ones, aren't really libertarians on that issue.

566
01:00:17.780 --> 01:00:37.780
Another quick story, Murray used to say, we kept looking around for the in-place. And finally we realized we were the in-place to be. We are the in-place to be. We don't need these commies and faggots.

567
01:00:37.780 --> 01:00:47.780
Well, remember who coined the term plumb line? It wasn't Rothbard, it was Benjamin Tucker.

568
01:00:47.780 --> 01:00:52.780
So the plumb line originally was somewhat farther to the left than Rothbard's plumb line.

569
01:00:52.780 --> 01:00:56.780
That's not an argument, just a snarky observation.

570
01:00:56.780 --> 01:01:08.780
A couple of things. First, certainly by an alliance, I don't think that one should make alliances where one compromises principles.

571
01:01:08.780 --> 01:01:20.780
I would never advise you to vote in favor of rent control. I'm not a pinko like Rothbard on that.

572
01:01:20.780 --> 01:01:25.780
Second, I'm not meaning to make a purely strategic point.

573
01:01:25.780 --> 01:01:38.780
I think that the aspects of the left that I do want to work with and the aspects of the left that I think do fit with libertarianism, that are a natural complement to it.

574
01:01:38.780 --> 01:01:48.780
But third, yeah, there's a lot more of us than there were back in the day, but still there's still a lot more of the state than there is of us.

575
01:01:48.780 --> 01:01:58.780
So even though I don't think myself to be making a purely strategic point, if as a matter of fact our principles do enable us to ally with certain people,

576
01:01:58.780 --> 01:02:04.780
and you know, lying with them isn't just sort of, hey, we'll think what we think and you think what you think, but we'll work together,

577
01:02:04.780 --> 01:02:08.780
but hey, maybe we can learn something from you and maybe we can teach you something.

578
01:02:08.780 --> 01:02:38.780
What I had heard from you was not understanding the lion so much as lead the left, that was a phrase that sort of stood out to me, so in a way, I don't think of it as compromise so much as how can you lead or grab people and bring them in together, my personal interest would be Christian libertarians, how can you grab those guys and drag them in the right direction or lead them I guess sounds a little nicer,

579
01:02:38.780 --> 01:02:48.780
What is your approach or almost like tactical blueprint to leading the left?

580
01:03:08.780 --> 01:03:11.780
to teach the left nothing to learn from them.

581
01:03:11.780 --> 01:03:15.780
I think we have to learn from them, not things about libertarian principle,

582
01:03:15.780 --> 01:03:20.780
but things about how certain kinds of social dynamics work

583
01:03:20.780 --> 01:03:24.780
that they paid more attention to than we traditionally have,

584
01:03:24.780 --> 01:03:27.780
some of which I think they're right about, not all of it.

585
01:03:27.780 --> 01:03:32.780
So I think that we genuinely have something to learn from them,

586
01:03:32.780 --> 01:03:34.780
but I also think as a matter of strategy,

587
01:03:34.780 --> 01:03:37.780
the best way to approach someone you want to lead

588
01:03:37.780 --> 01:03:40.780
is not to say, I've got all the answers, you're an idiot, come follow me.

589
01:03:40.780 --> 01:03:43.780
And that may work on some people, but those aren't the people we want.

590
01:03:43.780 --> 01:03:52.780
And certainly one strategy is if we can avoid sliding into a tendency,

591
01:03:52.780 --> 01:03:56.780
which we do sometimes have, to confuse defending the free market

592
01:03:56.780 --> 01:04:00.780
with defending whatever big corporation happens to be doing something right now,

593
01:04:00.780 --> 01:04:04.780
even when in some cases they're doing some kind of government favoritism and so forth,

594
01:04:04.780 --> 01:04:12.780
We don't want to encourage in them the idea that the free market is all about promoting the privilege of big corporations and so forth.

595
01:04:12.780 --> 01:04:23.780
In this case, the best strategy, I think, is to do something that I think we should do anyway, even apart from strategy.

596
01:04:23.780 --> 01:04:52.780
I wonder, you had a claimant argument earlier that the message by which the left, that the ideals of the left became the ideals of the right or something like that and the reason why the left adopted the methodology of the right and the right adopted the methodology of the left

597
01:04:52.780 --> 01:05:05.780
I said something that sounded a little bit like that, but there wasn't anything of the right adopting the means of the left, I don't think.

598
01:05:05.780 --> 01:05:11.780
You sought to explain the change in the alliance between the left and the right.

599
01:05:11.780 --> 01:05:27.780
I was wondering if perhaps a more mundane explanation, or what your thoughts of a more mundane economic explanation being that perhaps the requirements to win elections cause the need for shifting alliances.

600
01:05:27.780 --> 01:05:40.780
The alliance of people that were libertarian in social views and libertarian in economic views was no longer tenable.

601
01:05:57.780 --> 01:06:04.780
cannot tell.