WEBVTT

NOTE Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:04.960
My topic today is Rothbard and Big Tent Libertarianism.

2
00:00:04.960 --> 00:00:08.680
So let me start off by asking what libertarianism is.

3
00:00:08.680 --> 00:00:12.160
And in my view, libertarianism is the idea of non-aggression.

4
00:00:12.160 --> 00:00:13.400
You keep your midst to yourself.

5
00:00:13.400 --> 00:00:16.680
You don't grab other people or their property.

6
00:00:16.680 --> 00:00:19.720
The other side of the coin, though, is property rights.

7
00:00:19.720 --> 00:00:27.080
Because suppose I grab Bettina's blouse or her wristwatch.

8
00:00:27.080 --> 00:00:28.760
Am I aggressing against her?

9
00:00:28.760 --> 00:00:34.920
You don't know unless you know what property rights are because maybe she stole that wristwatch from me yesterday and now I'm repossessing it.

10
00:00:34.920 --> 00:00:40.200
So in order to tell the difference whether something is coercion or not, you have to have a theory of property rights.

11
00:00:40.200 --> 00:00:48.960
And libertarians have a theory of property rights based on homesteading and legitimate title transfer of buying and selling anything volunteering.

12
00:00:48.960 --> 00:00:53.800
Okay, so what is Big Tent? Obviously Big Tent is being inclusive.

13
00:00:53.800 --> 00:01:07.800
And the way I see libertarianism, this two-sided of the two sides of the coin, there are implications like what's the libertarian view on rent control, what's the libertarian view on free trade, what's the libertarian view on unions, what's the libertarian view on this, that or the other. There are 10,000 things.

14
00:01:07.800 --> 00:01:17.800
So to me, big tent libertarianism means if you're a weirdo and you believe in libertarianism in everything except rent control, you somehow you think rent control is great.

15
00:01:17.800 --> 00:01:19.800
Okay, so you're a libertarian, I'm easy.

16
00:01:21.000 --> 00:01:21.920
You know, they're a little weird,

17
00:01:21.920 --> 00:01:23.520
it's a little idiosyncratic,

18
00:01:23.520 --> 00:01:25.920
but what the heck, every dog gets one bite.

19
00:01:25.920 --> 00:01:28.600
That was Murray's view, even a few bites.

20
00:01:28.600 --> 00:01:30.200
We're not the randroids here.

21
00:01:30.200 --> 00:01:34.600
We don't insist on perfection of agreement on everything.

22
00:01:34.600 --> 00:01:37.080
You know, we have room for a little moderation.

23
00:01:38.480 --> 00:01:39.820
My own experience with Murray,

24
00:01:39.820 --> 00:01:42.320
I came to him as a minarchist and a non-Austrian.

25
00:01:42.320 --> 00:01:44.540
He was very receptive, very open.

26
00:01:44.540 --> 00:01:47.360
Murray has also had coalitions with the left,

27
00:01:47.360 --> 00:01:51.600
The Peace and Freedom Party with the right, the Randolph Club.

28
00:01:51.600 --> 00:01:53.380
These people didn't agree with us on everything,

29
00:01:53.380 --> 00:01:55.020
but they agreed with us on some things,

30
00:01:55.020 --> 00:01:57.640
and on those things he was willing to have a coalition.

31
00:01:57.640 --> 00:02:01.320
So this is sort of the open tent kind of an idea.

32
00:02:03.660 --> 00:02:04.800
Why did I pick this topic?

33
00:02:04.800 --> 00:02:06.560
The reason I picked this topic is

34
00:02:07.600 --> 00:02:09.620
there's this famous politician running

35
00:02:09.620 --> 00:02:11.900
whose name I won't be sharing with you,

36
00:02:11.900 --> 00:02:14.060
but I will say that he is a warm-up act

37
00:02:14.060 --> 00:02:15.560
for certain libertarians.

38
00:02:17.360 --> 00:02:20.860
And a lot of libertarians are criticizing him.

39
00:02:20.860 --> 00:02:22.860
They're saying, well, he's a little imperfect on this,

40
00:02:22.860 --> 00:02:26.460
he's a little imperfect on that, therefore we can't support him.

41
00:02:26.460 --> 00:02:30.360
And that's why I wanted to pursue the Big Tent idea,

42
00:02:30.360 --> 00:02:35.560
you know, just how far do we open ourselves up to other people?

43
00:02:35.560 --> 00:02:39.260
And my idea is that there are certain issues on which,

44
00:02:39.260 --> 00:02:44.660
on the basis of which, libertarians still have debates, internal debates.

45
00:02:44.660 --> 00:02:54.340
There are eminent libertarians on both sides, and when there are eminent libertarians on both sides of an issue, it ill behooves us to say, well, anyone who's on this side of the issue can't be a libertarian.

46
00:02:54.340 --> 00:02:58.300
I think that the big tent should be open up enough for that.

47
00:02:58.300 --> 00:03:05.780
Later on, I'll give an example of where I think we should not open our tent to all comers.

48
00:03:05.780 --> 00:03:09.940
Let me give another argument in favor of open tent or big tent.

49
00:03:09.940 --> 00:03:39.940
we're very small so on pragmatic grounds it behooves us to accept people who are not perfect we don't insist on perfection progress is fine let me give you the example I've got 20 different issues on which libertarianism is either unclear or divisive or what have you and in my view if people disagree with me personally in all 20 and I have views of my own on all 20 of these they're still a libertarian for example immigration and I'll have more to say about that

50
00:03:39.940 --> 00:03:45.020
But I find on the opposite side, I'm an open borders type, but I find on the closed borders,

51
00:03:45.020 --> 00:03:50.100
three of the people who I regard as the chief preeminent libertarian theoreticians disagree with me.

52
00:03:50.100 --> 00:03:53.780
Murray Rothbard, Stefan Kinsella and Hans Hoppe.

53
00:03:53.780 --> 00:03:56.940
And they have what I recognize as libertarian arguments for their side.

54
00:03:56.940 --> 00:03:58.380
I disagree, but that's a different point.

55
00:03:58.380 --> 00:04:02.380
I would never say that if you disagree with me on this, you're not a libertarian

56
00:04:02.380 --> 00:04:05.580
because there are eminent libertarians on both sides.

57
00:04:05.580 --> 00:04:09.860
Another one is abortion. Should we be pro-life, pro-choice, when does human life begin?

58
00:04:09.860 --> 00:04:12.860
Is the fetus a trespasser? Is it a parasite?

59
00:04:12.860 --> 00:04:15.580
These views are all current among libertarians.

60
00:04:15.580 --> 00:04:18.340
So how could we possibly say that someone

61
00:04:18.340 --> 00:04:19.860
that doesn't agree with us on this issue

62
00:04:19.860 --> 00:04:21.180
isn't a libertarian?

63
00:04:21.180 --> 00:04:22.780
Voluntary slavery contracts.

64
00:04:22.780 --> 00:04:25.900
Is this selling the will and therefore impossible?

65
00:04:25.900 --> 00:04:28.580
What about specific performance contracts?

66
00:04:28.580 --> 00:04:30.140
Some people say, well, if you don't own it,

67
00:04:30.140 --> 00:04:32.300
you can't, if you can't sell it, you don't own it.

68
00:04:32.300 --> 00:04:33.540
If you can't sell your freedom,

69
00:04:33.540 --> 00:04:35.380
then you don't own your freedom.

70
00:04:35.380 --> 00:04:37.540
This is a complicated issue.

71
00:04:37.540 --> 00:04:39.500
What about reparations to former slaves

72
00:04:39.500 --> 00:04:43.500
Should we give the country back to the Indians? What about a Statue of Limitations?

73
00:04:43.500 --> 00:04:48.500
Again, there are disagreements among people who I regard as eminent libertarians.

74
00:04:48.500 --> 00:04:56.500
We have a Lockean homesteading proviso that homesteading applies only if there is good and as much left for everyone else.

75
00:04:56.500 --> 00:05:00.500
I think all libertarians reject that, but I've got a new one for stalling.

76
00:05:00.500 --> 00:05:07.500
If you homestead in a donut pattern and you prevent people from entering the hole in the donut, is that a legitimate form of homesteading?

77
00:05:07.500 --> 00:05:11.400
Form of Homesteading, again, disagreements on that.

78
00:05:11.400 --> 00:05:13.740
What about property rights and the environment?

79
00:05:13.740 --> 00:05:15.660
Intellectual property rights.

80
00:05:15.660 --> 00:05:18.120
Stefan Kinsella and Murray Rothbard disagree on this.

81
00:05:18.120 --> 00:05:20.600
I think if Murray were alive, he would agree with Stefan.

82
00:05:20.600 --> 00:05:22.660
I know Stefan turned me around on this issue,

83
00:05:22.660 --> 00:05:24.460
but it's still, it's a divisive issue.

84
00:05:25.760 --> 00:05:27.760
Then there's the justification of libertarianism.

85
00:05:27.760 --> 00:05:30.400
You see, the way I see libertarianism,

86
00:05:30.400 --> 00:05:32.400
it's sort of like a teepee or a tent.

87
00:05:32.400 --> 00:05:35.200
You got six or eight sticks,

88
00:05:35.200 --> 00:05:37.080
and the long part of the stick holds the tent,

89
00:05:37.080 --> 00:05:39.320
and then there's this little bit extra up there.

90
00:05:39.320 --> 00:05:42.040
And these are the justifications of libertarianism.

91
00:05:42.040 --> 00:05:43.760
Well, there are various justifications.

92
00:05:43.760 --> 00:05:47.160
There's natural rights that Murray Rothbard started with.

93
00:05:47.160 --> 00:05:49.720
There's the Mises utilitarian argument.

94
00:05:49.720 --> 00:05:52.640
There's the Ayn Rand justification.

95
00:05:52.640 --> 00:05:55.400
There's Hans Hoppe's brilliant argument from argument

96
00:05:55.400 --> 00:05:57.260
or argumentation ethics.

97
00:05:57.260 --> 00:05:58.600
Libertarians disagree on that.

98
00:05:58.600 --> 00:06:01.000
In my view is we're all libertarians

99
00:06:01.000 --> 00:06:02.940
if we agree on the non-aggression axiom

100
00:06:02.940 --> 00:06:04.160
and property rights.

101
00:06:04.160 --> 00:06:05.920
And it really doesn't matter how you justify it.

102
00:06:05.920 --> 00:06:10.560
You sort of start from that two-sided coin.

103
00:06:10.560 --> 00:06:14.120
Another one is minarchism versus anarchism.

104
00:06:14.120 --> 00:06:18.920
There was the Dallas Accord, where people in the libertarian party said, well, look,

105
00:06:18.920 --> 00:06:20.080
we won't fight this one out.

106
00:06:20.080 --> 00:06:23.320
We'll wait until we get rid of 95% of the state, and then we'll worry about the rest

107
00:06:23.320 --> 00:06:24.320
of it.

108
00:06:24.320 --> 00:06:28.940
In the meantime, let's agree that there are both sides of this issue among us, and we're

109
00:06:28.940 --> 00:06:31.780
big tentists in this regard.

110
00:06:31.780 --> 00:06:35.240
Another one, should you take matching funds from the government?

111
00:06:35.240 --> 00:06:40.720
Is it hypocritical to vote? Is it seizing stolen wealth if you take matching funds?

112
00:06:40.720 --> 00:06:46.080
I just wrote about this in lewrockwell.com and I got a barrage of criticism from within

113
00:06:46.080 --> 00:06:51.240
the libertarian movement, I regard. What about voting or not voting in political

114
00:06:51.240 --> 00:06:57.580
elections? Is this taking part? Is this supporting evil? Or do we agree with spooner, no treason

115
00:06:57.580 --> 00:07:02.880
where it's a defensive activity? Again, disputes, legitimate disputes.

116
00:07:02.880 --> 00:07:04.880
What about the U.S. Constitution?

117
00:07:04.880 --> 00:07:07.380
A certain politician supports the U.S. Constitution,

118
00:07:07.380 --> 00:07:09.880
although at lunch he said that it's not perfect.

119
00:07:09.880 --> 00:07:12.880
Well, maybe the Articles of Confederation are better.

120
00:07:12.880 --> 00:07:15.880
If you support the Constitution, does that mean you're not a libertarian?

121
00:07:15.880 --> 00:07:17.880
Ridiculous.

122
00:07:17.880 --> 00:07:19.380
Ownership of ourselves.

123
00:07:19.380 --> 00:07:24.380
We consist of nothing more than a sperm and an egg and a bunch of stuff from our mother.

124
00:07:24.380 --> 00:07:26.380
So why don't they own us?

125
00:07:26.380 --> 00:07:27.380
Why do we own ourselves?

126
00:07:27.380 --> 00:07:28.880
And obviously you can go back.

127
00:07:28.880 --> 00:07:30.380
This is an unsolved issue.

128
00:07:30.380 --> 00:07:35.580
If anyone's got a great solution, please clue me in on this one puzzle.

129
00:07:35.580 --> 00:07:39.180
Human shields. Suppose I take A and I throw A against B.

130
00:07:39.180 --> 00:07:41.780
They've each got a gun, but they can't shoot me for some reason.

131
00:07:41.780 --> 00:07:44.580
It's my example, you know, they can't shoot me.

132
00:07:44.580 --> 00:07:46.580
Well, who has the right to shoot who?

133
00:07:46.580 --> 00:07:48.780
The missile or the recipient of the missile?

134
00:07:48.780 --> 00:07:50.380
It's unclear. Or a shield.

135
00:07:50.380 --> 00:07:52.980
I grab A and I hide behind A and I try to shoot B.

136
00:07:52.980 --> 00:07:56.580
Can B shoot through A to get at me, the bad guy?

137
00:07:56.580 --> 00:08:00.180
Very complicated issues that lead into all sorts of complexities

138
00:08:00.180 --> 00:08:06.480
And again, I'm not ruling anyone out of the libertarian movement who disagrees with me on this one also.

139
00:08:06.480 --> 00:08:09.380
What about the bum in the public library?

140
00:08:09.380 --> 00:08:13.420
There's a bum who's sitting there and smelling up the place and no one else can use the public library.

141
00:08:13.420 --> 00:08:15.140
So one answer is kick him out.

142
00:08:15.140 --> 00:08:20.820
Another answer, wait, wait, wait, this is public property, we're against public property, maybe we should root for the bum.

143
00:08:20.820 --> 00:08:24.140
Very, very complicated.

144
00:08:24.140 --> 00:08:33.340
Blackmail, I threaten that unless you give me money or go to bed with me, I will reveal to all that you take a bath with a rubber ducky.

145
00:08:33.340 --> 00:08:38.840
Did I commit a crime? Well, it wasn't nice what I did, but is it a crime? Complicated issue.

146
00:08:38.840 --> 00:08:46.340
Incitement, I say, go, burn, rape, loot, murder, kill. And you idiots go out and do that.

147
00:08:46.340 --> 00:08:50.840
Well, you morons are criminals, but what about me? I didn't do it, I just told you guys to do it.

148
00:08:50.840 --> 00:08:54.280
Well, if you have free will, it's your responsibility, but other people say,

149
00:08:54.280 --> 00:08:58.440
Stefan Kinsella and I are finding ourselves on opposite sides of this one,

150
00:08:58.440 --> 00:09:00.600
then I'm guilty too.

151
00:09:00.600 --> 00:09:02.400
What about yelling for in a crowded theater?

152
00:09:02.400 --> 00:09:04.880
I wrote about that in Defending the Undefendable.

153
00:09:04.880 --> 00:09:06.040
I have certain views on that.

154
00:09:06.040 --> 00:09:07.720
Other people have different views.

155
00:09:07.720 --> 00:09:10.000
What about a quarantine for dangerous disease?

156
00:09:10.000 --> 00:09:13.760
Is this an initiation of force against the person with the communicable disease?

157
00:09:13.760 --> 00:09:16.560
Or do we interpret that the person with the communicable disease

158
00:09:16.560 --> 00:09:19.800
is, in effect, a time bomb waiting to go off

159
00:09:19.800 --> 00:09:26.520
nd he is like a bomb and we have to take defensive efforts against him. Complicated.

160
00:09:26.520 --> 00:09:32.680
Last one is punishment theory. I steal a TV. What should happen to me? Well, my view is very draconian.

161
00:09:32.680 --> 00:09:40.040
Two teeth for two. First I give him my own TV. First I give him back his TV. Then I give him one of mine.

162
00:09:40.040 --> 00:09:46.720
Then we charge me costs of capture. And then we charge me a scaring fee. Scaring means I scared him.

163
00:09:46.720 --> 00:09:53.720
Okay, let me now consider in some detail the issue of immigration. There is this article written by Don Boehm-Bawerk, who is the director of the Department of Foreign Affairs of the United States of America.

164
00:10:16.720 --> 00:10:39.720
William Boudreaux, who is a professor of economics at the George Mason University, and he says one of the most bizarre developments in the last decade or so is the insistence by a small handful of people who parade under the banner of, quote, libertarian or advocate of free markets and say that the state has both the right and the duty to limit immigration.

165
00:10:39.720 --> 00:10:51.720
and he goes on to just rip this to shreds for the best of his ability, implying that the people who believe this are not libertarians in direct contradiction to the point that I'm trying to make, the big tent approach.

166
00:10:51.720 --> 00:11:00.720
Please, the people in the back, there are plenty of seats in the front, come on down, enjoy, sit down if you want.

167
00:11:00.720 --> 00:11:03.720
Here's another quote from him.

168
00:11:03.720 --> 00:11:13.720
Indeed, say these libertarian skeptics of immigration, open immigration today is 10 amounts of forced integration.

169
00:11:13.720 --> 00:11:20.720
Now this is roughly a reasonable summary of Hans Hoppe's position and Murray Rothbard's position and Kinsella's position.

170
00:11:20.720 --> 00:11:23.720
And again, my view is that they're wrong.

171
00:11:23.720 --> 00:11:29.720
I'm an open borders type, but I differ from Boudreau in not dismissing out of hand as libertarian.

172
00:11:29.720 --> 00:11:37.620
of Hand as Libertarianist. I regard this as a reasonable but mistaken Libertarian argument.

173
00:11:37.620 --> 00:11:42.640
Here's another quote. First, to ask government to mimic the outcomes of a pure private property

174
00:11:42.640 --> 00:11:48.000
rights system, the idea that since individuals can exclude or preclude people from entry

175
00:11:48.000 --> 00:11:53.720
on grounds of trespass, is to come dangerously close to asking government to treat the entire

176
00:11:53.720 --> 00:11:58.860
country as if that country is private property of the state. What an irony. Well, we come

177
00:11:58.860 --> 00:12:10.860
Welcome back to The Bum and the Library. Should the government treat the library as its private property, and we sort of assume that if private, if we had a private library, they wouldn't allow bums in there, so maybe the government shouldn't.

178
00:12:10.860 --> 00:12:19.860
The implication here is we shouldn't have any rules of the road, because again, government is acting to say, oh, 65 miles an hour and you can't do this, you can't be drunk or whatever it is.

179
00:12:19.860 --> 00:12:27.860
The government is acting as if it owns the roads, and strictly speaking, I'm on record as saying we should have private roads, but does that mean that the government shouldn't have any rules?

180
00:12:27.860 --> 00:12:33.860
Well, that's one position. Here's another quote from him.

181
00:12:33.860 --> 00:12:40.860
Likewise, allowing people to immigrate into a country is not the same thing as forcing citizens of that country to associate with immigrants.

182
00:12:40.860 --> 00:12:49.860
This is nonsense. I mean, if hordes of people come into the country, say a billion Chinese enter the country, will we have to associate with them?

183
00:12:49.860 --> 00:12:57.860
Yes, we will have to. So I think it's disingenuous of Boudreaux to make this view.

184
00:12:57.860 --> 00:13:04.860
Again, under a regime of open immigration, I need not hire or befriend anyone who I don't wish to hire or befriend.

185
00:13:04.860 --> 00:13:10.860
Well, you might not have to befriend them, but they might mug you or rob you or rape you or what have you.

186
00:13:10.860 --> 00:13:15.860
So to say that immigration has no effect is highly problematic.

187
00:13:15.860 --> 00:13:25.560
Then again, he says, an immigrant who receives no welfare payments engages only in consensual capitalist acts with those and only those domestic citizens who choose to deal with the immigrant.

188
00:13:25.560 --> 00:13:27.960
Well, but we do have welfare.

189
00:13:27.960 --> 00:13:35.060
One of my favorite TV shows is The Simpsons, and when Appu got his, what do you call it, citizenship,

190
00:13:35.060 --> 00:13:38.360
the first thing he said is, where's the welfare office?

191
00:13:38.360 --> 00:13:43.960
Well, I don't know that everyone who does this will go on welfare, but the point is that they can go on welfare,

192
00:13:43.960 --> 00:13:47.560
and we have to make this decision right now in the context of welfare,

193
00:13:47.560 --> 00:13:54.660
not in some sort of idealized context where there is no welfare.

194
00:13:54.660 --> 00:14:01.660
Okay, I've now discussed cases of open-tent-ism, one where you have one deviation on things

195
00:14:01.660 --> 00:14:06.340
that most libertarians would agree on, say rent control. Then I've given you 20, a list

196
00:14:06.340 --> 00:14:11.980
of 20 things where I think that libertarianism is in a state of flux. We deal with complex

197
00:14:11.980 --> 00:14:18.380
legal realities and I think that our, you know, I once saw a sign, drive gently, you

198
00:14:18.380 --> 00:14:24.220
know, when you drive. Well, I think we should ideologize gently. We should be gentle with

199
00:14:24.220 --> 00:14:27.300
People who disagree with us on issues that are not settled.

200
00:14:27.300 --> 00:14:29.620
But now, you know, they say an open mind is good,

201
00:14:29.620 --> 00:14:30.980
but you don't want to have such an open mind

202
00:14:30.980 --> 00:14:32.900
that your brains fall out.

203
00:14:32.900 --> 00:14:35.780
Well, I'm now gonna approach a case

204
00:14:35.780 --> 00:14:37.620
where I don't think we should have an open intent,

205
00:14:37.620 --> 00:14:40.220
and this is the so-called pro-war libertarians

206
00:14:40.220 --> 00:14:43.540
or the imperialist libertarians

207
00:14:43.540 --> 00:14:44.860
or the warmongering libertarians

208
00:14:44.860 --> 00:14:46.660
or whatever you want to call them.

209
00:14:46.660 --> 00:14:49.300
The reason I'm not too open here

210
00:14:50.860 --> 00:14:53.300
is I regard this as a direct attack

211
00:14:53.300 --> 00:14:56.580
on the Law of Non-Aggression.

212
00:14:56.580 --> 00:14:59.140
Now there's this guy Bill Peterson here.

213
00:14:59.140 --> 00:15:01.580
I think I'm gonna go down and slug him.

214
00:15:01.580 --> 00:15:02.420
Why?

215
00:15:02.420 --> 00:15:05.620
Because he has weapons of individual destruction.

216
00:15:05.620 --> 00:15:08.300
He's got arms, he's got legs, he's got a cane,

217
00:15:08.300 --> 00:15:09.980
he could bop me, he's got teeth.

218
00:15:10.980 --> 00:15:12.980
He didn't smile at my jokes.

219
00:15:12.980 --> 00:15:15.380
So I regard this as a hostile act.

220
00:15:15.380 --> 00:15:17.300
So I'm gonna go down and slug him.

221
00:15:17.300 --> 00:15:19.400
Now, am I a libertarian?

222
00:15:19.400 --> 00:15:21.260
Come on, give me a break.

223
00:15:21.260 --> 00:15:23.900
This is not exactly libertarianism.

224
00:15:23.900 --> 00:15:26.980
So I don't think that we have to have an open tent

225
00:15:26.980 --> 00:15:29.700
to include the pro-war libertarians,

226
00:15:29.700 --> 00:15:32.160
among whom are many critics of this politician

227
00:15:32.160 --> 00:15:35.460
who is my warm-up act, whose name I won't mention.

228
00:15:35.460 --> 00:15:38.020
I think we have to draw the line somewhere.

229
00:15:38.020 --> 00:15:41.060
And if people so pervert the very essence of libertarianism,

230
00:15:41.060 --> 00:15:42.800
the Non-Aggression Act seem to say that, you know,

231
00:15:42.800 --> 00:15:45.540
because some little third-rate country,

232
00:15:45.540 --> 00:15:49.280
10, 12,000 miles away could maybe one day attack us,

233
00:15:49.280 --> 00:15:51.140
never has, never made any threats,

234
00:15:51.140 --> 00:15:53.040
We're gonna go get them.

235
00:15:53.040 --> 00:15:54.780
That's a perversion of everything

236
00:15:54.780 --> 00:15:56.520
that we hold dear as libertarians.

237
00:15:59.620 --> 00:16:02.260
Bob Higgs is one of my good friends.

238
00:16:02.260 --> 00:16:04.860
I hope he'll regard me in that way.

239
00:16:04.860 --> 00:16:06.620
And I agreed with everything he said

240
00:16:06.620 --> 00:16:10.980
in his analysis last night about this idea of

241
00:16:14.940 --> 00:16:17.700
being fooled by people who say that we should have wars

242
00:16:17.700 --> 00:16:19.420
and whenever they announce a war

243
00:16:19.420 --> 00:16:20.660
or even a war that might occur,

244
00:16:20.660 --> 00:16:25.660
before we sort of all fall in line and let them get away with anything.

245
00:16:25.660 --> 00:16:26.660
It was sort of a little depressing.

246
00:16:26.660 --> 00:16:27.660
I mean, it was very accurate,

247
00:16:27.660 --> 00:16:31.660
but it's sort of a critical kind of analysis that he gave.

248
00:16:31.660 --> 00:16:34.660
I wish, I really wish that I had a solution and said,

249
00:16:34.660 --> 00:16:36.660
aha, here's the case for optimism.

250
00:16:36.660 --> 00:16:38.660
I don't really have the case for optimism,

251
00:16:38.660 --> 00:16:43.660
but I sometimes find that if we can understand the problem,

252
00:16:43.660 --> 00:16:44.660
even though it's not a solution,

253
00:16:44.660 --> 00:16:45.660
it sort of leads to the solution,

254
00:16:45.660 --> 00:16:49.660
and maybe other people will find a solution for it.

255
00:16:49.660 --> 00:16:58.660
So what I want to offer is an analysis of why it is so hard to put forth the libertarian message or put forth the Austrian message.

256
00:16:58.660 --> 00:17:05.660
And the answer is sociobiology. How many people here are afraid of bathtubs? Raise your hand.

257
00:17:05.660 --> 00:17:12.660
Shut up. Trying to ruin my example. How many people are afraid of snakes?

258
00:17:12.660 --> 00:17:14.660
Most people are afraid of snakes.

259
00:17:14.660 --> 00:17:18.660
Yet more people nowadays die from bathtubs than from snakes.

260
00:17:18.660 --> 00:17:21.660
Yet we're viscerally sort of hardwired to fear snakes. Why?

261
00:17:21.660 --> 00:17:24.660
Because of sociobiological considerations.

262
00:17:24.660 --> 00:17:30.660
Namely, we are the way we are today because of what it took to live 100,000 years ago.

263
00:17:30.660 --> 00:17:34.660
I remember after the Katrina case, there were price gougers.

264
00:17:34.660 --> 00:17:40.660
They would raise prices for orange juice or milk or candles or flashlight batteries.

265
00:17:40.660 --> 00:17:46.660
and everyone visibly hated them and the governor said we're going to throw these price gougers in jail.

266
00:17:46.660 --> 00:17:56.660
There are good reasons to have price gouging. One, it rations extant supplies and two, it calls forth new supplies.

267
00:17:56.660 --> 00:18:06.660
But we're not hardwired to accept this. So I hope that this will be of some help to you in considering why we have such troubles in convincing people even though we're right.

268
00:18:06.660 --> 00:18:11.940
are right. I think the only answer is education and the Mises Institute as far as I'm concerned

269
00:18:11.940 --> 00:18:15.420
is one of the preeminent institutions in promoting this sort of education. Thank you.