This article is an edited version of Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s opening address to the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society (PFS) held in Bodrum, Turkey at the Hotel Karia Princess, June 3-7, 2010. The address provides an insightful overview of various libertarian alliances and strategies over past decades, including the paleo-libertarian/paleo-conservative alliance, and reasons for its failure. Hoppe illustrates how the state has coopted even most free market think tanks into serving the state’s aims, because they are not radical enough and their principal addressee is the central government. Hoppe argues (a) that libertarians must not put their trust in politicians or get distracted by politics and (b) using the case of Pat Buchanan as an example, that it is impossible to have a lasting intellectual association with people (such as some conservatives) who are either unwilling or incapable of grasping the principles of economics.
In view of these insights and this history, Hoppe surveys the brief history of the PFS and sets out its basic purposes.
I was privileged to attend to the Fifth Annual Meeting of the Property and Freedom Society last week. It was held in beautiful Bodrum, Turkey at the Hotel Karia Princess, from June 3-7, 2010. The list of speakers may be found in the Program. This is my second, having also attended the inaugural meeting in 2006. I’ll put up another blog soon with more details about the event, but for now let me say it was without a doubt the best liberty related event I’ve ever attended. And two of my fellow TLS co-bloggers also attended–Gil Guillory and Juan Fernando Carpio.
Group photo from the Fifth Annual Meeting, June 2010, Hotel Karia Princess, Bodrum
Professor Hoppe’s opening address, “The Property And Freedom Society — Reflections After Five Years,” is published here on The Libertarian Standard today. It’s a fascinating, informative, and perceptive overview of various libertarian paleo- and related alliances over the years.
Hoppe surveys the mistakes of former alliances, and lessons learned; and also devastatingly illustrates how the state has coopted even most free market think tanks into serving the state’s aims:
The strategy of Hayek and of the Mont Pelerin Society, then, had to fail. Instead of helping to reform—liberalize—the (Western) State, as they intended (or pretended?) to do, the Mont Pelerin Society and the international “limited-government” think-tank industry would become an integral part of a continuously expanding welfare-warfare state system.
Indicators for this verdict abound: The typical location of the think tanks is in or near the capital city, most prominently Washington, DC., because their principal addressee is the central government. They react to measures and announcements of government, and they suggest and make proposals to government. Most contacts of think-tankers outside their own institution are with politicians, government bureaucrats, lobbyists, and assorted staffers and assistants. Along with connected journalists, these are also the regular attendees of their conferences, briefings, receptions and cocktail parties. There is a steady exchange of personnel between think tanks and governments. And the leaders of the limited government industry are frequently themselves prominent members of the power elite and the ruling class.
Most indicative of all: For decades, the limited government movement has been a growth industry. Its annual expenditures currently run in the hundreds of millions of dollars, and billions of dollars likely have been spent in total. All the while, government expenditures never and nowhere fell, not even once, but instead always and uninterruptedly increased to ever more dizzying heights.
And yet, this glaring failure of the industry to deliver the promised good of limited government is not punished but, perversely, rewarded with still more ample funds. The more the think tanks fail, the more money they get.
The State and the free market think tank industry thus live in perfect harmony with each other. They grow together, in tandem.
RECENT DEVELOPMENT: Friends to both my right and my left latch onto my admiration for Ludwig von Mises as a way to avoid using the word “libertarian.”
Today I was invited to help out on a political campaign, a run for office by a man thinking of using the “Tea Party” rubric. To get my support, he said that his campaign organizers were all “Misesians.” And a neighbor of mine, a famous rock musician, has repeatedly brought up Mises as an indicator of my political and social thought and orientation.
This interests me, in part, because it seems something new. “Mises” is becoming a brand, “Misesian” a respectable label.
It also interests me that the Hayek Brand appears to be receding in importance. Twenty years ago, I am sure Hayek would have been chosen as the hero corresponding with my ideology. Though “Hayek” still soars in academia, in America at large “Mises” has gained ground, and perhaps even surpassed “Hayek.”
Further, none of my friends and interlocutors really want to dredge up the one thinker with whom I most readily identify: Herbert Spencer. His brand is still in the proverbial toilet.
Apparently, Paul Krugman has never read the work of Ludwig von Mises and F.A. Hayek. Chortling on The New York Times blog, he yammers away in this manner:
Many of the comments to my Austrian economics post are of the form “Well, of course employment rises when investment is expanding, and falls when the investment is falling — in the first case the economy is booming while in the second it’s slumping.”
As I tried to explain, however, that’s assuming the conclusion; there’s no “of course” about it. Why do periods when the economy is investing more correspond to booms, while periods when it’s investing less correspond to slumps? That’s easy to understand in Keynesian terms — but the whole Austrian claim is that they’re an alternative to Keynesianism. Yet I have never seen a clear explanation of this central point.
There are books that deal with this by Hayek, Mises and others. Why doesn’t Krugman reference them, rather than drone on about the quality (or lack thereof) of his blog commenters?
I could, at this point, dredge up those Hayekian and Misesian pearls. But, for the moment, I feel challenged by Krugman’s apparent requirement that bloggers spin this stuff anew, so I’ll give my shot at an answer to his challenge, without referencing any of the Austrian classics. They are there for all to read. But it’s always a good experiment to see how one thinks through this on one’s feet.
Problem is, Krugman’s challenge seems fairly obvious. I need a handicap. So I’ve downed three shots of anisette, and am on my fourth. Can I answer Krugman drunk?
I think so.
Reading his post, I see that the question should be reformulated: Why is it when investment picks up, so does employment? …
