In his book “For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto” Murray N. Rothbard gives us a little history of the Classical Liberals of the 17th and 18th century. He wrote the following:
The libertarian creed emerged from the “classical liberal” movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Western world, specifically, from the English Revolution of the seventeenth century. This radical libertarian movement, even though only partially successful in its birthplace, Great Britain, was still able to usher in the Industrial Revolution there by freeing industry and production from the strangling restrictions of State control and urban government-supported guilds. For the classical liberal movement was, throughout the Western world, a mighty libertarian “revolution” against what we might call the Old Order — the ancien régime — which had dominated its subjects for centuries. This regime had, in the early modern period beginning in the sixteenth century, imposed an absolute central State and a king ruling by divine right on top of an older, restrictive web of feudal land monopolies and urban guild controls and restrictions. The result was a Europe stagnating under a crippling web of controls, taxes, and monopoly privileges to produce and sell conferred by central (and local) governments upon their favorite producers. This alliance of the new bureaucratic, war-making central State with privileged merchants — an alliance to be called “mercantilism” by later historians — and with a class of ruling feudal landlords constituted the Old Order against which the new movement of classical liberals and radicals arose and rebelled in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The Classical Liberals sought to overturn the Old Order and level the playing field for all people to the extent that they could, which meant that the State was to be kept extremely small and its tax revenues were to be kept as small as possible. The classical liberals saw that taxes enabled the State and gave it power over the people and they knew that power corrupts.
I once saw a list of beliefs of those of us who urge voluntary cooperation. This list is also a fairly good description of what the Classical Liberals were urging in the 17th and 18th century.
- Private ownership of property; not only of personal possessions but also of land, homes, natural resources, tools, and capital goods;
- Contracts and voluntary exchange of goods and services, by individuals or groups, on the expectation of mutual benefit;
- Totally free competition among all buyers and sellers — in price, quality, and all other aspects of exchange — without ex ante restraints or burdensome barriers to entry;
- Entrepreneurial discovery, undertaken not only to compete in existing markets but also in order to discover and develop new opportunities for economic or social benefit; and
- Spontaneous order, recognized as a significant and positive coordinating force — in which decentralized negotiations, exchanges, and entrepreneurship converge to produce large-scale coordination without, or beyond the capacity of, any deliberate plans or explicit common blueprints for social or economic development.
The above list is essentially the Classical Liberal vision of laissez-faire capitalism and it is essentially the librarian view as well. The problem is that the list allows for the State in the view of a Classical Liberal. This is the idea of a “night watchman” state where the government is constrained to a few well defined and necessary duties. The government of the US started out just that way under the Articles of Confederation but look at how short a time it took to see power accumulate at the center. After just nine years of the Articles of Confederation we saw the enactment of the present Constitution and then centralized power really took off. From a “night watchman” start, we now have a central government with seemingly unlimited power to do as it pleases. Many recognize that we live in a police state now.
I have seen many people try to put a date on where America really went wrong. A favorite is the war between the states which meant that no state could secede from the union and “vote with its feet” any longer. Others say that it was WWI and the emergence of Empire by the US. Still others blame the reaction to the great depression by Franklin D. Roosevelt. I reject all the various guesses as to where we went wrong. I think that the new nation went wrong by forming a government in the first place. There was no way to write down some rules on a piece of paper that would constrain power-seeking men over time. Sooner or later the new government would grow teeth and bite the people. History is a testament to my view.
After centuries of experience most people continue to believe that “all good things flow from the compassionate nature of government.” Has the record of the actions of governments in the 20th century not shown us the true nature of the beast?
I am convinced that the Classic Liberals have been on the right path, but they need to recognize that the state is far too dangerous to ever make use of. We need to let people interact via mutual free-will consent. People will need protection since men are not Angels, and so private companies will arise to offer that protection to their customers. The free market can provide anything that the state claims to provide — and without pointing a gun at your head to make you buy it.
I agree completely with ” I think that the new nation went wrong by forming a government in the first place.” I’ve rarely read that perspective – but I agree with it wholeheartedly. Great article.
Mark, All fine and dandy until you run into the Bully on Horseback and his thugs. ( Think Minerva Reef vs Tonga)
At this point the world is just too small and you HAVE TO have a standing Army to keep the SOBs who would rather steal than trade at bay. If you have a standing Army that means taxes to pay for them and a government of some sort. The USA found out the hard way they needed a standing army in the war of 1812. The British government was impressing American sailors into the British Navy and imposing trade restrictions on the USA. The USA ‘won’ the war but Britain kept right on impressing US sailors.
If we did away with the US government tomorrow the land would be annexed by Mexico, Canada, Russia and maybe China within a month.
The world is full of power hungry sociopaths and the only option is to keep ‘yours’ under as much control as possible. That is why the right of free speech and the right to bear arms is so very important.
I would agree with this, and I would like to point out that more and more international agreements (such as those signed through UN climate conferences) have language inserted which will limit national sovereignty including the right of nations to keep standing armies. They might be trying to take your guns, but if they take your armies, hello peace-keepers and hello Orwell. Can you imagine the UN defending Syria? Remember Rwanda? There are even clauses inserted into these agreements which state that there is no way to get out of these agreements once they are signed. And of course, those doing the signing will be elected officials, but those gathering the signatures, writing the policies, and doling out punishment for not following the letter of the law are unelected. Remember Greece? Remember Pacino in Godfather III.
Read the following for more on this topic, who is involved, what is at stake, and what we should do (all wrapped up in a doubter-friendly article on climate and governance.)
https://atokenmanblog.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/environmentalism-conservancy-or-governance/
A very good point.
The Trans-Pacific Partnership – the biggest trade deal in a generation … of any trade agreement in history, and those commitments are enforceable As far as I can tell it is similar to the European Union with similar a surrender of sovereignty and open borders.
Most important is the clause that allows ALL other treaties signed to be punishable under the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
Exactly. The question is, who does the punishing, and under what authority if sovereignty is not forfeit.
Mark,
On a different but related topic, I would like your thoughts.
My education in history and philosophy is sketchy at best.
As you have outlined above the Classic Liberals really shook-up the dominant social order in the 1700s and 1800s. The Holy Roman Empire and satellite aristocracy had been in place for a thousand years. In December of 800, Pope Leo III crowned the Frankish king Charlemagne as Emperor. Emperor Francis II dissolved the empire on 6 August 1806, after its defeat by Napoleon at the Battle of Austerlitz.
A quick look at the history of the time shows:
1776 – American Revolution
1789 until 1799. French Revolution
1803 – 1815 Napoleonic Wars (involving most of Europe)
War of 1812
Chartism was a working-class movement for political reform in Britain which existed from 1838 to 1858. ( Classical Liberal or Socialist? I would think Classical Liberal.)
All of this was the third estate (peasants/bourgeoisie) shaking off the yoke of the Aristocracy and the clergy and putting a major scare into the elite.
…..
It is my thesis that contrary to popular belief, Karl Marx was not writing in the interest of the worker/peasant but in the interests of the Aristocracy/Banking Elite. The idea was to establish a replacement for the clergy as a method to legitimize the confiscation of private property and return it to the control of the State/Elite.
The Connection to the Aristocracy:</b.
From WIKI on Karl Marx:
From WIKI on Ludwig von Westphalen:
So Marx was not exactly unfriendly with the aristocracy.
On 28 August 1844, Marx met the German socialist Friedrich Engels at the Café de la Régence, beginning a lifelong friendship.[59] Engels showed Marx his recently published The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844,[60][61] convincing Marx that the working class would be the agent and instrument of the final revolution in history….
The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 had been written between April and August 1844.
In mid-July 1845, Marx and Engels left Brussels for England to visit the leaders of the Chartists, a socialist movement in Britain. This was Marx’s first trip to England and Engels was an ideal guide for the trip. Engels had already spent two years living in Manchester, from November 1842[85] to August 1844.[86] Not only did Engels already know the English language,[87] he had developed a close relationship with many Chartist leaders.[87] Indeed, Engels was serving as a reporter for many Chartist and socialist English newspapers….
, Marx knew that people would tend on most occasions to act in accordance with their own economic interests. Thus, appealing to an entire class (the working class in this case) with a broad appeal to the class’s best material interest would be the best way to mobilize the broad mass of that class to make a revolution and change society. This was the intent of the new book that Marx was planning…..
The Connection to the central banking cartel:
A wealth banker, his mother’s brother Benjamin Philips, financed Marx.
Also Nathan Rothschild was executor of Cecil Rhodes will around fifty years later.
…….
With that as background this passage from The Communist Manifesto makes a bit more sense:
Comments?
Feel free to take this and expand it if you think I might be on the correct track.
Also do not forget the Church was, prior to the American Revolution pushing:
1. The divine Right of Kings
2. Justification for taxation by the Aristocracy and the tithe for the Church:
Mark 12:14 – 17 (often quoted as “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”)
And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.
And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him.
3. Altruism
Hebrews 13:5 – [Let your] conversation [be] without covetousness; [and be] content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.
Proverbs 19:17 – He that hath pity upon the poor lendeth unto the LORD; and that which he hath given will he pay him again.
Luke 18:25 – For it is easier for a camel to go through a needle’s eye, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Mark 4:19 – And the cares of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, and the lusts of other things entering in, choke the word, and it becometh unfruitful.
4. Your reward in this the future and not in this life.
Matthew 5:1 -5
And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
And he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
….Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth….
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven….
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
…………..
Then follows a whole bunch of God’s laws reinforcing the Ten Commandments
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So What do we have from the Marxist Communists?
1. Justification for the Vanguard to seize power:
2. Your property and the wealth you create do not belong to you. (100% taxation)
3. The Karl Marx version of Altruism
From Dr. Thomas West
3. Your reward is in the future and not in your life time – (The withering away of the State.) Any and all measures for bring about this Socialist Utopia are allowed in keeping with Marx violent streak.
All quotes not from Dr West are from the book Willing Accomplices: How KGB Covert Influence Agents Created Political Correctness and Destroyed America by Kent Clizbe
The following is a critical point that I think Kent Clizbe is missing.
Clizbe says this of Dr West in his book.
The point Clizbe is missing is WHO sent Lenin from New York City to Russia in the first place and WHO financed the revolution.
Congressman McFadden answered the question in 1934 and was drummed out of Congress and then murdered as a result.
The above cartoon showing Marx being greeted with great delight by famous Wall Street financiers.
I see nothing that makes me think that Marx actually cared for the ‘Masses’ instead I see a giant scam to bring the masses back under the control of the elite.
Marx and Engel saw the masses as scum
The google translate of the last Marx quote is even worse:
erfrugen = inquire (for)**
http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-german/inquire
So anfrugen is likely a misspelling.