/liberty/ - Liberty

>>85542

>Is there anyone else who feels that the Mises Institute's influence on the libertarian scene is not always positive?

Well, their positive influence is hard to deny and I think has been overwhelming so far, but sure, it can't always be positive. The one fuckup I remember, but it was a huge one, was the thing with Hoppe and Tucker.

>The other day on twitter I saw a Mises tweet for an article describing the market as being "democratic" because you cast votes with your money. The problem is, someone with a billion dollars has about 999,999,999 more votes than someone who's living paycheck to paycheck. How is that democratic?

One could say it's democratic because the rich guy received his voting power from everyone else in the first place, but I can see why that wouldn't satisfy actual democrats. I think von Mises himself made excellent use of this rhetoric in his own works, but they're not well suited without the context, like on Twitter. There, people will expect a standalone argument of 140 words that perfectly sums up your whole philosophy. So it's a shitty place to begin with for intellectuals.

>Now, aside from bad arguments, I also feel that the Mises Institute focuses on things that simply don't register with most people. Ron Paul was popular because he had a few simple points, based on easily understood principles and fucking hammered those points again and again. One of the big ideas was: the U.S. is running an empire and fighting foreign wars that don't benefit the common man. Even people on the left can agree with this. The Mises Institute rarely talks about this. When the entire world was angry at Israel for shooting protestors, Mises was talking about gold or something irrelevant.

I see where you're coming from, but I think that the Mises Institute has a justification in this: It has the responsibility of keeping the torch of libertarianism alive. I'd rather they bring a new article once a month about why gold is a superior currency than that they'd comment on every new event and inform the public. Not to say that it was right in this particular case, but I can see why they'd have a tendency to commit such a mistake, and the reasons are beneficial.

That said, yes, they should report more on war, and also on democide. It's not just a very important propaganda tool, it's also very badly needed whether it aids the libertarian cause or not. If no one was convinced that the state is bad because it makes war far, far worse than it would otherwise be, at least they might be convinced that war should be generally avoided. There's some very good literature on democides but most of appears to be written from a pro-democratic, moderately liberal perspective. Why isn't the Mises Institute entering this game?

>>85542

>I did a search on the Mises.org for a discussion of Israel. The only result relating to the state of israel was an article published in a libertarian journal back in the 1980s, if i recall correctly. Not a single fucking article about the Israeli state and its abuses on Mises.org

Really? Okay, I never did such a comprehensive search on Israel in particular. I thought they had more articles. Seems I was wrong. In that case, I understand your beef a lot better now.

Me, I don't like Israel, for religious as well as personal reasons. Everything from them sitting on the Holy Land, to brutalizing the Middle East, to exploiting and guilttripping Germany in particular and the rest of the western world in general.

>Another thing. I watched an interview with Jeff Deist and Ron Paul a week ago. Jeff Deist said he felt the best way to reach people was by focusing on economic arguments. Dumbest fucking strategy in the world. Why? Because nobody wants to lose their gibs. Tell them that the U.S. is an empire and oppressing and killing poor people around the world, people might listen. Tell them you want to put us back on the gold standard and gut welfare - people tune out.

I think you're severely underestimating the worth of economic arguments. Some people understand them and are drawn in by them. Of course, that's not the Average Joe, but the Average Joe can be rallied by them in other ways. In my country, Germany, if you have an income of 2000 Euro per month, you keep around 1400 Euro, give or take. A third of your paycheck is taken by the government, and you're not even in a higher income bracket. Make people aware of that and of the fact that this money goes to 170kg heavy welfare queens with sixteen children from four fathers and you have hooked them. People react to that, not just because they love keeping their money, but also out of a sense of justice. Many people, at least.

Thanks for the good replies.

To be fair: I did a more selective search and can find 2 or 3 articles on Israeli, but nothing recent. There's a 1981 article uploaded to Mises.org, as well as a piece written by Rothbard in 1978, and maybe one other piece, but that's about it. Nothing contemporary.

Why does the Mises Institute choose to be silent on one of the biggest problems with statism: war and violence?

>>85550

There was also a debate that Tom Woods hosted, on whether the israelians had a right to Israel or not, and of course the one who defended their "right" was a jew. Also Tom, recently, had an episode on the Frankfurt School, were the guest named the jew, and said that the Frankfurt School had two objectives, the destruction of western civilization and the death of the white, heterosexual man.

I like this website, with all this apolitical and almost scientific strategy. Sure, it could go into pushing for libertarianism through heavy moralizing and opinions on everything, but i like it the way it is, talking things very little amount of people care, but further reinforcing the theory. The same way scientists do spend most time researching regular boring stuff they do keep building their theory. Who knows, one day this might actually make economics something more than a field of arguing for social polices, maybe even become an actual science, in a broad sense. They keep their discussions mostly descriptive, just pointing out flaws or benefits, at least as i can say from few articles i read, and while it may not help hiding weak points, it instead is more honest and consistent, which already puts this field higher than those who do not. I'd like them to be left as a bunch of nerds describing how world is, with this neutrality and indifference to things that happen now, while keeping ancap theory alive through time.

>>85542

Who doesn't want to lose the benefits?

I think the most important thing to empathize are the basic ones. Everyone has something different that they want the most. "Emotional" arguments work in a short term, if at all.

>>85542

>Dumbest fucking strategy in the world. Why? Because nobody wants to lose their gibs.

You're cutting off a lot of context here and dumbing it down to the max. Deist has been going on and on about how the populace has grown so economically illiterate and the science so hated, that it takes no effort for them to be manipulated. They won't care about "losing" gibs when they find out they were never winning in the first place.

> Not a single fucking article about the Israeli state and its abuses on Mises.org

They don't deal with that. It's an institute that focuses on teaching Austrian Economics. THE institute for it. They don't have to bother with anything else. They've stated it numerous times they don't exist solely to spread Libertarian propaganda. Da jooz are not the institute's highest concern.

> The problem is, someone with a billion dollars has about 999,999,999 more votes than someone who's living paycheck to paycheck. How is that democratic?

Did he not earn his voting power? Even then all his money and influence don't compare to the voting majority. If it were so the Kochs would have had the income tax repealed long ago. If you want "true" Democracy, meaning one person equals one unit of voting power, you would have to have a world of ABSOLUTE and extreme egalitarianism where nobody can build social influence in any way. Democracy is not something to pursue anyway.

>How is that democratic?

democracy is not always egalitarian

Anarchy has no institute.

>>85600

Anarchy has no brain.

>>85566

>They don't deal with that. It's an institute that focuses on teaching Austrian Economics. THE institute for it. They don't have to bother with anything else.

And yet they publish articles criticizing the Pope for being socialist. There was one published yesterday.

> Did he not earn his voting power?

Most of the time, no. Most great fortunes are accumulated through the use or manipulation of government or state power either through rent-seeking behavior, corporate welfare, or regulations to squeeze out small competitors, etc. On this issue I again don't understand why libertarians don't push the idea that government regulations are usually a tool of large entities to eliminate smaller ones.

>>85602

Anarchy is not a mental retardation.

The mises institute is a think tank and it should stay that way. The issues you're describing are either non-issues or issues generated by them trying to be more than a think tank.

>>85605

>And yet they publish articles criticizing the Pope for being socialist. There was one published yesterday.

They criticize anything related to Socialism with enough relevance. It's also not "they." Articles are independently published by different people. No one article represents a collective opinion of the institute. They conflict often enough. Pretty much none of the Catholic scholars approve of the Pope.

>On this issue I again don't understand why libertarians don't push the idea that government regulations are usually a tool of large entities to eliminate smaller ones.

They have and still do all of the time.

>>85542

>why does this economics organization only talk about economics?

You're a nigger-tier retard. All of the fellows of the Institute have their political writings published elsewhere. You have lewrockwell.com for example. Tom Woods also has his political podcast and many political books. There are others, but these are the most popular. If you don't even know these, then you haven't actually been paying attention.

>>85553

>Also Tom, recently, had an episode on the Frankfurt School, were the guest named the jew, and said that the Frankfurt School had two objectives, the destruction of western civilization and the death of the white, heterosexual man.

I remember that episode. One thing I found interesting about it was that it was a Jew, Paul Gottfried, who said and confirmed these things. He didn't start kvetching about antisemitism or whatever, he basically admitted "yeah, Jews have a tendency to support this kind of thing" (though it's obviously far from universal).

In answer to OP, even if you don't think the Mises Institute caters as well as it could to the common masses, I would argue that isn't where the Institute holds most of its value. While it's disconnected to a certain degree from current events (although topical articles do crop up periodically, like with baby Alfie a few weeks ago), this is what allows it to maintain ideologically pure, and devoted to the cause of liberty. Outreach is great but there are other, more effective avenues for it to reach the average Joe: podcasts like the Tom Woods show, youtube channels like Freedom Tunes, and so forth.

I usually focus on the ethical and meritocratic aspects.

"Why support a state that takes more property than robbers and seeks to enslave your children?"

"Why support a state that centralizes power in the hands of the most charismatic idiots?"

>>85542

>Jeff Deist said he felt the best way to reach people was by focusing on economic arguments. Dumbest fucking strategy in the world.

Right. Libertarianism is more than economics, and the implementation of libertarian economics does not mean that libertarianism will be implemented completely. The economy of the middle 19th century was mostly libertarian, but the social laws were not.

Also, if we want to reach the people, we have to build on more direct implications of individualism, like legalization of drugs.

>>85691

>You're a nigger-tier retard. All of the fellows of the Institute have their political writings published elsewhere.

A quick glance at some of the articles on Mises.org right now:

There Was a Time When the Feds Took Habeas Corpus Seriously

What the Supreme Court Got Wrong in Its Gay-Wedding Cake Decision

Tom Wolfe, RIP

yeah haha… nothing but pure economy theory!

The guy who wrote the Tom Wolfe article, Doug French is typical boomer cancer. Mises.org published an article two weeks ago where French called millenials spoiled and couldn't understand why they're turning to socialism in droves.

>hurr durr why are young people so STUPID

>its THEIR fault the economy is shit!

>why dont young people just get a job?!?!