Power & Market

It’s been already two weeks since I began my own fellowship at the very Mises Institute. During this time a lot of things have already happened, both in the local American scene as well as in the rest of the world--my own country, Ecuador, included.

Given my own affinities with ideas from various sources in the political right, from the classical liberalism of Mises and Hayek and the anarcho-capitalism of Rothbard and Hoppe to the traditional conservatism of Burke and Scruton and the novel post-liberalism of Deneen, Vermeule and Ahmari, I was amazed and intrigued to read a fairly recent article by Mises Institute President, Jeff Deist, discussing the rise in the popularity of this last group and of its ideas.

For a person like me, who tries to navigate the muddy waters between libertarianism and conservatism, ideological tags have become meaningless. In Ecuador, where media and academia are dominated by the progressive left and its liquid culture, politics has become synonymous with nepotism, corruption, and inefficiency.

There have been instances where I have tried to combine my libertarian and my conservative leanings into a single philosophy, as some kind of liberal illiberalism; an economic skepticism of the organization of the modern State;  a practical and moral defense, from a socialist and nationalist perspective, of the existence of private property; and even a conservative interpretation of the tenet of the Austrian School of Economics. But none of these attempts seem to get to the point where a viable mix of libertarianism and conservatism is developed.

In a spontaneous coincidence more than a deliberate attempt, Jeff and I have been thinking about the same issues. This is not the first time he has theorized on ways to introduce free market and sound money ideas into the school of conservative thought that seems to be fashionable in the moment.

But Austro-libertarianism paradoxically seems to follow the Burkean way, in which our intellectual development as a doctrine expands with moderation and prudence. Conservatism, or at least, American conservatism, has adopted the old leftist vice of infighting, reducing itself into warring factions against each other, where the least difference in theory (or the popularity of a certain leading figure) is reason enough for the movement to break its fragile peace or for a new faction to arise.

For conservatives and libertarians in the ground, working 8 to 5 jobs while trying to get involved in local and grassroot politics-- and most importantly, struggling to survive with freedom and dignity in a world where the most ridiculous whims of our ruling classes get imposed with legislation and enforced with the state’s monopoly on taxation and violence--petty conflicts within the conservative intellectual and managerial class seem truly unimportant. They not only demonstrate the instability of a movement that lacks power, but also steal our most precious and irreplaceable resource, which is time.

Nonetheless, there seems to be something different about the rise of post-liberalism, even with its internal differences and with career politicians trying to capitalize on its apparent success.

It may be because its leading figures, having learnt from the Donald Trump experience and from his successes and mistakes in the American presidency, have become wiser in the handling the conservative movement.

For instance, the political Catholicism of the likes of Vermeule, Deneen and Ahmari don’t seem to be at odds with the Aristotelian nationalism of the Claremont Institute, and in many senses both end up embraced by institutions like Hillsdale College or the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. They don't shiver to invite people like Jordan Peterson, Michael Rectenwald, or SCOTUS Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (all of them cancel culture victims) speak at its events.

With the notable exception of the neocons, well represented by opportunistic career Republicans like Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney (both of whom seem despised and rejected by all factions of this new American Right), the conservative movement looks to be building bridges, both internally and externally. It is creating platforms like NatCon conferences to allow their ideas to spread indiscriminately, and promoting them in countries with likeminded governments (like Orbán’s Hungary) to get connected to their fellow figures (like Nigel Farage or Marion Maréchal) in Europe.

But the Austro-libertarian movement is missing on the opportunity to participate in the development of this new New Right, even if this could be the right opportunity for a true paleo revival, without the mistakes in economic doctrine that made the first attempt fail. Rothbard pushed for his free-market vision, while Pat Buchanan twisted his view on economic protectionism into an outright state-planned economy.

In two occasions, while hosting my podcast for the Spanish newspaper España - Navarra Confidencial, I had the chance to discuss the possibility of a new libertarian-conservative fusion, the first one with our aforementioned Jeff Deist and Hillsdale professor Brad Birzer. The common ground between the two views were that the state was indeed a danger for freedom and community, and that a neo-fusionist movement could indeed work to recover culture, family values and decentralization.

In here, the term neo-fusionist that both Jeff used and I am now using is a clear reference to the doctrine of Frank Meyer, considered by President Ronald Reagan as his most intellectual influence,  a political philosopher who tried to unite elements of libertarianism and traditionalism into a single philosophical synthesis of the two. This received much criticism from both libertarian and conservative figures like Harry V. Jaffa (the intellectual father-figure of modern Claremonters) Paul Gottfried (a paleoconservative thinker and now the editor of the Chronicles magazine), along with our own Murray Rothbard (who saw in Meyer a rather lost and confused libertarian).

The second time was in another podcast discussion, with our own Mises Wire assistant editor Tho Bishop and his peer at Chronicles, Pedro Gonzalez where the main focus was the political strategy for a paleo revival considering the cultural and demographic changes in the US since the 90s. Both of them agreed with me on most issues, from local political action and the main problems to tackle, to the immediate use of state power to solve those problems, given there was no private alternative, and that, moreover, the private sector was caught itself into the woke madness.

In the US, there is a genuine opportunity to allow for right-libertarians a space into the post-liberal Right. Outside the US,  the libertarian name is getting tarnished by the inoperancy, alienation and cluelessness of beltway libertarian-influenced politicians such as my own country’s president, Guillermo Lasso, and his advisors, whose public policy ideas are as unrelated to the local situation, with its many security and poverty problems, as DC staffers are unrelated to the issues of Common Joe in Middle America.

Quoting from the end words of Jeff’s essay, "Have we lost "liberal" forever? Maybe. If liberalism is dead, then liberals killed it. I'm doubtful we can ever reclaim it. Perhaps we need a new word for organizing society through property, peace, trade, and sound money”, but I also add, have we lost “libertarian” too?

While I am not as pessimist with that, and I still believe there is chance for right-libertarianism to be a force for political action, I wouldn’t call myself as such, not only because there is a concern for me to be put into the same bag as my unlikely-to-get-reelected local government, but because it is only half of what I believe.

I do think, though, that we should remember and apply what Jeff proposed in his “For A New Libertarian” speech, that is, to fight for what matters for the common man, understanding that these fights, pretty much unrelated to libertarianism, are what form the basis of the abstract freedom libertarians strive for.

We cannot forget both Rothbard and Hoppe began with the most absolute individualistic rationalism in their thinking to end up admiring the freedom of traditional medieval order in Europe in his first volume of his Austrian. Perspective on the History of Economic Thought and developing a rather reactionary and aristocratic communitarianism in his magnum opus, Democracy: The God That Failed, respectively.

Neither should we forget that the father of modern conservatism, Edmund Burke, came from a fairly liberal and Whig background, both as an intellectual and as a statesman, without that getting into conflict with his Anglo-Irish and Christian (both Anglican and Catholic) roots.

At last, more as an anecdote than as an example, both great English traditionalist of the late 19^th century, G. K. Chesterton and Hillaire Belloc were involved with classical liberalism while maintaining their own religious and traditionalist beliefs. Chesterton stated in his book Orthodoxy  that "I was brought up a Liberal, and have always believed in democracy, in the elementary liberal doctrine of a self-governing humanity”, while Belloc was elected as a Member of the British Parliament supported by the British Liberal Party.

I would like to finish by bringing up John Adams famous words about the US Constitution, “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. […] The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies.”

John Adams understood that self-government, decentralization, and individual freedoms needed a moral framework to thrive, to develop to its full potential, for their respect was not enforced by an all-powerful government, but by a shared common tradition that guided the lives of all under their same provisions.

It was the moderation and tolerance of the Christian tradition in the Anglosphere the created the right conditions for classical liberalism to be applied and be the framework for the establishment of the American Republic, and the Catholic virtue of the Habsburgs in their rule over the Spanish and Danubian Empires that led to the development of the Salamanca and Austrian Schools.

On the other hand, it was the excesses of the Continental Liberals, as christened by F.A. Hayek, with their hyper-rationalist constructivism that led from Revolution, Jacobinism, expansive nationalism, and Marxist Socialism up to the horrors of Bolshevik Leninism, Soviet Stalinism, and German Nazism.

Continental Liberalism, as extreme as today’s Progressive Liberalism, also lead to the radical ideas of ultramontanism and dictatorship promoted by Maistre and Donoso Cortés and later taken up by Carl Schmitt.

It is better for us libertarians and conservatives to be together and follow Burke and Meyer into a neo-fusionist path, before our bona fide conservative intellectuals, pushed to the extreme by our corporatocratic elites and their loyal woke hordes, decide to follow the Counter Enlightenment path.

So even if libertarians and conservatives seem opposed at times, we both belong together as different sides of the same golden coin, counterbalancing each other excesses, and recognizing each other’s value.

Only through virtue, we can get order and freedom, understood as self-government, and only through free self-government we can get prosperity. There is no other way.

Florida Senator Rick Scott recently kicked over a beehive when he included an income tax increase for most Americans in his 11-point plan to ‘Rescue America.’ The fifth point of that plan, titled ‘Economy/Growth,’ included ‘All Americans should pay some income tax to have skin in the game, even if a small amount. Currently over half of Americans pay no income tax.’

How does this happen? Many low-to-moderate income households have standard deductions and child tax credits that effectively eliminate their federal income tax liability.

Why should they have ‘skin in the game?’ One could argue that many taxpayers – and voters – would be significantly less likely to vote for politicians supporting expensive government programs if they had to pay a price for them.

However, if a federal income tax has to exist (it doesn’t have to, of course), there is a better way to sensitize Americans to the cost of government. 

In World War II, the federal government laid the modern framework for income tax collection in the “Current Tax Payment Act of 1943.” The federal government forced employers to set aside a portion of the paychecks for their employees and send it to the government, adding income tax collection services to employers’ legal responsibilities.

The practice didn’t expire with the end of World War II, given its attractiveness to government and special interest groups benefitting from government spending and other policies.

Income tax withholding dramatically improved the government’s ability to raise revenue, but it also desensitized taxpayers to the cost of taxes.

Consider an alternative – a law forbidding the federal government from skimming paychecks like this. Instead, individual income taxpayers would calculate their income tax liability like they do now, but they would have to pay any tax liability after it was calculated.

This isn’t just about ‘skin in the game.’ Ending income tax withholding would improve the transparency and integrity of the tax system, period.

But income tax withholding has been an attractive, powerful tool in the government’s toolbox. It remains firmly entrenched. Republicans and Democrats alike don’t want to touch it. It didn’t find its way into Gov. Scott’s 11-point plan, even as he expressed a desire for all Americans to have some ‘skin in the game.’

One possible downside to ending income tax withholding could be that government would borrow more money if extracting taxes proved more politically problematic. But that would be a challenge for another day.

Speaking of challenges for another day, consider whether Social Security and Medicare withholding should be part of this.

But ending income tax withholding, today, could be a great step forward. Who in Congress will step forward?

Exploring the political economy of embracing lockdowns is an interesting topic for economists to research. Philip Baggus recently published a piece on the political economy of Covid-19 hysteria and it would be fascinating to read his findings if he were to study the proposed topic. Evidence indicates the futility of lockdowns, yet they are still widely embraced. That support for lockdowns remains pervasive suggests that something greater than a desire to conform is at work.

Humans are rational actors interested in minimizing costs and believing that lockdowns work is a reassuring and inexpensive alternative to taking responsibility for one’s health. Lockdowns shift the burden of responsibility to politicians by relieving citizens of their duty to act on their own accord. Hence, accepting the ineffectiveness of lockdowns may force them to adjust their lifestyles to the reality of Covid-19. But the truth is that most people lack the discipline to change their diet to suit the reality of Covid-19 and neither are they willing to be guided by research in the process. For example, some studies argue that the consumption of Vitamin D can reduce the impact of Covid-19. However, the average person will not engage in serious research to protect himself from Covid-19, this is simply time-consuming

So, affirming the value of lockdowns makes it easier for people to use their time efficiently without concern for Covid-19. Hence, one can increase leisure by outsourcing responsibility to government bureaucrats who promote lockdowns. The average person is rarely fond of research and doing it to preserve his health is not a major motivator. For matters of health, people rely on medical opinion, only few opt to conduct independent research. Lockdowns are therefore popular, due to self-interest. Rejecting this option forces people to be responsible for their well-being and this may prove to be costly for those of us who are uninterested in allotting time to understand the complexities of a novel disease.

Moreover, unlike ordinary people, experts advocate lockdowns, since they confer psychic benefits in the form of improved social status. Prior to Covid-19, many of these experts were unknown, but today they are prominent characters. Because of Covid-19, they are now able to write articles telling politicians how they can make lockdowns more effective. Yet medical practitioners are not the only people benefiting from the hysteria of Covid-19. There has been a great demand for psychologists to explain why people might oppose anti-Covid -19 measures. Covid-19 creates several opportunities for experts to boost their popularity, so they are encouraged to amplify the dangers of the disease.

Another factor responsible for the sacralization of lockdowns is the fear that skepticism will engender a moral hazard. Covid-19 is portrayed as a pandemic and experts believe that tolerating skepticism could result in the justification of inane theories that are in opposition to preventing the spread of the disease. Therefore, experts aim to manage chaos by maligning skeptical voices. In short, cooperation is vital for the success of society and becomes extremely important, during a pandemic. Entertaining skeptical positions can deter cooperation, so managing dissent could be a rational option for experts in a perceived pandemic. If people are critical of lockdowns, they can also be skeptical of policies able to reduce transmissions.

I have presented a theory, now I expect a brave economist to test the hypothesis. And I think that Philip Baggus is up to the task. I hope he accepts the offer.

The Department of Homeland Security issued on Wednesday a nationwide terror alert lasting until April 30. The alert warns of potential terrorist attacks from Americans who are “ideologically motivated” and have “objections to the exercise of government authority and the presidential transition, as well as other perceived grievances fueled by false narratives.”

The language used in this alert suggests that millions of Americans are potential terrorists. Second Amendment–supporting, antiwar, antitax, antipolitics, antimilitarization, pro-life, and anti–Federal Reserve activists certainly have “objections to the exercise of government authority.” They are certainly viewed by the political class and its handmaidens in Big Tech and the mainstream media as ideological extremists. Anyone who gets his news from sources other than mainstream media or Big Tech, or who uses certain “unapproved” social media platforms, is considered to have had his grievances “fueled by false narratives.” For something to be considered a false narrative, it need only contradict the “official” narrative.

The "domestic terrorist” alert is the latest sign that the activities on January 6 on Capitol Hill, like the attacks of September 11, 2001, are being used to advance a long-standing antiliberty agenda. Legislation expanding the federal government’s authority to use its surveillance and other unconstitutional powers against “domestic terrorists” is likely to soon be considered by Congress. Just as the PATRIOT Act was written years before 2001, this legislation was written long before January 6. The bill’s proponents are simply taking advantage of the hysteria following the so-called insurrection to push the bill onto the congressional agenda.

Former CIA director John Brennan recently singled out libertarians as among the people the government should go after. This is not the first time libertarians have been smeared. In 2009, a federally funded fusion center identified people who supported my presidential campaign, my Campaign for Liberty, or certain Libertarian and Constitution Parties’ candidates as potentially violent extremists.

The idea that libertarianism creates terrorists is absurd. Libertarians support the nonaggression principle, so they reject using force to advance their political goals. They rely instead on peaceful persuasion.

Libertarianism is being attacked because it does not support just reforming a few government policies. Instead, it presents a formidable intellectual challenge to the entire welfare-warfare state.

The ultimate goal of those pushing for a crackdown on “domestic terrorism” is to make people unwilling to even consider “radical” ideas—to make people so afraid of certain ideas that they refuse to even give those ideas a fair hearing.

Progressives who are tempted to support what is being promoted as a crackdown on right-wing violence should consider the history of government harassment of progressive movements and leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. What do they think a future right-wing authoritarian would do if given power to go after “ideological extremists”?

All Americans who cherish the Bill of Rights should come together to stop this latest crackdown on liberty. My Campaign for Liberty will be mobilizing Americans to stop passage of any domestic terrorism legislation, while my Institute for Peace and Prosperity and my Liberty Report will provide Americans with the most up-to-date information about the continuing attempts to smear those who speak the truth about government lies.

(You can watch the Ron Paul Liberty Report live on YouTube Monday-Friday at noon, eastern time.)

Reprinted with permission.