Thoughts on the Arizona Shooting
I’m sure most readers have heard about this tragic event. Whenever something like this happens, I know a lot of anti-government people (who would never personally engage in violence except in direct self-defense) sympathize with the assailant. Let me point out some things, not because I am a fount of moral wisdom, but because it’s important to state the obvious:
* Whatever you think of this guy’s motives, he killed a 9-year-old girl. Game over. He is a murderer and has committed a very serious sin. We can try to understand what motivated it, just as we can try to understand suicide bombers. But no self-described libertarian should be secretly thinking this guy is a hero.
* It IS NOT TRUE that stuff like this “keeps the government at bay.” No, this actually strengthens the government. You know how I know? Just wait: extreme conspiracy theorists (and I don’t use the term pejoratively) will say that this was setup, to justify a gun ban, or to stall the Republicans’ efforts to rollback ObamaCare. (“We can’t drop coverage for pre-existing conditions now–do it for Gabby!”) So the hardened anti-government types can’t have it both ways: If you think this is just the type of thing the CIA would do, then you can’t also think it helps in your battle against the CIA.
* It is true that the actual people in Congress will be more afraid to go out in public now, than they were last week. But that is a far cry from saying they will vote to reduce the federal government’s power. Under no circumstances should we ever think that America would be devoid of people willing to assume positions of power in DC.
* The government is very good at using violence. If you try to fight it head-on with guns, you will lose. If you think the government in DC is oppressive, the best thing to do is convince others of your beliefs. That sounds cowardly and defeatist and hopeless, but here are other ways to describe this strategy: practical, pragmatic, effective, and moral.
P.S. Don’t recommend anything illegal in the comments. If you do I’m going to “censor” you. If the government ever does arrest me, I want it to be for something I said, not a hothead on my blog.
Non Aggression Principle is the only way to go, always and forever! The poor people who died is a terrible event in our history. Bob, please call out every official who uses this event to justify breaking the non-aggression principle.
Isn’t there something inherently wrong with ‘a lot’ of these anti-government types if you have to tell them not to symphatize with these kind of people? What then is the difference between those types and the types advocating any other ideology and find the use of violence justifiable as a means to that end? In attitude, there is no difference between those types and bolsheviks: libertarians in name only.
Here is krugman’s response for all the krugman fans we have here
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/01/08/assassination-attempt-in-arizona/
As usual Paul makes a very cogent argument: we don’t have any proof but it’s probable(certain) she was shot by some deranged tea partier because she beat a tea party candidate to get her seat and that the ‘climate of hate’ created by Beck, Palin et al is in some way responsible.
I agree with Krugman that we need to stop this climate of hate and the first thing we need to do to this end is casually accuse people we don’t like of being in some way culpable for the brutal murder of innocents despite there existing precisely no evidence that this is the case.
Amazing that you have to write a post like this, Bob. Who exactly do you associate with?
John,
The people libertarians are “fighting” against use violence every day of the year to 1) enforce vice laws 2) collect taxes 3) enforce foreign “policy”, etc. It isn’t something to be proud of, but it is human nature to be a little less than broken up when one of these people using violence as a way of life every day gets it back.
Dr. Murphy,
Excellent post.
Your second point: ” * It IS NOT TRUE that stuff like this “keeps the government at bay.” No, this actually strengthens the government. You know how I know? Just wait: extreme conspiracy theorists (and I don’t use the term pejoratively) will say that this was setup, to justify a gun ban, or to stall the Republicans’ efforts to rollback ObamaCare. (“We can’t drop coverage for pre-existing conditions now–do it for Gabby!”) So the hardened anti-government types can’t have it both ways: If you think this is just the type of thing the CIA would do, then you can’t also think it helps in your battle against the CIA,” is extremely spot on.
States do what they can to survive, and when they sense a threat (whether it is legitimate or not), they react accordingly. And in most, if not all cases, they will tighten their power. We learn these simple facts in International Relations theory, and especially through Realism.
Also, as you point out, the best way to combat statism is through non-violent intellectual and activist measures.
Good post.
Thanks for the post, Bob. It may be stating the obvious, but it’s a good reminder. Especially when the mainstream media is baiting libertarians with their coverage: Rather than focusing on the loss of human life, the media turns it into a political issue, and focuses only on the death/injury of the “important” people.
I certainly do not support the action in AZ. One should remember that the representative was elected and was doing the bidding of her constituents. I guess the logical extension of these actions is to shoot people who voted for her, which of course is wrong. Also, if one believes in the golden rule, would one expect like treatment in turn?
I’m probably at risk asking a couple of things here but:
Isn’t there a Biblical precedent for killing children. Seems there was a bit of this stuff in the old testament and wasn’t Abraham going to sacrifice his son? Also, diudn’t Israel lay waste to their enemies in the Old Testament, destroying absolutely all of their enemies and their families and all of their possessions (I even remember an event or two where the Israelies took the women for their own)?
Seeking armed conflict with the US government probably is NOT a good idea, but many do rather well at it. Some civilians in Viet Nam gave us a rather hard time, not to mention Iraq and Afghanistan. Suffice it to say, if one chooses this route, they can well expect things to get far worse before they get better, if they ever get better.
However, I truly believe that the best battle won is that which is not physically fought. That said, I think it was Thomas Jefferson who said the ; “Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for thosse who don’t.”
JimS
You’re right, Bob, about us needing to change people’s minds. We cannot win a fight, and if we are ever numerous enough to do so, we won’t have to fight.
“Do not compel” is the one and only moral principle. Jared Loughner violated that principle; his act was immoral and absolutely cannot be condoned or excused by any reason. I begin with that statement to be completely clear. Soon, Mr Loughner shall and should be compelled, as he has granted others the right to compel him by his own acts of compulsion.
That said, it seems likely that Loughner’s immoral acts were the inevitable law of the harvest. People reap what they sow. Compulsion of one by another spawns compulsion of one by another. No, it isn’t particularly wise to take on the federal government in head-to-head compulsion. But it is, nonetheless, a predictable law of the harvest that some individuals will.
The very base of the issue is the willingness of anyone — whether a majority of voters, or a single individual — to compel others. Logically, one who compels grants the compelled person the right to compel, also. One cannot claim the right to compel another without simultaneously granting the other the right to compel back. It doesn’t matter whatsoever if the compulsion happens to be backed by a vote of the majority.
Jared Loughner compelled people to give up their lives. That fact that one of the lives was a child is absolutely distressing to me, but carries no more weight morally than the compulsion of a 90-year old person with terminal cancer. In that, he is immoral. But to lose sight of the fact of the law of the harvest and the immorality of compulsion ignores the heart of the matter.
I’m certain that any number of people will think it odd and mistaken that I write about compulsion and the law of the harvest in response to this horrible event. But the fact that many will think it odd and mistaken is exactly why horrible events such as these are without end. Any number of people just don’t seem to get what is at the very foundation of what is immoral; what is right; what is wrong.
Do not compel. If you do so personally, or vote for those who are willing to do so, do not be surprised — and do not be outraged — when others claim the right to compel also.
Far from the “very foundation of what is immoral” this seems to strike at the very foundation of morality. The police that took Loughner away “compelled” him and he is certainly being compelled to stay in jail right now. Is this part and parcel of the problem? Of course not.
I think you start to have problems like this when a society loses the ability to discern between different types of compulsion, which seems to be precisely the problem with this comment as well – an inability to discern.
If you convince people that their country’s charter of self-government is actually a charter of quasi-anarchy, they will interpret actual democratic self-government as oppression. If you convince people that our system of commerce is a system of theft because it’s not conducted on the basis of a soft yellow metal, they will feel like they have been stolen from.
And when less stable minds feel oppressed and stolen from they’re going to lash out.
It’s precisely a loss of an ability to discern that leads to these sorts of things.
David,
It appears that you are saying the following:
1. Compulsion is always wrong.
2. Compulsion is not wrong if you are compelling someone who has engaged in compulsion themselves.
3. The people Loughner killed were themselves engaged in compulsion.
4. What Loughner did was wrong.
See the problem?
“Isn’t there something inherently wrong with ‘a lot’ of these anti-government types if you have to tell them not to symphatize with these kind of people? What then is the difference between those types and the types advocating any other ideology and find the use of violence justifiable as a means to that end? In attitude, there is no difference between those types and bolsheviks: libertarians in name only.”
Yes, there is something inherently wrong with a lot of them. And it is very unfortunate that these people call themselves libertarians and thereby abuse the name of a great and peaceful philosophy. Being against (the US) government attracts a lot of strange minds from left-wing conspiracy theorists to outright supremacists.
If you read through mises.org you will find many articles praising Pinoccet or abusing the concept of time preference to rationalize gay hatred, to name but a few. Recently I read a forum discussion on whether Hitler was the good guy after all and Roosevelt the evildoer. Mises would never have put up with having his name associated with such ideas.
If you read through mises.org you will find many articles praising Pinoccet or abusing the concept of time preference to rationalize gay hatred, to name but a few.
I never know how to handle these types of things. On the one hand I don’t want to ignore it, but on the other, if I challenge you, it will possibly spawn a big fight.
Ah well, how about this? Please link four articles doing what you claim, so people know what you mean.
Don’t get me wrong. I am on your side. I just think some self-claimed libertarians cast a damning light on our ideals.
Here you go:
“Had there been a General Pinochet in Russia in 1918 or Germany in 1933, the people of those countries and of the rest of the world would have been incomparably better off”
(from http://blog.mises.org/6032/general-augusto-pinochet-is-dead/)
The whole article is a clear example of somebody saying “ends justify means”. If you are pro free-market, you are allowed to kill. That is exactly what Martin accused libertarians of. With the arguments in this article you could very well justify the Arizona Shooting. Just think about the implications of this sentence: “People have an absolute right to rise up and defend their lives, liberty, and property against a Communist takeover. In the process, they cannot be expected to make the distinctions present in a judicial process.”
Another self-claimed libertarian about Hitler:
“he saved millions of lives by taking France fast and negotiating a honorable peace”
“he was not the ‘evil’ leader of that time, Churchill and Roosevelt were, that has to be 100% clear.”
(from http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/21403.aspx)
This is from a German magazine. It’s an interview with Hoppe in German. (I tried to translate it word by word)
“The public promotion of the homosexual lifestyle is, of course, incommensurate with a natural, family-based order aiming at survival and must be penalized by exclusion. I.e. some sorts of conduct, even though they are not aggressiv, lead to exclusion into Ghettos. So what?”
What we have got here is not the usual promotion of the right to discriminate and skepticism towards anti-discrimination laws, which I am fine with. This is another category. This is saying, there is a right way to live and indivuduals who don’t conformt to that should be deported. If that is libertarianism I’m out.
Anyway, I am on your side. I am just upset that there are so many libertarians who are very quick to forget their principles. As soon as it benefits themselves many of them suddenly agree with compulsion, forget about the nonaggression principle and do in fact believe that ends justify means. And if you think about it, that is the very reason you wrote your post in the first place
OK Christopher, you will probably think I’m moving the goal posts, but I’m not. This is why I asked you for clarification.
Not a single thing you have listed is “an article on Mises.org,” which is what you originally claimed. We all know about the Hoppe stuff that he put in his book Democracy the God That Failed, and that was a huge controversy at the time. If I’m understanding your post above, you are taking that from a German magazine article, right? (It’s possible they had that in an excerpt posted on Mises.org as a Daily Article, but I would be surprised.)
The thing from Reisman is a blog post; that doesn’t get vetted.
And the thing about Hitler–the link doesn’t work. (Maybe I need to create an account or something?) But is that actually from a Mark Thornton or a Walter Block, or is it some random guy posting at the Mises Community Forum?
Hi Bob. I think I have to apologize. I shouldn’t have written “article on Mises.org”. I didn’t really understand the system there. I thought you needed some kind of authorization to post these things. Apparently this is not the case. I should have done better research.
What I wanted to say is that there are many people who claim to be libertarians but merely abuse the name. Whether they are on mises.org or somewhere else is immaterial.
The fact that you even have to write such a post and “state the obvious”, as you call it, is indeed worrying. The fact that there are people out there who call themselves libertarian and then try to justify horrible crimes doesn’t do any good to create acceptance for libertarianism. And we should be more eager to clearly separate ourselves from them. So I support your post and think it could even be harsher.
With regard to Hoppe, no this is not from his book but from an interview about his book. The interview is even more ‘controversial'(?). However, it’s only available in German so most people don’t know it. Here is the link http://www.ef-magazin.de/media/assets/pdf/ef041-screen.pdf . It starts at page 38. As a libertarian I think he should have the right to discriminate. But he shouldn’t be calling himself libertarian.
Anyway, sorry for the confusion. My comment was actually meant to support you post.
(PS: What reason did I give you to set my status to moderation required? I understand that what I wrote regarding mises.org was wrong, but I didn’t write anything offensive, did I?)
Everyone is moderated at times. It’s not something I do on a per-person basis. I think if you include links, the blog software sometimes thinks it is spam so I have to approve it.
If I may make a point; ‘may’ because I dislike the idea of taking over the comment section, it’s not my blog. This is a point that could very well benefit from some re-phrasing.
What Christopher meant is, I believe, that mises.org has an (undeserved) reputation for associating with people that utter or have uttered opinions that seem rather anti-tethical to what Mises himself was about and ultimately what this foundations stands for. How it came out is: of all the writers (incl. Mr. Murphy) many (excl. Mr. Murphy) write vile opinions. This is the assertion that, I believe, has been rebutted.
What remains however is that there is this undeserved reputation. There are many self-styled libertarians, or ‘austrian economists’ present on the web who do not have the faintest clue what it is all about, but like to have the label. Combine this with that there are not many libertarians or ‘austrians’ to begin with and therefore it is unlikely that many people will meet more than one or two of them.
The result is that the vile opinions uttered by some of these individuals will be judged as belonging to the entire group and establish this reputation. This is I think what Christopher was hinting at.
This a problem any small group has and how this is dealt with eventually determines the mainstream acceptance of the propagated ideas.
@Christopher:
“This is saying, there is a right way to live and indivuduals who don’t conformt to that should be deported.”
No, “exclusion into Ghettos” isn’t deportation. In the relevant chapter in “Democracy – The God That Failed,” Hoppe clearly explains what he has in mind. He advocates widespread private discrimination against vocal proponents of lifestyles he considers immoral. E.g., if owners of residential land in good neighborhoods refuse to sell or lease their land to the president of NAMBLA, he will have to live in a bad neighborhood, i.e., be “excluded into a ghetto.” This may not be nice, but it is certainly compatible with libertarianism.
Also consider that Hoppe has invited Justin Raimondo, who is openly homosexual, as a speaker to the 2008 meeting of the Property and Freedom Society, of which Hoppe is the founder and president.
Martin,
It isn’t just anti-government types that sympathize with murderous criminals. You will find many ppl all over the political spectrum that will sympathize with or try to excuse murders committed by police, federal agents, and even dictators. In fact many people have been crying over the fact that they haven’t murdered enough people!!(like Manning, Assange, al-Awlaki)
Randy,
I don’t believe that because others do so, makes it any more acceptable.
The other problem with your example is also that it makes the actions of police oficers, federal agents morally equivalent to those of dictators and murderers. I doubt any of them derives any pleasure out of their ‘murders’. They do their jobs because they believe that doing it makes the world a better place. If you live in the USA or any other ‘liberal democracy’ for that matter, you also have the power to change the status quo. Most of the people you encounter in life are good people who will accept a better alternative once offered to them. It is for that reason that I do not understand the sympathy for actions like these.
It is violence against good people who believe they are doing the right thing. Mises’ motto was not ‘Tu ne cede malis, BUT […]’, and for a very good reason. Once you compromise on your principles and sympathise with coercion it will be very difficult to not justify or sympathise with its use in other instances: whenever it is expedient. It is this attitude, taking shortcuts, that undercuts any argument for libertarianism. If its own adherents are not able to internalize this fundamental principle, and be more than libertarians in name only, how can they expect other people not to?
If a libertarian project is ever to be realized, violence has to be condemned everywhere where you have the power to change. The cost of violence is ultimately more violence. You lead by example. This is, I believe, what was meant in the last paragraph of this blog post.
I agree with you Bob and add the example of JFK. At least the way some historians tell it, his assassination helped LBJ get much of his blocked agenda through, on the former’s terms.
It’s quite possible that the conduct of Republicans and some visible libertarians will eventually lead to a liberal swing that could last for generations, much like that which brought about and was fed in turn by FDR.
“It’s quite possible that the conduct of Republicans and some visible libertarians will eventually lead to a liberal swing that could last for generations”
That is what I wanted to say! If only I could express myself better in English.
Regarding some the “concerns” about having to say something (e.g. isn’t there something wrong with this group if you have to say something?): These appear to be attacks against libertarianism poorly masked as concerns.
Mr. Murphy said, “it’s important to state the obvious”. Why? Because regardless of what label you affix to yourself or is affixed to you, there will be others that use the same label who hold different beliefs. When one is in a position where others value (or at least pay attention to) one’s opinions, it is important to make clear ones values. This way, someone with a flawed (or deranged) perception of where Mr. Murphy stands will not read their conflicting ideas into Murphey’s writings.
I think I’m stating the obvious.
You confuse my concern about those labelling themselves and their opinions as libertarians and libertarianism respectively, with attacks on libertarianism. I distinguish these two because they refer to content and process. Libertarianism proper, is not seperable in content and process: the process of implementation has to reflect its content. Violence has to be seen as unacceptable and inconceivable. Without what is acceptable process, judged by the content, you have libertarianism in name only. If your conception of libertarianism is what I would describe as libertarianism in name only, then you are right to construe my concerns as attacks; not on libertarianism though, but on any form of unecessary violence. This distinction in method, coincidentally is also what seperated the bolsheviks from the mensjeviks: hence the reference.
Mr. Murphy,
While there is no denying that the Libertarian movement has attracted many weirdos, a phenomenon which bothered Murray Rothbard, it seems that Loughner was actually more of a statist.
Here’s a link to a screen shot of his youtube channel,
http://hillbuzz.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/screen-shot-2011-01-08-at-4-22-57-pm.png?w=337&h=717
He listed “The Communist Manifesto” and “Mein Kampf” among his favorite books.