Appendix 2: A Menckenian Strategy for Libertarian Activism — MC Part 17

In the following two paragraphs Mises describes the problems for libertarian activism in a manner reminiscent of Mencken:

If men will not, from a recognition of social necessity, voluntarily do what must be done if society is to be maintained and general well-being advanced, no one can lead them to the right path by any cunning stratagem or artifice. If they err and go astray, then one must endeavor to enlighten them by instruction. But if they cannot be enlightened, if they persist in error, then nothing can be done to prevent catastrophe. All the tricks and lies of demagogic politicians may well be suited to promote the cause of those who, whether in good faith or bad, work for the destruction of society. But the cause of social progress, the cause of the further development and intensification of social bonds, cannot be advanced by lies and demagogy. No power on earth, no crafty stratagem or clever deception could succeed in duping mankind into accepting a social doctrine that it not only does not acknowledge, but openly spurns. …

The liberals were of the opinion that all men have the intellectual capacity to reason correctly about the difficult problems of social cooperation and to act accordingly. They were so impressed with the clarity and self-evidence of the reasoning by which they had arrived at their political ideas that they were quite unable to understand how anyone could fail to comprehend it. They never grasped two facts: first, that the masses lack the capacity to think logically and secondly, that in the eyes of most people, even when they are able to recognize the truth, a momentary, special advantage that may be enjoyed immediately appears more important than a lasting greater gain that must be deferred. Most people do not have even the intellectual endowments required to think through the – after all very complicated – problems of social cooperation, and they certainly do not have the will power necessary to make those provisional sacrifices that all social action demands. The slogans of interventionism and of socialism, especially proposals for the partial expropriation of private property, always find ready and enthusiastic approval with the masses, who expect to profit directly and immediately from them.¹

The issue for activism is how to attract statists to the libertarian position so that they may “expect to profit directly and immediately” from it. I have an idea that is a “crafty stratagem”, but does not require government do anything, so is probably not what Mises was writing against. Indeed, I don’t think Mises ever thought of this scheme, and I think it may have a slightly better chance of success than those tried previously.

Instead of putting so much money towards another libertarian electoral drive, another libertarian advertising campaign, another libertarian position paper, another libertarian journal, another libertarian conference, another libertarian group, another revival of a neglected libertarian thinker, another better-worded and better-reasoned libertarian essay, another libertarian essay contest, or another lecture tour of an illustrious libertarian, why not do something different? I am not saying that the aforementioned activities should stop. Indeed, I am currently working on many libertarian essays, and making more accessible the work of many neglected libertarian thinkers, and will continue to do so. I am only saying that they are unlikely to have a positive libertarian outcome, since they have barely ever done so before. Of course, there may be a very slim chance that it will happen, and those who are romantic — that is, are emotionally needy — may be fuelled by this, but does that mean that those who are financially needy should buy lottery tickets, and spend much time trying to convince the lottery organisers why they should be the winner?

So, what else is there? How do we get those unfamiliar with libertarian ideas to pay attention to us? Is there any strategy for libertarian reform that hasn’t been tried yet?

Libertarians have tried to show that, in a free market, society would be freer and more prosperous, trying to appeal to people’s self-interest. This has not worked, because, the connection of libertarian ideas, through economic reasoning, to one’s self-interest, is too distant for most people. What they want and appreciate is direct short-term rewards and handouts. Only then will they be interested. So my proposal is this: Why don’t libertarian philanthropists pay people to read up on libertarian ideas and point out where they’re wrong? Don’t pay people to rewrite the same old libertarian arguments; pay people to read and criticise them. Here’s a possible press release:

$??? to sincerely and thoughtfully criticise the libertarian position that government is bad for the economy and tax is theft.

Earn money by emailing us your criticism of libertarianism. The only catch is that you must not merely state, for example, that you think we need government because of the public goods problem, you must also explain why you believe the criticism of the public goods problem here [make available libertarian writing on it and hyperlink] is incorrect.

The competition is not in any way approved, overseen or verified by any authority. You will have to rely on the honesty of [judge or organisation name] instead. We do not need to be convinced by your criticisms (although we will try), but if they show you made some effort to comprehend and contemplate the libertarian arguments, then you will receive the money. We admit that some people may think the judging to be idiosyncratic and arbitrary, but we will try to be consistent, fair and forgivingly generous. We will have the right to publish the criticisms and any correspondence entered into, and will be glad to. You are also welcome to donate your criticisms to us, for which we will be forever thankful. After all, being libertarian is very unpopular, and if only someone would show us the error of our ways, then we would live more contentedly, get on better with our fellows and fit in better to the community.

This press release should be put on a web page that includes almost all objections to libertarianism and easy to understand libertarian responses to them.

If the web page is good enough, no money need ever change hands at all, since any criticism will just show that the reader has not read through the libertarian arguments sincerely and thoughtfully enough. The arrogance to hold the competition, attract many entries and not pay anyone, would attract attention. So would the arrogance of paying. I think it would be good to pay a great many of the entrants, but in addition, publish their criticism and libertarian responses to them. Government might give many handouts, but their handouts often mean lots of paperwork and bureaucracy to get through. That people prefer rewards sooner rather than later is one of the axioms of praxeology, so why are praxeologists always advocating futile schemes ignoring the fact? Can’t libertarians do a better job of giving handouts than government? Is that what the success of libertarian ideas comes down to? Could there be a more cynical example of romanticism, and vice versa? And what if, as is likely, it doesn’t work — what then? Well, for one thing, libertarian philanthropists won’t have as much tax to pay.

1. Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism, trans. Ralph Raico (New York: Foundation for Economic Education, 1985), pp. 156-58. [↩]