Book Review: "The Anti-capitalistic Mentality" by Ludwig von Mises (originally published in 1956; reprinted 2006)

In this tidy little volume, godfather of libertarianism Ludwig von Mises argues that those who are against capitalism don't endorse the free market economy for primarily one reason, and that's because it forces them have to stare their own shortcomings right in the eye. Von Mises states that it's far easier to blame "the system" than it is to admit that you're not smart enough, strong enough or hard working enough to succeed in life, as the emotions of envy and resentment are powerful ones.

In addition to this central thesis, which I found quite amusing, actually, there are several little nuggets of thought-provoking insight. For instance, here's an observation on the meaning of the word "progressive":

The fundamental dogma of this creed declares that poverty is an outcome of iniquitous social institutions. The original sin that deprived mankind of the blissful life in the Garden of Eden was the establishment of private property and enterprise. Capitalism serves only the selfish interests of rugged exploiters. It dooms the masses of righteous men to progressing impoverishment and degradation. What is needed to make all people prosperous is the taming of the greedy exploiters by the great god called State. The “service” motive must be substituted for the “profit” motive. Fortunately, they say, no intrigues and no brutality on the part of the infernal “economic royalists” can quell the reform movement. The coming of an age of central planning is inevitable. Then there will be plenty and abundance for all. Those eager to accelerate this great transformation call themselves progressives precisely because they pretend that they are working for the realization of what is both desirable and in accordance with the inexorable laws of historical evolution. They disparage as reactionaries all those who are committed to the vain effort of stopping what they call progress.

Now does that explain Joe Clark or what? (Non-Canadian readers, be thankful you don't understand that reference.)

I tend to think that most central planners are that way because they think that they know what's best for everyone and refuse to entertain the option that the great unwashed masses can be trusted to make their own individual choices with their own hard-earned money. In other words, I think most socialists tend to be driven by snobbery and elitism rather than bitterness, which is what von Mises would argue. This is an interesting look at how instead, it might be more about man's inability to live by the 10th Commandment.

Now naturally, von Mises' observations are dated, but it's still an interesting read that goes well as a companion piece alongside works by other libertarian philosophers like Hayek, who happened to be a student of von Mises before writing the essential "The Road to Serfdom" in 1944, a reflection on the rise of National Socialism (or Nazism) in Germany.

Download a copy of "The Anti-capitalistic Mentality" for yourself and tell everyone that socialism is for losers.

Overall rating: 8.25/10

Book Review: "Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement" by Brian Doherty (2007)

This is an exhaustive look (620 pages of text, not including notes) at the history of the libertarian movement in America, revolving around five key figures: Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, and Murray Rothbard. For most people who have some sense of the major philosophical forces shaping Western society, the general definition of libertarianism is one where the governments espouse public policy choices that are fiscally conservative and socially liberal. In other words, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-euthanasia, in favour of the legalization of drugs, porn and prostitution, and anti-gun control, combined with a tough, unapologetic brand of fiscal policy that favours low taxes and limited spending. However, those who are active in the movement have much loftier goals, which made me reconsider whether I should put even one foot in this camp. On the third page of "Radicals for Capitalism", the gauntlet is thrown down:

"Its eventual goals include the abolition of all drug laws (not just those against currently illegal narcotics and hallucinogens, but an end to prescription laws and the Food and Drug Administration as well), the abolition of the income tax, the abolition of all private sexual relations (from marriage to prostitution and everything in between), and end to public ownership and regulation of the airwaves, an end to overseas military bases and all warmaking not in direct defense of the homeland, an end to the welfare state, and an end to any legal restrictions whatsoever on speech and expression."

Now I'm no authoritarian, and I'll put my fiscal conservative bona fides up against anybody, but obviously we're not just talking about live and let live here. Libertarianism, taken to its furthest extension, veers from your run-of-the-mill tax cutting crowd all the way towards those who want to abolish the US Departments of Energy and Education to others who are pretty much outright anarchists.

This is obviously ridiculous. Not only is it totally impractical, there is no stewardship or morality within pure libertarianism. On issues from pre-emptive war to self-governance, you pretty much only have to take care of yourself and your own backyard while hedonistically sticking your dick wherever you want. Meanwhile, anyone who raises an eyebrow is considered some sort of authoritarian busybody who wants to run your life. This allows for a vacant, easily justified form of animalistic urge to pretty much act as the guiding principle for life, one which isn't part of my own value system.

But I digress.

Doherty shows that Rand is pretty much Animal Farm personified, and other interesting characters like Barry Goldwater, Leonard Read, Frederic Bastiat, Rose Wilder Lane, Charles Murray, and Timothy Leary (who knew?) make appearances along the way. (In the case of Rand, one has to wonder if her legions of fans knew how much of an outright megalomaniac she was if they'd adore her as much as they do.) Nevertheless, for one who often has a hard time defining himself on the right, this book was a huge eye-opener. It left me with the impression that once you scratch the surface, libertarians either are, or are in bed with, privacy freaks, isolationists/conspiracy theorists (see Paul, Ron, and his mirror reflection, Nader, Ralph) or atheistic, to-hell-with-authority types who gleefully lurch from orgasm to orgasm with no consideration for the potential consequences of their behaviour over the long term. And it doesn't just stop there ... did you know that mental illness is a myth, according to some?!? This is the type of misguided thinking that leads to deinstitutionalization, a truly disastrous piece of social policy.

Since this is supposed to be a book review and not some kind of rant, I'll now try to put away the soapbox and conclude by saying that the bottom line is this tedious read, painful at times but definitely challenging at others, left me questioning my own positions and proved once again that on the right, while we agree on the fundamentals, can offer up one hell of a vigorous debate that isn't going to end any time soon.

And after reading this, I sure as hell know where my limits are - right around the point when somebody muses about privatizing sidewalks.

Check out David Boaz' "Libertarianism" and "The Libertarian Reader", edited by Boaz, for a more accessible and mainstream treatment of this subject.

Overall rating: 3.5/10