An Action Plan for Anarcho-Capitalists - Hoppe on peacefully opposing the state.

How to Fight the Modern State

By Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Mises.org
August 17, 2013

In this 1997 speech by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, now available as an ebook from the Mises Institute under the title What Must Be Done, Hoppe presents a plan of action for anarcho-capitalists against the modern state.

Hoppe begins by examining the nature of the state as “a monopolist of defense and the provision and enforcement of law and order.” Like all state-mandated monopolies, the monopoly of law enforcement also leads to higher prices and lower quality of services. Why is this state of affairs tolerated? The modern democratic states, much more than the monarchies and princely estates of old, are seen as moral and necessary despite ample evidence to the contrary.

In this initial analysis, we find much of what Hoppe eventually expanded into his 2001 book Democracy: The God that Failed, which systematically dismantled modern arguments in favor of the democratic state.

In the final portion of his speech, Hoppe turns to discussing how a modern partisan of liberty might act to counter the march of centralization and the destruction of property, culture, learning, and natural social hierarchies.

Observations on Hayek’s Plan by Mises

Abstract: This memorandum was written at the request of Henry Hazlitt to provide Mises’s comments on and concerns about F.A. Hayek’s initial proposals for what became the Mont Pèlerin Society. Mises stresses that those who favor liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism must also oppose interventionism. The memo argues that those who fought and lost against the rising tide of totalitarianism at the turn of the 20th Century lost their battles because they settled for middle-of-the-road policies that conceded considerable ground to the socialists. The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are today’s middle-of-the-roaders. As interventionists, they may not be the hoped-for intellectual pioneers to inspire people to build a freer world.

What Must Be Done? - Hans-Hermann Hoppe

How should anarcho-capitalists engage the modern state? Hans-Hermann Hoppe​ dissects the nature of the modern democratic state and suggests strategies for enacting a bottom-up libertarian revolution in ideology and civil government.

Hoppe begins by examining the nature of the state as “a monopolist of defense and the provision and enforcement of law and order.” Like all state-mandated monopolies, the monopoly of law enforcement also leads to higher prices and lower quality of services. Why is this state of affairs tolerated? The modern democratic states, much more than the monarchies and princely estates of old, are seen as moral and necessary despite ample evidence to the contrary.

In the minds of most modern citizens of democratic states, law and order is what the state says it is, and this has led to a long period of centralization and power consolidation by those states.

How can the libertarian fight back against this trend? Hoppe offers a program that can pave the way for a new libertarian society.

Audio  |  HTML  |  E-book  |  PDF

Ex-PM Shaukat Aziz: Government and Bussiness should not mix

Former Prime Minister of Pakistan, Shaukat Aziz is known as one of the rare politicians to not mix ‘Government and business’ together. During his leadership, Mr. Aziz oversaw the successful privatization plan of Pakistan’s state assets. He led Pakistan when it was in near financial ruin but managed to steer the country towards unprecedented economic growth. He shares his views on the success of Pakistan during his tenure as Prime Minister from 2004 to 2007 with Interview of the Day host, Bilqis Bahari.

Read the full interview here.

"When I came into Government, there was no privatization. There were some – one or two but not in a massive way. I strongly felt that it is not the business of Government to be in business. Government should be the enabler. Government should prepare the ecosystem for the economy to grow. Government should introduce structural reforms to improve and enhance and develop its operating ability of the economy. But they don’t have to manufacture everything. They don’t have to control every market. Let the market forces work. They should be having supervision. They should be having their eye on the ball so that things are under control. Any country which has done structural reforms of the economy in a good way has got the dividend from it. Pakistan is an example. We had for example all the banks in the state sector. We sold every bank except one. One we kept, which we listed. Even if you are not selling, although I prefer everything being sold and then you have a strong regulator whose watching it, but you can have one bank in the public sector, one or two. But they too, list them in the stock market. 50% can be Government, 50% can be private enterprise. The corporate culture must come into the public sector enterprises. The privatization has to be transparent. There should be no restriction. The asset still remains your asset. Your country’s asset. Even if foreigners own it, it doesn’t take away your control. Banking is a very controlled sector. The Central Bank is always looking at them no matter who owns the bank. So we shouldn’t worry. We got independent financial advisors and banks to handle the transaction. No control auctions, public. All the main auctions, we showed live on TV to the whole country. For example, I sold our state telephone company. Again, public open bidding. So I said let’s all this on the TV and everybody has to be prequalified before their bid. Why? Because you’re giving a major state asset to a private party. Local or foreign, we didn’t differentiate. And they have to be prequalified, prejudged by independent advisors. It has to be transparent. That being the case, we got the whole nation watching the sale of the telephone company. There were a lot of criticisms before it happened.  When you privatized, you must have an independent regulatory authority overseeing that activity. We created Pakistan Telecommunications Authority, which was a Government entity, which was overseeing the industry, not operating the company. And then we opened it to private sector, more competition to it. So now we have five or six mobile providers and the connectivity, the increase in subscribers went through the roof because we introduce mobile phones. Private sector came in. They put in new exchanges, new numbers, competition, special packages. It’s a totally different environment. More jobs created for the people. We had one phone company, Pakistan Telecom. Now we have 10 and its been in hindsight a very good experience. But it has to be transparent, the sale of the assets. That’s why we got in the end no criticism. Even the unions were quiet.

...... our telephone auction was on TV. Everybody then said ‘oh, we saw it. It was okay, you know,’ rather than rumors starting and all that. I think there is a way. Each country is different. I’m not saying what we did is the best way to do. There are maybe better ways. But I am a great believer in the value of privatization and I’m a great believer in opening it up. There’s no difference between local and foreign. That is also a myth. Nobody can put a telephone exchange in his briefcase and take it away to a foreign country. You know, it’s a system. It can’t leave. It has to be in the country to be operated. All these taboos will have to be broken and then you do what is in the best interest of the country. This is the way to go in my humble opinion.

Why Libertarians Fail at Politics

Jerry Taylor of the Niskanen Center dropped a truth bomb on the beltway in his recent piece for Fox News about the decline of Rand Paul. Taylor notes that the alleged growth of the libertarian movement in the wake of the Ron Paul campaign was largely illusory. The alienated populists and conspiracy theorists that filled out Paul’s numbers in 2012 easily made the transition to the very un-libertarian Donald Trump in 2015, leaving Rand out in the cold.

The lack of a broad-based movement, despite a number of high profile campaigns and events, is a bitter pill for libertarians who believe in electoral politics. Having libertarians in office may help raise the profile of issues like overcriminalization, tech freedom, and the insanity of the drug war. But those who await a libertarian takeover of the GOP misunderstand the fundamentally radical nature of libertarian ideas and how deeply that radicalism conflicts with the perceptions most Americans have about the role of government.

The Unlibertarian Legacy of Ronald Reagan

On August 2, 1988, President Ronald Reagan announced that he had changed his mind about the pro-union plant-closing bill. He had vetoed it three months earlier, but now let it become law without his signature after intense pressure from presidential nominee George Bush and former Treasury Secretary James Baker, now Bush's campaign chairman. Reagan claimed that only this action would enable him to sign a Congressional trade bill almost unequaled in its anti-consumer protectionism.

Ronald Reagan's faithful followers claim he has used his skills as the Great Communicator to reverse the growth of Leviathan and inaugurate a new era of liberty and free markets. Reagan himself said, "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government."

Yet after nearly eight years of Reaganism, the clamor for more government intervention in the economy was so formidable that Reagan abandoned the free-market position and acquiesced in further crippling of the economy and our liberties. In fact, the number of free-market achievements by the administration are so few that they can be counted on one hand—with fingers left over.

Let's look at the record:

Cleaning Up "Marxist Trash" is the Best Way for Bolsonaro to Build a Better Brazil

Officially sworn into office at the start of the year, the (Jair) Bolsonaro administration has already captured international attention. Having been portrayed for years by Western media as a sinister threat to Brazilian democracy, in spite of being a successful populist candidate embraced by a diverse electorate, the same outlets have been quick to depict the new government as a hostile threat to minority rights. The real story, however, is Bolsonaro’s apparent commitment to the sort of ideological revolution that is desperately needed for his country to thrive. While history shows we should never trust a politician to deliver on lofty promises of liberty and freedom, the initial days of his presidency have moves deserving of praise.

To start, his inaugural address, Bolsonaro vowed to follow through on his campaign message of dramatically changing a government plagued by corruption and economic crisis:

"I stand humbled by the honor to address you all as President of Brazil, and stand before the whole nation on this day as the day when the people began to liberate themselves from socialism, from the inversion of values, from state gigantism and from political correctness. … Our flag will never be red. It will only be red if we need to bleed over it to keep it green and yellow."

He followed this up with a tweet vowing “to tackle the Marxist garbage in our schools head on.”

What’s encouraging here is that Bolsonaro is identifying that the true enemy of his administration is not simply a political rival or a series of bad policies that must be reformed, but the socialist ideology that has caused so much misery throughout the world and Latin America in particular. Correctly identifying the underlying problem is the best way to go about finding a solution."

This aligns well with Ludwig von Mises’s views about the importance of ideas in society. He wrote extensively about how the ultimate deciding factor to the success or failure of civilization has less to do with the politicians and institutions that have been built, but the underlying ideas that direct them. As he wrote in Economic Policy:

"Everything that happens in the social world in our time is the result of ideas. Good things and bad things. What is needed is to fight bad ideas. We must fight all that we dislike in public life. We must substitute better ideas for wrong ideas. … Ideas and only ideas can light the darkness."

Of course, a true ideological revolution requires more than simply political rhetoric and rousing speeches, the question will be how he is able to follow through with pro-market policies that will actually allow Brazil to succeed.

Read more at: https://mises.org/wire/cleaning-marxist-trash-best-way-bolsonaro-build-better-brazil