Against Leviathan | Robert Higgs

Jeffrey Tucker interviews Robert Higgs, Senior Fellow in Political Economy at the Independent Institute. Recorded at the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, on 29 July 2011.

[lindapoole]

So many people need to be educated in the United States. I met Mr. Higgs in 2007, at an FFF.ORG Conference in Chantilly, VA where he was a guest speaker.

[BurjElArab]

I just ordered Robert Higg's 2007 book: Neither Liberty nor Safety: Fear, Ideology, and the Growth of Government.

Looking forward to read it!

Thanks so much for the contributions to the cause of liberty.

[pretorious]

I sometimes wonder what about liberty and personal responsibility scares people so much?

[lautzutao]

this is why those ultimately against the political process support him:D

[CurtHowland]

Robert Higgs, when I first heard him speak, was the first person I ever heard use completely un-couched, unambiguous terms to describe govt action.
Criminal. Abusive. Ignorant. Arrogant. Beligerant. Hostile. Gangland, and the like.
I was surprised, shocked even, out of even the reflex to be polite to the willing participants in the unalloyed evil that is Leviathan.

[SpaceCraftsman]

He's answered his own question - ratcheting works because it makes small enough changes to avoid the mobilization of the masses.

[kroovyandcal]

I want to work for the Mises Institute

[whitechocolatespace]

@RKAddict101 The argument surrounds the word 'responsible.' All I use it to mean is an understanding and acceptance between cause and effect. So a responsible student understands the relationship between studying and getting good grades. That is all. It is not to mean to only place blame when things go wrong. It is also to mean to take credit when things go right. So voting is an act of understanding that the majority vote gets their way at the expense of the minority vote.

[brianbob]

I am sympathetic to many of the stated arguments but the inability for many libertarians to see the value of order and stability is very strange to me.

[whitechocolatespace]

@reapfreak Voting completely legitimizes the state. By voting, you do two things: 1. You accept whatever outcome 2. You are held responsible for that outcome. Voting, by definition, is the consent to use force through a proxy or third party. Even in the use of repeal, it is taking a government worker's job away by force. Yes, the job shouldn't have been there in the first place but HOW it should disappear is also important. By using force, you give up the moral advantage.

[whitechocolatespace]

@RKAddict101 If you understand that if you lose that it's at your expense, then it's not theft. You understand that your money isn't being taken by force.

[SuperSneakySteve]

@ih8ronpaulh8ers Yup, us Ron Paul guys are growing in number every day! RON PAUL 2012!

[CurtHowland]

@whitechocolatespace I called in to Free Talk Live and said exactly that, that the worst thing that could happen with an RP presidency would be that the economy self-destructs anyway, and "the free market" gets blamed for it.
I'll still vote for him any chance I get. Better to go down fighting.

[whitechocolatespace]

@RKAddict101 I'm not following this example. Exactly what would the ballot read? "Check Box A to live or check box B to die?" Who would be in the "minority" that would want to die? It seems obvious to me everyone would want to live. It would be a unanimous vote.

[mehmet]

Whenever I watch one of these interviews I wipe my screen with my hand thinking my screen is dirty but it's actually just the video itself!

[alandinsmore]

No mention of Thomas Hobbs?
Thou brakest the heads of leviathan in pieces, And gavest him to be meat to the people inhabiting the wilderness.
Psalm 74:14 KJV

[RKAddict]

@whitechocolatespace I am arguing one person is not responsible for the outcome of the decisions of many, regardless of the outcome. That being said, a person can choose to vote if the system is undeniable, that is, he cannot affect a change in the actual system about to take place. However, choosing to vote does not demonstrate a consent to the system, but rather a current inevitability and a desire to sway the outcome toward one where people are not harmed.

[whitechocolatespace]

@RKAddict101 When you say 'one person' you mean each individual is not responsible. But that's clearly not the case when the group the individual belongs to wins a vote. The desired outcome is enjoyed by the individuals of that group - that is taking responsibility of the vote. But since the outcome is not known ahead of time, voting is taking responsibility to an unknown future outcome. If you lose a vote against a certain tax, when it comes time to pay, your consent is not required.

[abexylol]

The camera seems a bit dusty :) Nice interview though. Keep it up!

[RKAddict]

@whitechocolatespace Exactly, but that understanding isn't the same thing as consent. The understanding is an understanding of inevitability, not a consent to the fact that the inevitability is correct or should be inevitable.