ludwig von mises & interventionism
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/13/2019 Ludwig Von Mises & Interventionism
1/4
Ludwig von Mises & InterventionismWill Porter 12/31/2013
Ludwig von Mises was arguably one of the greatest economists and social philosophers of
the 20th
century, possibly of all time. He was a fervent defender of the free market and of theclassical liberal philosophy of human liberty. His story is one of courage and heroism in the face
of immense opposition; as the socialistic and nationalistic currents of Europe clashed,
eventually culminating in world war and mass collapse. But despite this greatness of character
and intellect, Mises may not have gone far enough in applying one of his (most) valuable
insights concerning economic interventions and the path to socialism.
On interventionism, Mises noticed that almost every measure taken by government to
intervene into an economy brought along with it ever-more problems. These newly-created
problems, of course, would be solved with ever-more intervention. (Mo intervention, moproblems.) This series of failed policy and attempted remedies would bungle along until an
essentially socialist economy emerged. This socialism today has become morefascistin nature,
but the process and the final result remain essentially the same. This great insight into the
nature of state-interventionism showed that no Third Way existed. No mixed economy could
serve as a happy medium between laissez-faire and socialist planning boards. Any intervention
would necessarily fail, and from here one of two things could be done. 1) As said above, new
measures could be taken to further intervene in vain attempt to solve the problem, or 2) The
program could be repealed and the damage hopefully reversed.
So for Mises, this path of economic regulation and control could only go two places, both
of them coming forth as a result of the failed policy. It could return to laissez-faire, the state
learning from its failure. This, sadly, rarely happens. Much more likely, the road to socialism
would be paved as the problems compounded. Socialism, as Mises discovered in his economic
analysis of a collectivist order or a planned economy, could not possibly be a viable option.
Socialist economies are planned from the top-down, and in no planned economy of this sort
could genuine prices emerge for high-order goods -- like capital equipment and raw materials.
For any kind of functional price to come about, free trade must exist between various parties.
As trades and transactions are made and agreed upon, a certain monetary price emerges as a
result of this collective-action, prices which can be reliably used as factors of economic
calculation. Entrepreneurs and capitalists dealing in the higher stages of production make these
calculations to avoid waste and to maximize production of goods in balance with the supply of
and demand for those goods. Eventually, though, the calculations are made by consumers and
workers on a personal level, near the lower-order stages of production, consumer products.
-
8/13/2019 Ludwig Von Mises & Interventionism
2/4
This process allows for a network of prices to emerge, generally reflecting the collective-
valuation of goods in quantifiable monetary units. Economizing and trimming down waste
becomes possible under such a system, but only when it is organic or spontaneous. Socialist
governments typically own the means of production in whatever territory they rule, and as only
one party it of course cannot trade with itself. No prices can be established that actually reflectreal valuation under socialism, and therefore no calculation can be made to avoid producing
too much or too little of the right or wrong thing. This is why under Soviet communism tractors
filled the fields and rusted, vastly over-produced. Just because we candevote a plethora of
energy into producing mountains of shoes at full-production doesnt mean its a good idea to
do so. Forcing any industry, artificially, into full-production by necessity means that resources
and labor will be diverted away from more urgent needs and wants. It means a net loss for
society as a whole, who now has more of something they dont want, and less of something
they do. But the results of socialism arent merely that some of your desires or wants go
unfulfilleda tolerable sacrifice for the cause -- but that your biological needsmay go
unfulfilled, when the planning board misallocates resources so severely that food is under-
produced, and you starve to death.
Mises offered a devastating critique of socialism, so much so that it was, to an extent,
ignored or dismissed by many socialist intellectuals of his time (and today). Showing that
socialism cant calculate, thus inevitably condemning it to failure, was an insight and prediction
that would render any advocacy for such a system as not only absurd, but clearly against the
interests of humanity at large. If socialism is total-intervention into a private economy, then
each thrust forward towards interventionist state-policies would be a step more toward
outright socialism. To whatever extent there is control by the state over some aspect of the
private market, it is the same extent that constant maladies and conflicts and misallocations
will take place. This insight has been largely ignored by advocates of both socialism and
interventionist policy.
But Mises was right. As each year passes, we can witness this process before our very
eyes. Ever-more government regulation is imposed on the private economy, and we continue
to see worse-and-worse problems arising, such is the case with the American central banking
cartel, the insurance and pharmaceutical industries, the military industrial complex, etc. In light
of how accurate this theory is, and has been, can its application be extended beyond Misess
original intention?
It would seem that if artificial state-intervention into the market necessarily brings
problems, then allforms of state-intervention could be said to bring the same kinds of
problems. For example, when government intervenes and establishes a monopoly police force,
-
8/13/2019 Ludwig Von Mises & Interventionism
3/4
or a monopoly court-system, that these too would yield the kinds of results that would require
constant additions of laws, a constant increase of control and regulation. The many
monopolies imposed by the state are always in the name of the common good, yet they only
contribute bads for almost everyone, giving special privilege to a small minority.
The courts have exemplified this. What began as a fairly simple, but effective, tradition of
precedent-based common-law has now become a monolithic system of immense complexity.
The federal government doesnt even know how many laws, statues, and regulations are on
their own books, surely there are thousands, probably tens of thousands.
The mere mention of suing somebody now evokes so much uneasiness that many disputes
forego the courts altogether, to avoid the racket they impose. Costs of litigation restrict and
hamper both the operation of a business, but also a hasty path to redress when some person or
party has been wronged. Can a justice system thats so complex, inefficient, and expensive that
it drives away legitimate disputants be said to be working? This doesnt even consider the
endless slew of victimless-crime laws that criminalize peaceful behavior and lead to millions of
innocent people being thrown into cages for precious years of their lives. On top of this, when a
real crime has been committed, with an aggressor of person or property, the victim is forced to
pay to house, clothe, and feed the criminal as an inmate in a government prison or jail. Instead
of restitution to victims as the primary job of law and order, punishment of criminals has
become their fancy, even if its at the total expense of the victims of the crime they seek to
punish.
These systems are consistently plagued by corruption, abuse of power, horrendous
misallocation of resources (leading to shortages or over-abundance), conflicts of interest, and
the general hampering of economic progress, thus requiring a stream of continual state-
legislation that only amplifies the issues the law always seeks to remedy. Each time something
is done by way of law, most common people generally assume it was the correct measure to
fix the problem, because the experts in government know best.
I could go on for much longer on the mountainous list of mass injustices done by the
monopoly police and court systems, but the point should be clear. State-intervention into any
area of the market will bring constant problems, corruption, crime, and waste. The state never
wishes to let go of power once attained, so it will always keep on adding new programs to fix
the problems of the last ones. No politician wants to be the one who repealed a program, so
their only politically-viable route is to legislate in additionto, rather than in replacement of, old
programs.
-
8/13/2019 Ludwig Von Mises & Interventionism
4/4
On the possibility of a limited state;government that is small may not be a government
that is limited. Many Americans assume, because our government was once small, that it must
have been limited. I dont see the limitation occurring. At almost every possible turn, the
governmentlocal, state, and federal -- has rendered the original limitson its power
completely useless in actually doing any limiting. No government can possibly be limited,because all governments, by their nature as lawmakers, are above their own law. Virtually
every government in the world today has some document announcing the rights of the people,
and the restrictions on government that are to be imposed. But virtually every government in
the world, and in history, has continuallyviolated its own laws and fundamental principles,
mostly with no repercussions at all besides some public distaste. The bums are thrown out,
replaced by some new guys who will then turn around and do precisely the same things.
The theory that interventionism leads to more interventionism, which sooner-or-later
results in a system largely controlled and regimented by the state, is a very similar theory in
form to the one I have presented in the above paragraph. Intervention perpetuates itself, as
does allgovernment action. The very existence of a state means the existence of an entity who
is allowed to exempt itself from its own laws, inevitably leading to a similar cycle of self-
perpetuated growth. Whether it concerns economic or social issues, any state intervention will
necessarily lead to a larger state, and more problems (which give the state ever-more excuses
to intervene). The existence of capitalism and free trade, say after the American Revolution,
creates large sums of wealth in society. As this capital-accumulation takes place and society
gets richer, the state latches onto this expanded wealth to fuel their own growth, their own
libido dominandi.
Mises was correct to the degree he applied his theory, but a consistent application would
lead to anarchistic conclusions. The state has nolegitimate or effective purpose. Any attempt to
force its way into the market will only yield a constant flux of issues, never to be quelled by
heavier doses of statism. It is only the position of complete liberty, pure (classical) liberalism
that can bring a sustainable and prosperous social system. No way of organization will be
completely free of problems, but if we wish escape from the institutionalization of such
problems, we must ditch the notion of statism altogether. This systematic implementation of
problem-creation cannotsustain any society, because statism is the antithesis of society. This is
precisely why the state can no longer be tolerated.
Every step which leads from capitalism toward planning is
necessarily a step nearer to absolutism and dictatorship Ludwig von
Mises Omnipotent Government p. 53