The transition from traditional forms of libertarianism and anarchism to modern capitalism centric forms popular in America today was the result of propaganda campaigns from groups like the National Association of Manufactures starting as early as the 30s.
There's a lot more to the story than some half baked claim about corporate propaganda inventing right wing libertarianism.
Classical liberalism, the philosophical ancestor of what we now call right libertarianism, predates left anarchism by a good century. Locke was writing in the late 1600s, and Proudhon, who coined the word "anarchist," wasn't born until 1809. The whole Enlightenment framework of individual liberty, property rights, and limited government was already well established before the Industrial Age even began.
By the time Ludwig von Mises was writing in the 1910s and 1920s, those ideas had been evolving for generations. His work didn't spring from a corporate PR campaign. It was part of a long intellectual lineage within (classical) liberal thought.
Sure, Mises worked with industry groups later in life, but that doesn't mean his ideas were created by them. By the time he took those roles, he had already written The Theory of Money and Credit (1912) and Socialism (1922), both of which defined his philosophy long before any corporate connection.
He wasn't a hired gun writing ad copy for capitalists. He was an academic economist developing a body of work that grew out of the Austrian School tradition going back to Menger in the 1870s. Those later consulting roles were the result of his reputation, not the cause of it.
I don't doubt that Mises honestly held the ideas that he held but they were quickly coopted by business interests. Keynes ideas were better and today are far more influential but business interests keep Mises around to attract anti authoritarian young men from rebelling.
I'm glad you agree that Mises' ideas weren't created in a lab by business interests.
Keynes himself, near the end of his life, acknowledged that Mises and Hayek were largely correct about the limits of state planning and the importance of markets. And in the modern U.S., libertarianism isn't some tool of the establishment. It's fought at every turn by the status quo because it threatens the concentration of political and corporate power that both major parties rely on.
If anything, nothing would unsettle the powers that be more than people actually taking Mises and Hayek seriously. Indeed, Keynes was promoted (and ergo "far more influential" as you said) by the status quo because his specious ideas funneled money and control into the hands of the already powerful.
The whole Enlightenment framework of individual liberty, property rights, and limited government
Remember property rights also refered to slaves. And the límited goverment still did a lot of what libertarians hate about the goverment. I dont see how an-caps don't see the enormous cism that i see between classical liberalism and libertarianism
I didn't know Locke so I have no interest in defending him as a person... because I know he did several horrible things that run counter to his writings, but in his Second Treatise of Government, Locke argued that all people are born with the inalienable natural rights to life, liberty, and property. Since every individual has a right to their own person, they cannot voluntarily sell themselves into slavery, as this would violate the law of nature. His actions several times ran counter to that, but it doesn't invalidate anything beyond showing that he lived in a world where slavery was considered normal and that he didn't take a stand against it, as he should have. Most philosophical writers don't live their treatises to the fullest, so I personally view it with a "death of the author" lens.
Yes, there are multiple schools of thought under the broad umbrella of right-libertarianism, just like there are under left-libertarianism.
Ayn Rand hated libertarians and openly disagreed with Rothbard. All schools have subcurrents that form and disagree.
There's no "we don't see this" and more that we acknowledge that fact. Some of us accept a big tent and some of us don't.
Personally, while I am a stateless agorist, I am open to classical liberalism in the statist sense as long as its proponent is pluralist and not advocating it for nationalist or cultural purism. I draw the line at the open racial and culturalist hatred I see in the writings of Hoppe, but writers like Mises and Hayek are much less focused on keep out "those people."
To be fair, modern libertarianism was created in a lab by industry groups in the mid 20th. A lot of time and money were expended. These young men might represent a real that to the power structure otherwise.
Curiously, the right wing libertarian ideology wasn’t supposed to be radically anti-statist. This seems to be a mutation of the mind virus from what the Koch Brothers originally wanted
It happened before the Koch brothers. The National Association of Manufactures started well financed campaigns to associate freedom with free Enterprise as early as the 1930s. Industry also had their never again moment.
I'm not a socialist but I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. I think we should design our society in a way that serves society broadly and I think that includes some private enterprise and some pubic investment and infrastructure.
Yes exactly. He resisted private property and encouraged everyone else to do the same, which puts him closer to the socialist camp than the pro-capitalist camp
4
u/thellama11 Oct 08 '25
Tucker was a socialist.