"A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his Utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run."
"Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved. It is a means to cope with an inherent imperfection of many, perhaps of the majority of all people. If all men were able to realize that the alternative to peaceful social cooperation is the renunciation of all that distinguishes Homo sapiens from the beasts of prey, and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression. Not the state is an evil, but the shortcomings of the human mind and character that imperatively require the operation of a police power. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d'etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man's innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent."
- Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (PDF)
"The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government."
- Ludwig von Mises, Human Action
"In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
- Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (PDF)
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Human Action:The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of care. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they jeopardize society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order. This power is vested in the state or government.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
I disagree with Mises...
HOORAY I WIN!
DANCING TIME!
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Poptech: "A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members. While Plato founded his Utopia on the hope that a small group of perfectly wise and morally impeccable philosophers will be available for the supreme conduct of affairs, anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability. They failed to conceive that no system of social cooperation can remove the dilemma between a man's or a group's interests in the short run and those in the long run." - Ludwig Von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (PDF)
- Ludwig Von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science (PDF)
You're suggesting that because people are not angels, we should have some ruling over us?
"The proper study of Man is anything but Man; and the most improper job of any man, even saints (who at any rate were at least unwilling to take it on), is bossing other men. Not one in a million is fit for it, and least of all those who seek the opportunity."
Juan:I suppose Mises was having a bad day when he 'refuted' anarchy...
I have never read Mises supporting anarchy, that would be Rothbard.
Seph:You're suggesting that because people are not angels, we should have some ruling over us?
Mises clearly suggest this. I find it ironic that the anarchists at LVM are not well read on Mises.
We get it, Mises didnt support anarchy and he has long quotes stating so.
Now, do you have an original thought?
Maybe Juan will call Mises a neo-con now. ROFLMAO!!!
Poptech:I have never read Mises supporting anarchy, that would be Rothbard.
Juan:For the third time : 'We' all know that Mises was not an anarchist. Maybe you didn't ?
Are you saying that Mises was not an anarchist? Wow.
Juan:Well, I sort of figured out that Mises was not an anarchist by reading some of his thoughts on government...
That's why you're my friend. Because you're a bright guy.
First, 'von' is not capitalized(except maybe at the beginning of a sentence); second, Mises was a product of his times(I'm not even sure anarcho-capitalism was even around at the time).
Steven Pinker makes the same claim in his recent claims about the reduction of violence in societies. It seems to be a straw man.
Anarcho-socialism nor an-cap says that men need to be angels. I think even a brief reading of any of the anarcho-socialists at that time would have made for a better critique. Most anarchists think government should be by workers democratically deciding stuff like unionism writ large. Not Mad Maxism where people just are naked and run wild. An-caps move toward the defense that can be funded voluntarily, of course.
Capitalism and anarchism both have a strange similarity. Most anarchists claim "capitalism never works -- it fails, it's a crisis, it sucks, and most people hate it, yada yada yada." But then fail to see that nearly everyone thinks the same of anarchism (due to whatever bigotry, lack of understanding/imagination). And Mises' quote here of big guys destroying little guys... and a few idiots being helpless in an another wise rational and capable society is always the caricature of free markets, ironically.
Minarchism opens a big door when you make even such small claims. Which is why free markets and states become disasterous mixes... the market producing a lot of wealth for the "helping" state to take and grow into tyranny. As Walter Block duly noted when calling Hayek and Friedman statists (or "communists" or something). That's definitely something Mises left out.
As a side note, I wonder if a Misesian has anything to write about socialist anarchism. Since they don't have a state and central authority, I'm not sure what the pragmatic/utilitarian arguments would be against socialist anarchism in terms of calculation and so forth. (if that be a concern, given the usual moral arguments for social anarchism that might outweigh other things). Sure they would not have prices (though some might, I'm not sure), but who does the calculation and how does stuff work in a socialist anarchist society exactly? I'd like to hear a debate between Misesians and social anarchists on this topic. We already know why states suck, but would a more decentralized system fall to the same problems?
BioTube:I'm not even sure anarcho-capitalism was even around at the time
Rothbard effectively created it so no but none of that changes the fact that Mises was not an anarchist and did not support anarchy.
I never said it did, but it's important to understand just what he was talking about.
technicly wasnt prouhdon a market anarchist as he believed that all human services can be provided on the voluntary marketplace
Juan:That's another big piece of misinformation.
Rothbard effectively created... and named it so. Can you show me where Gustave called it Anarcho-capitalism? Exactly, it is not misinformation but a fact.
garegin:technicly wasnt prouhdon a market anarchist as he believed that all human services can be provided on the voluntary marketplace
But Proudhon was a pro-violence anti-semite. He's certainly a mixed bag.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2492
Did you guys read his correspondence with RC Hoiles?
Rothbard effectively created...
Can you show me where Gustave called it Anarcho-capitalism?
I'm not an anarchist, but I agree with Juan. You might want to add Max Stirner to the mix, as I don't believe he agreed with any government either.
Mises is entirely right, of course. Without any organized system of protection, which the anarchists opposed, then the isolated individual becomes easy prey for any group of sufficiently motivated bandits.
What Mises never really explored was the structure of government itself. He simply stated the ideal that any group should be able to establish their own, as a semi-competitive process.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Praetyre:I'm not an anarchist, but I agree with Juan. You might want to add Max Stirner to the mix, as I don't believe he agreed with any government either.
I am not referring to anarchists in general but specifically Anarcho-Capitalists as stated by Rothbard.
Mises is entirely right, of course.
Even if we admit that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social cooperation and of acting accordingly, there still remains the problem of the infants, the aged, and the insane.
Poptech:Mises clearly suggest this. I find it ironic that the anarchists at LVM are not well read on Mises.
In every instance where Mises attacked "anarchism", he implied that "anarchism" implies the absence of law. And, therefore, Mises never did refute and never even attempted to refute any variant of anarchism which resembles anarchocapitalism.
Read this quotation:
Ludwig von Mises, p. 109 of "Liberalism": If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable [...]
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable [...]
In the above quotation, Mises recognizes the logical conclusion of his philosophy but refuses to accept it because he believes that such a policy would be "impracticable" which blatantly contradicts the many words which he wrote which argued that no separation between "theory" and "practice" exists.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan: Ludwig von Mises, p. 109 of "Liberalism": If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable [...] In the above quotation, Mises recognizes the logical conclusion of his philosophy but refuses to accept it because he believes that such a policy would be "impracticable" which blatantly contradicts the many words which he wrote which argued that no separation between "theory" and "practice" exists.
He clearly refutes anarchism in that work.
Ludwig von Mises, p. 36-37 of "Liberalism":In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
Poptech: He clearly refutes anarchism in that work. Ludwig von Mises, p. 36-37 of "Liberalism": In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
Ludwig von Mises, p. 36-37 of "Liberalism": In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
Mises states that "[t]he liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered". And an anarchocapitalist also understands that quite clearly. That is why anarchocapitalists often discuss "private law" and "private defense agencies".
Ludwig von Mises: The anarchists contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. Such an ideal society could do without state and government, i.e., without a police force, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion.
The anarchists contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. Such an ideal society could do without state and government, i.e., without a police force, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion.
In the above quotation, he unambiguously and unequivocally states that his conception of anarchy implies a society "without a police force" and "without any compulsion and coercion". And anarchocapitalism implies a society with a police force and with compulsion and coercion. Again, Mises never even addressed any doctrine which resembles anarchocapitalism in print.
I. Ryan:In the above quotation, he unambiguously and unequivocally states that his conception of anarchy implies a society "without a police force" and "without any compulsion and coercion". And anarchocapitalism implies a society with a police force and with compulsion and coercion. Again, Mises never even addressed any doctrine which resembles anarchocapitalism in print.
It cleary advocates for the police to be the function of the state.
"This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
The fact that Anacho-capitalism was not directly addressed does not change his message.
Poptech: It cleary advocates for the police to be the function of the state. "This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace." The fact that Anacho-capitalism was not directly addressed does not change his message.
His message is an attack against anti-law anarchism. The anarchism which most members of this forum advocate is pro-law anarchism.
I. Ryan:pro-law anarchism
That doesn't make any sense. Who decides the law? A majority? Who decides when the majority is reached?
While you are correct that Mises wasn't an anarchist, his opposition to "anarchists" was focused more towards that of the common socialist-collectivist-anarchists and not that of voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism. If you take what he said and apply it to any market anarchists, even Gustave, it completely falls apart. But there isn't any reason why anarchists (of the market variety) can't still be fans of Mises.
Mises made no concessions for different types of anarchism. He clearly advocated for a government.
Poptech:Mises made no concessions for different types of anarchism. He clearly advocated for a government.
As he was only familiar with the one, "the bomb-throwers."
Poptech: That doesn't make any sense. Who decides the law? A majority? Who decides when the majority is reached?
Do you not know what anarchocapitalism is?
Angurse:As he was only familiar with the one, "the bomb-throwers."
No he makes no concessions for ANY of type of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism makes a lot of idealist assumptions, such as people will agree to "your" laws. Please. The reality of human nature is people are not going to listen to any laws in an anarchist society, the ones with the power will take what they want. Anarchy in all forms is idealistic and naive and mises understood this.
I. Ryan:Do you not know what anarchocapitalism is?
You didn't answer my question.
1. Who decides the law?