Seph:Try all of the above
Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me.
1. Neo-conservative
2. Communist
3. Fascist.
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
liberty student:Minarchists are only radicals because they are Utopians.
Prove this statement, show me where Minarchists talk about utopia.
liberty student:Minarchists are just like marxists, its the same sort of idealistic day dreaming about the absurd as the possible.
Prove this statement, show how they are similar.
I keep seeing these ridiculous unsubstantiated statements.
Bank Run:Eh? I am yet to meet a minarchist who approves of dialectrical materialism. Or one who believes capitalism will destroy itself. Did I miss the Minarchist Manifesto?
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; minarchists are little more than soft-communists.
Since you advocate the state, I assume you advocate some form of forceful exchange of money, from the individual, to the government.
Forceful exchange implies that the government and not the individual is the supreme owner of all land within its arbitrary jurisdiction. If you don't agree with its rules, it has the right to take away your property. A minarchy may have less rules, but the ability of the government to confiscate your property should you not abide by these rules is no less prevalent.
I submit that someone who has the authority to confiscate your property, should you refuse to patronize it, is, not you, the ultimate owner of the property. Anything you do on your property, you do not because you have the authority to do so, but because the government has made no law prohibiting it.
Total Communism simply has more rules sent down on high from the state, telling the individual what he is permitted to do with property. Under minarchy, the state is still the ultimate owner of all property, it's just a 'better' owner, because it allows the individuals to have more freedom, under its ultimate domain.
Poptech: Seph:Try all of the above Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist.
Can a thief be both deceitful and thuggish?
Poptech: liberty student:Minarchists are only radicals because they are Utopians. Prove this statement, show me where Minarchists talk about utopia.
Poptech, what do you think a utopia is?
wilderness:Poptech, what do you think a utopia is?
I only use dictionary definitions...
Utopia (defined) - "A place of ideal perfection especially in laws, government, and social conditions"
I am finding serious confusion here about the definition of words, something you can easily look up. If you can show me where Minarchists speak of perfection, please let me know.
"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
Seph: Poptech: Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist. Can a thief be both deceitful and thuggish?
Poptech: Using dictionaries (not wiki) define all three words for me. 1. Neo-conservative 2. Communist 3. Fascist.
Do you know how to use a dictionary?
Bank Run: Paul:The dictionary definition of autarchy It depends on which one you consult.
Paul:The dictionary definition of autarchy
It depends on which one you consult.
The dictionary! (OED, of course!)
Bank Run:I would say that calling it a variant of autocracy(absolute rule) and autarky(economic isolation) are definitions that don't follow the etymological nature of the word.
Well, you'd be wrong...it was used that way (absolute rule, not isolation, which is a different word) in classical Greek.
Bank Run:Dictionary definitions can change. Under Wiki three definitions are given.
The first two with the "absolute dictatorship" meaning, and the third misspelling autarky. You might at least have edited in Lefévre's definition and claimed four
Bank Run: Knight_of_BAAWA:No ruler/government, not "no rule"government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors an=without arkhe=ruler or ruled.
Knight_of_BAAWA:No ruler/government, not "no rule"government which, by its nature, doesn't protect anyone except the biggest contributors
an=without arkhe=ruler or ruled.
I assume you meant "rule", rather than "ruled"; but it doesn't mean "rule" in the sense used in English in "no rules".
Bank Run:This has been linked here in the past, but it is a short read that all should really consider. LeFevre : Autarchy Versus Anarchy
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."
Angurse:Yes, there is, its that wich follows from given premises. What follows from an extremely limited government, more or less?
Why does it have to change?
Angurse:Easily defeated? Check your premises, thats a really big "what if."Trusted men (who are being payed) being just one weak point I'll point out.
It worked for Saddam Hussein.
Angurse:You've changed the argument again. You will only get what you pay. The rest of the world would care what hes doing because hes trying to enforce laws making women property, etc... If he were use his military and dominate people then the world wouldn't be in an anarchistic state at all, so the state has easily been defeated.
He pays well. Why would the rest of the world care? So someone with a lot of money in an anarchistic state can easily destroy it. It appears this theory is flawed.
Angurse:Or else we'd be at the mercy of billionaire goldminer svenghalis. Please don't act so childish, stick to the topic.
Billionaires and owners of gold mines do not exist and would not exist in an anarchistic state?
Jon Irenicus:So would you or wouldn't you forbid the free association of individuals to arrange for their own affais sans a state? If so, you're the obstacle. If not, then this discussion is ultimately trivial. Seeing the State as the only way of providing defence, or whatever other service, is treating it like a god.
It is not up to me but society. If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
Jon Irenicus:Yet it is available to them and yet many of them use it to their advantage.
That does not change how politicians are elected, which is by more than just the Billionaire's vote.
Jon Irenicus:No, he doesn't - in fact his treatment of anarchy is shallow compared to the rest of his work, and is written in ignorance (unavoidably) of works that post-date it treating of the subject. You merely wish for confirmation of your impetuous attachment to mummy state.
Well it is nice to find out that Ludwig von Mises is considered "ignorant" at the Ludwig von Mises institute!
Le Master:Poptech, I linked to these before. You should really read them. A six-part exchange between RC Hoiles and Mises.
RC insults Mises and Mises clearly does not accept an anarchist position.
Poptech: It is not up to me but society. If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
That's ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it's a light bulb - my argument is flawed. A=A
Poptech: Le Master:Poptech, I linked to these before. You should really read them. A six-part exchange between RC Hoiles and Mises. RC insults Mises and Mises clearly does not accept an anarchist position.
You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let's not throw out history while you've already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality.
Seph:minarchists are little more than soft-communists.
I wager there are more socialist-anarchists than socialist-minarchists. If there is a collective ownership over the means of production and a lack of private property, this sort of government cannot be a minimal one.
Seph are you trying to say Mises, Hayek, Ropke, Hazlitt, et al. are soft-communists?
@Paul this one? Or this? What about the following.
Individualism Rocks
Unless you believe fallacies make good arguments, no, not really.
Since when is that all that there is to the political process? The election part is as contrived and limited with regard to choice as can be as it is.
Mises was not nor did he ever claim to be infallible. And had you taken what I said in context I said he is inevitably ignorant of works that engaged the topic of anarchism in greater depth because they were not written then or because he had bigger problems to deal with (monetary theory, socialism &c.) than that at the time. That isn't quite the same as saying he is ignorant simpliciter...
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
wilderness:That's ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it's a light bulb - my argument is flawed.
Yes of course, if you are unable to convince enough people that a light bulb is a light bulb your argument is flawed. But this is something that can be done through scientific experimentation and demonstrated.
If you hold up a glass shaped like a light bulb and declare it so but no one believes you because you will not make it "light up"
wilderness:You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let's not throw out history while you've already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality.
I find no evidence that Mises even entertained an idea of "pro-law anarchism" in any remote sense. What has been extensively established is Mises refuted Anarchy and that exchange just further supports that. Nor have I seen evidence for him advocating for the establishment of law without government. Do you have any evidence of him supporting an idea of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Jon Irenicus:Unless you believe fallacies make good arguments, no, not really.
Then if the argument is not flawed how come you cannot convince enough people of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Jon Irenicus:Since when is that all that there is to the political process? The election part is as contrived and limited with regard to choice as can be as it is.
While the political process is far from perfect and never could be, you clearly have choices but people continue to only choose between two parties. After reading and dealing with various libertarians, it is very clear to me why this is so.
Poptech:Then if the argument is not flawed how come you cannot convince enough people of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
Poptech: If you are unable to convince enough people of your "ideal" system than your argument is flawed.
Please explain.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Poptech: wilderness:That's ridiculous. So if I say this is a light bulb and it is a light bulb, but nobody will be convinced it's a light bulb - my argument is flawed. Yes of course,
Yes of course,
as I said - you're last stand will be irrationality. So now A=B in your worldview.
Poptech: if you are unable to convince enough people that a light bulb is a light bulb your argument is flawed.
if you are unable to convince enough people that a light bulb is a light bulb your argument is flawed.
No. It means "enough people" are wrong cause it IS a light bulb.
Poptech: But this is something that can be done through scientific experimentation and demonstrated.
But this is something that can be done through scientific experimentation and demonstrated.
THIS is science.
Poptech: If you hold up a glass shaped like a light bulb and declare it so but no one believes you because you will not make it "light up"
It is a light bulb. It doesn't matter what else you say - it is a light bulb.
Poptech: wilderness:You are either being purposively dishonest or well, maybe not purposively. This topic is over. Mises was referring obviously not to anarchy that adheres to law (anarchy means no ruler, but that in no way means no law). Let's not throw out history while you've already thrown out logic so I guess your last stand will be irrationality. I find no evidence that Mises even entertained an idea of "pro-law anarchism" in any remote sense. What has been extensively established is Mises refuted Anarchy and that exchange just further supports that. Nor have I seen evidence for him advocating for the establishment of law without government. Do you have any evidence of him supporting an idea of an Anarcho-Capitalist system?
as I said, the weaker aspect of this vacuousness that you behold to is your lack of history. your largest vacation of the intellect that blows everything else you say into total distortion is your irrationality.
Poptech: you clearly have choices
you clearly have choices
No - you clearly provide coercion which is an accident of irrationality.
wilderness:as I said - you're last stand will be irrationality. So now A=B in your worldview.
It is not irrational, Thomas Edison clearly had to prove to people what a light bulb was.
wilderness:It is a light bulb. It doesn't matter what else you say - it is a light bulb.
Is that what Thomas Edison did? Just berate people for not "believing" him?
wilderness:as I said, the weaker aspect of this vacuousness that you behold to is your lack of history. your largest vacation of the intellect that blows everything else you say into total distortion is your irrationality.
Yes this is nice yet you cannot respond to my statement or question.
wilderness:No - you clearly provide coercion which is an accident of irrationality.
What? You don't have choices in an election?
Poptech:Why does it have to change?
"It" doesn't have to, but the logic does show what follows.
Poptech:It worked for Saddam Hussein.
So... down with the state?
Further, are you sure all of Saddam's men were loyal, because I'm positive that they weren't.
Poptech:He pays well.
So do collection plates.
Poptech:Why would the rest of the world care?
Angurse:The rest of the world would care what hes doing because hes trying to enforce laws making women property, etc...
Poptech:So someone with a lot of money in an anarchistic state can easily destroy it. It appears this theory is flawed.
It appears that someones premises are absurd and their world view is flawed, I'm still waiting for proof of any such entity arising in a stateless society. However, The power of the rich is magnified immensely by the state, in a stateless society their power would be far less. Reputation alone could stop this implausible scenario from ever arising.
Poptech:Billionaires and owners of gold mines do not exist and would not exist in an anarchistic state?
Billionaire goldminers svenghalis who live entirely in a missile silo, no.
Juan: I don't think LeFevre wanted a small monopolistic government. LeFevre was fully a voluntarist. Am I right ?
Yeah, I agree. I don't think it is likely that minarchism would or will support monopolism, even it's own. A minarchist system may have a set of laws, the way they are to be adjudicated(not positive or retributive), negative rights, and perhaps interstate federalism, and little else, or it would not be a minimal government. A monopolistic government would not be a small one.
When was the term anarcho- capitalist designed?
Well, a year later three students write a good reply in the same journal. Let's Call It Anarchy.
I don't think the authors had read H.L. Mencken's The American Language. Mencken gives the reader wonderful etymologies of words. His central premise is of course that American English, is a unique and changing form of English to that of the British. In America it is okay to create new words use archaisms in different meanings, and to generally make language their own. It is a matter of usage to be sure. I agree with LeFevre's usage, and use it myself. Will it eventually be popularized? Well I know I am not very influential, but others may be in that position.
I agree with the three authors that anarchy does not have to be socialist. The history of Anarchism does happen to lean that way.
In my consideration of the usage of capitalism, anarchism, etatism, etc, I try to think what my audience thinks of these terms. I found the lay are open to terms they are not familiar with. So for me using Autarchy not Anarcho-Capitalism, is more effective. I support self rule, I therefore prefer to call it Autarchy.
Kind regards
Bank Run: Seph:minarchists are little more than soft-communists. Seph are you trying to say Mises, Hayek, Ropke, Hazlitt, et al. are soft-communists?
Yes, yes I am. It doesn't mean we can't learn from them, but it does mean that they, like every person on earth, have flaws.
Now, will you address the meat of my argument or not?
Poptech: wilderness:as I said - you're last stand will be irrationality. So now A=B in your worldview. It is not irrational, Thomas Edison clearly had to prove to people what a light bulb was.
But it is still a light bulb. It's not the light bulb that is flawed nor was it Edison. It was people that didn't believe him. And at the moment you still don't think a light bulb is a light bulb and it's the year 2009!
Poptech: wilderness:It is a light bulb. It doesn't matter what else you say - it is a light bulb. Is that what Thomas Edison did? Just berate people for not "believing" him?
I'm not berating you, and to bring up if Edison did or not is a tangent. When a person has to fall back to their irrational last stand they do tend to cry foul. You are trying to say a light bulb isn't a light bulb - it's obvious you are being irrational.
Poptech: wilderness:No - you clearly provide coercion which is an accident of irrationality. What? You don't have choices in an election?
Obviously the government is a coercive monopoly. just because you decide to elect new coercive leaders doesn't change the coercion.
Also I responded to your utopian limited government here.
Bank Run: Yeah, I agree. I don't think it is likely that minarchism would or will support monopolism, even it's own. A minarchist system may have a set of laws, the way they are to be adjudicated(not positive or retributive), negative rights, and perhaps interstate federalism, and little else, or it would not be a minimal government. A monopolistic government would not be a small one.
A minarchist government is a monopoly or else it wouldn't be called nor attempt to fulfill what it is: a government.
Actually, no, it isn't. I'd pick up Caplan's book on democracy if I were you, where he addresses the various deficiencies of the electoral process. Other way, if you only have one arbiter of justice, it is all the easier to capture it, especially since its hold on the market is final and absolute, regardless of whether its board of executives can be changed every 4 - 5 years through a highly artificial, constrainted, profit-insensitive process...
Poptech, read this post and then think about what I've said before you immediately begin writing your reply:
1. A light bulb is still a light bulb, even if everyone disagrees. A logically valid argument is still logically valid, even if you disagree. Neither depends on the opinion of 'society.' As John Adams said, "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
2. There is more than one type of anarchism. Mises attacked lawlessness, which is not what anarcho-capitalists support. He can not have refuted something if he never even addressed it. Again: he did not support or refute anarcho-capitalism.
I'm sorry, Poptech, but if you want to 'refute' the anarcho-capitalist worldview, you're going to have to do some further reading, or come up with an original argument. I don't mean to insult you here, but you just haven't won any ground because you came in with a straw man right at the start. I would read up on anarcho-capitalism a little more, and then come back. Not knowing about polycentric law means that you are not ready to engage with most of us.
Good luck!
"Constitution worship is our most extended public political ritual, frequently supervised as often by mountebanks as by the sincere"-James J Martin
Poptech:What? You don't have choices in an election?
You don't have a choice in the outcome.
Seph:yes I am
That is an absurdity. It borders on being offensive. I imagine such a claim is made out of ignorance. If one were to read just about anything from the Austrian Economists, one would see that they crush socialism. "Socialism leads to totalitarianism." Your argument has no meat, and can barely be construed as bubblegum. There are so many different definitions for socialism as compared to communism. Is there a difference between the two? Well, I've seen socialists and communists complain when an example of their system such as Russia, is made that it wasn't really one or the other. There are a lot of socialist systems. I define communism as world socialism. Perhaps I am wrong, if so explain.
There are many different types of anarchy. There are so many that one must put a this-type or that-type with the word anarchy. Based on these loose interpretations, I will say that it is possible that minarchy is a form of anarchism. That anarcho-capitalism is a form of minarchy. Why? Well it seems anarcho-capitalism is a systematic form of anarchy(although systematic anarchy doesn't seem to be in the nature of anarchy). Loosely like a government if it has a system of law. If anarcho-capitalism is systematic anarchy, than it is roughly minarchism. Or, is there here proponents of pure chaotic unlawful anarchy?
On the charge that all government in whatever form no matter the size is a form of monopolism. This is an interesting proposition that would require more specifics into whatever proposed system. How about the monopoly of coercive force(violence). With an armed citizenry is this really the case? The example of giving all the guns to one group doesn't apply. What about the monopoly of a justice system? I don't see why there can't be competing courts under a minarchist government. What about having a monopoly of one system of law over a territory. Is this a form of monopoly? Is this a case where it can be considered not a monopoly but a mutual civil agreement on a set of rules, and the way in which they are applied? How does a group or groups decide on the best form of justice, without appealing to some sort of authority, be it intellectual or mutual? How about the monopoly of national defense(no matter the size of territory)? How is an armed public to be organized in times of defense? An army that fights together is better than a disorganized gathering of men with guns. Is having national defense a system of monopoly? All this rhetoric makes me think that monopoly taken in it's broadest interpretation, isn't the same sort of monopolism that I am against. I believe under free market conditions monopoly is unsustainable. It may be necessary to say there is state-monopoly, state granted monopoly, and temporal free market monopoly. I will always be not in favor of state granted monopoly.
"The goal is freedom."
I hope someday diversified groups of thinkers can work together in order to maximize individual liberty.
I agree with Poptech's intepretation of Mises here. I think what Mises, and Kirzner after him, thought was that there are necessary preconditions for the market. Some of these preconditions were the enforcement of property rights, the definition of coercion and the delimitation of behaviours that are, and are not, acceptable. Kirzner also says that in order for these to arise, economic considerations are not enough (and I'm not sure if I agree with him here or not). Rather, a common ethical view amongst individuals regarding the validity of various types of behaviour is a necessary institution for the emergance of the market.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Applied to anarchocapitalism, Mises's passages look like the sort of emotional rejection he accuses Keynes of regarding Say's Law.
There seems to be a bit of confusion here. Lets explain 3 points...
I believe that the use of voilence is wrong. Everything done by government is either done by violent force or with the threat of it. Therefore I am an anarchist (anarcho-capitalist). This doesn't mean I don't believe in rules, only that I don't believe in rulers.
I don't believe that those who are against family,church, business, and any other voluntary organisation are anarchists. In order to achieve a society without these institutions they would need to use force. They would need rulers. I see this as a form of collectivism (socialism). I believe these are the guys Mises was reffering to.
I see supporting a limited government as believing in rulers who use or threaten force. To me this is a form of collectivism (minarchism). As an anarchist I would be willing to join with you to work towards freedom, however I won't forget that you are still willing to give someone or something the authority to rule over me. I will not make excuses for believing that this is and always will be wrong.
I don't think either of them can be construed as an emotional rejection. Keynes' rejected Say's Law, I suspect, because he didn't full understand it. As Hutt has explained, before Keynesian doctrines took over the law, though widely accepted, was rarely fully explicated. As for Mises, I think he had (what he believed) to be scientific reasons for rejecting "anarcho-capitalism". Whilst "anarcho capitalism" wasn't spelled out by the time Mises was writing (although he did review Rothbard's Man, Economy and State so this isn't entirely true) he did, to some extent, anticipate the arguments put forward by Rothbard and the subsequent theorists. I think Mises' thinking was, as I said, that since voluntary exchange was a precondition for the market, there was no way it could be supplied by the market. Now, whether or not you regard this as true (I'm not sure if I do, although I think there are other arguments for the market in the provision of defense, I just don't think one can make a priori rulings on the matter) it's clearly what Mises thought. The fact of the matter is that I see a lot of rationalizations of non-anarchist positions by people on these boards that just don't make a lot of sense. Whether it be claiming that Hazlitt wasn't a minarchist, he just knew his audience or that Mises was essentially an anarchist he just used different terminology it seems a lot like people are trying to rewrite history to make it fit a Rothbardian worldview.
Almost all of the people here seem to acknowledge that Mises wasn't an anarchist (of any sort), however his refutations of "anarchy" just aren't aimed at the market variety. And trying to retrofit them to do so just does a diservice to Mises, in my opinion. But that wasn't really the point. Given his utilitarianism (and stubborness), I would agree he still wouldn't be an anarcho-capitalist, just as he held his incorrect (in my opinion) view of monopolies after Rothbard, he too would hold his minarchist view.
MatthewF:To me this is a form of collectivism (minarchism). As an anarchist I would be willing to join with you to work towards freedom
Thank you for extending the olive branch.
When it comes to collectivism though, I feel it would be very insightful for all those making such specious claims to listen to the following.
Ethics in Collision
Angurse: Almost all of the people here seem to acknowledge that Mises wasn't an anarchist (of any sort), however his refutations of "anarchy" just aren't aimed at the market variety. And trying to retrofit them to do so just does a diservice to Mises, in my opinion. But that wasn't really the point. Given his utilitarianism (and stubborness), I would agree he still wouldn't be an anarcho-capitalist, just as he held his incorrect (in my opinion) view of monopolies after Rothbard, he too would hold his minarchist view.
I think Mises point was aimed at anybody who rejected the state as a means of providing security. The economic organization of society is moot question in Mises' view once the state is rejected. The critique he put forward with sentences such as this " as without it [the state GS] no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved" and ". 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" imply that Poptech is correct in invoking Mises against "anarchocapitalism".
As I've said, in Mises' view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights. Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.
As I've said, in Mises' view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights.