GilesStratton:Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.
Cannot provide property rights?
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Juan:As I've said, in Mises' view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights. Too bad that premise is laughably wrong. Next.
As I've said, in Mises' view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights.
Be that as it may, it was the view Mises and most Austrian economists have historically held. That is, I believe, the subject of this discussion. Keep in mind, it's more than property rights with which we must concern ourselves. Rather, it is a shared ethical framework that Kirzner believes (or so I intepret him) to be necessary for peaceful cooperation.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton: 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".
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".
I disagree. I think in his remarks against anarchy he is strictly referring to anarchy without law as he mentions the impossibility of doing without any compulsion and coercion, a police force. Which is a feature of anarcho-capitalism. So while yes, he would oppose anarcho-capitalism, his remarks just don't attack it.
GilesStratton: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.
Yes, I think we all agree to that, that just wasn't my point of contention.
Be that as it may, it was the view Mises and most Austrian economists have historically held.
Keep in mind, it's more than property rights with which we must concern ourselves. Rather, it is a shared ethical framework that Kirzner believes (or so I intepret him) to be necessary for peaceful cooperation.
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."
GilesStratton: 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.
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.
Laughing Man: GilesStratton:Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these. Cannot provide property rights?
Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these.
Peace
JonBostwick:Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these.
I think people have been going a little crazy on this site lately
"government is not at all an essential part of the social organization." Jean-Baptiste Say , 2003. Oeuvres Complètes, IV. Leçons d'Economie Politique, p. 101.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Bank Run: 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
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
I can't do MP3's on the work computer. Care to sum it up?
JonBostwick:Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these
Care to be a bit less cryptic?
Laughing Man:I think people have been going a little crazy on this site lately
They disagree with you, therefore they're crazy?
nirgrahamUK:In evidence that Rothbard does not mark the birth of anarchist capitalism but worked within a longer tradition:
And yet, he was sort of the beginning of what is generally known as anarchocapitalism, especially in relation to Austrian economics.
Angurse:I disagree. I think in his remarks against anarchy he is strictly referring to anarchy without law as he mentions the impossibility of doing without any compulsion and coercion, a police force. Which is a feature of anarcho-capitalism. So while yes, he would oppose anarcho-capitalism, his remarks just don't attack it.
Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against "anarchocapitalism" even if they weren't explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers.
Juan: Well, if Kirzner is concerned with peaceful cooperation but doesn't understand the problems with monopolistic governments maybe e should refrain from lecturing his fellows on 'ethics'.
OK we should listen to Molinari who wrote how long ago?
GilesStratton:Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against "anarchocapitalism" even if they weren't explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers.
I think you could use his broader view and apply it to anarcho-capitalism but I don't think many of his explicit critiques really fit all that well. I'm sure one could re-contextualise them and stretch them a bit and do so, but, as I said, that would be a disservice towards Mises.
Angurse: GilesStratton:Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against "anarchocapitalism" even if they weren't explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers. I think you could use his broader view and apply it to anarcho-capitalism but I don't think many of his explicit critiques really fit all that well. I'm sure one could re-contextualise them and stretch them a bit and do so, but, as I said, that would be a disservice towards Mises.
I don't agree. I think the point is that Mises argument, as is Kirzner's, argues against any system which rejects the use of aggression in providing law and the provision of security. The textual evidence, as well are more in other books, fits this argument fairly well. Mises was well aware of Rothbard's arguements by the end of his life and chose not to explicitely embrace them.
Juan, enough with incivility.
Juan:Sorry, I don't think my tone is uncivil. Not to mention that 'civil' and 'uncivil' are just subjective valuations.
Yes, and I will act upon my subjective valuation if you continue in what I deem to be incivility.
Perhaps they're wrong, but I don't think that they "didn't get it".
Now, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I agree with the arguments put forth by Mises and Kirzner, but I certainly do have a great deal of respect for both of them. Of course, I used to have a lot of points of agreements with Hoppe, since then I've evaluated my position and now I disagree with him.
Juan, I won't take any action against you for being uncivil toward me (unless you get really nasty), but one more insult flung at Giles, zefreak, or any other of your favorite targets, and I will temporarily ban you.
Fucking libertine fag.
GilesStratton:Perhaps they're wrong, but I don't think that they "didn't get it". Now, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I agree with the arguments put forth by Mises and Kirzner, but I certainly do have a great deal of respect for both of them. Of course, I used to have a lot of points of agreements with Hoppe, since then I've evaluated my position and now I disagree with him.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not only that, but you project a "worship" onto others. Therein lies just one of your problems
I don't understand the point you're trying to make, do you have anything else to add that might help clarify what you're saying.
Juan:Lilburne, you have no moral standing to dictate to me how I write. Do you understand that ? If the people you mention have any problem with me, let them sort it out. I don't think it's your business to interfere. Your chivalry in defending them is totally uncalled for IMO.
I am completely justified in enforcing forum rules and promoting civil, fruitful discussion here.
Juan:Oh, not to mention that I've not insulted Giles and co. Here's something that IMO qualifies as an insult Fucking libertine fag. I don't think I've used that sort of language...
I denounced Giles over that a long time ago, so don't think I'm being partial. In this thread, he is being more than civil toward you, and you are being a punk. So lay off, or go flame somewhere else.
and you are being a punk.
Lilburne: you are being a punk.
you are being a punk.
i'm sorry but "WOW"
Juan:and you are being a punk. is that an insult ?
Alright, I'll rephrase: "gratuitous insults".
GilesStratton:I don't understand the point you're trying to make
I think we are disagreeing on the point of the OP now. I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments, however I don't think the cited critiques do an adequate job of explaining, as I don't think they are even an attempt at it. Mises' not explicitely embracing Rothbards views has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Bank Run:That is an absurdity. It borders on being offensive.
It borders on being offensive to state that while Mises was indeed a great man who we can learn much from, he may have been wrong on some fundamental issues, such as the necessity of the state?
I guess I'm just an offensive person then.
Bank Run:There are a lot of socialist systems. I define communism as world socialism. Perhaps I am wrong, if so explain.
I define communism (or total communism, or state-communism) as 100% of the property of the nation, in the hands of th state. In other words, 100% public property, 0% private property. I think this is a fairly good definition, considering the central aspect that Marx placed on the total elimination of private property.
So if communism is 100% private property and 0% private, then how does it not follow that 5%~ public and 95%~ private property (as Minarchists would suggest) is still partial communism?
Bank Run:I will always be not in favor of state granted monopoly.
Except in the cases of justice, law and protection.
In other words, the issues which are too important to be left to the free market. Sound familiar?
Angurse: I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments
I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments
Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
Paul: Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
Are you saying that Mises agreed with Rothbard?
Mises was a neo-Kantian, Rothbard was a defender of natural rights, they disagreed.
Mises:Less successful than his [Rothbard] investigations in the fields of general praxeology and economics are the author's occasional observations concerning the philosophy of law and some problems of the penal code. But disagreement with his opinions concerning these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying Rothbard's work as an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and, up to now, best-elaborated part, economics.
I think Rothbard was right about some things (consumer sovereignty) and Mises was right about some others (monetary equilibrium).
GilesStratton: JonBostwick:Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these Care to be a bit less cryptic?
The market is a result of social organization, just as government is. Neither of them creates society or the tendency towards cooperation.
Seph:I guess I'm just an offensive person then.
I'm not calling you offensive, and apologize if I gave that impression.
I find it absurd to call any individualist such as Mises, a communist(soft or otherwise), a Marxist, a socialist, or a collectivist. I believe most minarchists are individualists. Mises, Hayek, and other limited government individualists consistently opposed collectivism. They crushed Marxism, Saint-Simonianism, and the like.
Seph:So if communism is 100% private(public) property and 0% private, then how does it not follow that 5%~ public and 95%~ private property (as Minarchists would suggest) is still partial communism?
I wasn't aware that there was a minarchist treatise somewhere, let alone one that divied up the amount of property owned?
I think your statement falls under inappropriate generalization.
Seph: Except in the cases of justice, law and protection. In other words, the issues which are too important to be left to the free market. Sound familiar?
I should of said that monopoly prices should be the focus of an analysis of monopoly.
I made a mistake. I wasn't conveying my message clearly. I wish to question; where does one find the rules, and what is the best way to apply them? Should there be rules? Would there be a profit motive to protect the lame?
I am not a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am an individualist who wishes to spread the ideal of autarchy.
"The position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has."
The reason I felt the urge to comment on this thread, is I felt that two groups of individualists don't need to fight over how much if any government is necessary until they can actually start reducing the size of government.
Please forgive me if I took this thread off course.
Individualism Rocks
Bank Run:I find it absurd to call any individualist such as Mises, a communist(soft or otherwise), a Marxist, a socialist, or a collectivist. I believe most minarchists are individualists. Mises, Hayek, and other limited government individualists consistently opposed collectivism. They crushed Marxism, Saint-Simonianism, and the like.
They crushed particular forms of collectivism, for which they should receive due praise. It doesn't mean they should receive a free pass for advocating ideas which are fundamentally wrongheaded.
Bank Run:I wasn't aware that there was a minarchist treatise somewhere, let alone one that divied up the amount of property owned? I think your statement falls under inappropriate generalization.
If you can demonstrate a system where a state exists, yet there is no public property whatsoever I will gladly retract my statement. Until then, I stand by what I said.
Bank Run:Should there be rules?
I think we all agree there needs to be rules. I have yet to meet a serious anarchist who disagrees with this.
Bank Run:what is the best way to apply them?
Bank Run:Would there be a profit motive to protect the lame?
Protect or support?
A definite 'yes' to protection and likely 'no' to support.
Bank Run:The reason I felt the urge to comment on this thread, is I felt that two groups of individualists don't need to fight over how much if any government is necessary until they can actually start reducing the size of government.
I absolutely agree that co operation (as long as ones ideals remain uncompromised) towards limiting government is a good thing. At the same time, I think exposing what we see as flaws within our own community is a fruitful exercise. If you want surround yourself with people who disagree with that, then become a Randian.
Bank Run:I am not a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am an individualist who wishes to spread the ideal of autarchy. "The position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has."
The state is the ultimate instrument of collectivism. One cannot lend any intellectual support to the state, without first sacrificing a portion of one's own individualism.
JonBostwick:The market is a result of social organization, just as government is. Neither of them creates society or the tendency towards cooperation.
The market, as envisioned by Mises, was a process. It involved the voluntary exchange of property rights between consenting individuals. But the market won't function correctly if people have radically different conceptions of property rights and what constitutes voluntary exchange. Moreover, if individuals are wont to disobey the law due to dispersed costs and concentrated benefits the market will run into difficulties. In Mises' view, a government could solve all of these problems.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Don't play dumb, Giles.
Don't play dumb, Giles.
No, I genuinely don't get it. Cryptic remarks of just a few words aren't great for getting your point across.
Angurse:I think we are disagreeing on the point of the OP now. I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments, however I don't think the cited critiques do an adequate job of explaining, as I don't think they are even an attempt at it. Mises' not explicitely embracing Rothbards views has nothing to do with the point I was making.
So I guess the dispute over whether or not Mises disagreed with Rothbard is besides the point. However, I would still argue that the quotations in the OP are at least in part aimed at the "Rothbardian system". The point for Mises, as expressed in the quotations provided is that the market presupposes the existence of property rights and voluntary exchange, and as such, a state.
Paul:Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
This is a joke, right? Rothbard wasn't even Mises' most "faithful" student. Kirzner and Hayek were both far more true to Mises than Rothbard was. Rothbard disagreed with Mises on issues such as the state, monetary equilibrium, fractional reserves, monopoly prices, consumer sovereignty, methodology, natural rights and more.
GilesStratton:Moreover, if individuals are wont to disobey the law due to dispersed costs and concentrated benefits the market will run into difficulties. In Mises' view, a government could solve all of these problems.
Based on what I read, it seems like Mises could mean "polycentric legal order" by "government". What you haven't done is show how this "problem" being solved by coercive states is necessary. You later basically say that rights are derived from the state. Mises and Rothbard are just wrong on some things.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
GilesStratton:However, I would still argue that the quotations in the OP are at least in part aimed at the "Rothbardian system". The point for Mises, as expressed in the quotations provided is that the market presupposes the existence of property rights and voluntary exchange, and as such, a state.
I disagree, his critiques cited repeatedly delve into the case of anti-social individuals "...anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability," "...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." This, in my opinion, makes the point behind his critiques far more narrow and inapplicable to anarcho-capitalism.