I haven't felt like writing up the rest of the post, but Lilburne is supposed to debate me when I make it. He said "same rules" but I am not sure what that even means. Think we should have a moderator or a few?
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Except von Mises essentially was an anarchist...
AEN: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?
HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.
AEN: Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.
HOPPE: Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.
In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation.
Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity.
AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.
HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.
Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,
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. . . . 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. . . . 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.[10]
Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises 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 to 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 a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]
Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist."
Was Mises an Anarchist? - Kinsella
Except von Mises essentially was an anarchist... AEN: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state? HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government. But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization. AEN: Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy. HOPPE: Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises's unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions. In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation. Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity. AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms. HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to. Hoppe: Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written, 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. . . . 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. . . . 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.[10] Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises 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 to 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 a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11] Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist." Was Mises an Anarchist? - Kinsella
You are "essentially" wrong,
irrespective of what cherry-picked anarchist literature from isolated sources you cite. Which seems to be a recurring theme on this thread.
Here are a few direct quotes from Mises himself that I have uncovered in the few weeks that I have perused this site:
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- mises, Omnipotent Government Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. -- mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98 Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, 36 There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil ... Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- mises, Omnipotent Government
Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. -- mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98
Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, 36
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil ... Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
That is my correction grayson, we are even.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
you just got confused by semantics like Hoppe warned you away from. Rothbardian 'anarchists' are not the socialist anarchists that Mises (and Rothbard ) strongly oppose.
Rothbardian anarchism is Liberalism fully fleshed out.
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
You need to look beyond the words, rettoper, and look at what is actually being said. That those of us who believe in a polycentric legal order (or a fully free market, or whatever you like) call it anarchism, and Mises denounced anarchism, does not mean he denounced a polycentric legal order.
I think Hoppe makes a good case, and it's not at all ridiculous to believe that, were Mises alive today, he would be an anarchist. Like many economists, his point is that economic progress requires social order: there cannot be a division of labor or serious accumulation of capital without the security of property and contract. He assumed only the state is capable of providing such order, which is understandable, given the lack of scholarship in alternative forms of social organization before the 1970s.
It's hilarious that he is calling something cherry-picked when he is taking Mises out of context and Mises is obviously talking about socialist anarchists. Nobody had developed anarcho-capitalism at the time and one of Mises' errors is not following praxeology to its logical conclusion, both from the economic or legal viewpoints.
Maybe I missed something, but when did Grayson argue that a "society of cannibal lesbian amazons" was a pipe dream?
www.skylerjcollins.com www.libertysearch.info
yeah,... it simply illustrates that naive appeals to history don't tell you anything about the viability of society of Lez Can Amz.... so what does this mean for arguing about anarchy, maybe that naive appeals t....
For anyone who's interested, Rettoper is trolling as Ridin' Dirty on the hannity forums.
I've been away from the forum's for a while and missed some developments here, but this whole thread is kind of silly don't you think? When I saw the thread on the front page challenging Lilburne to debate, I was excited and expecteda genuine scholarly debate, but was sadly disappointed. Why is anyone taking Rettopper seriously anymore, he seems to be evadin,. He brought up an intersting talking point, but has led everyone on down a rabbit hole. I don't see anything of value coming from that thread.
Question for everyone on this thread: Why do you think Rettoper is so entrenched on this topic? Why is it so important for him to prove he is right? Why is he expending so much energy on it? Does he have something to protect? He has no interest in learning about an-Cap, he only wants to refute it.
If anarcho-Capitalism is a pipe dream, then why is he debating about it? Let's say Grayson comes to the conclusion, "Rett, you're right. Anarcho-Capitalism is a pipe dream. It's been disproved by history, etc.". What would Rett gain by this?
I suggest that deep down Rett knows there is something wrong with his political-economic philosophy, it is flawed somehow. And I suggest he must have much invested in his philosophy, and he just can't accept the idea that there could be an alternative, a challenge to it. And the idea of anarcho-Capitalism is just inacceptable to him for reasons I can't figure out.
Maybe it's bad form to question someone's motivation, but it seems to be coming through intensely with Rettoper.
"The market is a process." - Ludwig von Mises, as related by Israel Kirzner. "Capital formation is a beautiful thing" - Chloe732.
I nominate this as ironic post of the day:
Rettoper: Lilburne:Praxeology is not not about "economic" matters as opposed to "non-economic" matters.-- grayson Proofread that,
Lilburne:Praxeology is not not about "economic" matters as opposed to "non-economic" matters.-- grayson
Proofread that,
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."
Rett: "What is the praxeological a priori that denigrates lesbian cannibals as less preferable outcome or goal to anarcho-capitalism ?"
I've never used this expression before, here it goes: Face palm.
Rettoper called checkmate. http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/17464/342543.aspx#342543
[ISSUES FORUM]
The "immense majority" throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism. Praxeology is not needed to establish that. checkmate.
The "immense majority" throughout history have categorically rejected anarcho-capitalism.
Praxeology is not needed to establish that.
checkmate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
GG indeed.
That is false. Molinari, Tucker, Spooner all developed anarchism before the 20th century. All were pro-market, anti-socialist by Mises' definition.
chloe732:And I suggest he must have much invested in his philosophy, and he just can't accept the idea that there could be an alternative, a challenge to it. And the idea of anarcho-Capitalism is just inacceptable to him for reasons I can't figure out.
chloe732:Maybe it's bad form to question someone's motivation, but it seems to be coming through intensely with Rettoper.
It's not a forum. It's a "Group". Checkmate!
Mises wasn't talking about their theory however. If you take one sentence out of context like your fellow anti-libertarian did, you could try to lead people to believe your nonsense though. Checkmate!
Skyler Collins:Maybe I missed something, but when did Grayson argue that a "society of cannibal lesbian amazons" was a pipe dream?
Yeah, and why would he do that? What have I got left to live for?
Anything is possible when you have too much free time and too few hobbies.
Skyler Collins:Maybe I missed something, but when did Grayson argue that a "society of cannibal lesbian amazons" was a pipe dream? Yeah, and why would he do that? What have I got left to live for?
White port and gorgonzola?
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
I, for one, am enjoying the debate and am thankful to Grayson for implementing this format. Also, I think that "trolling" accusations are arbitrarily being thrown in so many directions that they may qualify as "trolling" themselves. Just IMO.
G8R HED:White port and gorgonzola?
As much as I try to be a bon vivant, I find myself much more attracted to creation than consumption.
ancaps will be able to hold their own easily.
they will either corner the global energy market or they will just unleash the probe teams and subvert nations' economies, populaces, and armies.
this debate was solved years ago.
History does not judge or demonstrate, it only records. Anarcho-capitalism is not present in recorded history, hence as far as history is concerned – it has never existed. End of story.
Anarcho-capitalism is not present in recorded history, hence as far as history is concerned – it has never existed.
End of story.
Argumentum ad antiquitatem
However, it appears that certain students of mises.org have used what little they have learned to grandstand and show-off. For example, more than a few have ventured onto other websites and adopted an adversarial “look at how smart I am” attitude at the expense of cultivating and educating potential converts to an important system of analyzing human actions. In summary, these self-serving exercises in ego gratification are counter-productive and reminiscent of an adolescent who comes into possession of a new small caliber rifle without the requisite maturity and knowledge on how to use it beneficially and responsibly.
In summary, these self-serving exercises in ego gratification are counter-productive and reminiscent of an adolescent who comes into possession of a new small caliber rifle without the requisite maturity and knowledge on how to use it beneficially and responsibly.
Projection?
boooo
^^^^ Exactly. I can't believe Argentina lost to Germany.
History "disproving anarchism" = a stateless society (Ireland) finally being taken over after several hundred years worth of sieges by the most powerful military force in the history of the world
^by this I mean the fact that stateless societies have all ended doesn't prove much.
heck, they survived longer than anyone else attacked by England; I'd chalk that up as one for the, ugh, "anarchists"
It's fair to call Mises anarchistic, but he was not an anarchist anymore than Jefferson was.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
Question: How many times did Grayson have to amend the original debate question before Rettoper actually started participating in the debate?
Rettoper:However, it appears that certain students of mises.org have used what little they have learned to grandstand and show-off.
Grayson:There is some truth in this,
I totally disagree to this. I would argue that our community is one of the most docile ones out there. We just have very different views on sensitive matters which likely emotionally concerns people more then what they are used to.
In fact I would argue that many here would not proponents of Market Anarchy were it not for an individual who was docile and humble to begin with, but was stubborn in their previous beliefs. Its doubtful that many of us here had the luxury of being taught economics and markets in their up-bringing. Many of us had to go through the painful process of self-discovery.
Show off austrian economics to the mainstream? For what, be laughed at?
We may show off within ourselves but the battle for truth with socialists is very suffocating still.