Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Mises Believed in Theft

rated by 0 users
Answered (Not Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 40 Replies | 4 Followers

Top 500 Contributor
254 Posts
Points 5,500
triknighted posted on Fri, Dec 28 2012 8:45 PM

Learning more about Ludwig, and I realized that the ancap notion that all taxation is theft (not disagreeing with it, mind you) is inconsistent with the minarchism of Mises.

How do Mises fans rectify this? Sincerely curious. Is it as simple an answer as "he was wrong"?

  • | Post Points: 110

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
Male
6,885 Posts
Points 121,845

JMF: I'm not so sure. I think Mises circumscribed his policy recommendations to those which could be made on utilitarian grounds. But his general morality seems to me not to be restricted to criticisms that can be made on utilitarian grounds.

I'm not aware of where Mises has written on it, but I think that Mises saw some kind of governance-entity as a natural outgrowth of human nature. The question, then, is what is the appropriate nature and role of this entity? And I think this explains why Mises thought things like that it should encourage the arts. I think that people are confused when they think of the National Endowment of the Arts... I think Mises would be horrified by nationalization of the arts and would have accurately foreseen the consequences of it.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

I think that the conclusion the OP is trying to put forth is "AnCap is inconsistent with minarchism." We thank you for your service.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,439 Posts
Points 44,650

Skeptic,

Those words you put together don't make much sense. What Mises have you read?

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Why don't they make sense? I think they are pretty straightforward and clear.

And I've read Marxism Unmasked, and various random articles by Mises. I usually personally prefer reading about someone and their work rather than the work itself, and it gives me the same knowledge one would obtain by reading that particular work. It seemed like Wheylous, through sarcasm, was trying to imply how since I haven't read piles of actual texts by Mises that I would not be familiar enough with what he actually does to be a fan. I can read about what he wrote, and it still counts as intellectually "reading him" being that they are theories that he forumulated. Therefore, I can be a fan.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,987 Posts
Points 89,745

As I'm going through MES I'm finding that reading about economic theory isn't quite the same as reading the actual economic theory. Woods does a great job explaining ABCT for the common person, but to actually understand the processes behind it, you need to study some capital theory.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
634 Posts
Points 12,685
Suggested by Adam Knott

Mises:

"However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit.  If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done." (Liberalism)

"No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." (Nation, State, and Economy)

Assuming an atmosphere of political monopoly, Mises favors minimal government over large government or no government.  As a political ideal, he favors the individual's right to choose his political association.

 

"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,493 Posts
Points 39,355
You can be a fan of whoever you want for whatever reasons you want but reading about mises is not the same as reading his work.
Keep the faith, Strannix. -Casey Ryback, Under Siege (Steven Seagal)
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,439 Posts
Points 44,650

Wheylous,

You're perfectly right. I've written a fair amount lately about how most of the commonly recommended ways to understand ABCT are actually quite insufficient. Even Mises in HA does a rather poor explanation that, by itself, is wholly unsatisfactory.

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sat, Dec 29 2012 5:17 PM

Do you think that, in order to correctly explain the ABCT to someone, that you ought to explain what happens in the capital structure when people's time preferences are naturally lowered?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

Ah, there's Jargon.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
1,133 Posts
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Sat, Dec 29 2012 5:35 PM

Hey SM

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
1,711 Posts
Points 29,285

hai

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
2,939 Posts
Points 49,110

Re: "Queue Conza."

I'm heeeeeere.

Mises on Minarchism

He was a philosophical anarchist. As for whether he would accept Hoppe's a priori of argumentation & communication (we can only guess... I'd like to think so).

The above link maps it all out; and yes, even the passage regarding conscription.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
257 Posts
Points 5,000

Wait a second. In what way did Mises suggest the state should be funded? When did Mises say it had to be funded by taxation?

Does anyone have a link or quote of Mises answering this? It seems like the first thing that should be established in the original post.

(In case you're unfamiliar with other ways a state can be funded, here are a few: lottery, user fees [for losers in courts, for the culpable when the cops show up, etc.], voluntary donations, etc.. I don't want to debate whether these are good ways to fund a state or if a state is ever compatible with liberty. I'm only interested in Mises' view for the time being.) 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
6,953 Posts
Points 118,135

SkepticalMetal:
I usually personally prefer reading about someone and their work rather than the work itself, and it gives me the same knowledge one would obtain by reading that particular work. [...] I can read about what he wrote, and it still counts as intellectually "reading him" being that they are theories that he forumulated.

This is a grave mistake.  I would actually go so far as to call it "asinine."  I'm actually quite surprised you'd suggest something like that.  And there's really no way for me to simplify it any further to help illuminate the reality of what you're actually saying...because you literally stated it outright: you actually believe that reading something that was written about what someone else has written is the exact same (and offers you the same knowledge) as if you had read the original work.  I'm actually kind of dumbfounded.

Would you prefer I made a thread summarizing and commenting on your posts here in the forum, so that people didn't have to bother reading them?  I mean, after all, they'd get the same knowledge from reading my commentary that they would from reading what you actually wrote.

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Page 2 of 3 (41 items) < Previous 1 2 3 Next > | RSS