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"?
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 -
I think that the conclusion the OP is trying to put forth is "AnCap is inconsistent with minarchism." We thank you for your service.
Skeptic,
Those words you put together don't make much sense. What Mises have you read?
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.
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.
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)
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.
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?
The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger
Ah, there's Jargon.
Hey SM
hai
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.
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.)
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.