If all Austrian economists gather together and decided to choose one from the selections below. What would the most of them choose?
A) a very small and conservative government with only the Police department, justice system, and national defense to control/maintain.
or
B) No Government.
Do not want a conservative government. Ever.
let me rephrase my question,
does austrian economics promote anarchy? I know austrian economists want lasseiz faire, capitalism and free-market, but do they also believe in anarchy?
Will the Mises Institute be happy if the government just disappear?
Will Rothbard, and Mises be happy if the government just disappear?
As far as I know, the LVMI itself is not married to any specific political configuration other than laissez-faire. Most Austrians support anarchism, which means anti-statism, not anomy (lack of laws/order) or anarchy proper.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Hard to tell, but it seems to me that most Austrian economists follow the anarchist tradition of Murray Rothbard.
Political Atheists Blog
It doesn't promote anarchy per se; it's a bit more complex.
In Liberalism, Mises himself wrote:
We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government.
There is, to be sure, a sect that believes that one could quite safely dispense with every form of compulsion and base society entirely on the voluntary observance of the moral code. The anarchists consider state, law, and government as superfluous institutions in a social order that would really serve the good of all, and not just the special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation.
It has already been pointed out that this doctrine is mistaken in so far as it concerns the character of private ownership of the means of production. But even apart from this, it is altogether untenable. The anarchist, rightly enough, does not deny that every form of human cooperation in a society based on the division of labor demands the observance of some rules of conduct that are not always agreeable to the individual, since they impose on him a sacrifice, only temporary, it is true, but, for all that, at least for the moment, painful. But the anarchist is mistaken in assuming that everyone, without exception, will be willing to observe these rules voluntarily. There are dyspeptics who, though they know very well that indulgence in a certain food will, after a short time, cause them severe, even scarcely bearable pains, are nevertheless unable to forgo the enjoyment of the delectable dish. Now the interrelationships of life in society are not as easy to trace as the physiological effects of a food, nor do the consequences follow so quickly and, above all, so palpably for the evildoer. Can it, then, be assumed, without falling completely into absurdity, that, in spite of all this, every individual in an anarchist society will have greater foresight and will power than a gluttonous dyspeptic? In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints.
Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly 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 of 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 the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
Mr. Rothbard might not agree, but I think this is fairly reasonable.
nstenberg: It doesn't promote anarchy per se; it's a bit more complex. In Liberalism, Mises himself wrote: We call the social apparatus of compulsion and coercion that induces people to abide by the rules of life in society, the state; the rules according to which the state proceeds, law; and the organs charged with the responsibility of administering the apparatus of compulsion, government. There is, to be sure, a sect that believes that one could quite safely dispense with every form of compulsion and base society entirely on the voluntary observance of the moral code. The anarchists consider state, law, and government as superfluous institutions in a social order that would really serve the good of all, and not just the special interests of a privileged few. Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation. It has already been pointed out that this doctrine is mistaken in so far as it concerns the character of private ownership of the means of production. But even apart from this, it is altogether untenable. The anarchist, rightly enough, does not deny that every form of human cooperation in a society based on the division of labor demands the observance of some rules of conduct that are not always agreeable to the individual, since they impose on him a sacrifice, only temporary, it is true, but, for all that, at least for the moment, painful. But the anarchist is mistaken in assuming that everyone, without exception, will be willing to observe these rules voluntarily. There are dyspeptics who, though they know very well that indulgence in a certain food will, after a short time, cause them severe, even scarcely bearable pains, are nevertheless unable to forgo the enjoyment of the delectable dish. Now the interrelationships of life in society are not as easy to trace as the physiological effects of a food, nor do the consequences follow so quickly and, above all, so palpably for the evildoer. Can it, then, be assumed, without falling completely into absurdity, that, in spite of all this, every individual in an anarchist society will have greater foresight and will power than a gluttonous dyspeptic? In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly 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 of 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 the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace. Mr. Rothbard might not agree, but I think this is fairly reasonable.
well, if it is in the nature of men to violate other people's rights, it is also in the nature of men to find justice and security.
I think the market can provide the demand for justice and security if
we live in a state less society, and I also think the market can provide that demand more effeciently than the state.
The Mises Institute is not a political institute so it takes no stand. That being said its members are largely anarchists.
Peace
nstenberg:In Liberalism, Mises himself wrote:
This is a bait and switch.
Mises was not talking about market anarchism. He was talking about the socialist anarchism that was dominate at the time. Mises specificially states that he is talking about an anarchy without property rights.
Mises: Only because the present social order is based on private ownership of the means of production is it necessary to resort to compulsion and coercion in its defense. If private property were abolished, then everyone, without exception, would spontaneously observe the rules demanded by social cooperation.
The fact that force is required for property rights to exist does not by any strech explain why the state must exist.
JonBostwick:Mises was not talking about market anarchism. He was talking about the socialist anarchism that was dominate at the time. Mises specificially states that he is talking about an anarchy without property rights.
Nevertheless he is pro-state; however only a small one.
Can I have my own government please?
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power