Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:What you're saying is only possible if some entity exists to enforce rights under any circumstanceNo, that's not what I'm saying at all. You really should disabuse yourself of your statist brainwashing. Rights exist as what we bring to the table in interpersonal interaction, i.e. self-ownership. Yes, slaves had rights. That the rights were being trampled on didn't mean they didn't exist.
Jacob Bloom:What you're saying is only possible if some entity exists to enforce rights under any circumstance
Yes, slaves had rights. That the rights were being trampled on didn't mean they didn't exist.
Do I own myself? Can my rights not be taken from me? Of course they can. Someone has to protect them.
Slaves had no rights. They had very little of anything. Men fought for their freedom and then their rights. That's what the civil rights movement was all about. That's what women's rights was all about. They wanted to be given rights. How could they be given rights if they already had them?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all.Oh, you can have your rights trampled upon. Such is reality. But that doesn't mean you can use the non sequitur of "without an enforcer, there are no rights".
Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all.
Rights are a legal concept. They imply what one is allowed to do and not allowed to do. Such as own things. But without a way to protect private property, it ceases to be private. Without an enforcer, there is no law. How can you have laws without an enforcer?
Ok let us theorize this argument of yours.
You, Jacob Bloom, have your car stolen. Now according to your logic you failed to enforce your property right over this vehicle. Therefore, you...
1. Cannot call the police because your right to this car has disappeared due to your failure to enforce your rights
2. Cannot reclaim your car if you ever do find it.
3. Cannot use the law against the violator of your rights because what would you charge against them? The violation of your rights that you no longer have because you failed to enforce them.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
Jacob Bloom:Do I own myself?
Jacob Bloom:Can my rights not be taken from me?
Jacob Bloom:Slaves had no rights.
Jacob Bloom: They had very little of anything. Men fought for their freedom and then their rights. That's what the civil rights movement was all about. That's what women's rights was all about. They wanted to be given rights. How could they be given rights if they already had them?
Daniel: Are you going to force us to call you Jacob so that can actually be Jacob, or is your name Jacob regardless of what we call you?
Are you going to force us to call you Jacob so that can actually be Jacob, or is your name Jacob regardless of what we call you?
My name was given to me by someone else. If you want to call me outside of it, I'll have to give you a sufficient reason to call me Jacob again. However, you obviously have the power to call me whatever you want. However, I have a legal right to my name and the ability to enforce that right. So...I mean...yeah, you can call me whatever makes you happy, I can't stop you. But you can't legally take my name from me without a fight.
Jacob Bloom:Rights are a legal concept.
And when will you stop believing that might makes right?
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all. Ok let us theorize this argument of yours. You, Jacob Bloom, have your car stolen. Now according to your logic you failed to enforce your property right over this vehicle. Therefore, you... 1. Cannot call the police because your right to this car has disappeared due to your failure to enforce your rights 2. Cannot reclaim your car if you ever do find it. 3. Cannot use the law against the violator of your rights because what would you charge against them? The violation of your rights that you no longer have because you failed to enforce them.
1. I have legal title to my vehicle to prove my ownership, and my title will be accepted as proof of ownership in a court of law. However, if the courts and police refused to acknowledge my right to my property and I could not get it back myself, you're correct, I would no longer have the right to own the vehicle.
2. I can reclaim my car and then use the courts to enforce this by providing proof of ownership.
3. Obviously I can use the law against anyone as long as I can prove my claim against them.
The state protects my right to property from those who would take it. They also slowly take my property away. It's a tough system.
Jacob Bloom:My name was given to me by someone else. If you want to call me outside of it, I'll have to give you a sufficient reason to call me Jacob again. However, you obviously have the power to call me whatever you want.
Yeah, that's YOUR argument. Yes, it is. I don't care if you think it's not, it is. You believe that slaves had no rights. Ok. If you believe you have the right to your name yet we could call you....Loretta---how is that different from slave having rights yet having the rights trampled upon? Answer: it's not different at all. In fact, it's the same.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Rights are a legal concept.No, they are a moral one. Further, one does not need an enforcer to have rights. Please prove that one does. No, saying one does does not make it so. That's like the communists saying a man is not free while he is starving. It's nonsense. And when will you stop believing that might makes right?
Morals are not real rules, there is no one to enforce them. Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored.
Right and wrong are not what I'm talking about. Might is just a means to an end.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:My name was given to me by someone else. If you want to call me outside of it, I'll have to give you a sufficient reason to call me Jacob again. However, you obviously have the power to call me whatever you want.So you have no right to your name, since we could call you, say, Sue. Yeah, that's YOUR argument. Yes, it is. I don't care if you think it's not, it is. You believe that slaves had no rights. Ok. If you believe you have the right to your name yet we could call you....Loretta---how is that different from slave having rights yet having the rights trampled upon? Answer: it's not different at all. In fact, it's the same.
Sure, but my birth certificate says my name is Jacob Bloom. My birth certificate will be recognized in a court of law along with a picture ID. If it weren't, my identity could be taken from me as well. Identity theft happens all the time.
Jacob Bloom:Morals are not real rules
Jacob Bloom:Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored.
Jacob Bloom:Sure, but my birth certificate says my name is Jacob Bloom.
Jacob Bloom:I have legal title to my vehicle to prove my ownership, and my title will be accepted as proof of ownership in a court of law. However, if the courts and police refused to acknowledge my right to my property and I could not get it back myself, you're correct, I would no longer have the right to own the vehicle.
If the courts refuse to acknowledge your rights to your property? You stated that they disappear after failure of enforcement.
Jacob Bloom: I can reclaim my car and then use the courts to enforce this by providing proof of ownership.
Enforce what? You have no right because of the failure of your enforcement
Jacob Bloom:Obviously I can use the law against anyone as long as I can prove my claim against them.
Your 'claim'? You have no claim because you have no right after your failure to secure your rights.
Thanks for playing, but the idea that rights simply go away because you may not be able to prevent any and all violations is absurd.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Do I own myself?Yes. Jacob Bloom:Can my rights not be taken from me?No. They can simply be violated. And why can't you protect your rights? Jacob Bloom:Slaves had no rights.Yes, they did. That they were trampled upon didn't mean they didn't have right. Jacob Bloom: They had very little of anything. Men fought for their freedom and then their rights. That's what the civil rights movement was all about. That's what women's rights was all about. They wanted to be given rights. How could they be given rights if they already had them?Because THEY WEREN'T GIVEN RIGHTS. PEOPLE SIMPLY STOPPED TRAMPLING ON THEM. HOW DIFFICULT IS THAT TO GRASP?
1. What is "myself?"
2. They can be taken. And yes, under certain circumstances I can protect my rights. But I require the help of the state to do so.
3. What good are "rights" that you can't use? That's like money that can't buy anything.
4. You're wrong though. They had no rights, no priviliges, no property, no nothing. Same with the Jews in the Holocaust. Everything was taken from them. Someone fought for their rights. Why can't you see that your rights could be taken from you right now unless you were being protected?
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:I have legal title to my vehicle to prove my ownership, and my title will be accepted as proof of ownership in a court of law. However, if the courts and police refused to acknowledge my right to my property and I could not get it back myself, you're correct, I would no longer have the right to own the vehicle. If the courts refuse to acknowledge your rights to your property? You stated that they disappear after failure of enforcement. Jacob Bloom: I can reclaim my car and then use the courts to enforce this by providing proof of ownership. Enforce what? You have no right because of the failure of your enforcement Jacob Bloom:Obviously I can use the law against anyone as long as I can prove my claim against them. Your 'claim'? You have no claim because you have no right after your failure to secure your rights. Thanks for playing, but the idea that rights simply go away because you may not be able to prevent any and all violations is absurd.
1. I am not the last line of my enforcement. In your system, I would be. But I have the state to back me up. And they do.
2. If there were no state, this would be true.
3. If there were no state, this would also be true.
You may not like it, but you are dependent on the state for more than you would like to admit.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Sure, but my birth certificate says my name is Jacob Bloom.So what, Loretta?
So my birth certificate will be recognized by the state as proper identification, Betsy.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Jacob Bloom:Morals are not real rulesThey are rules for the group. Rules for human interaction. We all enforce them. I have no idea what would ever compel you to believe that there needs to be some monopolist to do so. Jacob Bloom:Rights are a legal concept. The Jews in the Holocaust had their rights taken from them, they had no one to enforce them. Until they were liberated and their rights were restored.They had their rights violated.
1. What are those rules? What happens if someone violates them and there's no one to protect you?
2. They were stripped of everything. Their rights...everything. They even had their humanity taken from them. Nothing is guaranteed.
Jacob Bloom:I am not the last line of my enforcement. In your system, I would be. But I have the state to back me up. And they do.
Actually as we have told you multple times, something you are purposely ignoring, there can be private courts.
Jacob Bloom: If there were no state, this would be true.
You stated that rights 'disappear' simply from a lack of enforcement. You have yet to explain why the state should 'enforce' your rights and what would happen if the state ruled against you.
Jacob Bloom:You may not like it, but you are dependent on the state for more than you would like to admit.
Dependent on what?
What the hell are you talking about?
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Anarchist Cain: Jacob Bloom:I am not the last line of my enforcement. In your system, I would be. But I have the state to back me up. And they do. \ Actually as we have told you multple times, something you are purposely ignoring, there can be private courts. Jacob Bloom: If there were no state, this would be true. You stated that rights 'disappear' simply from a lack of enforcement. You have yet to explain why the state should 'enforce' your rights and what would happen if the state ruled against you. Jacob Bloom:You may not like it, but you are dependent on the state for more than you would like to admit. Dependent on what?
1. I don't want private courts, I don't trust them. Not to say I totally trust public courts, but I trust your private ones even less.
2. I am not my last line of enforcement. The state exists to protect the individuals living in it and enforce their rights. Without the state, I would literally be my own last line of defense. I don't want that. If the state ruled against me, I would lose my rights. It could happen.
3. The state. For your property rights. For your personal rights. They can all be taken from you though.
I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all. What the hell are you talking about?
Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights. But for that to be true, there would have to be a God. If there is no God, there is no eternal enforcer and so man is the only thing that can protect your rights. The government is the embodiment of enforcement. They have a monopoly on force to protect my rights and to protect yours. Without the state, we wouldn't be recognized as citizens anywhere with any rights. Unless they gave them to us.
Jacob Bloom: I don't want private courts, I don't trust them. Not to say I totally trust public courts, but I trust your private ones even less.
Who cares what you trust. The point is that they can exist.
Jacob Bloom: The state exists to protect the individuals living in it and enforce their rights.
Haha a lovely 5th grade fairy tale.
Jacob Bloom:Without the state, I would literally be my own last line of defense. I don't want that.
Here yet again, you acknowledge private courts can exist [ you don't trust them though boohoo ] now you are saying that under anarchy they can't exist. Really this is getting ridiculous.
Jacob Bloom:The state. For your property rights. For your personal rights. They can all be taken from you though.
Rights exist with or without the state. If anything the state is good at hindering the action of rights. It is supposedly suppose to protect the rights of its citizens yet it itself violates those rights. The government kills, yet punishes murder. The government steals, yet it commits theft through taxation. The government kidnaps, yet punishes kidnappers. Its existence is the base contradictions possible.
Jacob Bloom:Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights.
Jacob Bloom:1. What is "myself?"
Jacob Bloom:2. They can be taken.
Jacob Bloom: And yes, under certain circumstances I can protect my rights. But I require the help of the state to do so.
Jacob Bloom:3. What good are "rights" that you can't use?
Jacob Bloom:4. You're wrong though. They had no rights, no priviliges, no property, no nothing.
Jacob Bloom: 2. They can be taken. And yes, under certain circumstances I can protect my rights. But I require the help of the state to do so.
I can take them? Are they tangible? Where do you store yours? In a man purse?
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."
Jacob Bloom:1. What are those rules?
Jacob Bloom:What happens if someone violates them and there's no one to protect you?
Jacob Bloom:2. They were stripped of everything. Their rights...everything. They even had their humanity taken from them. Nothing is guaranteed.
Jacob Bloom:So my birth certificate will be recognized by the state as proper identification, Betsy.
Jacob Bloom:But I don't think they would because they'd just keep going back and forth between private courts until they got the verdict they wanted.
No, the courts would most likely agree on a final arbiter.
If you don't want to read, you can listen to the audio version of "For a New Liberty" on iTunes.
Re-post, because Jacob found it amazingly convenient to simply ignore it. Please answer my questions and refute Mises analysis.
Conza88: Jacob Bloom: My main concern about AE, in keeping with the line of the thread, is that it doesn't talk enough about power. And influence. Not power and influence the state wields, but power and influence individuals can wield over one another. Or even the philosophy of power. How it works, how it tends to be collected, how human nature effects the way humans deal with power. I mean...it talks a lot about the state and the collective power. But it doesn't talk about the individual with power. Or the power of the individual who understands how to manipulate other individuals. I find this to be a serious concern because Machiavelli dealt so well with it, and maybe Hayek and Mises do too, but from what I've read, it's mostly an overlooked subject. So ignorant. What books have you read and actually understood, that are sold by LvMI? Please list them all. Human Action by Ludwig Von Mises IX. THE ROLE OF IDEAS 3. Might Society is a product of human action. Human action is directed by ideologies. Thus society and any concrete order of social affairs are an outcome of ideologies; ideologies are not, as Marxism asserts, a product of a certain state of social affairs. To be sure, human thoughts and ideas are not the achievement of isolated individuals. [p. 188] Thinking too succeeds only through the cooperation of the thinkers. No individual would make headway in his reasoning if he were under the necessity of starting from the beginning. A man can advance in thinking only because his efforts are aided by those of older generations who have formed the tools of thinking, the concepts and terminologies, and have raised the problems. Any given social order was thought out and designed before it could be realized. This temporal and logical precedence of the ideological factor does not imply the proposition that people draft a complete plan of a social system as the utopians do. What is and must be thought out in advance is not the concerting of individual actions into an integrated system of social organization, but the actions of individuals with regard to their fellow men and of already formed groups of individuals with regard to other groups. Before a man aids his fellow in cutting a tree, such cooperation must be thought out. Before an act of barter takes place, the idea of mutual exchange of goods and services must be conceived. It is not necessary that the individuals concerned become aware of the fact that such mutuality results in the establishment of social bonds and in the emergence of a social system. The individual does not plan and execute actions intended to construct society. His conduct and the corresponding conduct of others generate social bodies. Any existing state of social affairs is the product of ideologies previously thought out. Within society new ideologies may emerge and may supersede older ideologies and thus transform the social system. However, society is always the creation of ideologies temporally and logically anterior. Action is always directed by ideas; it realizes what previous thinking has designed. If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people's actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people's choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects. He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in [p. 189] the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people's actions. Of course, it is possible to establish a government upon the violent oppression of reluctant people. It is the characteristic mark of state and government that they apply violent coercion or the threat of it against those not prepared to yield voluntarily. Yet such violent oppression is no less founded upon ideological might. He who wants to apply violence needs the voluntary cooperation of some people. An individual entirely dependent on himself can never rule by means of physical violence only.[4] He needs the ideological support of a group in order to subdue other groups. The tyrant must have a retinue of partisans who obey his orders of their own accord. Their spontaneous obedience provides him with the apparatus he needs for the conquest of other people. Whether or not he succeeds in making his sway last depends on the numerical relation of the two groups, those who support him voluntarily and those whom he beats into submission. Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny. A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. The term Realpolitik makes sense only if used to signify a policy taking account of generally accepted ideologies as contrasted with a policy based upon ideologies not sufficiently acknowledged and therefore unfit to support a durable system of government. He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. To these subordinates a definite task within the framework of the ruling ideology is assigned. Their chiefs commit to their care troops which are not [p. 190] only equipped, armed, and organized for combat, but no less imbued with the spirit which makes them obey the orders issued. The commanders of such subdivisions consider this moral factor a matter of course because they themselves are animated by the same spirit and cannot even imagine a different ideology. The power of an ideology consists precisely in the fact that people submit to it without any wavering and scruples. However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force. Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles. All victorious minorities who have established a lasting system of government have made their sway durable by means of a belated ideological ascendancy. They have legitimized their own supremacy either by submitting to the ideologies of the defeated or by transforming them. Where neither of these two things took place, the oppressed many dispossessed the oppressing few either by open rebellion or through the silent but steadfast operation of ideological forces. [5] Many of the great historical conquests were able to endure because the invaders entered into alliance with those classes of the defeated nation which were supported by the ruling ideology and were thus considered legitimate rulers. This was the system adopted by the Tartars in Russia, by the Turks in the Danube principalities and by and large in Hungary and Transylvania, and by the British and the Dutch in the Indies. A comparatively insignificant number of Britons could rule many hundred millions of Indians because the Indian princes and aristocratic landowners looked upon British rule as a means for the preservation of their privileges and supplied it with the support which the generally acknowledged ideology of India gave to their own supremacy. England's Indian empire was firm as long as public opinion approved of the traditional social order. The Pax Britannica safeguarded the princes' and the landlords' privileges and protected the masses against the agonies of wars between the principalities and of succession wars within them. In our day the [p. 191] infiltration of subversive ideas from abroad has ended British rule and threatens the preservation of the country's age-old social order. Victorious minorities sometimes owe their success to their technological superiority. This does not alter the case. In the long run it is impossible to withhold the better arms from the members of the majority. Not the equipment of their armed forces, but ideological factors safeguarded the British in India.[6 ] A country's public opinion may be ideologically divided in such a way that no group is strong enough to establish a durable government. Then anarchy emerges. Revolutions and civil strife become permanent. Traditionalism as an Ideology Traditionalism is an ideology which considers loyalty to valuations, customs, and methods of procedure handed down or allegedly handed down from ancestors both right and expedient. It is not an essential mark of traditionalism that these forefathers were the ancestors in the biological meaning of the term or can be fairly considered such; they were sometimes only the previous inhabitants of the country concerned or supporters of the same religious creed or only precursors in the exercise of some special task. Who is to be considered an ancestor and what is the content of the body of tradition handed down are determined by the concrete teachings of each variety of traditionalism. The ideology brings into prominence some of the ancestors and relegates others to oblivion; it sometimes calls ancestors people who had nothing to do with the alleged posterity. It often constructs a "traditional" doctrine which is of recent origin and is at variance with the ideologies really held by the ancestors. Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question. Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed. --------------- [4] A gangster may overpower a weaker or unarmed fellow. However, this has nothing to do with life in society. It is an isolated antisocial occurrence. [5] Cf. below, pp. 649-650. ">[6 ] We are dealing here with the preservation of European minority rule in non-European countries. About the prospects of an Asiatic aggression on the West cf. below, pp. 669-670. The "best" you could ever be Jacob Gloom, is a low life gangster scum. An isolated antisocial occurence.
Jacob Bloom: My main concern about AE, in keeping with the line of the thread, is that it doesn't talk enough about power. And influence. Not power and influence the state wields, but power and influence individuals can wield over one another. Or even the philosophy of power. How it works, how it tends to be collected, how human nature effects the way humans deal with power. I mean...it talks a lot about the state and the collective power. But it doesn't talk about the individual with power. Or the power of the individual who understands how to manipulate other individuals. I find this to be a serious concern because Machiavelli dealt so well with it, and maybe Hayek and Mises do too, but from what I've read, it's mostly an overlooked subject.
My main concern about AE, in keeping with the line of the thread, is that it doesn't talk enough about power. And influence. Not power and influence the state wields, but power and influence individuals can wield over one another.
Or even the philosophy of power. How it works, how it tends to be collected, how human nature effects the way humans deal with power. I mean...it talks a lot about the state and the collective power. But it doesn't talk about the individual with power. Or the power of the individual who understands how to manipulate other individuals. I find this to be a serious concern because Machiavelli dealt so well with it, and maybe Hayek and Mises do too, but from what I've read, it's mostly an overlooked subject.
So ignorant. What books have you read and actually understood, that are sold by LvMI? Please list them all.
Society is a product of human action. Human action is directed by ideologies. Thus society and any concrete order of social affairs are an outcome of ideologies; ideologies are not, as Marxism asserts, a product of a certain state of social affairs. To be sure, human thoughts and ideas are not the achievement of isolated individuals. [p. 188] Thinking too succeeds only through the cooperation of the thinkers. No individual would make headway in his reasoning if he were under the necessity of starting from the beginning. A man can advance in thinking only because his efforts are aided by those of older generations who have formed the tools of thinking, the concepts and terminologies, and have raised the problems.
Any given social order was thought out and designed before it could be realized. This temporal and logical precedence of the ideological factor does not imply the proposition that people draft a complete plan of a social system as the utopians do. What is and must be thought out in advance is not the concerting of individual actions into an integrated system of social organization, but the actions of individuals with regard to their fellow men and of already formed groups of individuals with regard to other groups. Before a man aids his fellow in cutting a tree, such cooperation must be thought out. Before an act of barter takes place, the idea of mutual exchange of goods and services must be conceived. It is not necessary that the individuals concerned become aware of the fact that such mutuality results in the establishment of social bonds and in the emergence of a social system. The individual does not plan and execute actions intended to construct society. His conduct and the corresponding conduct of others generate social bodies.
Any existing state of social affairs is the product of ideologies previously thought out. Within society new ideologies may emerge and may supersede older ideologies and thus transform the social system. However, society is always the creation of ideologies temporally and logically anterior. Action is always directed by ideas; it realizes what previous thinking has designed.
If we hypostatize or anthropomorphize the notion of ideology, we may say that ideologies have might over men. Might is the faculty or power of directing actions. As a rule one says only of a man or of groups of men that they are mighty. Then the definition of might is: might is the power to direct other people's actions. He who is mighty, owes his might to an ideology. Only ideologies can convey to a man the power to influence other people's choices and conduct. One can become a leader only if one is supported by an ideology which makes other people tractable and accommodating. Might is thus not a physical and tangible thing, but a moral and spiritual phenomenon. A king's might rests upon the recognition of the monarchical ideology on the part of his subjects.
He who uses his might to run the state, i.e., the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, rules. Rule is the exercise of might in [p. 189] the political body. Rule is always based upon might, i.e., the power to direct other people's actions.
Of course, it is possible to establish a government upon the violent oppression of reluctant people. It is the characteristic mark of state and government that they apply violent coercion or the threat of it against those not prepared to yield voluntarily. Yet such violent oppression is no less founded upon ideological might. He who wants to apply violence needs the voluntary cooperation of some people. An individual entirely dependent on himself can never rule by means of physical violence only.[4] He needs the ideological support of a group in order to subdue other groups. The tyrant must have a retinue of partisans who obey his orders of their own accord. Their spontaneous obedience provides him with the apparatus he needs for the conquest of other people. Whether or not he succeeds in making his sway last depends on the numerical relation of the two groups, those who support him voluntarily and those whom he beats into submission. Though a tyrant may temporarily rule through a minority if this minority is armed and the majority is not, in the long run a minority cannot keep the majority in subservience. The oppressed will rise in rebellion and cast off the yoke of tyranny.
A durable system of government must rest upon an ideology acknowledged by the majority. The "real" factor, the "real forces" that are the foundation of government and convey to the rulers the power to use violence against renitent minority groups are essentially ideological, moral, and spiritual. Rulers who failed to recognize this first principle of government and, relying upon the alleged irresistibility of their armed troops, disdained the spirit and ideas have finally been overthrown by the assault of their adversaries. The interpretation of might as a "real" factor not dependent upon ideologies, quite common to many political and historical books, is erroneous. The term Realpolitik makes sense only if used to signify a policy taking account of generally accepted ideologies as contrasted with a policy based upon ideologies not sufficiently acknowledged and therefore unfit to support a durable system of government.
He who interprets might as physical or "real" power to carry on and considers violent action as the very foundation of government, sees conditions from the narrow point of view of subordinate officers in charge of sections of an army or police force. To these subordinates a definite task within the framework of the ruling ideology is assigned. Their chiefs commit to their care troops which are not [p. 190] only equipped, armed, and organized for combat, but no less imbued with the spirit which makes them obey the orders issued. The commanders of such subdivisions consider this moral factor a matter of course because they themselves are animated by the same spirit and cannot even imagine a different ideology. The power of an ideology consists precisely in the fact that people submit to it without any wavering and scruples.
However, things are different for the head of the government. He must aim at preservation of the morale of the armed forces and of the loyalty of the rest of the population. For these moral factors are the only "real" elements upon which continuance of his mastery rests. His power dwindles if the ideology that supports it loses force.
Minorities too can sometimes conquer by means of superior military skill and can thus establish minority rule. But such an order of things cannot endure. If the victorious conquerors do not succeed in subsequently converting the system of rule by violence into a system of rule by ideological consent on the part of those ruled, they will succumb in new struggles. All victorious minorities who have established a lasting system of government have made their sway durable by means of a belated ideological ascendancy. They have legitimized their own supremacy either by submitting to the ideologies of the defeated or by transforming them. Where neither of these two things took place, the oppressed many dispossessed the oppressing few either by open rebellion or through the silent but steadfast operation of ideological forces. [5]
Many of the great historical conquests were able to endure because the invaders entered into alliance with those classes of the defeated nation which were supported by the ruling ideology and were thus considered legitimate rulers. This was the system adopted by the Tartars in Russia, by the Turks in the Danube principalities and by and large in Hungary and Transylvania, and by the British and the Dutch in the Indies. A comparatively insignificant number of Britons could rule many hundred millions of Indians because the Indian princes and aristocratic landowners looked upon British rule as a means for the preservation of their privileges and supplied it with the support which the generally acknowledged ideology of India gave to their own supremacy. England's Indian empire was firm as long as public opinion approved of the traditional social order. The Pax Britannica safeguarded the princes' and the landlords' privileges and protected the masses against the agonies of wars between the principalities and of succession wars within them. In our day the [p. 191] infiltration of subversive ideas from abroad has ended British rule and threatens the preservation of the country's age-old social order.
Victorious minorities sometimes owe their success to their technological superiority. This does not alter the case. In the long run it is impossible to withhold the better arms from the members of the majority. Not the equipment of their armed forces, but ideological factors safeguarded the British in India.[6 ]
A country's public opinion may be ideologically divided in such a way that no group is strong enough to establish a durable government. Then anarchy emerges. Revolutions and civil strife become permanent.
Traditionalism as an Ideology
Traditionalism is an ideology which considers loyalty to valuations, customs, and methods of procedure handed down or allegedly handed down from ancestors both right and expedient. It is not an essential mark of traditionalism that these forefathers were the ancestors in the biological meaning of the term or can be fairly considered such; they were sometimes only the previous inhabitants of the country concerned or supporters of the same religious creed or only precursors in the exercise of some special task. Who is to be considered an ancestor and what is the content of the body of tradition handed down are determined by the concrete teachings of each variety of traditionalism. The ideology brings into prominence some of the ancestors and relegates others to oblivion; it sometimes calls ancestors people who had nothing to do with the alleged posterity. It often constructs a "traditional" doctrine which is of recent origin and is at variance with the ideologies really held by the ancestors.
Traditionalism tries to justify its tenets by citing the success they secured in the past. Whether this assertion conforms with the facts, is another question. Research could sometimes unmask errors in the historical statements of a traditional belief. However, this did not always explode the traditional doctrine. For the core of traditionalism is not real historical facts, but an opinion about them, however mistaken, and a will to believe things to which the authority of ancient origin is attributed.
---------------
[4] A gangster may overpower a weaker or unarmed fellow. However, this has nothing to do with life in society. It is an isolated antisocial occurrence.
[5] Cf. below, pp. 649-650.
">[6 ] We are dealing here with the preservation of European minority rule in non-European countries. About the prospects of an Asiatic aggression on the West cf. below, pp. 669-670.
The "best" you could ever be Jacob Gloom, is a low life gangster scum. An isolated antisocial occurence.
Jacob Bloom: I. Ryan: Jacob Bloom:Well, rights can be enforced by man. But if they're not enforced, they disappear. But inalienable rights would require an ever present enforcer. The argument for "natural rights" in an inalienable sense is a religious idea after all. What the hell are you talking about? Your argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights. But for that to be true, there would have to be a God. If there is no God, there is no eternal enforcer and so man is the only thing that can protect your rights. The government is the embodiment of enforcement. They have a monopoly on force to protect my rights and to protect yours. Without the state, we wouldn't be recognized as citizens anywhere with any rights. Unless they gave them to us.
Part I: Law and Order Without Government - Introduction - Varieties of Law - Public Goods vs. Public Choice
Part II: The Three Functions of Law - Why Three Functions? - Should Law Be Monopolized? - Locke's Case for Monocentric Law - The Lockean Case Against Locke
Part III: Law vs. Legislation - Socrates on Law - Two Senses of Law - Natural Law and Human Law - Natural Law and Customary Law - Law vs. Legislation: Documentary Evidence
Part IV: The Basis of Natural Law - Is There Room for Natural Law? - Who Has the Burden of Proof? - Objection One: Natural Law Serves No Useful Purpose - Objection Two: There Couldn't Be Such a Thing as Natural Law - Objection Three: Even If There Were a Natural Law, It Would Be Unknowable - Objection Four: Evolutionary Explanations Make Natural Law Obsolete
Please read and provide refutations. Your argument is completely destroyed therein.
Jacob Bloom:our argument for natural rights implies inalienable rights. But for that to be true, there would have to be a God.
This is a waste of time - statements like this show that you have no clue what you are talking about. Many people acknowledge the existance of inalienable natural rights without any relation to god. If you would even read one an-cap book or article before criticizing it as if you know everything about what we believe and why its wrong, you wouldn't look like such a fool.
Jacob Bloom:If you had your druthers, you'd probably all beat me up or something.
Maybe that's because if you had your druthers you would send your agent, the State, to beat us up for trying something other than the status quo. Maybe its because you have no qualms taking our money to support your army and gently brush it off as nothing claiming that its just the way it is.
In addition, why are you arguing for a minimalist state? What's wrong with what we currently have?
Jacob Bloom: You imagine a society where everything works perfectly like it does in your books. This is unrealistic. I'm simply criticizing your unrealistic ideas.
Kind of like how Keynsians dream of how society should work and when it doesn't go as planned they want to add more government solutions to fix it? You have missed the point entirely if this is what you believe Austrian Economics is about.
Jacob Bloom:But you have to realize that...whoever shows up ready to murder rape and steal will be prepared to deal with the defenses of the region. Or they'll lose.
Just like the USA won in Iraq, right?
Jacob Bloom:1. Ok, well then why is it that everyone here seems to believe humans are totally rational?
I'm sure your postings have entirely proven your point and convinced them of their incorrect understanding of human nature.
Jacob Bloom: you have failed to convert me over to your side?
Conversion is a personal achievement. Nobody can convert you but yourself. You might as well move on to greener pastures. Sounds like you've pretty much decided that Austrian Economics is not for you. Why don't you go try other systems and see how you fit in there. If you don't like them, you can always come give Austrian Economics another try.
Jacob Bloom:I will not read your books until I'm convinced I want to think like you. So talk to me.
Oops, don't let the Gerber run off the bib...
Jacob Bloom:Tell me about Private Defense Agencies.
Father Bloom to Mother Bloom: How much Gerber can this kid digest?
Jacob Bloom:Free markets can be tried with much less risk. So we've tried them, they mostly work.
What is a free market? How can you possibly know that they work?
Jacob Bloom: Justices who understand the Constitution and adhere to it will not rule in favor of the government just to rule in favor of the government. They don't get paid to rule in favor of the government, they get paid to impartially interpret the facts.
Such an illuminating statement. So basically, we need to make sure we have wise and powerful men in government to make sure that the Constitution is upheld? And these wise men will act objectively, impartially and without prejudice or self-interest? Exactly what incentive does a judge have for avoiding bad rulings?
Jacob Bloom:The company can choose who it fights and when and under what conditions. Because it's private.
I think you have it backwards... you have described how a publically funded army works. A private army does what the contract says it does or it loses customers and goes out of business.