The founding fathers believed it was the right of the people to abolish the government once it no longer protected the natural rights of its citizens. They believed in secession - afterall, the Revolutionary War was fought so that the US could secede from Britain. According to Rothbardian logic, if you believe that states have the right to secede, then so do counties, cities, households, and ultimately - individuals.
To me, this implies that they believe government is truly voluntary, and individuals should have a right to opt out, and if need be, establish their own voluntary government. Isn't this really anarchy/panarchy?
Well the founding fathers were hardly all unanimous in their opinions about government.
Thomas Jefferson has been described as a sort of proto-anarchist of sorts, so idk....
I think that it's important to not speak of "the founding fathers" as if they all had the exact same ideas or constituted some sort of unanimous group. They ranged from mercantalists and monarchists to individualistic proto-libertarians. That being said, if we at least mean to refer to the more explicitly classical liberal "founding fathers", they nonetheless did not follow their own premises to their logical conclusion, and supported the notion of a constitutional republic. Despite the anti-government rhetoric and rebellion against the British, they established a government, and it was not consistently voluntary in its formation. It was a handful of aristocrats in a room that "consented" to it, nothing more and nothing less. Nonetheless, in the case of the more radical types like Jefferson and Paine, they certain held ideas that could be considered to border on "philosophical anarchism". But it didn't mature into anarchism until other people took up the mantle. So my answer in such a case is: did they influence what later came to be anarchism? Yes, they definitely did. Were they actual full-scale anarchists? No, they weren't.
Brainpolice: Despite the anti-government rhetoric and rebellion against the British, they established a government, and it was not consistently voluntary in its formation. It was a handful of aristocrats in a room that "consented" to it, nothing more and nothing less.
Exactly. Many individuals gloss over this fun fact. I would state that Thomas Paine, among a very few, was someone who stayed consistent before, during and after the revolution. Other men when given power were no better then their British counterparts.
'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael
I haven't read Woods' PIG Guide to American History, but he mentions that the American colonists were actually considered "conservative" in their times: they didn't like the British "innovations" of 1760s and 1770s (i.e. higher taxes and more government interventions). They'd always enjoyed a large degree of independence having their own assemblies and realized that in order to preserve it they had to get rid of the imperial government. There were actually some founding fathers (Hamilton, specifically) who even wanted to recreate British mercantilist empire on the basis of the newly independent colonies, but the majority probably were closer in views to Jefferson and supported a limited government in the form of the constitutional republic. Articles of Confederation even called for a more loose conglomerate of independent states with a very weak central government - it's too bad they didn't stick to that idea.
If I hear not allowed much oftener; said Sam, I'm going to get angry.
J.R.R.Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings
sirmonty: Well the founding fathers were hardly all unanimous in their opinions about government. Thomas Jefferson has been described as a sort of proto-anarchist of sorts, so idk....
Last I heard Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
Stranger: sirmonty: Well the founding fathers were hardly all unanimous in their opinions about government. Thomas Jefferson has been described as a sort of proto-anarchist of sorts, so idk.... Last I heard Jefferson wasn't even in the country when the constitution was written.
I don't think he particularly liked the Constitution. He was still a bit pissed that the Declaration of Independence was compromised.
Brainpolice:Nonetheless, in the case of the more radical types like Jefferson and Paine, they certain held ideas that could be considered to border on "philosophical anarchism". But it didn't mature into anarchism until other people took up the mantle. So my answer in such a case is: did they influence what later came to be anarchism? Yes, they definitely did. Were they actual full-scale anarchists? No, they weren't.
Sorta how I feel about Mises.
If we describe anarchism as a system where there are no organized means of coercion, as the term was understood by Mises and his contemporaries, then of course Mises would have been against it. His entire life was devoted to explaining the benefits of capitalism and the division of labor in organized capitalistic enterprises. The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise, it was preferable to "subsistence security".
Only later was anarchism redefined by Rothbard and his followers into anarcho-capitalism.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
Anarchist Cain: Brainpolice: Despite the anti-government rhetoric and rebellion against the British, they established a government, and it was not consistently voluntary in its formation. It was a handful of aristocrats in a room that "consented" to it, nothing more and nothing less. Exactly. Many individuals gloss over this fun fact. I would state that Thomas Paine, among a very few, was someone who stayed consistent before, during and after the revolution. Other men when given power were no better then their British counterparts.
They stayed very much consistent after the war, they weren't really that radical to begin with.
Abstract liberty, like other mere abstractions, is not to be found.
- Edmund Burke
laminustacitus:They stayed very much consistent after the war, they weren't really that radical to begin with.
Trying to enact a premise that government is contractarian in nature and that if provoked citizens can take back their rights through Lockean principles had never been tried in the world. Mainstream outlooks towards divine will stated that the citizens will always tied to a king for good or bad. Breaking that tradition and establishing something new [ perhaps not agreeable to anarchists ] is none the less radical.
Juan:Only later was anarchism redefined by Rothbard and his followers into anarcho-capitalism. Libertarian anarchism was firstly proposed in 1849 by Gustave de Molinari - who was hardly a 'commie'. What you are saying is confused and confusing.
De Molinari was an unknown until the anarcho-capitalists dug him up.
Juan:De Molinari was the most important economist writing in French after Bastiat. Read his biography.
Nobody remembered Bastiat either. It is not reasonable to assume that Mises would have been aware of early 19th century French authors until he arrived in Geneva, and then he would have been through the contemporary literature first before starting to dig around. Besides Molinari himself did not consider himself an anarchist, and would therefore not have influenced Mises to become one.
Stranger:Besides Molinari himself did not consider himself an anarchist, and would therefore not have influenced Mises to become one.
Mises was never an anarchist....
While two of Molinari’s works discuss what has now been termed “anarcho-capitalism,” these were quite short and should not be compared to the system Rothbard developed, whether one agrees with such a system or not. Besides, the French Optimist School did not offer very much after Bastiat, so to state that Molinari ranks as the most eminent member during his time masks the school’s slow decline. It is also interesting to note that Molinari later distanced himself from his original position on private defense. Nineteenth-century anarchism had a reputation for faulty economic doctrine. There were also those with an anti-intellectual streak who were unfortunately, and wrongly, associated with anarchist ideas. This response is not an attack on Molinari or anarchism by any means. Rather, under these circumstances, I can understand how Mises, or any other early Austrian Economist, would fail to find much of a reason to adopt anarchism as he or she understood it at that time.
While two of Molinari’s works discuss what has now been termed “anarcho-capitalism,” these were quite short and should not be compared to the system Rothbard developed, whether one agrees with such a system or not. Besides, the French Optimist School did not offer very much after Bastiat, so to state that Molinari ranks as the most eminent member during his time masks the school’s slow decline. It is also interesting to note that Molinari later distanced himself from his original position on private defense.
Nineteenth-century anarchism had a reputation for faulty economic doctrine. There were also those with an anti-intellectual streak who were unfortunately, and wrongly, associated with anarchist ideas.
This response is not an attack on Molinari or anarchism by any means. Rather, under these circumstances, I can understand how Mises, or any other early Austrian Economist, would fail to find much of a reason to adopt anarchism as he or she understood it at that time.
Rather, under these circumstances, I can understand how Mises, or any other early Austrian Economist, would fail to find much of a reason to adopt anarchism
Juan:I don't see any reason to justify their mistakes.
I agree with Juan. Anarchism is itself the logical conclusion towards free trade.
econ student: Nineteenth-century anarchism had a reputation for faulty economic doctrine. There were also those with an anti-intellectual streak who were unfortunately, and wrongly, associated with anarchist ideas. This response is not an attack on Molinari or anarchism by any means. Rather, under these circumstances, I can understand how Mises, or any other early Austrian Economist, would fail to find much of a reason to adopt anarchism as he or she understood it at that time.
It should not be surprising that 19th century anarchists, or anarcho-communists as Rothbard labeled them, espoused faulty economic doctrine. Their opposition to the state stemmed from the same idea as their opposition to capitalism, that large-scale organized capital was detrimental. They wanted to both wipe out capitalist enterprise and the state and replace them with nothing. The result of such a revolution would be a return to self-defense, that is to say a subsistence production of security, accompanying a subsistence lifestyle working the land.
Capitalism is in that sense closely aligned with monarchism. The state, under a hereditary monarch, produces security at a large enough scale that organized capitalist production is possible. The monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise itself, relying on an organized bureaucracy instead of a system of kinship relations to secure the livelihood of its subjects from external threats. Once the state severs its obedience to the monarch, it then takes on a much different character comparable to that of a large corporation vis-a-vis its small shareholders. It can grow without limits and consume their capital at will. That is when it becomes most destructive.
It suffices to say that no anarchist society could withstand aggression from an organized enemy unless it was itself organized on capitalistic lines, thus showing that anarchism is a death-wish not only economically but also quite literally. For these reasons it makes no sense for any kind of economist, in the classical sense of the word, to align himself with anarchism. It was only one of Rothbard's short-lived alliances that brought anarchism into economic thought. For very wise reasons Hoppe has distanced the term from libertarianism and instead uses a natural order as a way to label a political society where force is organized but not monopolized.
This divergence in viewpoints also necessarily affects their strategy and relationship with the state. While an anarchist wants the state to be destroyed or collapse, a natural order libertarian only wants to fight it to such a point that it surrenders its power, thus making a progressive and peaceful transition towards a natural order possible with no period of "anarchy" where only self-defense is available.
Stranger:Capitalism is in that sense closely aligned with monarchism.
What are you talking about? Capitalism is a product of a decentralized western Europe. The weakening of monarchism was what gave rise to it, not the excerbation of it.
Stranger: The state, under a hereditary monarch, produces security at a large enough scale that organized capitalist production is possible.
So you would deny the division of labor?
Stranger:The monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise itself, relying on an organized bureaucracy instead of a system of kinship relations to secure the livelihood of its subjects from external threats
Then I propose this challenge to you. If the monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise then why is not the modern day democratic government?
Stranger: Once the state severs its obedience to the monarch, it then takes on a much different character comparable to that of a large corporation vis-a-vis its small shareholders. It can grow without limits and consume their capital at will. That is when it becomes most destructive.
And a monarch never proposed growth of his/her power without limits.
Stranger:It suffices to say that no anarchist society could withstand aggression from an organized enemy unless it was itself organized on capitalistic lines, thus showing that anarchism is a death-wish not only economically but also quite literally.
And why can't an anarchist society be capitalistic? Did I miss something? Aren't we all capitalists here?
Stranger:a natural order libertarian only wants to fight it to such a point that it surrenders its power, thus making a progressive and peaceful transition towards a natural order possible with no period of "anarchy" where only self-defense is available.
Translation: What you propose is a delusion. The natural order is complusory service to any degree to an institution whose supposed purpose is to protect us whether we wish it or not?
I will ask you what I ask all minarchists: What is the legitimate basis for your government [ by what power do you establish a government ]?
Juan, I generally agree with your opinions; Molinari indeed provides the essential feature that distinguishes minarchism from anarcho-capitalism. I was merely trying to connect my comments to your earlier discussion with Stranger, namely "the confused and confusing" part. I found that statement too strong and felt that it gave too much credit to Molinari at the expense of Rothbard. Rothbard did redefine libertarian anarchism, and Molinari's theory on private defense, while a crucial feature, needs to be combined with additional laissez-faire doctrine to form a complete theory of anarcho-capitalism. To suggest otherwise, I think, is too sweeping of a claim.
It doesn't. Even withouth Molinari, I am not sure why Mises failed to arrive at this. I did not mean to defend such thinkers on this issue, but give more weight to Stranger's Rothbard remark which you disagreed with. In hindsight, perhaps my comment was too subtle and indirect. I apologize.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:They stayed very much consistent after the war, they weren't really that radical to begin with. Trying to enact a premise that government is contractarian in nature and that if provoked citizens can take back their rights through Lockean principles had never been tried in the world. Mainstream outlooks towards divine will stated that the citizens will always tied to a king for good or bad. Breaking that tradition and establishing something new [ perhaps not agreeable to anarchists ] is none the less radical.
I completely agree. Going from monarchy (even one limited by a parliament) to a federal, constitutional, republic was an enormous step in the right direction.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Laughing Man:Then I propose this challenge to you. If the monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise then why is not the modern day democratic government?
Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally.
Laughing Man: Translation: What you propose is a delusion. The natural order is complusory service to any degree to an institution whose supposed purpose is to protect us whether we wish it or not?
I was only quoting Hoppe's proposition. He has stated clearly in the past that for a natural order to have been established up to the 20th century, it was only sufficient in places like the Austrian Empire to force the emperor to allow subjects to choose others protectors within the empire as their source of security.
The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise
Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant.
But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic in nature.
I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space" without such terms being decided ahead of time by an elite group of adminstrators who would kick me off of it at the drop of a hat. Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy suffices as a much more accurate description
Stranger:Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally.
You really think the democratic government is commually owned? I think of it as a plutocracy.
Stranger:it was only sufficient in places like the Austrian Empire to force the emperor to allow subjects to choose others protectors within the empire as their source of security.
That would presuppose that the subjects don't have the right in the first place. To force the king to allow you to do something is pure nonsense.
Brainpolice: The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant.
Capitalism is not dependent on the state if the state is capitalistic. That would be an impossible redundancy.
The characteristics of the state are capitalistic. It consists of an organization of laborers earning wages in return for operating capital owned by a separate class whose directives they must follow. This is vastly different from a system of vassalage or venal offices.
Brainpolice: Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally. But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies.
But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies.
That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership.
Communal resources will benefit those with power more than those without.
Stranger:Capitalism is not dependent on the state if the state is capitalistic. That would be an impossible redundancy.
Well the state doesn't legitimately own anything. And capitalism is based on private property, therefore the state is not in any manner capitalistic.
Laughing Man:That would presuppose that the subjects don't have the right in the first place. To force the king to allow you to do something is pure nonsense.
I am not going to lecture you if you are not even interested in understanding the problem.
Stranger:That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership.
Ownership implies ability of usage.
Stranger:I am not going to lecture you if you are not even interested in understanding the problem.
I would never expect you to lecture me if you propose such statements. You can argue with me about it but lecturing implies a higher knowledge concerning the subject in question, much like a teacher/student. You are no teacher.
Stranger: Brainpolice: Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally. But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies. That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership. Communal resources will benefit those with power more than those without.
Actually it directly contradicts it. To say that the "community" owns something that it doesn't actually have the decision-making power of ownership over makes no sense. This is why the term "public property" is misleading: "the public" doesn't actually own it, the state (which is directly controlled by a small group of people) functionally owns it and only "allows" limited access rights to "the public" and determines the policy for how it is to be used.
To say that I "own" something that I essentially have no decision-making power over is a joke. If anything, the only historical examples of any geniune sense of "communal ownership" have been small tribes, not modern democracies.
stranger, im shocked to hear you say those things?
is all state property communal propoerty. can a citizen pick a tank from the local army base to drive off in? can he decide what time of night he will stay in the public library? I wonder if you think citizens each own an equal portion of all state property equal to 1/300million-th size? that would be absurd also . the fact of the matter is that you cant sell you portion. i.e. you dont own your portion.
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
I don't see a problem with what Stranger meant. His usage of communal is being misinterpreted by his peers methinks.
No, he isn't being misinterpreted. He's claiming that existing democracies are actually owned by "the public", which is basically taking the "conventional wisdom" about what they are at face value.
No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree with Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
wilderness: Brainpolice: The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant. No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading. In either case, I think you just conflated two different debates that are going on here - one debate is over the definition of "capitalism", while the other is over what so-called "democracies" actually are.
Brainpolice: Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading.
Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading.
I understand that and that's why I stick with the term 'civil society' to not have to redefine what I would mean by Stranger's usage of the term state. It was discussed by him and I before and I believe we agree, him and I, that we were talking about the same concept. Now if I am wrong and Stranger has differed from the last time him and I discussed this topic, then that's up to Stranger to denote this.