Just saw this article on Mises.org.
http://mises.org/story/2801
This part stands out:
These "right-wing" anarchists did not take the foolish position that crime would disappear in the anarchist society. Yet they did tend to underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a constitution, the private judicial process might become truly "anarchic" in the popular sense.
Rothbard says a constitution is necessary to establish market Anarchism, that simply abolishing government would lead to chaos.
Exactly who would propose this constitution, how would it be ratified, and how would it be enforced?
Furthermore, if you establish a "market anarchist constitution" that's backed with force, how exactly is that not Minarchism?
"Austrian economics and freedom are not synonymous." -JAlanKatz
To me, this sounds like a false question. It confuses two questions:
1)the transition to a free society
2) the conditions of possibility of a free society
and if you confuse them, you ask the question in political terms.
To me, 1) can best be understood as a spread from small societies to bigger ones--i.e., from individual to individual. The prob. is not exactly the same if you imagine a free condo, then another, then a free town, then a free county, etc.
Then, it appears that you never have to "settle" the basis of a free society once and for all, to write it down and have people vote, etc.
Jeremie Rostan: To me, this sounds like a false question. It confuses two questions: 1)the transition to a free society2) the conditions of possibility of a free societyand if you confuse them, you ask the question in political terms.To me, 1) can best be understood as a spread from small societies to bigger ones--i.e., from individual to individual. The prob. is not exactly the same if you imagine a free condo, then another, then a free town, then a free county, etc. Then, it appears that you never have to "settle" the basis of a free society once and for all, to write it down and have people vote, etc.
Jeremie, I'm not. What I'm suggesting is that Rothbard proposes #1, but his assumptions about #2 contradict #1.
If people have to have a "constitution" in order to prevent widespread chaos, that seems to imply Hobbes' view about humanity and Rousseau's theory about the social contract -- both are positions Rothbard claimed to reject.
He agrees with right-wing Anarchists on #1, but disagrees with them on #2. In other words, he supports the existence of a fully free-market society, but acknowledges right-wing anarchists' assumptions about crime are absurd,. His rejection of their assumptions about the firm existence of "spontaneous order" in the absence of a constitution make it difficult for him to claim to be an "Anarchist".
The entire article is full of peculiarities as far as I'm concerned, but then again this is before he fully formulated his ideas on anarcho-capitalism.
Nathyn,
Rothbard was indeed an anarchist. His notion was, I believe, simply that private judges would have to take an oath to defend the non-aggression axiom, and that any judges who refused would have to be boycotted. I think he mentions this in For a New Liberty.
Rothbard's problem is that he never understood his place in politics, and was always searching for a home for his libertarian views. Truth be told, his views were always left-wing, at least ever since he became an anarchist, and very likely long before that. (There is no such thing as "right anarchism" or "right libertarianism." Likewise, there is nothing left-wing about Stalin, Castro, or Sen. Clinton.) He saw himself, correctly, as a leftist when he wrote "Left and Right: The Prospect for Liberty." Unfortunately, by the early '90s, he was incorrectly calling himself a right-winger again.
allixpeeke:Nathyn, Rothbard was indeed an anarchist. His notion was, I believe, simply that private judges would have to take an oath to defend the non-aggression axiom, and that any judges who refused would have to be boycotted. I think he mentions this in For a New Liberty. Rothbard's problem is that he never understood his place in politics, and was always searching for a home for his libertarian views. Truth be told, his views were always left-wing, at least ever since he became an anarchist, and very likely long before that. (There is no such thing as "right anarchism" or "right libertarianism." Likewise, there is nothing left-wing about Stalin, Castro, or Sen. Clinton.) He saw himself, correctly, as a leftist when he wrote "Left and Right: The Prospect for Liberty." Unfortunately, by the early '90s, he was incorrectly calling himself a right-winger again.
Allix, first let me say that I agree the left\right distinction is silly, I agree. Ideologies are memetic,which means they extend in many countless directions, not just in one direction or even two as the "World's Shortest Political Quiz" seems to suggest. People think about their ideologies in the way that they do, which may include rejecting the left\right dichotomy, the "social liberal" and "economic liberal" organization Libertarians use, or even both as I do.
The Reaganite claim "There is no left\right, only up or down -- for freedom or against it" is particularly tenuous, considering the rich history of Social Liberalism and Socialism, and if you assume that at least some of them were being sincere about what they wrote.
If you read the actual writings of Social Liberals, like John Rawls, and Socialists like Marx, they don't say, "God, we really hate freedom and love equality. We sure should find a way to destroy freedom."
On the contrary, they regularly invoked the value of freedom -- they just define it differently.
Your opinion relies on the assumption that every Social Liberal and Socialist who has ever lived has all engaged in an active conspiracy against Libertarianism. That's just silly, although it appears to be a popular idea among Libertarians.
Libertarians charging Socialists with opposition to freedom is much the same as Conservatives accuse Liberals and Libertarians of opposing America.
The winter of 1949-50, in fact, witnessed the two most exciting and shattering intellectual events in my life: my discovery of "Austrian" economics, and my conversion to individualist anarchism
Murray N. Rothbard, The Betrayal of the American Right. 1971
Peace
Nathyn:Your opinion relies on the assumption that every Social Liberal and Socialist who has ever lived has all engaged in an active conspiracy against Libertarianism.
As far as I'm concerned, one can be a communist and just as left-wing as Rothbard, assuming said communist accepts the non-aggression axiom and believes his communism should be voluntaryist. Likewise, one can be an individualist and just as right-wing as Mussolini. An example that pops to mind is a fictional character named Jack, but who more often than not operated under the pseudonym Joker. Whereas I can't really claim the Joker was a statist, I can certainly say his ethical nihilism propels him to the far-right.
I'd like to someday write up a little essay on my views on the political spectrum, but as of yet I've not found the time.
A right wing anarchist believes in property rights, a left wing anarchist believes in communism.
Left does not mean Liberal.
For what it's worth, Rothbard also thought that it would be easy to form a proper libertarian legal framework. In light of that view, a constitution doesn't seem particularly controversial.
allixpeeke: Nathyn:Your opinion relies on the assumption that every Social Liberal and Socialist who has ever lived has all engaged in an active conspiracy against Libertarianism.Since when? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Brad Spangler that Rothbard was, in Spangler's words, a "stigmergic socialist"? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Roderick T. Long who says that the terms "socialist" and "capitalist" and anti-concepts, that they confuse the matter more than clarify it? As far as I'm concerned, one can be a communist and just as left-wing as Rothbard, assuming said communist accepts the non-aggression axiom and believes his communism should be voluntaryist. Likewise, one can be an individualist and just as right-wing as Mussolini. An example that pops to mind is a fictional character named Jack, but who more often than not operated under the pseudonym Joker. Whereas I can't really claim the Joker was a statist, I can certainly say his ethical nihilism propels him to the far-right. I'd like to someday write up a little essay on my views on the political spectrum, but as of yet I've not found the time.
From what I can tell, I hold a similar view of the political spectrum to yours. I agree with Roderick Long that socialism and capitalism have become anti-concepts. And I take what Rothbard said in "Left and Right: The Prospects For Liberty" very seriously. He completely tore down the fallacious view of the political spectrum that treated "right" as synanomous with less government and "left" as synanomous with more government, as well as the erroneous idea that things like the New Deal were inherently anti-buisiness.
Rothbard, at least since the 1960's, was indeed an anarchist. The only significant difference between him and the individualist anarchists such as Benjamin Tucker is a matter of economic theory and what they thought would happen in the absence of the state. Tucker thought that interest and profit would dissapear in the absence of the state. Murray, being better armed with economic thought with an education in Austrian economics under his belt, knew better.
JonBostwick: allixpeeke: Nathyn, Rothbard was indeed an anarchist. His notion was, I believe, simply that private judges would have to take an oath to defend the non-aggression axiom, and that any judges who refused would have to be boycotted. I think he mentions this in For a New Liberty. Rothbard's problem is that he never understood his place in politics, and was always searching for a home for his libertarian views. Truth be told, his views were always left-wing, at least ever since he became an anarchist, and very likely long before that. (There is no such thing as "right anarchism" or "right libertarianism." Likewise, there is nothing left-wing about Stalin, Castro, or Sen. Clinton.) He saw himself, correctly, as a leftist when he wrote "Left and Right: The Prospect for Liberty." Unfortunately, by the early '90s, he was incorrectly calling himself a right-winger again. A right wing anarchist believes in property rights, a left wing anarchist believes in communism. Left does not mean Liberal.
allixpeeke: Nathyn, Rothbard was indeed an anarchist. His notion was, I believe, simply that private judges would have to take an oath to defend the non-aggression axiom, and that any judges who refused would have to be boycotted. I think he mentions this in For a New Liberty. Rothbard's problem is that he never understood his place in politics, and was always searching for a home for his libertarian views. Truth be told, his views were always left-wing, at least ever since he became an anarchist, and very likely long before that. (There is no such thing as "right anarchism" or "right libertarianism." Likewise, there is nothing left-wing about Stalin, Castro, or Sen. Clinton.) He saw himself, correctly, as a leftist when he wrote "Left and Right: The Prospect for Liberty." Unfortunately, by the early '90s, he was incorrectly calling himself a right-winger again.
Well I don't consider myself "right-wing" at all. If anything, I'm a cultural "leftist" and I associate "the right" with economic fascism or corporatism rather then property rights and free markets. And so long as such communists are actually voluntarists, I have no objection in principle, only one of personal preferance.
Yes, you appear to support the ridiculous "Reagan" spectrum of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom."
Like I said, ideologies are intricate webs of belief. This should seem obvious enough for Libertarians.
Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources:
*Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist)
*Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist)
So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon?
Now, even if we go by the Libertarian model of two-axis:
*Social freedom
*Economic freedom
This fails to make hardly any meaningful distinction between Minarchism and Market Anarchism. The goals of Minarchists and Market Anarchists are the same. They simply disagree on how they should be accomplished.
Now, if we judge ideologies based upon their intentions as you propose, then none of us are really any different, are we? Most people want live in a good world, where people are free.
You simply cannot judge ideologies based upon models which are skewed by your own ideology (Libertarian models focus on "freedom", Marxist models focus on "Capitalism"). Ideologies can only be judged in relation to one another based upon ideas which are near-infinitely dimensional, not one dimensional or even two dimensional as some Libertarians propose.
Nathyn: allixpeeke: Nathyn:Your opinion relies on the assumption that every Social Liberal and Socialist who has ever lived has all engaged in an active conspiracy against Libertarianism.Since when? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Brad Spangler that Rothbard was, in Spangler's words, a "stigmergic socialist"? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Roderick T. Long who says that the terms "socialist" and "capitalist" and anti-concepts, that they confuse the matter more than clarify it? As far as I'm concerned, one can be a communist and just as left-wing as Rothbard, assuming said communist accepts the non-aggression axiom and believes his communism should be voluntaryist. Likewise, one can be an individualist and just as right-wing as Mussolini. An example that pops to mind is a fictional character named Jack, but who more often than not operated under the pseudonym Joker. Whereas I can't really claim the Joker was a statist, I can certainly say his ethical nihilism propels him to the far-right. I'd like to someday write up a little essay on my views on the political spectrum, but as of yet I've not found the time. Yes, you appear to support the ridiculous "Reagan" spectrum of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom." Like I said, ideologies are intricate webs of belief. This should seem obvious enough for Libertarians. Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources: *Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist) *Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist) So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon? Now, even if we go by the Libertarian model of two-axis: *Social freedom *Economic freedom This fails to make hardly any meaningful distinction between Minarchism and Market Anarchism. The goals of Minarchists and Market Anarchists are the same. They simply disagree on how they should be accomplished. Now, if we judge ideologies based upon their intentions as you propose, then none of us are really any different, are we? Most people want live in a good world, where people are free. You simply cannot judge ideologies based upon models which are skewed by your own ideology (Libertarian models focus on "freedom", Marxist models focus on "Capitalism"). Ideologies can only be judged in relation to one another based upon ideas which are near-infinitely dimensional, not one dimensional or even two dimensional as some Libertarians propose.
This is why a one-dimensional up-down axis of MEANS is actually the correct spectrum. "Left" and "right" only represent preferances and culture. The means supported, political vs. voluntary means, is where the true political distinctions lie. You can take two people with widely different cultural views (say, Roderick Long and Hans Hoppe) and they are practically identical on a political axis of means. And you can take two people with very similar cultural views and they support opposite means towards those ends. Politics is about means. One can either support voluntary means or monocentric and coercive means. In theory, both "socialists" and "capitalists" can be voluntarists. They can also be statists if they persue political means.
Brainpolice: Nathyn: allixpeeke: Nathyn:Your opinion relies on the assumption that every Social Liberal and Socialist who has ever lived has all engaged in an active conspiracy against Libertarianism.Since when? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Brad Spangler that Rothbard was, in Spangler's words, a "stigmergic socialist"? Do you wish to claim that I reject the claim of Roderick T. Long who says that the terms "socialist" and "capitalist" and anti-concepts, that they confuse the matter more than clarify it? As far as I'm concerned, one can be a communist and just as left-wing as Rothbard, assuming said communist accepts the non-aggression axiom and believes his communism should be voluntaryist. Likewise, one can be an individualist and just as right-wing as Mussolini. An example that pops to mind is a fictional character named Jack, but who more often than not operated under the pseudonym Joker. Whereas I can't really claim the Joker was a statist, I can certainly say his ethical nihilism propels him to the far-right. I'd like to someday write up a little essay on my views on the political spectrum, but as of yet I've not found the time. Yes, you appear to support the ridiculous "Reagan" spectrum of "pro-freedom" and "anti-freedom." Like I said, ideologies are intricate webs of belief. This should seem obvious enough for Libertarians. Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources: *Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist) *Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist) So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon? Now, even if we go by the Libertarian model of two-axis: *Social freedom *Economic freedom This fails to make hardly any meaningful distinction between Minarchism and Market Anarchism. The goals of Minarchists and Market Anarchists are the same. They simply disagree on how they should be accomplished. Now, if we judge ideologies based upon their intentions as you propose, then none of us are really any different, are we? Most people want live in a good world, where people are free. You simply cannot judge ideologies based upon models which are skewed by your own ideology (Libertarian models focus on "freedom", Marxist models focus on "Capitalism"). Ideologies can only be judged in relation to one another based upon ideas which are near-infinitely dimensional, not one dimensional or even two dimensional as some Libertarians propose. This is why a one-dimensional up-down axis of MEANS is actually the correct spectrum. "Left" and "right" only represent preferances and culture. The means supported, political vs. voluntary means, is where the true political distinctions lie. You can take two people with widely different cultural views (say, Roderick Long and Hans Hoppe) and they are practically identical on a political axis of means. And you can take two people with very similar cultural views and they support opposite means towards those ends. Politics is about means. One can either support voluntary means or monocentric and coercive means. In theory, both "socialists" and "capitalists" can be voluntarists. They can also be statists if they persue political means.
"Ideologies are not primarily descriptions of things. They are wills to act."
-Georges Sorel
When I wake up in the morning, I don't tell myself, "God, I hate Libertarians and freedom. Boy, stealing from them through taxation is just great."
In my mind, I have similar pictures of what a just society should look like: It should be mostly (if not completely) voluntary and it should be fair enough to the point that nobody can reasonably complain about unfairness. This shared similarity exists, partially because of the broad influence of Liberalism, but also because Humanism -- the idea that humans are even valuable -- underlies practically all human thought, nowadays.
What separates us, then, is that we both simply define 'freedom' and 'theft' differently.
Classifying ideologies under your model would involve either failing to make a distinction between ideologies by calling them all "left-wing" or it would involve tenuously classifying ideologies as right-wing, simply because you don't agree with them.
Why should all ideologies be measured by the "axiom of non-aggression," a proposal held only by Libertarians and no one else?
It's silly and virtually no different than Marxists who divide all ideologies according to "capitalism." I told them before I'm a Social Liberal at Revleft. Their label for me? Apparently, I'm a "bourgeoisie liberal" because I support capitalism.
In general, ideologues like to divide ideologies into the following grouping:
LEFT (good, free, fair, just)
RIGHT (evil, unfree, unfair, unjust)
But that proposal is just absurd, no matter what your ideology is and no matter what definitions of goodness, freedom, fairness, or justice you appeal to.
im sorry, this whole discussion has gone on and i havent seen the phrase 'plumb line libertarian'
its relevant. you can get W Block on it. worth doing.
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
No. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are not even a political axis (or any axis) in my spectrum. They are just culture. Classifying idelogies under my model does no such thing. Both "left-wing" and "right-wing" can be either libertarian or statist depending on what means are advocated towards those preferences.
For example, you can have libertarian racists who simply take a voluntarist approach. And you can have statist racists who do not. Even working under the assumption that racism is inherently "right-wing", this "right-wing" tendency is not uniformly classified as one or the other. It can fall under either a libertarian or statist paradime depending on the means advocated.
LEFT (good, free, fair, just) RIGHT (evil, unfree, unfair, unjust) But that proposal is just absurd, no matter what your ideology is and no matter what definitions of goodness, freedom, fairness, or justice you appeal to.
If you were paying attention at all, this is not my proposal. Left and right are a completely different, if not irrelevant, axis. My proposal is that up/down is liberty vs. politics, and left and right are simply cultural preferences on the road between the two that can either be compatible or incompatible depending on what means one advocates or supports towards obtaining them. My spectrum does not even really grant that left/right is an axis, since it just consumer demand or personal preferance.
I wish I had a picture to paste illustrate what I mean. Imagine a verticle line with voluntarism and pluralism at the bottom, and force and monocentrism at the top. Then, without actually drawing a horizontal axis, simply place the words "cultural left" on the left end and "cultural right" on the right end. That's my spectrum.
Feminists, anti-racists, anti-buisiness types, and so on, on the "cultural left" can theoretically fall anywhere on my axis depending on their actual politics (means). I do not consider those things to be actual political positions in themselves so much as personal preferences. Politics deals with the institutional framework and the means that such preferences are persued with.
Nathyn: Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources: *Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist) *Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist) So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon?
Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism actually is influenced by three sources Classical Liberalism, Individualist Anarchism and Austrian Economics and it is very important to distinguish what kind of influences they provide to come to the solution on the left-right question. In reality the qualification of these three on left-right scale is completely irrelevant since with anarcho-capitalism you have something new. Rothbard himself actually rejected both, left and right, saying they were inconsistent within their ideologies. I think his association with both sides was only of practical nature within certain questions. As for anarcho-capitalism, it doesn't fit into neither, left leaning towards socialism through big governments and right having problems with nationalism, facism and interventionist foreign policy.
One night I dreamed of chewing up my debetcard - there simply is nothing like hard cash in your pocket!
Another influence was neo-aristotilean, Thomist natural law notions, unless you want to count that under "classical liberalism". And while he had a fall-out with them early on, he definitely had a strain of Objectivist influence as well.
Don Roberto: Nathyn: Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources: *Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist) *Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist) So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon? Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism actually is influenced by three sources Classical Liberalism, Individualist Anarchism and Austrian Economics and it is very important to distinguish what kind of influences they provide to come to the solution on the left-right question. In reality the qualification of these three on left-right scale is completely irrelevant since with anarcho-capitalism you have something new. Rothbard himself actually rejected both, left and right, saying they were inconsistent within their ideologies. I think his association with both sides was only of practical nature within certain questions. As for anarcho-capitalism, it doesn't fit into neither, left leaning towards socialism through big governments and right having problems with nationalism, facism and interventionist foreign policy.
And where did Individualist Anarchists draw influence from?
*The egoist philosopher, Max Stirner
*The Marxist Anarchists
You seem to seriously abuse the term "classical liberalism," because classical liberals were not all radical economic liberals. Take Paine, for existence, who advocated public education and healthcare.
Oh but he's not a "true" classical liberal.
The identification of Libertarianism with Classical Liberalism is founded on nothing more than a true scotsman fallacy because a lot of Classical Liberals were economic liberals.
Nathyn: Don Roberto: Nathyn: Let's look at Market Anarchism, for instance. It draws influence from two main sources: *Classical Anarchism (traditionally considered left wing because it's Marxist) *Economic Liberalism (traditionally considered right wing because it's anti-Marxist) So, is the ideology of Anarcho-Capitalism a left-wing or a right-wing phenomenon? Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism actually is influenced by three sources Classical Liberalism, Individualist Anarchism and Austrian Economics and it is very important to distinguish what kind of influences they provide to come to the solution on the left-right question. In reality the qualification of these three on left-right scale is completely irrelevant since with anarcho-capitalism you have something new. Rothbard himself actually rejected both, left and right, saying they were inconsistent within their ideologies. I think his association with both sides was only of practical nature within certain questions. As for anarcho-capitalism, it doesn't fit into neither, left leaning towards socialism through big governments and right having problems with nationalism, facism and interventionist foreign policy. And where did Individualist Anarchists draw influence from? *The egoist philosopher, Max Stirner *The Marxist Anarchists You seem to seriously abuse the term "classical liberalism," because classical liberals were not all radical economic liberals. Take Paine, for existence, who advocated public education and healthcare. Oh but he's not a "true" classical liberal. The identification of Libertarianism with Classical Liberalism is founded on nothing more than a true scotsman fallacy because a lot of Classical Liberals were economic liberals.
Correction. The individualist anarchists did not primarily draw influence from marxists, they drew influence from the mutualists (such as Proudhon), who were not marxists. Benjamin Tucker was also a big fan of Herbert Spencer, even though Spencer appeared to grow more "conservative" in his later years. As for Thomas Paine, he also once gleefully commented on how wonderful it was when there was no formal government in place in some areas during the revolution. As for classical liberalism, it disintegrated within its own ranks as state-socialism and progressivism rose, as Spencer himself wrote about first-hand.
Don Roberto:It is also important to look at the exact influences taken from other ideologies. In the case of anarcho-capitalism * Individualist Anarchism gave personal liberty *Classical Liberalism gave economic freedom and minimization of the state
But the influence Marxist Anarchism had on Individualist Anarchism -- including Rothbard's views -- is undeniable.
Nathyn: Don Roberto:It is also important to look at the exact influences taken from other ideologies. In the case of anarcho-capitalism * Individualist Anarchism gave personal liberty *Classical Liberalism gave economic freedom and minimization of the state But the influence Marxist Anarchism had on Individualist Anarchism -- including Rothbard's views -- is undeniable.
You're making a mistake in assuming that early left-anarchists were necessarily Marxists. Many were not marxists. Individualist anarchists were not marxists, they were the an extension of the philosophy of mutualism, which originated from Proudhon. Proudhon was not a Marxist (in fact, Marx dismissed Proudhon as a "bourgeios socialist") and a close examination of his ideology reveals a distinct propertarian sentiment, especially as he grew older. He is usually taken out of context by contemporary socialists to further their own ends.
The disagreement between Marxism and early Anarchism was one of strategy. They both agreed in the ultimate goal of a future stateless, classless society but advocated polar opposite strategies for going about it. Marxists advocated taking over the state and using it to crush "the capitalists", and then it will just magically "wither away". Even anarcho-communists such as Bakunin did not agree with that strategy, and instead opted for secession and the formation of federations.
In response to the title, Rothbard changed affiliations many times over the course of his career.
It's unfair to analyze his early position in the 1950's as he was just starting out and to apply it to his entire career.
Nathyn:Rothbard says a constitution is necessary to establish market Anarchism, that simply abolishing government would lead to chaos.
Rothbard believed in custom laws and largely what is meant by "a constitution must be arrived at" could be seen from a perspective as it is just necessarily so through the course of interaction that a custom of law will be discovered - the evidence for this is overwhelming.
Here's something Rothbard said that I believe is more refined:
A supply of defense services on the free market would mean maintaining the axiom of the free society, namely, that there be no use of physical force except in defense against those using force to invade person or property. This would imply the complete absence of a State apparatus or government; for the State, unlike all other persons and institutions in society, acquires its revenue, not by exchanges freely contracted, but by a system of unilateral coercion called “taxation.” Defense in the free society (including such defense services to person and property as police protection and judicial findings) would therefore have to be supplied by people or firms who (a) gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and (b) did not—as the State does—arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly of police or judicial protection. Only such libertarian provision of defense service would be consonant with a free market and a free society. Thus, defense firms would have to be as freely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers of goods and services on the free market. Defense services, like all other services, would be marketable and marketable only.
The Origins of Capitalism
And for more periodic bloggings by moi,
Leftlibertarian.org
Nathyn:
Nathyn, please leave the forums. You're not here to contribute anything, and you know it. Your entire air of contentiousness reaks in your avatar alone, and the fact that you're here more or less to see a rise out of people doesn't play well. This is a simple request, after which I will just go onto ignore you and encourage others to do the same.
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."
Juan:Nathyn asserts "Paine, for existence, who advocated public education and healthcare"Really ?"Great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It has its origin in the principles of society and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has upon man, and all the parts of civilised community upon each other, create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation, prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their law; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything which is ascribed to government."That sounds like market-anarchism, does it not ? And I see no mention of so called 'public education', or so called 'social security' - do you ?
That is exactly one of the Thomas Paine quotes I was thinking about. There's another quote where he talks about how wonderful it was that there was no formal government in place in some areas during the period of the American revolution. Paine was most definitely one of the early "philosophical anarchists". Here's the gem I'm talking about, from the same writting:
"For upwards of two years from the commencement of the American War, and to a longer period in several of the American States, there were no established forms of government. The old governments had been abolished, and the country was too much occupied in defence to employ its attention in establishing new governments; yet during this interval order and harmony were preserved as inviolate as in any country in Europe. There is a natural aptness in man, and more so in society, because it embraces a greater variety of abilities and resource, to accommodate itself to whatever situation it is in. The instant formal government is abolished, society begins to act: a general association takes place, and common interest produces common security." -- Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man
Nathyn:Just saw this article on Mises.org. http://mises.org/story/2801 This part stands out: These "right-wing" anarchists did not take the foolish position that crime would disappear in the anarchist society. Yet they did tend to underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a constitution, the private judicial process might become truly "anarchic" in the popular sense. Rothbard says a constitution is necessary to establish market Anarchism, that simply abolishing government would lead to chaos. Exactly who would propose this constitution, how would it be ratified, and how would it be enforced? Furthermore, if you establish a "market anarchist constitution" that's backed with force, how exactly is that not Minarchism?
Let's say punishment for a entity that disobeys the constitution is required.
Let's say you are a soldier in the army. If you disobey an order, you would be killed by other soldiers. But if everyone disobeyed orders, every soldier would not be killed, since no one would have the incentive to kill ones that disobeyed an order. If there are more and more soldiers, the incentive of disobeying orders would exponentially less.
Let's say there is a cartel agreement fixing price. The more and more firms, the likelihood that the agreement would be enforced would be exponentially less.
If a firm disobeys the constitution, other firms would have the incentive to punish the bad firm. However, if these firms didn't punish the disobeying firm, then different other firms would punish them for not punishing a firm that disobeys the constitution.
That's how government works. If a bureaucrat does bad, then the bureaucrat is punished by the gov't. But if all gov't bureaucrats does bad things, then no bureaucrat would be punished.
The constitution would be enforced by the threat of violence, as described above.
The Rothbardian constitutional-anarchy is simply an ultra-minarchist state, non-aggression principle enforced by collective other entities. Collective other entities would obey the constitution due to threat to violence of other entities Ad infinitum. It's a self-sustaining network.
Brainpolice:Classifying ideologies under your model would involve either failing to make a distinction between ideologies by calling them all "left-wing" or it would involve tenuously classifying ideologies as right-wing, simply because you don't agree with them. No. "Left-wing" and "right-wing" are not even a political axis (or any axis) in my spectrum. They are just culture. Classifying idelogies under my model does no such thing. Both "left-wing" and "right-wing" can be either libertarian or statist depending on what means are advocated towards those preferences. For example, you can have libertarian racists who simply take a voluntarist approach. And you can have statist racists who do not. Even working under the assumption that racism is inherently "right-wing", this "right-wing" tendency is not uniformly classified as one or the other. It can fall under either a libertarian or statist paradime depending on the means advocated. LEFT (good, free, fair, just) RIGHT (evil, unfree, unfair, unjust) But that proposal is just absurd, no matter what your ideology is and no matter what definitions of goodness, freedom, fairness, or justice you appeal to. If you were paying attention at all, this is not my proposal. Left and right are a completely different, if not irrelevant, axis. My proposal is that up/down is liberty vs. politics, and left and right are simply cultural preferences on the road between the two that can either be compatible or incompatible depending on what means one advocates or supports towards obtaining them. My spectrum does not even really grant that left/right is an axis, since it just consumer demand or personal preferance. I wish I had a picture to paste illustrate what I mean. Imagine a verticle line with voluntarism and pluralism at the bottom, and force and monocentrism at the top. Then, without actually drawing a horizontal axis, simply place the words "cultural left" on the left end and "cultural right" on the right end. That's my spectrum. Feminists, anti-racists, anti-buisiness types, and so on, on the "cultural left" can theoretically fall anywhere on my axis depending on their actual politics (means). I do not consider those things to be actual political positions in themselves so much as personal preferences. Politics deals with the institutional framework and the means that such preferences are persued with.
Brainpolice, culture is very, very dynamic. Consider the role that race and religion plays in politics. Humanity is not divided into two collectives: One against freedom, the other for it.
Instead, politics are a dynamic web of influence involving individual ideas. It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Ricardo's labor theory of value, but reject Laissez-faire. Milton Friedman can accept Keynes' AD/AS model, but reject Socialism. In either case, it's about what individuals themselves think -- not our own collectivist generalizations based on what we think of such ideas.
To see a good idea of how this model would work, see Ishkur's Guide to Electronic music. We regularly invoke the web model in popular discourse when we say "such and such person was influenced by such and such other ideologies" and don't look at them strictly as left\right.
To give you a perhaps better example than Iskur's electronic music guide, here's how I see the development of Liberalism:
http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/7520/liberalideologywebse9.jpg
(That's a very, very rough diagram. I tossed it together quickly right now -- it's somewhat inaccurate and missing a lot of important stuff.)
The point is that if we treat political theory as something developed by individuals, who are very different from person to person, you cannot make such collectivist generalizations as "The Classical Liberals," and "The Libertarians" and so on -- or even worse "The Left" and "The Right." Such generalizations are useful, but largely inaccurate and definitely inaccurate if you rely on them as descriptions of collective ideas rather than generalizations about individual ideas.
Nathyn: It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Classical economics' labor theory of value, but reject Liberalism.
Juan: Nathyn: It's possible to accept ideas from one person's philosophy, but not others. Marx, for instance, can accept Classical economics' labor theory of value, but reject Liberalism. Marx, thank God, is dead. So there's nothing he can accept or reject now. The fact that Marx 'accepted' a wrong theory of value only shows that he was a pretty bad economist, if he deserved to be called an economist at all. His rejection of liberalism shows that he was a totalitarian. Your picture shows how you think that one thinker influenced another. But there's absolutely no proof for your claim. And at any rate, liberalism, the real one, is not something arbitrarily created by a bunch of writers, however brilliant they were. Labeling Spencer as 'economic liberalism' seems to hint that you're rather confused...
I still want to see who his professors are so I can contact the dean of his school and inform him that they are not doing their jobs.
Okay, I'm not really paying attention to what's going on, but are people actually objecting to Nathyn's statement that Marx accepted Classical economics' labor theory of value, but rejected liberalism? I mean, Marx did get the labor theory of value from Classical economics, and he did reject liberalism, so...
P.S. I actually think I would pay to see Niccolo try to confront one of Nathyn's professors.
Wire it to my pay-pal, prz.
I want the goods first, I'm good for it.
Just as Economic Liberalism can be understood as "radical economic liberalism," to the point that some of its supporters eventually broke off to become Fascists, Socialism Liberalism can be understood as "radical social liberalism," that broke off from Liberalism very early in the history of Liberalism, to become authoritarian Socialism and Anarchism -- two ideas very different and in many ways opposed to Liberalism.
But there is absolutely no denying the influence of Classical Liberalism and Classical economics on Marx, because he regularly invoked them in the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital. Marxism is almost entirely based upon the work of Smith and Ricardo -- what Marx did was interpret their ideas differently. He invoked a primitive understanding of the problems with "perfect competition" (which you agree with) and "perfect information" (which you agree with) and "perfect equilibrium" (which you agree with) and the idea that markets never have any overall problems -- again, something you agree with. On the last statement, whenever you're accused of being utopian idealists, you respond, "Markets wouldn't be perfect under anarchism," -- you just think it would be a lot better.
Marx himself had a strong regard for freedom, but like Nietzsche, he saw the mere establishment of marginal non-aggression as leading to overall infringements upon freedom.
From the Communist Manifesto:
(Capitalism) has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of he numberless and feasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom--Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation.
You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom.
Nathyn: Just as Economic Liberalism can be understood as "radical economic liberalism," to the point that some of its supporters eventually broke off to become Fascists, Socialism Liberalism can be understood as "radical social liberalism,"
Marx himself had a strong regard for freedom,
You reject the very possibility of considering the notion that any Socialist has any regard for any kind of freedom
A comment if I may: Actually I do grant that a socialist can have regaurd for freedom. But they have to be voluntary socialists, which is a rare phenomenon. But socialism in the statist context of the word is not compatible with any kind of freedom. Even if it could be said to maintain freedom as its ends, it supports violations of freedom as it means, and is therefore self-contradictary. One cannot be said to support freedom when they are in favor of means that directly contradict the ends of freedom. Freedom cannot come from strategies that violate it in principle. And this criticism does not apply exclusively to socialists, as I see many right-libertarians and even some anarcho-capitalists as running into the exact same problem.
The problem with Marx, among other things, is that his strategic view for reaching the ultimate end of a stateless, classless society was incompatible with his goal. That is, Marx advocated statism as a means to reach a theoretical future anarchy. Marx proposed state control of property in the name of worker's control of property, not understanding that the nature of the state (namely, that the state and the workers are mutually exclusive) makes this self-contradictary and counterproductive to his own goal. This is where the traditional anarchists, at least those with half a brain, and Marxists differ. Interestingly enough, although in a somewhat different context (market anarchism), this is also where agorists and political anarchists differ.
You guys might be interested in reading G. A. Cohen's book, Self Ownership, Freedom, and Equality. Cohen's not really a Marxist, but given that no one important is really a Marxist anymore, a prominent socialist like Cohen is probably the sort of person you guys should be concerned with. Having read part of the book, I can tell you it's very well written and well thought out, and poses a lot of questions which directly concern libertarian ideas (the book is largely a response to Nozick). Before you go off ranting against socialists, you should probably check out what socialists actually think, because it sounds like they're getting an undeserved reputation around here.