Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Poptech's Latest Cry for Attention re:You know you're a libertarian/ancap when...

This post has 32 Replies | 5 Followers

Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech Posted: Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:43 PM

.... when you disagree with Ludwig von Mises

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 95
Not Ranked
Posts 55
Points 795
mhamlin replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 6:53 PM

...when you disagree with Poptech

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:
.... when you disagree with Ludwig von Mises

Hoppe:

    Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,

contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]

     Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]

     Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.

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

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
Posts 418
Points 7,525

... when Poptech trolls threads of yours.

Life and reality are neither logical nor illogical; they are simply given. But logic is the only tool available to man for the comprehension of both.Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:26 PM

This was a reply to...

You know you're a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist when...

And moved here because Liberty Student cannot handle other people's opinions.

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 8:28 PM

... when you censor people who disagree with you.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 5,118
Points 87,310
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:

... when you censor people who disagree with you.

... when you agree with Liberty Student's actions, and point out that Mises.org is a private website.

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."

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:

This was a reply to...

You know you're a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist when...

And moved here because Liberty Student cannot handle other people's opinions.

Spare us your whining, Poptech.  You've been warned about threadjacking.  This forum isn't an open stage for your ideological vendetta.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Is it really that hard to admit that Mises wasn't an anarcho capitalist?

I mean seriously, I'm not asking you to refrain from using his contributions and I don't think his minarchist positions "prove" anything, so to speak. But I just don't get the attempts to rewrite history. Mises clearly thought that  the state was necessary for markets to function and anarchism and the Austrian school only became intertwined as a result of the attempts of Murray Rothbard.

I mean, I see a lot of Orwellian stuff going on here with attempts to prove that everybody you agree with is a closet anarchist. Be it Mises, Hazlitt or Paul.

I'm waiting for the day where we see a book by  the title "Carl Menger, Revolutionary: Anarchist and Marginal" by one of your guys.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:22 PM

Lilburne:
Spare us your whining, Poptech.  You've been warned about threadjacking.  This forum isn't an open stage for your ideological vendetta.

So I am not allowed to quote Mises?

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Posts 7,105
Points 115,240
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Mises was not an anarchist on pragmatic grounds. he said as much. if he could have unlimited secession and a society that enjoyed protection from criminals, he would have been an anarchist.

now. the point of the quote is to refute that Mises had refuted Rothbards anarchy. Mises had not. perhaps he would have/ could have. but he did not do it in those paragraphs. in those paragraphs he mustered arguments against utopian socialist anarchists. 

ok?

 

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

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:26 PM

GilesStratton:

Is it really that hard to admit that Mises wasn't an anarcho capitalist?

I mean seriously, I'm not asking you to refrain from using his contributions and I don't think his minarchist positions "prove" anything, so to speak. But I just don't get the attempts to rewrite history. Mises clearly thought that  the state was necessary for markets to function and anarchism and the Austrian school only became intertwined as a result of the attempts of Murray Rothbard.

???

Most people here seem to understand that, many have openly admitted it. The point of contention was over whether he actually refuted it.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

Poptech:

Lilburne:
Spare us your whining, Poptech.  You've been warned about threadjacking.  This forum isn't an open stage for your ideological vendetta.

So I am not allowed to quote Mises?

Not in the context of a snarky attempt to pick an off-topic ideological fight.

There's nothing wrong with expressing an opinion that goes against the grain here.  I myself hold a non-Rothbardian view on meta-ethics that gets some folks' dander up.  And I too can think of a Mises quote or two that I could use to claim his view on meta-ethics is closer to mine than it was to Rothbard's.  But I don't barge into random threads mocking objectivist ethics every chance I get.  I argue for my position in threads in which it's appropriate to, and in a respectful, non-snarky way.  And, with that approach, I'm damn sure I've convinced more people of my minority position than you have of yours.  If anything, you're turning people off of minarchism with your antics.

So grow up, or get out.

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 9:58 PM

nirgrahamUK:

in those paragraphs he mustered arguments against utopian socialist anarchists. 

ok?

He made no mention of utopian socialists. He refuted anarchy, which would be any form.

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:09 PM

Lilburne:
Not in the context of a snarky attempt to pick an off-topic ideological fight.

It was sarcastic but no attempt at anything other than that was implied.

Lilburne:
I argue for my position in threads in which it's appropriate to, and in a respectful, non-snarky way.

Who decides what is appropriate? You? Is sarcasm allowed?

Lilburne:
If anything, you're turning people off of minarchism with your antics.

Am I?

Lilburne:
So grow up, or get out.

Is this another regulation I am to follow?

 

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:10 PM

Poptech:
He made no mention of utopian socialists. He refuted anarchy, which would be any form.

Do you even remember the thread you started? The utopian socialists were the anarchists, what would become known as anarcho-capitalism was virtually unknown and not considered anarchy. (And it still isn't)

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:16 PM

Angurse:
The utopian socialists were the anarchists, what would become known as anarcho-capitalism was virtually unknown and not considered anarchy.

Define anarchy.

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:20 PM

Poptech:

Define anarchy.

From the FAQ

"Anarchism is a political theory which aims to create anarchy, "the absence of a master, of a sovereign." [P-J Proudhon, What is Property , p. 264] In other words, anarchism is a political theory which aims to create a society within which individuals freely co-operate together as equals. As such anarchism opposes all forms of hierarchical control - be that control by the state or a capitaalist - as harmful to the individual and their individuality as well as unnecessary."

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
Posts 757
Points 17,305
Poptech replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:26 PM

Angurse:
From the FAQ...

Again, real definitions not made up ones.

anarchy (defined) - "the absence of any formal system of government in a society"

Does anarcho mean anarchy? Yes or No?

"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 3,260
Points 61,905
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
Staff
SystemAdministrator

 

Poptech:
It was sarcastic but no attempt at anything other than that was implied.

BS.

Poptech:
Who decides what is appropriate? You?

Everyone has their own opinion of what is appropriate.  Most would regard several of your posts inappropriate for the topics of the threads they were posted in.  I certainly do.

Poptech:

Lilburne:
If anything, you're turning people off of minarchism with your antics.

Am I?

Poptech, what was the point of asking, "Am I?"
Poptech:

Lilburne:
So grow up, or get out.

Is this another regulation I am to follow?

Yes.  Is that ironic to you, my snarky fellow?  Do we have to go over such a basic distinction as the difference between state coercion and the conditional use of private property?

"the obligation to justice is founded entirely on the interests of society, which require mutual abstinence from property" -David Hume
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 10:39 PM

Poptech:

Again, real definitions not made up ones.

anarchy (defined) - "the absence of any formal system of government in a society"

Confused Well, MSN is the absolute final official when it comes to definitions. Seriously, what did Proudhon, the first ever "Anarchist," know about the definition of anarchy?

If thats the definition you want to use, then Murray Rothbards system isn't anarchy. As the system of government would be provided on the market as opposed to by a state.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:27 PM

Poptech, you seemed to have missed this thread.

nirgrahamUK:
Conza88 quoting Rothbard:
The major difficulty in any analysis of anarchism is that the term covers extremely conflicting doctrines. The root of the word comes from the term anarche, meaning opposition to authority or commands. This is broad enough to cover a host of different political doctrines. Generally these doctrines have been lumped together as "anarchist" because of their common hostility to the existence of the State, the coercive monopolist of force and authority. Anarchism arose in the 19th century, and since then the most active and dominant anarchist doctrine has been that of "anarchist communism." This is an apt tern for a doctrine which has also been called "collectivist anarchism," "anarcho-syndicalism," and "libertarian communism." We may term this set of related doctrines "left-wing anarchism." Anarchist communism is primarily of Russian origin, forged by Prince Peter Kropotkin and Michael Bakunin, and it is this form that has connoted "anarchism" throughout the continent of Europe.

could have used you back in the Poptech on Mises' Minarchism thread...

Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? - Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard didn't associate with the label, "anarchism" until after the 50's. Rothbard as seen above, associated it with socialism. Just as Mises would have. It's pretty clear. When was Human action written?

Great quote btw nirgraham.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:40 PM

Conza88:

Are Libertarians "Anarchists"? - Murray N. Rothbard

Rothbard didn't associate with the label, "anarchism" until after the 50's. Rothbard as seen above, associated it with socialism. Just as Mises would have. It's pretty clear. When was Human action written?

This had already been pointed out to Poptech in his Mises thread.

Angurse:
Liberalism was published in 1927, Rothbard was about 1 years old. However, Rothbard didn't create it, but before him it wasn't really known as anarchy so its irrelevant. "Anarchy" in von Mises' day was that of the Collectivist-Socialist variety, obviously Mises wouldn't think too highly of it.

Angurse:
Also, among most anarchists "anarcho-capitalism" isn't considered to be a form of anarchism at all, even Rothbard stated that libertarians are not anarchists.

 

Angurse:
The average anarchist will say "anarcho"-capitalism to point out that its a contradiction (incorrectly mind you).

Rothbard:
We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,850
Points 85,810

David Gordon:
Dear Mr. Cain,

Thanks for your excellent question. I don't think that there is a contradiction between Rothbard's anarchism and his 1951 article; there is rather a different use of the word "anarchism." In the 1951 article, he says that anarchist movements of the past tended to be collectivist; further, there isn't a fixed meaning for the term. For these reasons, he at that time preferred to find a different word for his own political doctrine. On this point, he later changed his mind and didn't have problems in calling himself an anarchist.

An easy way to see why there isn't a contradiction is this: what Rothbard was converted to in graduate school was the belief that we do not need a monopoly state. This belief need not entail that the word "anarchism" is suitable to describe this belief.

Here is a link to the 1951 article, in case you don't have it handy: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

Best wishes,

David Gordon

 

The great David Gordon has spoken and so shall it be! Stick out tongue

'Men do not change, they unmask themselves' - Germaine de Stael

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,651
Points 51,325
Moderator
krazy kaju replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:49 PM

nirgrahamUK:

Poptech:
.... when you disagree with Ludwig von Mises

Hoppe:

 

    Rothbard's anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. "The anarchists," Mises had written,

contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]

     Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]

     Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard's anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. "Would," Rothbard asked, "somebody be allowed to 'take the law into his own hands'? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?" and he answered, "of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim's right of self-defense" (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.

^ That is a very good quote. It seems more like Mises was critiquing the left-wing "social" anarchists, like Kropotkin, who assumed that if we just made society "just," crime would go away. That's what many leftist anarchists still believe today.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Wed, Oct 14 2009 6:00 AM

So will his ban expire sometime?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

No. He's a crank troll. He has no interest in any sort of real discussion.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,985
Points 90,430

Reminds me of somebody else around here.

"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"

Bob Dylan

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,939
Points 49,110
Conza88 replied on Wed, Oct 14 2009 6:43 AM

GilesStratton:

Reminds me of somebody else around here.

       ?    

 

</Stick out tongue>

Ok, too far? :) It is the thread graveyard but.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Posts 2,491
Points 43,390
scineram replied on Wed, Oct 14 2009 7:12 AM

I will make sure not to disagree vocally with you too much then.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 2
Points 25

Poptech:

.... when you disagree with Ludwig von Mises

You could also be a statist if you disagree with him :p

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 6
Points 75

Since I am both an angel and a saint, I would fit right in. 

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 25 Contributor
Posts 3,011
Points 47,070

scineram:
I will make sure not to disagree vocally with you too much then.
Now prove that it was simply about disagreeing. Go on. You made the claim--you back it up. Go to it.

 

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (33 items) | RSS