Despite the number of threads that I'm surely reign themselves on this forum on this subject I've taken the liberty to post another.
Taken from Chapter VIII of Human Action; in the section titled Current Misinterpretations of Modern Natural Science, Especially of Darwinism.
Men are unequal. Eighteenth-century liberalism and likewise present-day egalitarianism start from the "self-evident truth" that "all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." However, say the advocates of a biological philosophy of society, natural science has demonstrated in an irrefutable way that men are different. There is no room left in the framework of an experimental observation of natural phenomena for such a concept as natural rights. Nature is unfeeling and insensible with regard to any being's life and happiness. Nature is iron necessity and regularity. It is metaphysical nonsense to link together the "slippery" and vague notion of liberty and the unchangeable absolute laws of cosmic order. Thus the fundamental idea of liberalism is unmasked as a fallacy.
Could someone elaborate on the paragraph above?
But the teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because they are natural and just, but because they are beneficial. The core of Ricardo's philosophy is the demonstration that social cooperation and division of labor between men who are in every regard superior and more efficient and men who are in every regard inferior and less efficient is beneficial to both groups. . . . The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity. They recommend equality under the civil law not because men are equal but because such a policy is beneficial to the commonweal. In rejecting the illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated what the utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught in a much more persuasive way. It is obvious that no biological doctrine can ever invalidate what utilitarian philosophy says about the social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom, and equality under the law.
But the teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical economics have nothing at all to do with the doctrine of natural right. With them the only point that matters is social utility. They recommend popular government, private property, tolerance, and freedom not because they are natural and just, but because they are beneficial. The core of Ricardo's philosophy is the demonstration that social cooperation and division of labor between men who are in every regard superior and more efficient and men who are in every regard inferior and less efficient is beneficial to both groups.
. . .
The Utilitarians do not combat arbitrary government and privileges because they are against natural law but because they are detrimental to prosperity. They recommend equality under the civil law not because men are equal but because such a policy is beneficial to the commonweal. In rejecting the illusory notions of natural law and human equality modern biology only repeated what the utilitarian champions of liberalism and democracy long before had taught in a much more persuasive way. It is obvious that no biological doctrine can ever invalidate what utilitarian philosophy says about the social utility of democratic government, private property, freedom, and equality under the law.
I must ask if Mises did consider himself in any context a utilitarian, because if not, he's listed as one.
"The greatest good for the greatest amount of people". I believe he would be considered a rule-utilitarian. It is the methodological approach to having the greatest good that matters. I think economics is a moral field, because voluntary exchange is a peaceful and productive form of social interaction. In a voluntary society the law may actually help in the utilitarian aim.
Individualism Rocks
What part is obscure?
He is saying people are created unequal, which is pretty obvious. Can you do what Lebron James does? Can he do what Einstein did? And on it goes.
Also he is saying that if you believe in a Creator and that He somehow conveyed to you that everyone has certain rights, that's one thing. But if you try to find out things like science does, from studying nature, then it's a whole nother story. Nowhere do we see anyone having any rights to anything, if we adopt that point of view. Which is again pretty obvious.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
One side is the artificial application of structures of conduct and hierarchy by a collection of entities that typically considers force their intellectual and pedagogical right, and the other is the natural evolution of said myriad behaviors which in and of itself, one could say at least from the Austro-Libertarian standpoint, the best condition under which "greatest-happiness" can be facilitated. And this forms the underbelly of a lot of arguments between "compassionate" statists, and individualists. It feels as if we are poked and proded to choose sides. I prefer to think that the world requires in some cases a statist solution and in others much more minarchistic ones.
>> I prefer to think that the world requires in some cases a statist solution
like what?
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
Space exploration and colonization. R&D funding for programs to harness natural resources.
even if people dont want to go to space, but would rather use their money for something else?
As for R&D, the vast majority of inventions have come come private sector.
Seeing the population expand as it is, natural resources are limited. And will most likely meet and exceed the curve where upon which the planet's ecosystem can support mankind, and mankind's personal effects. Based upon this, I believe people will be left with a choice: steady extinction, or continued growth and prosperity elsewhere in the cosmos.
A joint venture of government and commercial industry would seem most likely to create the optimal profit and utility for consumers.
And the R&D I agree with you on point.
The American colonies would have faced a much smaller likelihood of ever being established, without an empire and an empire's hegemony on capitalism to feed the colonies' tobacco, cotton and slave industries. I propose a similar, although much more NAP solution to the population problem.