Poptech: You didn't answer my question. 1. Who decides the law?
You didn't answer my question.
1. Who decides the law?
The market.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
I. Ryan:The market.
How does he market decide private property rights and stop someone from stealing my property?
"Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints" - Ludwig von Mises
Poptech: How does he market decide private property rights and stop someone from stealing my property?
I do not plan to attempt to enumerate or defend the doctrine of anarchocapitalism now so do not try to interrogate me. The point of my previous posts is simply that Mises (1) never engaged any variant of anarchocapitalism and (2) clearly implies that if individual secession (i.e., anarchism) were possible, "it would have to be done".
I. Ryan:I do not plan to attempt to enumerate or defend the doctrine of anarchocapitalism now so do not try to interrogate me. The point of my previous posts is simply that Mises (1) never engaged any variant of anarchocapitalism and (2) clearly implies that if individual secession (i.e., anarchism) were possible, "it would have to be done".
You say laws are decided by "the market" but refuse to explain. The market is an economic system not a legal system. Without a legal system of rights I don't have to trade with you if I can steal from you and some who have the power, will. You failed to answer these basic points.
Are you denying Mises advocated for a government? You are making wild assumptions that his rejection of anarchism does not apply to Anarcho-capitalism. Do you have any evidence he accepts a system like Anarcho-capitalism but not called that?
Poptech: You say laws are decided by "the market" but refuse to explain. The market is an economic system not a legal system. Without a legal system of rights I don't have to trade with you if I can steal from you and some who have the power, will. You failed to answer these basic points.
I already told you that I do not plan to attempt to enumerate or defend the doctrine of anarchocapitalism.
Poptech: Are you denying Mises advocated for a government?
Are you denying Mises advocated for a government?
No.
Poptech: You are making wild assumptions that his rejection of anarchism does not apply to Anarcho-capitalism.
You are making wild assumptions that his rejection of anarchism does not apply to Anarcho-capitalism.
He clearly attacked anarchy where ANARCHY EQUALS NO LAW SYSTEM and the doctrine of anarchocapitalism clearly implies ANARCHY WITH A LAW SYSTEM.
Poptech: Do you have any evidence he accepts a system like Anarcho-capitalism but not called that?
Do you have any evidence he accepts a system like Anarcho-capitalism but not called that?
I. Ryan:He clearly stated that ANARCHY EQUALS NO LAW and the doctrine of anarchocapitalism clearly implies ANARCHY WITH LAW.
You keep saying that but cannot answer my questions so I don't believe you.
Poptech:No he makes no concessions for ANY of type of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism makes a lot of idealist assumptions, such as people will agree to "your" laws. Please. The reality of human nature is people are not going to listen to any laws in an anarchist society, the ones with the power will take what they want. Anarchy in all forms is idealistic and naive and mises understood this.
I never said he made concessions, however he simply was not aware of anarcho-capitalism, so his critique obviously wasn't geared towards it. And an analysis of his critique from the perspective of a market anarchist either renders Mises completely stupid (as his criticisms had already been answered) or simply unaware. Since we already know that voluntaryism simply wasn't known as a form of anarchistm around that time, we therefore have to conclude that he was simply unaware.
Poptech:Anarcho-capitalism makes a lot of idealist assumptions, such as people will agree to "your" laws. Please. The reality of human nature is people are not going to listen to any laws in an anarchist society, the ones with the power will take what they want. Anarchy in all forms is idealistic and naive and mises understood this.
Anarcho-capitalism doesn't assume people will agree to "your" laws at all. So no problem there.
Poptech: I. Ryan:The market. How does he market decide private property rights and stop someone from stealing my property?
"Anarchy", like "Capitalism" means different things to different people.
Mises, to my knowledge, has never refuted Anarcho-capitalism. He has attempted to refute "Anarchy" according to his own definition of the term. it is clear from the quotes you've provided that he is refuting the common conception of anarchy associated with certain assumptions that anarcho-capitalism cleary does not make.
The market providing law and security is a difficult mental concept. So what? To most people a free market in medicine, education, etc.. is a difficult concept.
If you want to debate Anarcho-capitalism, fine! But by resorting to Mises to try to discredit it, you showed you lack of any understanding of what you are trying to debunk.
Poptech: You keep saying that but cannot answer my questions so I don't believe you.
Read this quotation again:
Ludwig von Mises: The anarchists contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist [...] Such an ideal society could do [...] without a police force
The anarchists contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist [...] Such an ideal society could do [...] without a police force
The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates the existence of a police force.
Ludwig von Mises: The anarchists contend that a social order [...] could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society.
The anarchists contend that a social order [...] could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society.
The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates coercion in order to prevent action detrimental to society.
Angurse:I never said he made concessions, however he simply was not aware of anarcho-capitalism, so his critique obviously wasn't geared towards it. And an analysis of his critique from the perspective of a market anarchist either renders Mises completely stupid (as his criticisms had already been answered) or simply unaware. Since we already know that voluntaryism simply wasn't known as a form of anarchistm around that time, we therefore have to conclude that he was simply unaware.
Sorry that sounds like an excuse. He had to be aware of this train of thought as Rothbard was working on this for sometime.
Angurse:Anarcho-capitalism doesn't assume people will agree to "your" laws at all. So no problem there
So who decides on the law?
I. Ryan:The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates the existence of a police force.
How is the police force created and funded?
I. Ryan:The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates coercion in order to prevent action detrimental to society.
Why would people agree to this doctrine? What if they do not agree? Who decides what action is "detrimental to society"?
Poptech: How is the police force created and funded?
Again, I do not plan to defend the doctrine anarchocapitalism.
I. Ryan:Again, I do not plan to defend the doctrine anarchocapitalism.
If you cannot defend it, I do not believe it makes any sense.
Poptech: If you cannot defend it, I do not believe it makes any sense.
I never tried to convince you to believe it.
Poptech: Why would people agree to this doctrine? What if they do not agree? Who decides what action is "detrimental to society"?
I. Ryan:I never tried to convince you to believe it.
Then Anarcho-capitalism is a failed ideology.
Poptech: Then Anarcho-capitalism is a failed ideology.
Who cares? The primary point of my previous posts is simply that Mises never engaged any variant of anarchocapitalism. That point does not require a defense of anarchocapitalism. If I told you that Mises never attempted to refute the doctrine that unicorns exist, would my assertion be true only if I were able to prove that unicorns exist? No.
It's like the lunar cycle that a minarchist has to quote Mises from time to time believing that he has unearthed something hitherto unheard of.
Poptech:Sorry that sounds like an excuse. He had to be aware of this train of thought as Rothbard was working on this for sometime.
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.
Poptech:So who decides on the law?
Private law enforcement agencies, who get feedback from the market, and/or mutual protection societies. You have a large library of all of this right in front of you by the way.
I. Ryan:Who cares? The primary point of my previous posts is simply that Mises never engaged any variant of anarchocapitalism. That point does not require a defense of anarchocapitalism. If I told you that Mises never attempted to refute the doctrine that unicorns exist, would my assertion be true only if I were able to prove that unicorns exist? No.
Mises clearly refuted anarchism which is directly related to "Anarcho-capitalism". This is not some tangential unrelated subject. Do you have any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism? Nope.
Angurse:Private law enforcement agencies, who get feedback from the market, and/or mutual protection societies. You have a large library of all of this right in front of you by the way.
How are the private law enforcement agencies created and funded? What law are they enforcing? If you cannot answer the questions let me know.
Poptech: Mises clearly refuted anarchism which is directly related to "Anarcho-capitalism". This is not some tangential unrelated subject. Do you have any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism? Nope.
The above post implies that if one does not attempt to refute a doctrine, one automatically subscribes to that doctrine. That is, however, absolutely ridiculous.
Me: Mises never attempted to refute the doctrine that unicorns exist.You: Do you have any evidence that he believed that unicorns exist? Nope.Me: So?
Poptech: Mises clearly refuted anarchism which is directly related to "Anarcho-capitalism".
Mises clearly refuted anarchism which is directly related to "Anarcho-capitalism".
Do you understand anarchocapitalism or do you merely see that the word root "anarch-" exists in both the term "anarchy" which Mises used and the word "anarchocapitalism" which Rothbard and many of his followers use? Mises "refuted" the idea that a society could exist without laws. The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates a society with laws.
Poptech: Do you have any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism? Nope.
Do you have any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism? Nope.
I already stated that I do not have "any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism". Why do you continue to imply that I think that Mises is an anarchist? Here, I will make this obvious:
MISES WAS A STATISTMISES WAS A STATISTMISES WAS A STATIST
Do you understand yet? No? Here, I will try again:
MISES WAS A STATISTMISES WAS A STATIST
Do you understand? OK; good.
I. Ryan:The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates a society with laws.
You keep saying this but refuse to answer any questions, making the statement worthless.
Poptech:Mises clearly refuted anarchism which is directly related to "Anarcho-capitalism". This is not some tangential unrelated subject. Do you have any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism? Nope.
Well...no.
He didn't refute anything remotely similar to "anarcho-capitalism" which is nothing more than a logical extension Mises' own liberal and capitalist beliefs. 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.
Edit: Too harsh.
Poptech:How are the private law enforcement agencies created and funded? What law are they enforcing? If you cannot answer the questions let me know.
The same way any company is created and funded, loans, pooling of resources, etc... They are enforcing laws that customers are willing to pay for.
Angurse:He didn't refute anything remotely similar to "anarcho-capitalism" which is nothing more than a logical extension Mises' own liberal and capitalist beliefs
I don't see the logic nor do I see anything remotely relating to Mises writings that would support such a system. I do see extensive support from Rothbard.
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.
Right, so you use the word "anarcho-"... that doesn't make any sense.
Angurse:The same way any company is created and funded, loans, pooling of resources, etc... They are enforcing laws that customers are willing to pay for.
So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced?
The "anarchy" that Mises is referring to is that without all law at all, without any defense.
Anarcho-capitalism contends that any and all coercive action taken against another human or any other human's property will be dealt with by a private defense agency. So I believe there would be only one law in this society, one against any coercive action whatsoever.
This defense agency would be either payed for by the victim directly when he calls on them for help, or it is indirectly paid by a victim's insurance.
That is my understanding of how Anarcho-capitalism law would work, but I am relatively new to this.
Robbery: The nation's fastest growing career!
Duties: Giving the people their bread and circuses, extracting payment by force, validating legitimacy, etc.
Job Outlook: Ever increasing and shows no signs of stopping!
Libertarian_for_Life:Anarcho-capitalism contends that any and all coercive action taken against another human or any other human's property will be dealt with by a private defense agency.
So what if my private defense agency is bigger than yours and I like to take coercive action?
Libertarian_for_Life:So I believe there would be only one law in this society, one against any coercive action whatsoever.
Who decides this? What if people do not agree?
Poptech: You keep saying this but refuse to answer any questions, making the statement worthless.
I do not need to defend the doctrine in order to state that the instillation of the policy which the doctrine advocates implies the existence of law within a stateless society. It is simply that simple.
Poptech:I don't see the logic nor do I see anything remotely relating to Mises writings that would support such a system. I do see extensive support from Rothbard.
Seriously? Have you actually read Mises, was he not a classical liberal, a big supporter laissez-fair? Logic isn't for everyone though.
Poptech:Right, so you use the word "anarcho-"... that doesn't make any sense.
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.
Poptech:So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced?
Probably not. A company that even attempts to enforce that law would quickly find itself unprofitable and out of business. (And that at best)
Angurse:Mises, was he not a classical liberal, a big supporter laissez-fair?
laissez-faire (defined) "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights"
laissez-faire is not anarcho-capitalism.
Angurse:Probably not. A company that even attempts to enforce that law would quickly find itself unprofitable and out of business. (And that at best)
What if I am a Billionaire and own gold mines? I could keep funding them so in that case "the law" would be enforced.
Angurse: ... however he simply was not aware of anarcho-capitalism, so his critique obviously wasn't geared towards it. And an analysis of his critique from the perspective of a market anarchist either renders Mises completely stupid (as his criticisms had already been answered) or simply unaware. Since we already know that voluntaryism simply wasn't known as a form of anarchistm around that time, we therefore have to conclude that he was simply unaware.
... however he simply was not aware of anarcho-capitalism, so his critique obviously wasn't geared towards it. And an analysis of his critique from the perspective of a market anarchist either renders Mises completely stupid (as his criticisms had already been answered) or simply unaware. Since we already know that voluntaryism simply wasn't known as a form of anarchistm around that time, we therefore have to conclude that he was simply unaware.
I agree with Angurse and I. Ryan here.
Mises was referring to anarchism understood as "no government," meaning opposition to any form of organized protection. This does not mean he was pro-state.
A great paper entitled "Gustave De Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition" by David M. Hart sheds light on this discussion:
"[Auberon] Herbert faced the same problem that Molinari had with labeling his philosophy. Like Molinari, he rejected the term "anarchism," which he associated with the socialism of Proudhon and the terrorism of the "detestable bomb,".....Herbert argued that the "sane, peaceful and reasonable section of anarchists," Tucker for example, were mistaken in their rejection of "government." He argued, like Molinari, that even in a fully free society there would exist a need for protection from aggression. Any organization which provided this service was called a "government," even if it did not have monopoly; thus the protective associations of the anarchists merely provided government decentralized "to the furthest point, [split] up into minute fragments of all sizes and shapes." In Herbert's mind, a true "anarchist" wished to do away with all organized forms of protection and, since this was impossible given human nature, "anarchy, or 'no government,' is founded on a fatal mistake." Thus:
"by the necessity of things, we are obliged to choose between regularly constituted government, generally accepted by all citizens for the protection of the individual, and irregularly constituted government, irregularly accepted, and taking its shape just according to the pattern of each group. Neither in the one case nor in the other case is government got rid of."
"However, unlike Molinary and Herbert, it has been argued in this paper that the second form of "government," the "irregularly constituted government" of Herbert and the "competitive governments" of Molinari, is in fact a new form of anarchism, since the most important aspect of the modern state, the monopoly of the use of force in a given area, is rejected in no uncertain terms by both men."
(passages above appear in the section: "A. The Coincidence of Liberal Anti-Statism: Herbert Spencer and Auberon Herbert.")
In criticizing Anarchism, Mises has in mind "no government" anarchism, not "irregularly constituted government" anarchism nor "voluntarily chosen government" anarchism, which today we would call Panarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism. Mises isn't addressing these latter conceptions.
I. Ryan is on target in realizing the significance of Mises's quote:
"If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done." (Liberalism, p.109)
And I disagree slightly with I. Ryan's interpretation, because after writing "if it were in any way possible...", in the next sentence Mises writes:
"This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations...."
I equate "technical" with "logistical," meaning that if the technical/logistical problems could be overcome, then in principle. individual political self-determination is considered desirable by Mises.
A few more important passages from Mises:
"To the princely principle of subjecting just as much land as obtainable to one's own rule, the doctrine of freedom responds with the principle of the right of self-determination of peoples, which follows necessarily from the principle of the rights of man. No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want."(Nation, State, and Economy, p.27)
"The idea of liberalism starts with the freedom of the individual; it rejects all rule of some persons over others; it knows no master peoples and no subject peoples, just as within the nation itself it distinguishes between no masters and no serfs." (p.65)
"Of course, the struggle of nationalities over the state and government cannot disappear completely from polyglot territories. But it will lose sharpness to the extent that the functions of the state are restricted and the freedom of the individual is extended. Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism."(p.63)
As far as I know, Mises did not consider the ideas of multiple coexisting non-territorial governments or the idea of multiple or competing protection agencies. His point about anarchism was mainly that "no government" anarchism was naive. In arguing for government, he was not arguing that some people should be subjected to the government of other people against their will. He was arguing that some form of protection is necessary, and that organized protection is called government. What he argues is consistent with the general ideas contained in Panarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism.
"It would be preposterous to assert apodictically that science will never succeed in developing a praxeological aprioristic doctrine of political organization..." (Mises, UF, p.98)
Mises clearly uses the word government and state. He makes no assertions to any form of anarcho-capitalism.
"This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."
Really nice work Adam, Angurse and I. Ryan.
You guys could almost cobble together an article from these posts.
Poptech: laissez-faire (defined) "A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights" laissez-faire is not anarcho-capitalism.
That is why I called it the logical extension of...
Poptech:What if I am a Billionaire and own gold mines? I could keep funding them so in that case "the law" would be enforced.
Not necessarily. Ignoring all moral opposition that would arise, if its legal for him to kill, then its legal for him to be killed. Outraged people could take up a collection and have the billionaire "whacked."
And that is really just one of several possible solutions, there is nothing new about your objection. Just search this site.