I was just thinking about realism in international relations theory. Realism asserts that states seek to act based on their own self-interest and that they expand their power with their actions. Hegemonic states keep trying to expand their powers and maintain their hegemony. They do this by promoting the international system and trying to rig the game for their favor.
Britain, the US, and the Netherlands, and other states have done this while they were a hegemonic power. I can't help but keep thinking that we really are only tools of the state. We might be preaching a free-market philosophy- that we all agree with, but by preaching for international capitalism we are essentially expanding the reach of the US government and where it can extend itself to.
I think it would be better off if we advocated more consistently with the belief that other nations may not want to be anarchistic, or even minarchistic, and that we should be arguing for the self-determination of other nations- rather than just maintaining the current neo-liberal status-quo. I just get the feeling that whenever we preach for more and more capitalism throughout the world- which is good, I mean I like capitalism... it results in more institutionalism, and that gives the state even more and more power by tying other nations more closely to it.
I think the question is how can we promote capitalism without promoting institutionlsim and let other people know where we really stand? I've just been thinking lately that I could just be a tool for promoting this philosophy, and that the state could be easily manipulating us and using our arguments for their own gain (about wealth and prosperity, etc) even if they're not living up to their actions.
What do you think? Are we being used? I think there is a possibility. During the Cold War capitalism was preached out of a matter of national security and an alternative to the Soviet Union rather than as of a benign economic policy Those are just my thoughts.
I have not experienced that my preaching of capitalism has ever been a causal factor in the expansion of state power.
Assuming we are not radically different in our 'preachings'...either I am not noticing my role in the exportation of evil,or you are over-sensitive and imagining what is not there.
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
SilentXtarian: I think it would be better off if we advocated more consistently with the belief that other nations may not want to be anarchistic, or even minarchistic, and that we should be arguing for the self-determination of other nations- rather than just maintaining the current neo-liberal status-quo. I just get the feeling that whenever we preach for more and more capitalism throughout the world- which is good, I mean I like capitalism... it results in more institutionalism, and that gives the state even more and more power by tying other nations more closely to it.
If others don't want it they don't have to accept it. If you stay in accordance with the NAP you're not forcing them to change their government, only those who wish to change it can (and those who live under said government).
SilentXtarian: I think the question is how can we promote capitalism without promoting institutionlsim and let other people know where we really stand? I've just been thinking lately that I could just be a tool for promoting this philosophy, and that the state could be easily manipulating us and using our arguments for their own gain (about wealth and prosperity, etc) even if they're not living up to their actions. What do you think? Are we being used? I think there is a possibility. During the Cold War capitalism was preached out of a matter of national security and an alternative to the Soviet Union rather than as of a benign economic policy Those are just my thoughts.
The best way to promote capitalism is to engage in capitalism. Importing/exporting, spreading ideas, etc., by the most peaceful means.
Are we being used? I generally see that the people are just pawns in a international geo-political game of chess. Best way to handle the game? Leave the board itself, expose the knights, bishops, king and queen.
nirgahamUK- I don't know how you could not think that we are being used. Remember how Mises said that the state always uses intellectuals to further their own agenda? Our arguments (especially Mise's arguments for neoliberalism) are being used to justify international capitalism and while we're preaching globalization of private industries it's given the state more of a justification to expand the world governing institutions such as the IMF and the WTO. Globalization has been used to increase the state's power as a hegemony over other nations around the world as it upholds the status-quo. Bert-
#1- The best way to promote capitalism is to engage in capitalism. Importing/exporting, spreading ideas, etc., by the most peaceful means. #2- Are we being used? I generally see that the people are just pawns in a international geo-political game of chess. Best way to handle the game? Leave the board itself, expose the knights, bishops, king and queen.
you could walk into a store.
the owner , out of earshot of you, could point at you and tell the old lady, "this guy (you) purchased this here model just last week and he's been raving about it ever since, he says he's never had anything like it and even though its on the expensive side its well worth every penny!" the old lady buys the terrible model, and you have been used. The moral of the story is don't walk into stores.
nirgahamUK, I'm not quite sure what the point of that red herring was. My argument is that the US government only supports capitalism or claims to support capitalism for national security interests. I'm just saying that when you have classical liberals arguing in favor of these IGOs and for international rules (not a world government) we're actually arguing in favor of the status-quo. A lot of the classical liberals like Mises and Hayek were in favor of IGOs. Hence, my position. Hayek didn't want a world governmentbut he was in favor of the current international system with organized bodies that we have today as long as they didn't act as a legislative body. So... do these philosophers further justify the state's ambitions whiletrying to advocate for a hands off position? I would say indirectly they do.
I am saying when we are not arguing for the status quo, we simply are not arguing for the status quo,..
Was Mises in favour of IGO's ?
Perhaps you have a point when you cite Hayeks opinions on international institutions, but then we are only guilty of the same if we share in those opinions. Do you share in them?
But isn't it true that no matter what your views are, the state will use you for its own benefit. I don't think it makes a difference if you're pro-capitalism or pro-socialism. Either they'll use your "positive" views as a reason to implement force under the guise of helping people, or they'll use your "negative" views to paint you as a threat and implement force.
nirgrahamUK- I guess than we are only guilty if we spread these same ideas.
Perhaps the philosophers and philosophies are more at fault than we are. I just think that when we justify international capitalism we need to tread carefully with how we do it. I guess what we should do is say that while we agree with many liberal ideals of international trade we should make it explicit as to what rules we discard. We promote international trade- but we do not wish to strengthen the state. We could say something like that I guess.
auctionguy10- if that's the case than what should we do? Are we completely helpless?
auctionguy10- if that's the case than what should we do? Are we completely helpless
I don't know of any sure-fire way to eliminate violence from this world. The best you can do is BE the change you want through the most peaceful means possible, and eliminate any impurities within yourself. Why worry about an unpredictable future since the future will always be unpredictable? Nothing is permanent, even if we were to eliminate Statism for a bit, who's to say it wouldn't resurface once more. Not to say that being proponents of anti-Statism is useless, but that its useless to worry about when things will change. They will when they will.
Its a lot easier to get in touch with people and spread ideas these days, so if anything things look pretty good.
States steal and lie, live through deceit. Don't fall in their trap and if conservatives talk about this things, go ancap, mock the state, show how absurd and illegitimate is and how it only waste everything and go to propose the alternative. Laugh at the mafia and their intellectual buffoons, no mercy with conservatives who spit on the words of free-trade. Don't fall on their eternal trap. The state has only one way to go, the trash bin. Conservatives and pseudo-free-marketers are like prostitutes hired by the state to keep libertarians distracted.
Like oh so many, you confuse power and market. Opening a McDonalds in a faraway land is not the same thing as sending in troops to start gunning down women and children, no matter how much marxists assert a causal connection between the two. Capitalism is anathema to war; Wealthier people have far more to lose from fighting.
"Wealthier people have far more to lose from fighting."
That's not true. US starts so many wars because it's rich, can affort expensive foreign wars far away.
Poor countries could only start wars with their neighbors and would feel the impact of the war (bombs) in their own country.
Wealthy people can risk part of their wealth in foreign wars, poor people can not.
No. Other way around.
1. Wealthy people have higher opportunity costs to engage in war, because their wages or rent is higher, and foregoing resources spent on production to divert them to war is per unit more costly for wealthier people. After all, they are wealthy because they have more capital in the first place, and their productivity, when engaging in division of labour is therefore greater than people with less capital.
2. Poorer people have lower opportunity costs because they have less capital and productivity in division of labour per unit is lesser, relatively.
In the middle ages, only wealthy people could engage in war, because they had to buy armour and weapons, and everyone had little capital properly speaking. Now, guns are very cheap, because mass produced; only top of the line weapons are expensive, but the difference between top rifles and the local imitation is marginal at the ranges they are actually used => lots and lots of civil wars in Africa, which is the poorest set of countries around.