Political Theory

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

gotlucky — Sat, 14 Jan 2012 01:15:40 GMT

I did not say that Mises advocated anarchism. My exact words were:

gotlucky:

It has been stated and demonstrated that Mises was essentially an anarchist, what with unlimited secession and all...

In other words, Mises was about as close to anarchism as you can get without calling himself one. At first glance, those quotes you provide would seem that Mises would hate the thought of anarcho-capitalism. However, you forget that during Mises' life, anarchists were almost exclusively communists or something similar. There were a few individualist anarchists, but the term anarchists referred to communists. Reading the quotes you provide again:

Liberalism differs radically from communism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusion of the communists...Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.

Communists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception.

Communism misunderstands the real nature of a man.

Interestingly enough, even during the 1950's, Murray Rothbard did not call himself an anarchist - because of the communist connotations. Here is a great essay by Murray Rothbard for you to read a little more about this.

As my quotes showed, Mises supported the idea that people could leave a state freely and form their own government. It is true that he was not an anarcho-capitalist, but unlimited secession is about as close as one can get...Hence the statement: Mises was essentially an anarchist.

I'm sorry, but I do not know what you consider to be a civil right versus an economic right. So I really cannot debate with you on this point until I understand the distinction you are trying to make. Do you consider eminent domain to be civil or economic? Do you consider the violations of the TSA to be civil or economic? Are marriage licenses civil or economic? Do you consider gun control to be civil or economic? Do you consider anti-discrimination laws (these are bad) to be civil or economic? Etc.

Centinel:

The example of our Constitutional Federal Republic has spread from a mere single nation to over 100 nations, and over 50+ higher order liberal democracies that are utterly peaceful to one another.

First, the USA is not a Constitutional Federal Republic. Consider it actually use to be plural, as in the USA are a etc., now USA is singular. The USA has a national government with local provinces. It was once a federation, but it is no longer. Most of these countries would be peaceful to one another if they were anarcho-capitalist. There would be no incentive for war. Now, these countries are under the hegemony of the USA.

Centinel:

And by citing Chile -- do you advocate the establishment of an authoritarian government to promote capitalism ??!!

If so, that would be ridiculous.

The actual conversation was:

Centinel:

Lastly, capitalism has best flourished under liberal democracy which has seen dramatic increases in technological advances, standards of living and life expectancy since 1776.

gotlucky:

Really? See Pinochet. He sure knew how to get capitalism going without a liberal democracy.

At no point do I advocate totalitarianism. I was just merely pointing out that Pinochet "sure knew how to get capitalism going without a liberal democracy".

Centinel:

Don't get me wrong, violence would be justified and necessary if politicians and bureaucrats in Washington trampled on our Bill of Rights. However, as I have stated previously, economic coercion does not justify a violent response.

Indeed, I am being robbed of 40% of income or more.

At what point would violence be justified? At 60% tax rate? 90%? 100%? How many of your civil rights have to be violated before you can justly respond with violence? Only if the government takes your house? If the government forbids you from marrying? What if you can't fire one of your workers because he is a "protected" minority? Does that mean you can use violence then? How many civil rights before you can commit violence against the state?

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

gotlucky — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 05:47:44 GMT

A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite. -Mises from Omnipotent Goverment, p90

No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want. -Mises from Nation, State, and Economy, p34

Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them. -Mises from Nation, State, and Economy, p394

The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. -Mises from Liberalism, p109

If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. -Mises from Liberalism, p109

The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest. -Mises from Liberalism, p119

Like I said, that's about as close to being an anarchist as one can get without calling yourself one.

Centinel:

I believe you are wrong, see link from Riggenbach of Mises.org below that describes the improved civil and political liberties better than me:

More or Less Free? by Jeff Riggenbach

There are certain things that some people today can do that they couldn't 200 years ago. There are some things people aren't allowed to do today that they could 200 years ago. Whether or not one is more or less free depends upon what group to which he belongs. It also depends upon which activies you prefer to do.

If one earns $100,000 per year, and watches about 40-50% go to the government, that is a serious problem. After all, the colonists revolted under about 5% in taxes.

Who is more free? If the mafia came to your store, and demanded 50% in protection money, what would you call that? Freedom? If a man earns $100,000 and only gets to keep $50,000, that's a serious dent in his freedom. His standard of living is significantly lower than what it could have been.

Centinel:

Civil, political and economic liberties have expanded more under liberal democracy than any other human system. Indeed, life expectancy, private property rights, technological advances, economic growth, standards of living, et al have expanded markedly since 1776. IN contrast, under short-lived anarchist system, statism has always emerged.

Those have to do with capitalism, not statism. The reason the USA still has a high standard of living is because of the already existing capital. Otherwise, all the advances in this country will eventually regress.

Centinel:

I am guessing that Pinochet was really a state capitalist similar to nazi germany under hitler. By any objective, rational and independent thinking measure -- the crimes committed by Pinochet do not even remotely resemble even the most extreme degradations committed in the 50+ higher order liberal democracies that exist today.

The Miracle of Chile

Centinel:

The indiscretions of the US government are economic and that does not justify a violent response. We can aggressively work to attenuate the Federal government using the Constitutional process. However, in places like Cuba, North Korea, Syria, Iran, et al -- violence is justified and recommended.

Really? So if I robbed you and stole %40 of your income it would not justify a violent response? After all, it was only economic violence.

I have noticed that you have decided to stop saying that us libertarians need to use violence to achieve our goals. I'm glad that I was able to make progress with you.

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

gotlucky — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 00:34:43 GMT

Your [sic] not likely to convert more than a few on the fringe.

Should I take this to mean that you want all of us to go commit suicide?

Indeed, von Mises and all of our founding fathers (pretty smart dudes) rejected anarchism and recognized the utility of government because mankind was prone to abuses. Hence, society needed to install intentional and institutionalized mechanisms to balance, limit, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of armed force in society.

It has been stated and demonstrated that Mises was essentially an anarchist, what with unlimited secession and all...

Moreover, the American Constitutional Federal REpublicanism has been the most effective bulwark against statist civil and political abuses yet known to mankind. Indeed, civil and political liberties have increased markedly for even the most subjugated minorities since 1787 -- African-Americans for example.

Just no. Liberties for blacks has certainly improved, seeing as they were slaves. Liberty has descreased for everyone else.

In addition, liberal democracy has expanded from a single nation in 1776 to over 50 higher order democracies today -- and these free trading nations are utterly peaceful toward each other.

Great. So the Powers That Be have expanded their ability to steal from us regular people. And they work together at it too you say? Wonderful.

Lastly, capitalism has best flourished under liberal democracy which has seen dramatic increases in technological advances, standards of living and life expectancy since 1776.

Really? See Pinochet. He sure knew how to get capitalism going without a liberal democracy.

Why would a citizenry want to destroy the American society ???

Indeed, this view is so absurd, 90% of Americans would laugh at it.

Why do you keep telling us libertarians that we need to start using violence more if you think it is so laughable?

Quite inconsistent.

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

John James — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:44:31 GMT

Centinel:
The statist is not the least concerned by your defintions of legitimacy. Disregarding your empty indiginant protests, they nonetheless gain power by what you call illegitimate means and plunder your labor and liberties at their leisure.

Again, how very grandiloquent of you.

That second one doesn't even work, depending on what you mean by "fight dirty". If you mean fraud, unfounded accusations, and insults, I would say that's not the best strategy to gain legitimacy. - john james

if fraud, unfounded accusations,insults and other coercive methods were not effective -- then please explain how statists gain power ???

Wow...three question marks. You must be really interested. Read carefully and you'll notice a difference between what I said, and what you infer I said. I mean, you quoted it yourself. One would think you could read it. I never said anything about "effective". You put words those words in my mouth so that you might have a straw man to attack with all your question marks.

Which is kind of interesting that you would continue with the same fallacy after Muffinburg called you out on it. But what's even more interesting is the way you chose to attack me with your bombastic drivel, when most of my post was simply to voice agreement with the statement he already made.

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

gotlucky — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:42:56 GMT

King got is wrong.

And yet no more forced segregation - and with minimal violence from blacks to boot!

In many cases it is an effective means to an end, King's subjective moralizing notwithstanding. Indeed, if African slaves had resorted to violence at the beginning of the slave trade instead of submission then many generations of their kin would not have suffered the degradations of chattel slavery.

If only this were true. Unfortunately, a lot of Africans were enslaved by rival African tribes, and then they were sold to Europeans. There was a lot of effort from the colonies to ensure the slaves could not revolt.

It is a purely subjective value judgment on whether it is moral or not. Indeed, pacifism in the face of statist enslavement, torture, and murder is immoral.

There is nothing wrong with the desire to live, even in the face of enslavement. I would not fault anyone for this desire. Of course, I do admire those who fight for liberty, even in the face of death, but as I said, I would not fault anyone for desiring to live.

Moreover, quoting King on this issue probably goes a long way to explain why utopian anarchist movements utterly fail.

As far as I know, there has only been one libertarian anarchist movement, and it is only about 60 years old, perhaps 70. Seeing as it is actually a growing movement, I would think it is not failing...

In sum, the statist welcomes anarchist pacifism and moral handwringing since it insures their continued hold on power -- and allowing statists to continue to plunder generation after generation when the means to stop their schemes is possible is immoral in my opinion.

Anarchists are not necessarily pacifists, and I don't think there are many pacifists on this forum...

Let me pose a question to you, Centinel, what is a more effective method of achieving liberty - having all maybe 100,000 (this is a generous number) of anarchists in America go to war against the Leviathan that is the American State - and essentilly commit suicide, or try to convert as many people to their cause as possible through essays and speaches etc...?

Since you clearly have a plan in mind, why don't you go to war against the pentagon and save us all the trouble?

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

Neodoxy — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 22:27:32 GMT

Centinel,

Why are you here? I thought that there was a whole thread dedicated to your arguments with the anarchists.

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

gotlucky — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 20:49:46 GMT

Centinel:

Amusingly and paradoxically, the anarchist fringe exposes itself as clueless by condemning the very means that are used to subjugate them.

Martin Luther King, Jr.:

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

ancap argue

Wheylous — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:21:56 GMT

No, no, we should be taxing people and starting wars!

Re: The campaign against Ron Paul

John James — Wed, 11 Jan 2012 23:17:06 GMT

Centinel:
Politics is dirty business.

Until libertarians learn how to play the game and fight dirty -- they will continue to be marginalized.

I'm gonna go a step farther than Muff and say you had me up through the first sentence. That second one doesn't even work, depending on what you mean by "fight dirty". If you mean fraud, unfounded accusations, and insults, I would say that's not the best strategy to gain legitimacy.

After that, I agree the rest of that post is largely unintelligable pretense.