Vichy/Liberte had an interesting and funny article using Mises’ Omnipotent Government as her main source*:*
https://onesidedconversations.wordpress.com/2010/07/17/it-wasnt-the-fucking-jews/
There are also a couple of related “alternative right” articles on that blog as well.
Yeah, her article on the “alternative right” was discussed on this forum, and she had no clue what she was talking about, probably has never read Evola, and avoided my responses. I later brought this up in another thread and my posts were deleted (seems that some post from the thread linked could have been deleted also).
I’m not totally sure that I know where you going with this, but I think that I like it.
First, check out this post:
I think that, in that post, I showed the main import of the difference between the “superficially more or less consequentialist moral theories”, and those not “superficially more or less consequentialist”. Notice that I didn’t say that he couldn’t act in accordance with his metaphysical idea, but just that it was metaphysical. I don’t think that fundamentally there’s anything to that situation but decision between letting 100,030 people die, and letting just 30 of those people die. But, if you play with words, and come up with a metaphysical idea saying that it is different to have an “active role” in somebody’s death than to have a “passive” one, then you might end up doing something much different: Deciding between letting 100,030 people die, and not feeling guilty, because you played a “passive role” in their deaths, and letting just 30 of those people die, and actually feeling guilty, because you played an “active” role in their deaths.
In a sense, we can’t say that any moral theory actually impels people to act outside of the nexus of means and ends - that would be nonsense. But we can say that somebody could trick themselves into thinking that there’s something that there’s not. We could say that somebody could use play with words and trick themselves into making an end out of being able to apply an arbitrary sequence of words to their action. They could want to apply the words “passive role” to their role in that context. And then they would have to balance one end, wanting less people to die, with another end, wanting to be able to apply those words to their action. In that sense, they aren’t outside of the nexus of means and ends. In fact, in any sense, they aren’t outside of the nexus of means and ends.
It is interesting that, in these sections, Ludwig von Mises is essentially pointing out something that should be ridiculously obvious, that there isn’t anything to morality but utility. Well, how could anybody disagree? There isn’t anything to morality - which is a kind of human action relating to how people interact with each other - but utility - which is by definition the “drive” for human action. How could it be any other way? We can’t act except for our own utility. Seriously, how could anybody disagree? Well, what people do is just play with words, and assent to the idea that they should try to apply a particular sequence words - such as “passive role” - to their actions. But what the hell does that mean?
I think that we could make his point clearer - or fix it - by saying that “all nonutilitarian systems of ethics” don’t simply “look upon the moral law as something outside the nexus of means and ends”, but instead pretend to “look upon the moral law as something outside the nexus of means and ends”. It is impossible to look upon human action from outside the nexus of means and ends. But it is possible to trick yourself into assenting to meaningless, empty “symbols”, and ignore what morality really is - a bunch of rules about how to interact with each other to maintain society.
Nir, did you see my post about heteronomy too?
Not to speak for him, but I think that his response to mine applies to yours too:
Ultimately, following the Ten Commandments or Natural Law is a matter of personal, subjective values.
And, ultimately, suggesting somebody to follow the Ten Commandments or Natural Law is suggesting them to find utility in doing so.
I think I agree with I Ryan, the ‘objective standard’ is indeed subjectively assented to; i.e. recognised, how could it be otherwise? (where is Wilderness these days anyhow 
) I think its misleading to characterise the Rabbinic teaching as cut off from consequentialist considerations. The Talmud features examples of legal fictions and interpretations of law designed to ‘improve the world’ by liberlizing various prior religious ‘interventions’ . I.e http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pruzbul for example.
Here is more anecdotal evidence “He [Yohanan ben Zakkai] said: ‘Go and see what is the right way that a man should seek for himself.’ Rabbi Eliezer said ‘A good eye’. Rabbi Yehoshua said ‘A good friend’. Rabbi Yose said ‘A good neighbor’. Rabbi Shimon said 'One who sees consequences.’ Rabbi Elazar said ‘A good heart’. He [Yohanan] said to them, ‘I prefer the words of Rabbi Elazar ben Arach to yours, because his words include yours as well.’” (2:13
but I think this is maybe off-topic. I wanted to emphasise more the value that ‘the king is not above the law’ etc. rather than make particular claims about the law which he is not above. Now, if those that persecuted Jews shared that value of the venerating ‘lawfulness’ above ‘divinity of leadership’, then my point is undermined to that extent…
I suppose I should be bold and ask about historical examples of ‘rebuking the king’; like Nathan rebuked King David. Did the Jews contribute something to western culture with this meme, or is that a misreading of history?
Quite good text.
I just disagree about jews not having any distinguishable physical trait, I mean, one just needs to look at a profile picture of Mises, that is one hell of a stereotypical nose.
Yes, they tend to breed pretty selectively. So there are identifiable traits - though the Oriental Jews look different than the European Jews.
Obviously a Jew!
i’d like to recommend israel shahak, who makes some interesting and controversial points on jews and historical anti-semitism:
As if anti-semitism and Nazism aren’t inherently fallacious and ridiculous. You’re a quack.
david cole is also worth listening to on the function of the anti-semite as a coalescing agent for jewish unity and identity.
So I am not a person? Statists are not like me. I don’t control or seek control of a state.
Statists are not like me. I don’t control or seek control of a state.
Well, in a certain sense you do, in that you want it to cause it to cease doing anything.
What is this? Some new theory of the logical impossibility of opposingthe state? You think the anarchist fails by performative contradiction?
In the opinion of people here, what did Mises see himself or identify himself as? A German, and only a German? A German Jew? A German first, and a Jew second? A Jew first and a German second?
I am leaning towards the very first one, because he clearly indicated in OG that there was next to nothing common, culturally or linguistically, between most Jews across the world, and it would be unfeasible to make them so.
Also, what is considered by Jewish people to be more anti-Semitic: suggesting that a Jewish person is more loyal to his tribe than his nation or suggesting that a Jewish man is more loyal to his nation than his tribe? Joe Sobran said that Jews of his time would get offended at anybody who did not consider them anything less than patriotic Americans, while some contemporary Jews are more offended by the idea that they should only be loyal to their country and shouldn’t maintain some dual loyalty to Israel.
As if anti-semitism and Nazism aren’t inherently fallacious and ridiculous. You’re a quack.
Still, I haven’t had a rebuttal to anything I said. Everyone on this forum would have to be a damn fool to believe Mises’ stance on anthropology, Nazism and anti-Semitism aside.
This is related to Pra’s question; why does Mises use they instead of we when referring to Jews?
omnipresent government was published in 1944, obviously before the creation of israel. it would be interesting to hear his comments today.
I am leaning towards the very first one, because he clearly indicated in OG that there was next to nothing common, culturally or linguistically, between most Jews across the world, and it would be unfeasible to make them so.
His indication has no biological premise, he’s still a Jew, an Austrian Jew. The assimilation of Jews into various cultures (mainly European) was a way of blending in with the host culture. Yet, the Jews still carried on their ancestral traditions whether or not it was seen. Mises is trying to take a universalist approach into cultural and racial integration, and denying that there are any differences in the people.