How does an active Misesian resolve the contradictions between living in a welfare state and promoting an anarchist worldview?
For example, I work part-time by choice, but still receive $19.93 per fortnight from the government because I must, in their minds, not escape poverty without it. Would a Misesian reject that money on principle, or could it be justified on the grounds that it is rational to want more money?
On that same point, would a Misesian take up subsidized loans to college/university? Refusing to live in housing with rent controls? Food grown with an agricultural subsidy? A the list goes on..
Obviously a socialist/statist would face no dilemma: just grab as much as you can get, and encourage others to do the same. But anarchists? I am interested in your thoughts and opinions.
Everybody must draw their own line. The example you bring up about food made using subsidies is perfect. I know in the US, it’s almost impossible to get food that wasn’t subsidized in some part of the process. I’m personally going to a state-subsidized school out of necessity.
Do we ever live in a non-anarchist world? Aren’t we in a state of anarchy so long as we deny the mythology of the government?
So, in an anarchist world, if some criminal gang steals, say, and also produces food, but the prices are unusually low because of the theft, do you buy the food or not?
Regarding state schooling, by the way, I tend to believe that a libertarian is better off at a state school than a private school, at least if he studies the sciences. A state school is funded largely by state funding, then by tuition. A private school (with one exception) largely has its research funded by the Pentagon and corporations allied with it.
But what didn’t get written / published was; Volume 5 of Conceived in Liberty, covering the Colonial Period to the Constitution. And Third Vol. of History of Economic thought… and probably countless others. [:(]
Just thought I might touch upon this with some food for thought [:p]
Directly aiding a criminal act is immoral. Accepting goods from a criminal is not.
Libertarians should feel free to do anything that is not immoral in order to prosper. Use government roads. Collect unemployment. Accept federal grants for college. Don’t agonize over whether you’re a “net producer” or “net consumer” of taxes.
If you accepted a sandwich from a mafioso, are you culpable in his protection racket? No. Even if you were a “net consumer” with regard to the proceeds of his protection racket? As long as you weren’t directly involved in the mafioso’s racket, still “no”.
The last thing we need is a movement populated by holier-than-thou ascetics unwarrantedly hamstringing themselves in life.
There is nothing to be gained from handicapping yourself. If the state makes roads, use them.
On the other hand, I do think you can look for ways to avoid supporting the state when you have a choice. For example, I don’t want to support the Post Office, so I request e-mail instead of physical mail whenever possible. I don’t mail anything out myself.
Another example: I’m in a situation where my drivers license has been suspended. I could get it back for a fee but instead I have chosen to wait it out and get it back in 2 years when I no longer have to pay the additional fees. I don’t want to give the state any more money than I absolutely have to, and I’m willing to make this sacrifice.
Look for ways to avoid giving the state money and support, but live your life.[8-|]
My question is not about whether or not the government is real. Clearly, it is (if you aren’t a solipsist.) My question is - given that it is real, what is it? Isn’t it just a band of thugs? Can’t such a band of thugs exist in an anarchist society, and go around terrorizing people?
Now, suppose we were in an anarchist world, and such a band of thugs existed, and they went around stealing money. Suppose they also happened to grow food - maybe they were even the only food growers (because if you grew food, they burned it, or something) but the stolen money made it possible for their prices to be low - maybe that’s the main way they manage to be the only food growers (they only end up having to burn a few people’s crops, who weren’t even raising it for selling - you can’t sell food for a profit because they guys have such low prices you’d be priced out of the market.) Is it immoral to buy their food?
No objective morality? I would vehemently disagree on that, but that isn’t under discussion here.
If you claim to promote Mises/Libertarian/Anarchism, how best to live your life in a system at odds to these views while still maintaining consistency and integrity, avoiding the libertarian equivalent of a Nike-wearing iPhone-dialing leftist at an anti-trade rally.
The general consensus appears to be: work to limit state power, check it at every opportunity and do not add to it or work for its truly immoral components. Keeping the ‘matrix’ out, in Rothbard’s words, as much as possible.
I’m glad you are not a solipsist. The government is not a unified whole, however it may look. The government has legitimacy amount the vast majority of the population, and legislatures are, by and large, representative of the majority of citizens. A government lacking popular legitimacy may be able to dominate, but never able to rule. Look at the current surreal situation in Afghanistan for instance.
In an anarchist society no such legitimacy should be found among any group, the population would have to first reject the concept. Consequently, the band of thugs would not get far.
The most important function of democracy IMHO is that it keeps all of the politicians in one place, with one neck, avoiding the phenomenon of regional demagoguery that leads to civil wars.
No resource commonly used can be monopolized by any one group. Not even in the DPRK does the government have a monopoly on providing food. This goes for ever other item essential to survival - if it were possible to create an absolute monopoly on anything vital, we would all be speaking ancient Egyptian.
