Hopefully, there won’t be a law against you. So, there’s a bad consequence to the theory; nevertheless, its still far better than the terribly philosophically unsound NAP.
He did no such thing. Quoting Lew Rockwell does not prove Mises use of the word anarchists was only socialist anarchists.
When someone cannot answer a question, cannot prove something or support a position you start declaring subjective rules that only apply to me. Interesting.
I wonder if strangling babies would increase or reduce the amount of social cooperation. Well, maybe it doesn’t change it much, so strangling babies is basically morally neutral, and the justice of it can’t really be determined.
By the way, how does one measure the amount of social cooperation ? Is it measured in inches ? Pounds ? Bits ? Or ?
Indeed, what he quoted from Lew did, because your quote from Mises, was from long before Rothbard created the term ancap. So the only anarchists that are not ancap, are in fact socialists (syndicalists, communists, mutualists etc).
A technique popular with the Austrian school, is a priorism. You should learn how to apply it if you intend to make Austrian arguments.
Stay on topic. Your argumentation has been poor, and you really don’t have surplus reasoning to spare on petty complaints.
The NAP is unsound yet your theory allows for the jailing of individuals who don’t engage in an implied coercive environment. How wonderful.
Ludwig von Mises: 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. 34
Ludwig von Mises : 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 pp. 10910
since the scholarship of the LvMI has produced high quality academic work on the practicabity of market anarchism, it must simply be noted as a shame that Mises was not able to live longer and interrogate the new insights of his disciples…
Really? Private property is not mentioned in the definition of the word.
anarchy (defined) - “doctrine rejecting government: an ideology that rejects the need for a system of government in society and proposes its abolition”
It is purely anti-government. You have failed to prove Mises wished to abolish government.
Of course we live in a world of subjective moralities which is why Mises stated what he did. Of course someone could “believe” everyone could be angels and saints but myself and Mises would call that naive.
The failure of fundamentalists is idealism.
By the way lam, if you don’t agree that the NAP is a great system then you are reducing the social cooperation of these forums and I will be forced to jail you for an unspecified period of time until you agree to cooperation with the will of the forum.
i like this Mises quote
| If one rejects laissez faire on account of mans fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action. | Planning for Freedom |
|---|
Im trying to see if i can double think and pretend that public provision of law and defence does not involve government action …
Not by the definition of anarchism.
I am but you keep interjecting appeals to authority (you) into my discussions.
you are just showing your ignorance of history and the climate surrounding Mises and what could goad him into writing this piece or that piece to set those crazy people on the wrong path straight. the crazies were socialist anarchists that simply called themselves anarchists.
i hazard that your standards of proof in this discussion are ridiculous and absurd. i provide evidence, and you fall back on word counting.
Are you sure you are not talking about me?
Can I strangle babies or not ?
You are making a claim you cannot support and then declare me “ignorant” for not believing your unsupported claim. Where does Mises show his use of the word anarchy only applied to socialist anarchists?
My standards of proof are actual proof not your reinterpretations based on your ideology.
Are you Iam?
so what if you call it naive? even if you call it naive you still admit the unimpeachable truth of it given your context of unjustifiable and ungrounded subjective morality. hence your quote is absurd. lets see if you can rewrite the quote in a way that doesnt make ludicrous appeals to objective moral standards ok?
‘It would be practicable only in a world of people who are …’ <—(no moral words allowed)
did you miss the bits where Mises goes off on pragmatists and outs himself as being laissez faire fundamentalist passionate about his ideals. he was famous for his uncompromising attitudes. good grief man, know your Mises!
I’ve already answered this.
I have already supported it, as has Wilderness earlier this evening.
While high time preference can be indicative of a low IQ, you are in fact being dishonest, by skipping the arguments you cannot evade.
Try using reason here. While you still have the opportunity to do so.
Not at all, the only requirement is to have a rough understanding of Judeo/Christian morality. It does not make it any less subjective. You do not have to hold those beliefs to understand it.
No you have not. Nothing you presented supports how Mises defined anarchism.
Now you are lying, my arguments are constantly evaded and due to your ideological beliefs you don’t challenge it when it happens.
“Reason” appears to be only your opinion and when I don’t accept your “opinion” I am threatened over and over or lied about.