He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all. Human Action 3rd Edition (Chicago: Contemporary Books, 1966, p. 282)
And yes, I realize the article linked above is meant to be a defense of the Misesian position. Nevertheless, his words are quite clear, and even if we consider the circumstances, it still is a written-down support for state conscription.
*The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. There is need to stress this fact, because in our age of interventionism and the steady “progress” toward totalitarianism the governments employ the power to tax for the destruction of the market economy. (*Human Action (p. 281f)
I told you, Liberalism and Human Action, I’m not going to waste time giving you page numbers for something the majority of people who know anything about the Austrian school know anyway.
Regardless of what one specifically defines Mises as his “socialism”, which I think is taking his beliefs out of context, is nothing compared to Orwell who was a full blown socialist. A quick reading of Why I Write with regards to the economic policies advocated by Orwell would leave one questioning whether it was him writing or if he was quoting Hitler. Giles, this is why I feel that I can say Orwell was not a staunch defender of freedom after reading these absurd things he said regarding capitalism. However well intentioned and ignorant he may have been, as I’m sure a great deal of socialists are, what this ultimately comes down to is the fact that socialism is not concomitant with freedom but that it is its total opposite. The society Orwell envisioned and advocated could never bee a free one and hence my reasoning on why I have abandoned my youthful belief that Orwell was a friend of freedom. I do agree with you regarding his novels and I don’t think anybody could argue that 1984 was not amazing and inspiring as well as a frightfully accurate prediction of where we’re headed. I don’t like his novels any less after discovering who he truly was and what he advocated, but as a person I do not hold him in very high esteem and do not respect him nearly as much.
Well, Orwell at some point in his life sympathized with anarchists, which is far more than one can say for Mises. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not holding Orwell in the same light at Mises, nor saying that Orwell has helped “the cause of liberty” more than Mises, yes the opposite is true and I understand this, but to dismiss Orwell like that is silly.
And Mises did advocate socialism in defense and arbitration, so in that regard he’s a socialist, nothing is being taken out of context.
So what? He was ignorant of economics, he never deeply ventured into economics however and I believe for that he can be forgiven.
How can you say Orwell was not a defender of freedom? He was, he just didn’t think capitalism was the way to acheive that. He was very wrong in that regard and I’m not defending his social democratic views, I just think sweeping statements such as that as silly.
He may have thought he was a defender of freedom, I thought he was too after reading 1984 & Animal Farm, but I still firmly stand by my belief that you can NOT be a socialist and defend freedom. Yes, he was ignorant of economics, he didn’t “get it”, he wasn’t intentionally advocating statism - but here good intentions do not, in my opinion, make up for the disastrous tyranny that would ensue (and always has) from the types of policies he supported.
Orwell was a socialist, everybody knows that. But ultimately you can not condemn someone simply for his opinions. Opinions that are not transfered into action have no consquences and thus bring no evil onto the world.
If we consider solely Orwell`s actions we discover they aided freedom far more than they worked against it. He might have spoken up for socialism in his other writtings, but his by far the most influential work is 1984 which is pro-freedom to the core.
He might have been misguided in his stances but his actions were mainly on the correct side of the barricades.