Oh, come now - we’re talking about state granted privileges, legal privilege, something inimical to libertarianism.
You mean, like the “free market”. That people blame this disaster on.
I have no problem using the word in it’s original context. I have no problem using the word in Mises’ context.
Your argument, is that because Joe the Plumber, and millions of other Boobus Americanus choose to misuse it, I should too.
I’m wondering if Boobus Americanus told you to STFU, pay your taxes and report to your nearest recruiting agent because it is good to kill brown people, I wonder if you would do it?
I don’t take my marching orders from people dumber than me (yes, they exist), and I certainly am not going to let anyone pro-state control the discussion if I can help it. That’s a recipe for failure.
That somebody would take in the end anyway. The state is the problem here, not big buisness, stop letting your egalitarian sentiments get in the way.
The word in both it’s original context and in Mises’s context implies there being a state to “protect property”. Hence, why would you defend something predicated on there being a state?
The rest of your argument is a non-seq distracting from the point.
And yet Mises favoured a state that allowed individual secession.
“That somebody would take in the end anyway” is beside the point entirely, and it is nonsensical to act as if it’s up for grabs for anyone. Why would you be hostile to one pointing out that the state grants special privileges through its coercive mechanisms? That’s a pro-libertarian point!
As for the rest of your comment, you’re just lashing out rather than addressing what’s in question.
Because everybody loses and everybody benefits from the state in one way or another. You just choose to target big buisness because of your egalitarianism.
I don’t see you making the same claims about the poor though.
Are you sure ? Can you provide a source for that ? Mises was no anarchist…
Somewhere in Liberalism, find it yourself or go pick fights elsewhere.
Better yet go do some leftist graffiti.
You’re missing the point entirely. State privilege is predicated on rights violations, on inequality of rights. They are not up for equal grabs by everyone, it is most heavily concentrated towards those who are in the most direct patronage with the state. That just so happens to be various big banking institutions, big buisiness institutions and big unions. This is hardly irrelevant, it is the net effect of state power. There is nothing for you to be hostile to here on libertarian grounds, my point reinforces the problem with the state, so I’m puzzled at your reaction. There is nothing even particularly “leftist” about my point. You seem to be lapsing into conservatism with this total indifferance to how state privilege effects various segments of society relative to eachother.
I don’t make the same claims about the poor because such a claim would be patently false. Society at large, including the poor, are not the net beneficiaries of the state, and to the extent that the underclass is dependant on the state is a symptom of the nature of state intervention of that sort to begin with. To a degree, all of us are made dependant on the state because of the coercive legal framework to begin with. Should the hostility be directed towards those who are made dependant on the state through no real choice of their own, or the state and its plutocratic comrades that make this scenario possible to begin with? I think the proper answer to such a question is fairly obvious.
Go do some leftist graffiti? This is silly. You appear like an angry old man shaking his fist.
As opposed to angry young boy posting on Youtube?
I really don’t understand what there is about any of this for people to get angry about: libertarians pointing out that the net effect of state power is to the deteriment of the average person and to the favor of plutocrats, and thinking that the outcome of removing state power would be more beneficial to the masses at large than not? Libertarians pointing out that the current structure of the economy isn’t representative of what a genuinely free market would tend to look like, and hence it makes no sense to defend it as such? That’s pretty much all the left-libertarians are saying. Where one can possibly get insinuations of marxism out of this is absolutely puzzling to me.
I’m certainly not angry, and don’t see what’s wrong with people having youtube channels.
It only makes you look immature to keep trying to personalize this though.
Yes, like some people being robbed to pay those collecting welfare. What’s your point?
You’ve read de La Boetie. You know that’ not true. The state needs to buy support from various groups. This includes the poor and the rich, those that receive it aren’t in the wrong here. No more than you are for walking on state owned streets etc.
Except the leftists who seem to only attack big buisness on egalitarian grounds, forgetting the evil of the state entirely. Of course.
Same for big buisness. You just refuse to see this.
Once again, you’ve read de La Boetie you know that the state isn’t possible without widespread approval.
As opposed to:
Yeah, whatever. Here’s the quote and in no way supports anarchism.
However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that a region be governed as a single administrative unit and that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.
Sounds like a clear endorsement of statism and democracy to me…
In the case of your example, the point is that the “right” to rob people to pay for welfare, the bureaucracy and connected moneyed interests in patronage with it, is a legal privilege exclusively held by a few.
Again, state privileges are not up for grabs equally by everyone (the highest privilege being decision-making power internal to the institution itself, and the 2nd highest being direct patronage with those who do have such decision-making power; none of this is possessed by the average person). There is no basis for you to claim that it is, that is simply absurd. The average person does not have a direct relationship with the state in which they can easily access legal privileges. The state more fundamentally engaged in patronage with various oligarchies or narrow interest groups. Nothing about La Boetie’s writting suggests otherwise, so you bringing his writting up seems to be irrelevant.
Where did that comment even come from? It doesn’t follow from anything stated. Noone is forgetting the evil of the state entirely: to the contrary, the evil of the state is being pointed out! You’re being unecessarily hostile and bigoted.
Big buisiness’s relation to the state is not the same as an average individual citezen’s relation to the state.
Again, and that point is irrelevant and does nothing to counter my fundamental point. The fact that the state is in some sense dependant on widespread approval does not negate the fact that it is an oligarchy in patronage with oligarchies and its privileges are selectively and unequally distributed.
In other words, it appears that if the quote is taken in context, Mises goes on to rule it out in favor of democracy.