Yes, but that is not the same thing as anarchy, except in your mind.
As you correctly note, it is your interpretation, not what Mises actually said. Have fun playing your little word games…
How is self-determination down to the individual level not the same thing?
It is an interpretation of what he actually said. Which you’ve not shown to be incorrect.
As I pointed out Mises is talking about individuals choosing different monopolistic (national) governments, not choosing multiple private providers of security operating in the same area.
Here :
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars.
You could ‘interpret’ that as proof that Mises believed it’s possible for one individual to convert his house into an independent & sovereign state…Except that if that’s what Mises had in mind, it’s funny he didn’t say so.
You should also check out Human Action…I think there’s nothing about individual secession there. Yet in HA Mises does reject anarchy, again.
Yes, and he also says, in no uncertain terms, that were it practicable, secession ought to be allowed down to the individual level. He is indeed not contemplating the prospects of PDAs here. What of it though? If one can merely opt to secede from a state it is no longer even recognizable as such anymore, but is in this regard exactly like voluntary membership of a club.
And yes, he does reject anarchism, but it is not my contention he was in favour of anarchism. Obviously he wasn’t due to it being impracticable in his view. Yet it does demonstrate his intellectual leanings were in favour of complete voluntaryism.
This kind of thing is the reason I get a headache trying to decipher what people mean by left and right libertarianism.
Listen to the headache, both labels amount to drawing lines in the sand. The labels are barley even useful as a point of referrence in arguments, assuming the argument doesn’t de-evolve into a sub-argument concerning semantics, which occurs 95% of the time.
Exactly. I don’t see much of a point to debate the semantics of people’s preconcieved notions of what left and right consist of really.
I suppose I personally could be called either-or, depending on who you ask.