I haven’t seen the video yet. But I’m really shocked that after gaining the knowledge that AE was not just about anarchism that someone would just decide to reject its main principles. It seems like the OP didn’t know as much as he/she thought he did about AE.
An Austrian Economist would know economics is meant to be value free.
What you’re referring to is Libertarianism. A political philosophy, i.e what should or should not be law.
Granted - most Austrian School followers, are also Libertarian / voluntaryist / anarcho-capitalist etc etc. which has created your confusion.
The point being, economics is meant to be value free. You can be a Nazi supporter (political philosophy) and still be an “Austrian Economist” (economics - value free). Generally, those with an understanding of proper economics… (which uses “methodological individualism” - the term was used to differentiate between individualism - in political philosophy)**… tend to individualism in the philosophical sphere as well. Hence classical liberals, libertarians, anarcho-capitalists.. etc. They see the benefit of the division of labor, property rights etc.
I think that was also pointed out to me back when I was a noob here. But I didn’t really understand what that meant until much later. I at first thought that the AE only allowed for anarchist way of thinking like it was a religion. But… it’s more of a means, to an established ends. And with that you can be any ideology, or, anything like that.
“I don’t really see how a system without common law, or, a constitution, would work in real life.”
I didn’t know how either. But I was confronted with the the numerous contradictions; one being - “How can you say the state protects private property, when it must violate it to exist?”. So I kept reading on and on.
Well to be honest, I’m not set in stone with my beliefs. I’m what one would call a political-schizoprenic. I waver with my beliefs in minarchism and sometimes I revert to anarchism and vice-versa. So I wouldn’t be justifying the state. I just think in practice- the idea of having a state that would preserve people’s liberty- in practice would be more acceptable to me than under anarchism… the same things can happen. I mean… I can see how a lot of our freedoms are violated under the state… but I just would rather have a system where our rights are guaranteed, because while I think we can agree in principle on the idea of natural rights on liberty… some people might have different ideas of natural rights that are different than others, and, well, you’d have some problems living under an anarchistic society. I think that an anarchistic society could very well work too. I just am not sure.
It would depend on the level of argument & logic. If the person uses emotions & personal feelings - it probably wouldn’t go down too well. It’d be a hard case to make though, considering:
“In complete contrast to the orthodox opinion on the matter, then, elementary social theory shows, and will be explained as showing, that no state as just defined can be justified, be it economically or ethically. Rather, every state, regardless of its constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist, including one of ultimate decision-making, is “bad” from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is hereby understood in its classical meaning, as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production: only one agency, A, may produce x. Any such monopolist is “bad” for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his line of production, the price for his product will be higher and the quality lower than otherwise. Further, no one would agree to a provision that allowed a monopolist of ultimate decison-making, i.e., the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict, to determine unilaterally (without the consent of everyone concerned) the price that one must pay for his service. The power to tax, that is, is ethically unacceptable. Indeed, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making equipped with the power to tax does not just produce less and lower quality justice, but he will produce more and more “bads,” i.e., injustice and aggression.” - Hoppe, Into Demo. God that Failed
I was thinking that I’d do something more in depth. I’ve been deeply concerned about the loss of our civil liberties for quite some time. I think rather than acting as a servitude towards man, rather than acting as our servant, or, whatever people think a state should act as that the state has drifted so far from that so now not even our government. But like with other governments too- they’re actively oppressing their own citizens, and, they’re making what totalitarian regimes have in the past, look like childsplay. Pretty soon all of the stuff the totalitarian regimes in the past will look like nothing because of what we have been doing in the War on Terror. I’d make my topic backed with lots of evidence, and, proof of what I say. I know that one can argue morals all you want… but you have to have evidence to back up your claims too. So you have to put your money where your mouth is, or so to say.
I came to this through Ron Paul as well. You’re on the right track. I’m also more into political philosophy, than economics - at the moment. How did you find For a New Liberty? What else have you read on anarcho-capitalism?
I found For a New Liberty when I wanted to know what libertarianism really was. I knew people said Ron Paul was a libertarian. I just wanted to find out just what the heck it was so I could understand where he was coming from, and, to learn about the philosophy.. However, unbeknown to me, it took me completely by surprise. I had no idea what to expect from Rothbard. I haven’t read any other books on anarcho-capitalism.
I tend not to read AE thinkers books related to economics though. It takes me a long time to grasp what they’re saying, and, what theory they’re attacking, and what not. I would prefer a straight-up book on capitalism, or, economic theory, but I can’t bring myself to reading Human Action, or, Man, The Economy and the State. I find their political works far more interesting. But I find reading about economics to be somewhat tedious.