Oh, not to mention that I’ve not insulted Giles and co. Here’s something that IMO qualifies as an insult
I don’t think I’ve used that sort of language…
Not only that, but you project a “worship” onto others. Therein lies just one of your problems.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make, do you have anything else to add that might help clarify what you’re saying.
I am completely justified in enforcing forum rules and promoting civil, fruitful discussion here.
You are not justified in dictating the tone I use. Not to mention, again, that you can’t define ‘civil’ in an accurate way.
And even worse, you sound as if believing that fruitful discussion can be ‘enforced’. But notice that perhaps no ‘fruitful’ discussion is possible with a bunch of amoralists/moral subjectivists…unless by ‘fruitful discussion’ you mean toe the subjectivist party line.
I denounced Giles over that a long time ago, so don’t think I’m being partial. In this thread, he is being more than civil toward you, and you are being a punk. So lay off, or go flame somewhere else.
Sorry, I provided that as an example of what an insult is. You seem to have trouble telling the difference between what I write and insults.
is that an insult ?
i’m sorry but “WOW”[:S]
Alright, I’ll rephrase: “gratuitous insults”.
Don’t play dumb, Giles.
I think we are disagreeing on the point of the OP now. I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments, however I don’t think the cited critiques do an adequate job of explaining, as I don’t think they are even an attempt at it. Mises’ not explicitely embracing Rothbards views has nothing to do with the point I was making.
It borders on being offensive to state that while Mises was indeed a great man who we can learn much from, he may have been wrong on some fundamental issues, such as the necessity of the state?
I guess I’m just an offensive person then.
I define communism (or total communism, or state-communism) as 100% of the property of the nation, in the hands of th state. In other words, 100% public property, 0% private property. I think this is a fairly good definition, considering the central aspect that Marx placed on the total elimination of private property.
So if communism is 100% private property and 0% private, then how does it not follow that 5%~ public and 95%~ private property (as Minarchists would suggest) is still partial communism?
Except in the cases of justice, law and protection.
In other words, the issues which are too important to be left to the free market. Sound familiar?
Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of “I agree with everything Rothbard says”, without adding “except about the state” or anything)
Are you saying that Mises agreed with Rothbard?
Mises was a neo-Kantian, Rothbard was a defender of natural rights, they disagreed.
I think Rothbard was right about some things (consumer sovereignty) and Mises was right about some others (monetary equilibrium).
The market is a result of social organization, just as government is. Neither of them creates society or the tendency towards cooperation.
I’m not calling you offensive, and apologize if I gave that impression.
I find it absurd to call any individualist such as Mises, a communist(soft or otherwise), a Marxist, a socialist, or a collectivist. I believe most minarchists are individualists. Mises, Hayek, and other limited government individualists consistently opposed collectivism. They crushed Marxism, Saint-Simonianism, and the like.
I wasn’t aware that there was a minarchist treatise somewhere, let alone one that divied up the amount of property owned?
I think your statement falls under inappropriate generalization.
I should of said that monopoly prices should be the focus of an analysis of monopoly.
I made a mistake. I wasn’t conveying my message clearly. I wish to question; where does one find the rules, and what is the best way to apply them? Should there be rules? Would there be a profit motive to protect the lame?
I am not a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am an individualist who wishes to spread the ideal of autarchy.
“The position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has.”
The reason I felt the urge to comment on this thread, is I felt that two groups of individualists don’t need to fight over how much if any government is necessary until they can actually start reducing the size of government.
Please forgive me if I took this thread off course.
They crushed particular forms of collectivism, for which they should receive due praise. It doesn’t mean they should receive a free pass for advocating ideas which are fundamentally wrongheaded.
If you can demonstrate a system where a state exists, yet there is no public property whatsoever I will gladly retract my statement. Until then, I stand by what I said.
I think we all agree there needs to be rules. I have yet to meet a serious anarchist who disagrees with this.
What is the best way to make television sets, cars and apartment high rises? The free market will dictate the best way.
Protect or support?
A definite ‘yes’ to protection and likely ‘no’ to support.
I absolutely agree that co operation (as long as ones ideals remain uncompromised) towards limiting government is a good thing. At the same time, I think exposing what we see as flaws within our own community is a fruitful exercise. If you want surround yourself with people who disagree with that, then become a Randian.
The state is the ultimate instrument of collectivism. One cannot lend any intellectual support to the state, without first sacrificing a portion of one’s own individualism.
The market, as envisioned by Mises, was a process. It involved the voluntary exchange of property rights between consenting individuals. But the market won’t function correctly if people have radically different conceptions of property rights and what constitutes voluntary exchange. Moreover, if individuals are wont to disobey the law due to dispersed costs and concentrated benefits the market will run into difficulties. In Mises’ view, a government could solve all of these problems.
No, I genuinely don’t get it. Cryptic remarks of just a few words aren’t great for getting your point across.
So I guess the dispute over whether or not Mises disagreed with Rothbard is besides the point. However, I would still argue that the quotations in the OP are at least in part aimed at the “Rothbardian system”. The point for Mises, as expressed in the quotations provided is that the market presupposes the existence of property rights and voluntary exchange, and as such, a state.
This is a joke, right? Rothbard wasn’t even Mises’ most “faithful” student. Kirzner and Hayek were both far more true to Mises than Rothbard was. Rothbard disagreed with Mises on issues such as the state, monetary equilibrium, fractional reserves, monopoly prices, consumer sovereignty, methodology, natural rights and more.
Based on what I read, it seems like Mises could mean “polycentric legal order” by “government”. What you haven’t done is show how this “problem” being solved by coercive states is necessary. You later basically say that rights are derived from the state. Mises and Rothbard are just wrong on some things.
I disagree, his critiques cited repeatedly delve into the case of anti-social individuals “…anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability,” “…and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression.” This, in my opinion, makes the point behind his critiques far more narrow and inapplicable to anarcho-capitalism.