But Proudhon was a pro-violence anti-semite. He’s certainly a mixed bag.
http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2492
Did you guys read his correspondence with RC Hoiles?
Rothbard created what ? Are you showing your ignorance again ?
Can’t you read ? I said Gustave de Molinari came up with the idea, but he didn’t name it anarcho-capitalism. So, what Rothbard did at best was creating the name.
I’m not an anarchist, but I agree with Juan. You might want to add Max Stirner to the mix, as I don’t believe he agreed with any government either.
Mises is entirely right, of course. Without any organized system of protection, which the anarchists opposed, then the isolated individual becomes easy prey for any group of sufficiently motivated bandits.
What Mises never really explored was the structure of government itself. He simply stated the ideal that any group should be able to establish their own, as a semi-competitive process.
I am not referring to anarchists in general but specifically Anarcho-Capitalists as stated by Rothbard.
Mises was wrong and objections such as this
show that he was grasping at straws in order to avoid facing the absurd nature of a self-limiting monopoly in ‘justice’.
Here’s what I think: you need to kill the butthurt. Now.
In every instance where Mises attacked “anarchism”, he implied that “anarchism” implies the absence of law. And, therefore, Mises never did refute and never even attempted to refute any variant of anarchism which resembles anarchocapitalism.
Read this quotation:
[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, p. 109 of “Liberalism””]
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 […]
[/quote]
In the above quotation, Mises recognizes the logical conclusion of his philosophy but refuses to accept it because he believes that such a policy would be “impracticable” which blatantly contradicts the many words which he wrote which argued that no separation between “theory” and “practice” exists.
In the above quotation, Mises recognizes the logical conclusion of his philosophy but refuses to accept it because he believes that such a policy would be “impracticable” which blatantly contradicts the many words which he wrote which argued that no separation between “theory” and “practice” exists.
[/quote]
He clearly refutes anarchism in that work.
[quote=“Ludwig von Mises, p. 36-37 of “Liberalism””]
In an anarchist society is the possibility entirely to be excluded that someone may negligently throw away a lighted match and start a fire or, in a fit of anger, jealousy, or revenge, inflict injury on his fellow man? Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. It would be practicable only in a world of angels and saints. Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Mises states that “[t]he liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered”. And an anarchocapitalist also understands that quite clearly. That is why anarchocapitalists often discuss “private law” and “private defense agencies”.
Read this quotation:
In the above quotation, he unambiguously and unequivocally states that his conception of anarchy implies a society “without a police force” and “without any compulsion and coercion”. And anarchocapitalism implies a society with a police force and with compulsion and coercion. Again, Mises never even addressed any doctrine which resembles anarchocapitalism in print.
It cleary advocates for the police to be the function of the state.
“This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.”
The fact that Anacho-capitalism was not directly addressed does not change his message.
His message is an attack against anti-law anarchism. The anarchism which most members of this forum advocate is pro-law anarchism.
That doesn’t make any sense. Who decides the law? A majority? Who decides when the majority is reached?
While you are correct that Mises wasn’t an anarchist, his opposition to “anarchists” was focused more towards that of the common socialist-collectivist-anarchists and not that of voluntaryism or anarcho-capitalism. If you take what he said and apply it to any market anarchists, even Gustave, it completely falls apart. But there isn’t any reason why anarchists (of the market variety) can’t still be fans of Mises.
Mises made no concessions for different types of anarchism. He clearly advocated for a government.
As he was only familiar with the one, “the bomb-throwers.”
Do you not know what anarchocapitalism is?
No he makes no concessions for ANY of type of anarchy. Anarcho-capitalism makes a lot of idealist assumptions, such as people will agree to “your” laws. Please. The reality of human nature is people are not going to listen to any laws in an anarchist society, the ones with the power will take what they want. Anarchy in all forms is idealistic and naive and mises understood this.
You didn’t answer my question.
- Who decides the law?