How are the private law enforcement agencies created and funded? What law are they enforcing? If you cannot answer the questions let me know.
The above post implies that if one does not attempt to refute a doctrine, one automatically subscribes to that doctrine. That is, however, absolutely ridiculous.
Me: Mises never attempted to refute the doctrine that unicorns exist.
You: Do you have any evidence that he believed that unicorns exist? Nope.
Me: So?
Do you understand anarchocapitalism or do you merely see that the word root “anarch-” exists in both the term “anarchy” which Mises used and the word “anarchocapitalism” which Rothbard and many of his followers use? Mises “refuted” the idea that a society could exist without laws. The doctrine of anarchocapitalism advocates a society with laws.
I already stated that I do not have “any evidence that he supported a system like Anarcho-capitalism”. Why do you continue to imply that I think that Mises is an anarchist? Here, I will make this obvious:
MISES WAS A STATIST
MISES WAS A STATIST
MISES WAS A STATIST
Do you understand yet? No? Here, I will try again:
MISES WAS A STATIST
MISES WAS A STATIST
Do you understand? OK; good.
You keep saying this but refuse to answer any questions, making the statement worthless.
Well…no.
He didn’t refute anything remotely similar to “anarcho-capitalism” which is nothing more than a logical extension Mises’ own liberal and capitalist beliefs. Also, among most anarchists “anarcho-capitalism” isn’t considered to be a form of anarchism at all, even Rothbard stated that libertarians are not anarchists.
Edit: Too harsh.
The same way any company is created and funded, loans, pooling of resources, etc… They are enforcing laws that customers are willing to pay for.
I don’t see the logic nor do I see anything remotely relating to Mises writings that would support such a system. I do see extensive support from Rothbard.
Right, so you use the word “anarcho-”… that doesn’t make any sense.
So if I am willing to pay for a law that women are my property it will be enforced?
The “anarchy” that Mises is referring to is that without all law at all, without any defense.
Anarcho-capitalism contends that any and all coercive action taken against another human or any other human’s property will be dealt with by a private defense agency. So I believe there would be only one law in this society, one against any coercive action whatsoever.
This defense agency would be either payed for by the victim directly when he calls on them for help, or it is indirectly paid by a victim’s insurance.
That is my understanding of how Anarcho-capitalism law would work, but I am relatively new to this.
So what if my private defense agency is bigger than yours and I like to take coercive action?
Who decides this? What if people do not agree?
I do not need to defend the doctrine in order to state that the instillation of the policy which the doctrine advocates implies the existence of law within a stateless society. It is simply that simple.
Seriously? Have you actually read Mises, was he not a classical liberal, a big supporter laissez-fair? Logic isn’t for everyone though.
The average anarchist will say “anarcho”-capitalism to point out that its a contradiction (incorrectly mind you).
Probably not. A company that even attempts to enforce that law would quickly find itself unprofitable and out of business. (And that at best)
laissez-faire (defined) “A doctrine opposing governmental interference in economic affairs beyond the minimum necessary for the maintenance of peace and property rights”
laissez-faire is not anarcho-capitalism.
What if I am a Billionaire and own gold mines? I could keep funding them so in that case “the law” would be enforced.
I agree with Angurse and I. Ryan here.
Mises was referring to anarchism understood as “no government,” meaning opposition to any form of organized protection. This does not mean he was pro-state.
A great paper entitled “Gustave De Molinari and the Anti-Statist Liberal Tradition” by David M. Hart sheds light on this discussion:
"[Auberon] Herbert faced the same problem that Molinari had with labeling his philosophy. Like Molinari, he rejected the term “anarchism,” which he associated with the socialism of Proudhon and the terrorism of the “detestable bomb,”…Herbert argued that the “sane, peaceful and reasonable section of anarchists,” Tucker for example, were mistaken in their rejection of “government.” He argued, like Molinari, that even in a fully free society there would exist a need for protection from aggression. Any organization which provided this service was called a “government,” even if it did not have monopoly; thus the protective associations of the anarchists merely provided government decentralized “to the furthest point, [split] up into minute fragments of all sizes and shapes.” In Herbert’s mind, a true “anarchist” wished to do away with all organized forms of protection and, since this was impossible given human nature, “anarchy, or ‘no government,’ is founded on a fatal mistake.” Thus:
“by the necessity of things, we are obliged to choose between regularly constituted government, generally accepted by all citizens for the protection of the individual, and irregularly constituted government, irregularly accepted, and taking its shape just according to the pattern of each group. Neither in the one case nor in the other case is government got rid of.”
“However, unlike Molinary and Herbert, it has been argued in this paper that the second form of “government,” the “irregularly constituted government” of Herbert and the “competitive governments” of Molinari, is in fact a new form of anarchism, since the most important aspect of the modern state, the monopoly of the use of force in a given area, is rejected in no uncertain terms by both men.”
(passages above appear in the section: “A. The Coincidence of Liberal Anti-Statism: Herbert Spencer and Auberon Herbert.”)
In criticizing Anarchism, Mises has in mind “no government” anarchism, not “irregularly constituted government” anarchism nor “voluntarily chosen government” anarchism, which today we would call Panarchism or Anarcho-Capitalism. Mises isn’t addressing these latter conceptions.
I. Ryan is on target in realizing the significance of Mises’s quote:
“If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done.” (Liberalism, p.109)
And I disagree slightly with I. Ryan’s interpretation, because after writing “if it were in any way possible…”, in the next sentence Mises writes:
“This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations…”
I equate “technical” with “logistical,” meaning that if the technical/logistical problems could be overcome, then in principle. individual political self-determination is considered desirable by Mises.
A few more important passages from Mises:
“To the princely principle of subjecting just as much land as obtainable to one’s own rule, the doctrine of freedom responds with the principle of the right of self-determination of peoples, which follows necessarily from the principle of the rights of man. No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want.”(Nation, State, and Economy, p.27)
“The idea of liberalism starts with the freedom of the individual; it rejects all rule of some persons over others; it knows no master peoples and no subject peoples, just as within the nation itself it distinguishes between no masters and no serfs.” (p.65)
“Of course, the struggle of nationalities over the state and government cannot disappear completely from polyglot territories. But it will lose sharpness to the extent that the functions of the state are restricted and the freedom of the individual is extended. Whoever wishes peace among peoples must fight statism.”(p.63)
As far as I know, Mises did not consider the ideas of multiple coexisting non-territorial governments or the idea of multiple or competing protection agencies. His point about anarchism was mainly that “no government” anarchism was naive. In arguing for government, he was not arguing that some people should be subjected to the government of other people against their will. He was arguing that some form of protection is necessary, and that organized protection is called government. What he argues is consistent with the general ideas contained in Panarchism and Anarcho-Capitalism.
Mises clearly uses the word government and state. He makes no assertions to any form of anarcho-capitalism.
“This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.”
Really nice work Adam, Angurse and I. Ryan.
You guys could almost cobble together an article from these posts.
That is why I called it the logical extension of…
Not necessarily. Ignoring all moral opposition that would arise, if its legal for him to kill, then its legal for him to be killed. Outraged people could take up a collection and have the billionaire “whacked.”
And that is really just one of several possible solutions, there is nothing new about your objection. Just search this site.