Ludwig von Mises Refutes Anarchy

[Laughing_Man]

@GilesStratton

Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.

Cannot provide property rights?

[hayekianxyz]

@Juan

As I’ve said, in Mises’ view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights.

Too bad that premise is laughably wrong. Next.

Be that as it may, it was the view Mises and most Austrian economists have historically held. That is, I believe, the subject of this discussion. Keep in mind, it’s more than property rights with which we must concern ourselves. Rather, it is a shared ethical framework that Kirzner believes (or so I intepret him) to be necessary for peaceful cooperation.

[Angurse]

@GilesStratton

I think Mises point was aimed at anybody who rejected the state as a means of providing security. The economic organization of society is moot question in Mises’ view once the state is rejected. The critique he put forward with sentences such as this " as without it [the state GS] no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved" and “. Government and state can never be perfect because they owe their raison d’etre to the imperfection of man and can attain their end, the elimination of man’s innate impulse to violence, only by recourse to violence, the very thing they are called upon to prevent” imply that Poptech is correct in invoking Mises against “anarchocapitalism”.

I disagree. I think in his remarks against anarchy he is strictly referring to anarchy without law as he mentions the impossibility of doing without any compulsion and coercion, a police force. Which is a feature of anarcho-capitalism. So while yes, he would oppose anarcho-capitalism, his remarks just don’t attack it.

@GilesStratton

As I’ve said, in Mises’ view the existence of the state is necessary to ensure property rights. Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.

Yes, I think we all agree to that, that just wasn’t my point of contention.

[Juan]

Be that as it may, it was the view Mises and most Austrian economists have historically held.

Still irrelevant. Or maybe it’s relevant in that people who supposedly were intellectual leaders and well educated didn’t know and/or didn’t understand Molinari’s points.

Keep in mind, it’s more than property rights with which we must concern ourselves. Rather, it is a shared ethical framework that Kirzner believes (or so I intepret him) to be necessary for peaceful cooperation.

Well, if Kirzner is concerned with peaceful cooperation but doesn’t understand the problems with monopolistic governments maybe he should refrain from lecturing his fellows on ‘ethics’.

[Vitor]

@GilesStratton

I don’t think either of them can be construed as an emotional rejection. Keynes’ rejected Say’s Law, I suspect, because he didn’t full understand it. As Hutt has explained, before Keynesian doctrines took over the law, though widely accepted, was rarely fully explicated. As for Mises, I think he had (what he believed) to be scientific reasons for rejecting “anarcho-capitalism”. Whilst “anarcho capitalism” wasn’t spelled out by the time Mises was writing (although he did review Rothbard’s Man, Economy and State so this isn’t entirely true) he did, to some extent, anticipate the arguments put forward by Rothbard and the subsequent theorists. I think Mises’ thinking was, as I said, that since voluntary exchange was a precondition for the market, there was no way it could be supplied by the market. Now, whether or not you regard this as true (I’m not sure if I do, although I think there are other arguments for the market in the provision of defense, I just don’t think one can make a priori rulings on the matter) it’s clearly what Mises thought. The fact of the matter is that I see a lot of rationalizations of non-anarchist positions by people on these boards that just don’t make a lot of sense. Whether it be claiming that Hazlitt wasn’t a minarchist, he just knew his audience or that Mises was essentially an anarchist he just used different terminology it seems a lot like people are trying to rewrite history to make it fit a Rothbardian worldview.

[Y]

[Bostwick]

@Laughing Man

@GilesStratton

Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.

Cannot provide property rights?

Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these.

[Laughing_Man]

@JonBostwick

Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these.

I think people have been going a little crazy on this site lately

[nirgrahamUK]

**

@GilesStratton

Since there are certain preconditions for the market, it follows that the market cannot provide these.

**

In evidence that Rothbard does not mark the birth of anarchist capitalism but worked within a longer tradition:

“government is not at all an essential part of the social organization.” Jean-Baptiste Say , 2003. Oeuvres Complètes, IV. Leçons d’Economie Politique, p. 101.

[MatthewF]

@Bank Run

When it comes to collectivism though, I feel it would be very insightful for all those making such specious claims to listen to the following.

Ethics in Collision

I can’t do MP3’s on the work computer. Care to sum it up?

[hayekianxyz]

@JonBostwick

Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these

Care to be a bit less cryptic?

@Laughing Man

I think people have been going a little crazy on this site lately

They disagree with you, therefore they’re crazy?

@nirgrahamUK

In evidence that Rothbard does not mark the birth of anarchist capitalism but worked within a longer tradition:

And yet, he was sort of the beginning of what is generally known as anarchocapitalism, especially in relation to Austrian economics.

@Angurse

I disagree. I think in his remarks against anarchy he is strictly referring to anarchy without law as he mentions the impossibility of doing without any compulsion and coercion, a police force. Which is a feature of anarcho-capitalism. So while yes, he would oppose anarcho-capitalism, his remarks just don’t attack it.

Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against “anarchocapitalism” even if they weren’t explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers.

@Juan

Well, if Kirzner is concerned with peaceful cooperation but doesn’t understand the problems with monopolistic governments maybe e should refrain from lecturing his fellows on ‘ethics’.

OK we should listen to Molinari who wrote how long ago?

[Angurse]

@GilesStratton

Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against “anarchocapitalism” even if they weren’t explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers.

I think you could use his broader view and apply it to anarcho-capitalism but I don’t think many of his explicit critiques really fit all that well. I’m sure one could re-contextualise them and stretch them a bit and do so, but, as I said, that would be a disservice towards Mises.

[hayekianxyz]

@Angurse

@GilesStratton

Perhaps, but I think his remarks would still stand against “anarchocapitalism” even if they weren’t explicitely aimed at Rothbard and his followers.

I think you could use his broader view and apply it to anarcho-capitalism but I don’t think many of his explicit critiques really fit all that well. I’m sure one could re-contextualise them and stretch them a bit and do so, but, as I said, that would be a disservice towards Mises.

I don’t agree. I think the point is that Mises argument, as is Kirzner’s, argues against any system which rejects the use of aggression in providing law and the provision of security. The textual evidence, as well are more in other books, fits this argument fairly well. Mises was well aware of Rothbard’s arguements by the end of his life and chose not to explicitely embrace them.

[Juan]

So ? Mises, Kirzner and co. didn’t/don’t get it.

But of course, in your mind, the validity of an argument is related to how much you worship the person making the argument. You used to worship hoppe, now you parrot a different line of nonsense and believe, or pretend to believe, that you are right because ‘mises said so’ or ‘kirzner says so’. What a joke.

[Lilburne]

Juan, enough with incivility.

[Juan]

Sorry, I don’t think my tone is uncivil. Not to mention that ‘civil’ and ‘uncivil’ are just subjective valuations.

[Lilburne]

@Juan

Sorry, I don’t think my tone is uncivil. Not to mention that ‘civil’ and ‘uncivil’ are just subjective valuations.

Yes, and I will act upon my subjective valuation if you continue in what I deem to be incivility.

[Juan]

Really ? So you think you can dictate what I say and the style I use ? Maybe you are not happy with your moral ‘subjectivism’ not being taken seriously so you are going to play the tough moderator card ?

[hayekianxyz]

Perhaps they’re wrong, but I don’t think that they “didn’t get it”.

Now, I’m not entirely sure whether or not I agree with the arguments put forth by Mises and Kirzner, but I certainly do have a great deal of respect for both of them. Of course, I used to have a lot of points of agreements with Hoppe, since then I’ve evaluated my position and now I disagree with him.

[Lilburne]

Juan, I won’t take any action against you for being uncivil toward me (unless you get really nasty), but one more insult flung at Giles, zefreak, or any other of your favorite targets, and I will temporarily ban you.

[Juan]

Lilburne, you have no moral standing to dictate to me how I write. Do you understand that ? If the people you mention have any problem with me, let them sort it out. I don’t think it’s your business to interfere. Your chivalry in defending them is totally uncalled for IMO.