Learning more about Ludwig, and I realized that the ancap notion that all taxation is theft (not disagreeing with it, mind you) is inconsistent with the minarchism of Mises.
How do Mises fans rectify this? Sincerely curious. Is it as simple an answer as “he was wrong”?
It’s as simple as: he wasn’t an anarcho-capitalist. Maybe philosophically he was an anarchist (somebody like Hoppe would point that out), but practically he was just a minarchist. There’s no mandate that says we must agree with Mises on everything to be a fan of him.
Queue Conza.
I think that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what Mises was. He clearly advocates for conscription, but at the same time you can interpret his work to imply infinite secession and anti-nationalism to the fullest extent of the term and his definition of government is clearly compatible with anarcho-capitalism. So overall it’s hard to say. He’s so minarchistic that he clearly does verge on anarcho-capitalism.
We deal with it by abandoning minarchism and being consistent, even if he was not. Many good things have been originated by people who were incredibly wrong on other issues and areas. Just look at Einstein, a socialist for god’s sake.
Mises was a brilliant economist. His political theory didn’t go far enough.
Rothbard took it the next logical step. Mises is correct on virtually everything, but this is the one inconsistency (from our modern Rothbardian perspective, which was published only just a few years before his death). But once that further correction is made, everything makes sense within his own system.
For comparison: Herbert Spencer, J.B. Say, and Lysander Spooner supported strong copyright, which is totally inconsistent with the rest of their own economics and philosophy. CLEAN HANDS. Ignore it and replace it with what you know is correct, while keeping the other true contributions to economics, which is more than any other economist in history.
Thelion nailed it. It’s just like a band’s music. You can be a fan of a particular band, but it doesn’t mean you have to like every single song. There’s always a bad song in there somewhere, but it doesn’t make you not continue to be a fan.
Because SM has read sooo much Mises 
…What’s that supposed to mean?
What do you think it’s supposed to mean?
noun
1.
harsh or bitter derision or irony.
a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark
I’m going to pull a F4M here by saying “And?”
Its ok Skeptical, I havent read much Mises either. Its not a requirement in order to be a praxeologist.
“And?”
And nothing.
I’m not sure whoever said on here that I haven’t read much Mises. It seems to be a myth that Wheylous enjoys utilizing for circulation.
Learning more about Ludwig, and I realized that the ancap notion that all taxation is theft (not disagreeing with it, mind you) is inconsistent with the minarchism of Mises.
Two different approaches to morality; Mises was a utilitarian, Rothbard wasn’t.
JMF: I’m not so sure. I think Mises circumscribed his policy recommendations to those which could be made on utilitarian grounds. But his general morality seems to me not to be restricted to criticisms that can be made on utilitarian grounds.
I’m not aware of where Mises has written on it, but I think that Mises saw some kind of governance-entity as a natural outgrowth of human nature. The question, then, is what is the appropriate nature and role of this entity? And I think this explains why Mises thought things like that it should encourage the arts. I think that people are confused when they think of the National Endowment of the Arts… I think Mises would be horrified by nationalization of the arts and would have accurately foreseen the consequences of it.
Clayton -
I think that the conclusion the OP is trying to put forth is “AnCap is inconsistent with minarchism.” We thank you for your service.
Skeptic,
Those words you put together don’t make much sense. What Mises have you read?
Why don’t they make sense? I think they are pretty straightforward and clear.
And I’ve read Marxism Unmasked, and various random articles by Mises. I usually personally prefer reading about someone and their work rather than the work itself, and it gives me the same knowledge one would obtain by reading that particular work. It seemed like Wheylous, through sarcasm, was trying to imply how since I haven’t read piles of actual texts by Mises that I would not be familiar enough with what he actually does to be a fan. I can read about what he wrote, and it still counts as intellectually “reading him” being that they are theories that he forumulated. Therefore, I can be a fan.
As I’m going through MES I’m finding that reading about economic theory isn’t quite the same as reading the actual economic theory. Woods does a great job explaining ABCT for the common person, but to actually understand the processes behind it, you need to study some capital theory.