“However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. 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)
“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)
Assuming an atmosphere of political monopoly, Mises favors minimal government over large government or no government. As a political ideal, he favors the individual’s right to choose his political association.
You’re perfectly right. I’ve written a fair amount lately about how most of the commonly recommended ways to understand ABCT are actually quite insufficient. Even Mises in HA does a rather poor explanation that, by itself, is wholly unsatisfactory.
Do you think that, in order to correctly explain the ABCT to someone, that you ought to explain what happens in the capital structure when people’s time preferences are naturally lowered?
He was a philosophical anarchist. As for whether he would accept Hoppe’s a priori of argumentation & communication (we can only guess… I’d like to think so).
The above link maps it all out; and yes, even the passage regarding conscription.
Wait a second. In what way did Mises suggest the state should be funded? When did Mises say it had to be funded by taxation?
Does anyone have a link or quote of Mises answering this? It seems like the first thing that should be established in the original post.
(In case you’re unfamiliar with other ways a state can be funded, here are a few: lottery, user fees [for losers in courts, for the culpable when the cops show up, etc.], voluntary donations, etc.. I don’t want to debate whether these are good ways to fund a state or if a state is ever compatible with liberty. I’m only interested in Mises’ view for the time being.)
This is a grave mistake. I would actually go so far as to call it “asinine.” I’m actually quite surprised you’d suggest something like that. And there’s really no way for me to simplify it any further to help illuminate the reality of what you’re actually saying…because you literally stated it outright: you actually believe that reading something that was written about what someone else has written is the exact same (and offers you the same knowledge) as if you had read the original work. I’m actually kind of dumbfounded.
Would you prefer I made a thread summarizing and commenting on your posts here in the forum, so that people didn’t have to bother reading them? I mean, after all, they’d get the same knowledge from reading my commentary that they would from reading what you actually wrote.
With respect to SM, I agree with JJ on this point. He is right.
With respect, I’m kinda confused at your first post to SM, Wheylous. Why would you mock what people have or haven’t read when it’s not even relevant? You were being a jackass, albeit probably unintentionally.
