Commenting by Felipe?
Read the comment by Felipe. He complaning on the lws enaxted by government on exportation.which makes clear that leave to understand that advocates the restriction of exports.
Now, a thing disputes: you not advcate restriction of coercive workhouses?
“Mises was hailing the general tendency of the age, not every single thing that occurred during the age.” - So Mises advocated censitary suffrage and workhouses?
I asked if now you understand on liberalism, because their “golden age” is age of human rights abuses.
There were such abuses; but LESS SO than in most any other age.
Ahd what were the civilization and progress? Not studied on Greek and Roman civilizations? Not was slave societies? And not developed their productives forces?
They never had an industrial revolution. Their economic development was miniscule compared to that of the 19th century. Morever, the advances they did have were the results of the private property rights they did enjoy (which were more respected in Greece and Rome than in many other places.) Asian and African nations had chattel slaves too. But, for most nations, even their “freemen” were more enslaved than the freemen of Greece and Rome. The latter therefore enjoyed much more wealth through commerce and industry.
According to Mises, outside capitalism, not there economy.
Again, I can’t understand what you’re trying to say, due to incorrect grammar.
Read the comment by Felipe. He complaning on the lws enaxted by government on exportation.which makes clear that leave to understand that advocates the restriction of exports.
I just looked through all of Felipe’s posts on this page and I see NO indication of him complaining about restrictions on exports.
you not advcate restriction of coercive workhouses?
I think coercive workhouses should be outlawed.
“Mises was hailing the general tendency of the age, not every single thing that occurred during the age.” - So Mises advocated censitary suffrage and workhouses?
I don’t know what “censitory” means, but that passage had NOTHING to do with either suffrage or workhouses.
You really need to get a stronger grasp on English before you continue to try to interpret scholarly English prose. You are just confusing yourself.
Such abuses? Less? And the extermination of original inhabitants of United States?
In Antiquity, the productives forces was more developed that in Middle Age. The egyptians built pyramids, aqueducts, created hieroglyphs. The case of Roman Empire is notorious, according to Mises, the Roman civilization was a “refined civilization”. The inhabitants of urban agglomerations were supplied with food and raw materials not only from the neighboring rural districts, but also from distant provinces. A part of these provisions flowed into the cities as revenue of their wealthy residents who owned landed property. But a considerable part was bought in exchange for the rural population’s purchases of the products of the city-dwellers’ processing activities. Be slavery justified?
On the Mises, I said the according to their theory of economic calculation, outside the capitalism not there Economy.
Such abuses? Less? And the extermination of original inhabitants of United States?
Yes, even counting for that.
In Antiquity, the productives forces was more developed that in Middle Age.
That’s a myth. Read The Medieval Machine by Gimpel. The dark ages were less productive, yes. But the high middle ages (the 11th, 12th, and 13th centures) had an unprecedented output of food, textiles, iron, and other staples. As I’ve written…
“During the middle ages, water and wind mills peppered Europe like never before. The increased energy thus harnessed and its automaticity had an explosive effect on productivity. Cereals grains were processed with unprecedented efficiency. The greater heat of medieval furnace technology initiated the true iron age, during which quality iron was available for widespread use for the first time. There were huge improvements in agricultural technique, including in field rotation. The medieval harness unleashed the motive power of the horse in agriculture, which dramatically increased productivity. Scientific husbandry at monastery sheep farms led to an explosion in wool productivity. All this happened, and much much more.”
The egyptians built pyramids
Giant, elaborate tombs for the elite, that did little to nothing to make the life of the average Egyptian better.
, aqueducts,
The Egyptians predominantly used canals with large basins, not aqueducts.
created hieroglyphs.
An unwieldy writing system, accessible only to the elite.
“The inhabitants of urban agglomerations were supplied with food and raw materials not only from the neighboring rural districts, but also from distant provinces. A part of these provisions flowed into the cities as revenue of their wealthy residents who owned landed property. But a considerable part was bought in exchange for the rural population’s purchases of the products of the city-dwellers’ processing activities.”
Yes, that’s the extensive (relative to other contemporary nations) commerce I was talking about.
On the Mises, I said the according to their theory of economic calculation, outside the Capitalism not there Economy.
Do you mean to say, “outside capitalism there is no economy?” If so, then it depends on your definition of an economy. With “economy” defined as the realm of market exchange, then yes, outside capitalism, there is no economy. But if it is defined simply as a realm of exchange (including barter), then no he did not mean that.
Damn Lilburne you SO PATIENT
me would KICK HIM IN THE FACE, first post
but no can kick through forums 
According to response of Felipe, he advcates that the governament forbides exportation to England. You complain that the intervention by governament in “free market”.
At the contrary, I say that the british government was responsible of controlling the market to encourage exportation of food to England and preventing the posibility of irish entrepreneurs to take advantage of that business oportunity.
A bad law is not corrected by another bad law.
Wrong, what I dispute are workhouses.
Your intepretation of workhouses as slavery, and worst saying that they were the result of capitalism, is incorrect.
Without violence there can be no coertion, ergo no slavery.
On Mises, is nt “misuse”. Mises refers at the XIX century as “golden age of liberalism”, and repeats, refers to age more liberal of capitalism.
Liliburne already explained this to you. I will only add that was during that time, the era of the american revolution and the french revolution, many important liberal thinkers and economists (Bastiat, Jefferson, Menger, Constant, Humboldt, Tocqueville) made their contribution to advance the ideas of human liberty.
Read the comment by Felipe. He complaning on the lws enaxted by government on exportation.which makes clear that leave to understand that advocates the restriction of exports.
This is something I will never understand of socialists, why they always think that a government mistake can be fix by another govenrment mistake?
No, what I said is that the british government controls on the economy were largely responsible for the repercusion on the irish famine.
Now, a thing disputes: you not advcate restriction of coercive workhouses?
I advocate restriction to no individual, make of that what you will.
So Mises advocated censitary suffrage and workhouses?
No, Mises advocated a liberal democracy but a democracy where the rights of the individual and his property couldnt be violated by majorities or government laws.
I asked if now you understand on liberalism, because their “golden age” is age of human rights abuses.
Abuses by governments
So what if they do? The notion that people have to ‘earn’ a ‘right’ to their property is silly to begin with. ‘Merit’ and ‘fairness’ are both fantasies.
Not appropriate.
Dear Grayson.
In Antiquity, the productive forces in agriculture and commerce it developed. The Egyptians and Persians developed a system of irrigation, the phoenicians the commerce, and according to Mises, had a good handmade production in Roman Empire, which enabled a exchange between urban population and rural population. With this development, slavery be justified? And now, you admits that in Middle Age developed the production. And the rigid caste society be justified?
According to Mises, only exist economy under capitalism outside this economic system there not economy. He said that planing is not a economy.
Marlen, slavery is never justified. Advocates of the free market want self ownership and respect for homesteaded property rights. We do not think one man can rule another. We are not monarchists.
I think the fundamentals of what you have said are untrue , that the “owners of a means of production” live without working. The owner of the means of production has obviously designed his product and educated himself to be able to do this. Furthermore he has provided finance and technical support , which at times can be very difficult. The only situation in which your statement is valid is if someone has inherited wealth or industry without having to do the leg work for themselves , in which case , is valid. Who can put the price on enterprise? If we are to question the very concept of inheritance then surely arent we all disinherited and can’t the poor take your house away?
Dear Felipe.
The problem of famine in Ireland, was the exports. When Peel imported 10 millons of pounds in food of United States, was criticizes by liberals, because have to “prevent people from becoming habitually dependent on government” (by Charles Trevelyan).
Bentham was not liberal? He advocated the workhouses. And the problem is not was only workhouses. In “freedom labor” in “golden age of liberalism”, mans, womens and childs worked 16 hours at day. Is not result of capitaism?
Human liberty to whom? Jefferson was ownerslaves, Constant advocated “censitary suffrage”. Tocqueville advocated the repression to Revolution of 1848, when the workers protested for politics rights. Or you includes as human, only the owners of the means of production?
Mises advocated a “market democracy”.
“Mises advocated a liberal democracy but a democracy where the rights of the individual and his property couldnt be violated by majorities or government laws.” - Many liberals it worried with the “dictatorship of majoriy”, but advocated the worse dictatorship: “the dictatorship f minority”. Constant it worried with the “dictatorship of majoriy”, as saw, advocated the censitary suffrage. In 1907, when the austrian workers claimed vote right, Mises called the protests as acts of “terror”.
Alan Gingles, if you considers this fundaments “untrue”, was Mises that said.
I say not that yours advocated the slavery. But when I say that the yours arguments serve to justify the slavery. For example, You argues that “The owner of the means of production has obviously designed his product and educated himself to be able to do this. Furthermore he has provided finance and technical support , which at times can be very difficult.”, a apologist of slavery could argue that the ownerslave purchased the slave, feed the slave.
The problem of famine in Ireland, was the exports.
As I said, the problem here is that you dont recognaize the state as the primery cause for that “excesive” exports and the lack of movement in Ireland`s inner food market.
When Peel imported 10 millons of pounds in food of United States, was criticizes by liberals, because have to “prevent people from becoming habitually dependent on government” (by Charles Trevelyan).
I see nothing wrong with that statement
Bentham was not liberal? He advocated the workhouses. And the problem is not was only workhouses.
Workhouses were created by government enacts
In “freedom labor” in “golden age of liberalism”, mans, womens and childs worked 16 hours at day. Is not result of capitaism?
No, it was result of millions of people wanting to improve the quality of their lives by moving from the farms into the city.
None forced them to do so.
Mises advocated a “market democracy”.
The free market is liberal by definition
Many liberals it worried with the “dictatorship of majoriy”, but advocated the worse dictatorship: “the dictatorship f minority”.
Liberals dont advocate dictatorships, since the very term implies the use of force
Constant it worried with the “dictatorship of majoriy”, as saw, advocated the censitary suffrage. In 1907, when the austrian workers claimed vote right, Mises called the protests as acts of “terror”.
I believe what Mises was against was the use of political power as a tool for the advancement of certain interest groups.
Democracy is not an absolute term as I have no right to vote on your property nor you have the right to vote on mine.
I read the last link and holy damn, that was some scary shit. Even for someone like me who lived through the tsunami in Thailand.
Holy freaking shit this is for sure gonna give me nightmares…
That is so sick… out of this world..
At least now I got some good links to give to my socialists “friends”…
When Peel did somes welfare measures to ease the famine, as import food of U.S. to distribute foods to poors, the liberals it positioned against this measures.
You see noting wrong? Thousands dying and you believes that have to not intervened?
Workhouses were created by government enacts, but many liberals supported. Not forget that Bentham (designer of panopticon), was praised by Mises.
See how good this capitalism: oust the rural population of their lands, and employed those persons to working 16 hours at day in industry. How good this system!
Liberals dont advocate dictatorships? Hayek (Austrian School) said: “Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism”, in interview in chilean newspaper, El Mercurio.
On the right to vote, know how Constant advocated the censitary suffrage against the universal sufragge? That give right vote to nonproprietary would be a invasion to private property.
“I believe what Mises was against was the use of political power as a tool for the advancement of certain interest groups.” - True? So whait he claimed for “lifetime pension”, "only " for theirs “own personal interests”, as the Mises’s own said in Memoirs?
When Peel did somes welfare measures to ease the famine, as import food of U.S. to distribute foods to poors, the liberals it positioned against this measures.
You see noting wrong? Thousands dying and you believes that have to not intervened?
Thats not what I said, I said that in the long run government does more harm than good to societies.
Workhouses were created by government enacts, but many liberals supported. Not forget that Bentham (designer of panopticon), was praised by Mises.
There is nothing wrong with helping the unemployed.
See how good this capitalism: oust the rural population of their lands, and employed those persons to working 16 hours at day in industry. How good this system!
Did someone force this people out of their farms?
Liberals dont advocate dictatorships? Hayek (Austrian School) said: “Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism”, in interview in chilean newspaper, El Mercurio.
Hayek presented a false dichotomy, he was a brilliant man, smart enough to know that there is NO liberal dictatorship.
give right vote to nonproprietary would be a invasion to property.
To give rights to one group over the property of other group is stealing. Which coincidentally is what government does.
So whait he claimed for “lifetime pension”, "only " for theirs “own personal interests”, as the Mises’s own said in Memoirs?
I dont understand what you wrote.
“Thats not what I said”. Not? Read what you said on the quote by Charles Trevelyan: “I see nothing wrong with that statement”.
Sure, WorkHouses served to helping the unemployed!
Inclosure Acts never existed! Mises also lied at comment in Human Action on the enclosure! How is easy omit on historical facts.
“there is NO liberal dictatorship.” - Pinochet was what? Keynesian? Why the yours “brilhant man” said in El Mercurio that “personally” preffered a “liberal dictator”? Ahd the censitary suffrage? Very democratic was the “golden age of liberalism”, that gave right vote only to richs!
Sure, give right vote to not-owners means cnfiscate the owners.
Sure that you not understand, because never read a book of Mises!