Thanks, I’ll have to take your word on it.
Following Solid_Choke, I’d say you’re quoting Mises out of context. He was paraphrasing the view of Marxist polylogism.
Apparently more of Human Action needs to be quoted to you. The following is immediately after Solid_Choke’s quote:
That last line clearly shows that Mises stands opposed to the propositions of all polylogisms, let alone the Marxist variety. He was hardly supporting the proposition by silence.
You conceded defeat in the other thread, so why are you bringing it up here? Still looking for a way out?
In everyday English usage, statements like “Government will always exist”, taken in isolation, are interpreted as statements of objective knowledge. That means people making such statements are understood to support them, at least implicitly.
It is possible to state a proposition without affirming or denying it, but in this case Mises denies it (which I implied when I said that he refuted it).
I never suggested such a thing. I explicitly said otherwise. Seriously, read it again.
Now this is downright disconcerting. I always thought the whole paraphrasing thing Mises did was ripe for out-of-context quoting, but I never thought anyone would actually do it. And I see Lyle still hasn’t changed his sig. Where is Capt. Picard when you need him?
In everyday English usage, statements like “Government will always exist”, taken in isolation, are interpreted as statements of objective knowledge. That means people making such statements are understood to support them, at least implicitly.
This is what I was looking for. Thanks!
You’re welcome, I think. 
How was it what you were looking for?
It is what I was looking for, not in the sense that Ludwig Von Mises implicitly agreed with Marx for having quoted him (Mises went on to refute such claims of Marx to be contra-reason), but in the sense that a universally valid logic is necessary to prevent confusion and to promote cooperation. Some have looked to government for this “standardization” of logic. I assume they have done so to promote by aggressive force ORDER. However, the experiment has resulted in CHAOS (one sector of society attempting to debauch or enslave another). As Thomas E Woods Jr points out in “Meltdown,” government is not necessary to standardize law and order. The market is perfectly capable of this IF that is what consumers so desire. Government can simply institutionalize law and order that has previously existed. The idea is that government protects private institutions rather than creating them from a conservative perspective. This is noble but if what’s being conserved is wrong or detrimental to society, the flexibility of change does not exist. This is where statist liberals want their way with government and a “living” constitution. They want to create new public institutions. But government cannot adequately discern or represent the tastes of the people. Government only makes sure that we will fight against eachother, not that we won’t. Only the market can adequately represent the diverse hearts and minds of the people. The market is flexible enough and strict enough when consumers desire it. If government gets in the way of what consumers desire, a disconnect occurs, either it is strict when consumers want flexibility or flexible when consumers want strictness. Government is an unnecessary middle man that stunts growth and progress rather than promoting. In a sense, those who want democracy or monarchy get both in the market rather than one or the other in the state. The market is, therefore, positive-sum, whereas, government is zero-sum.
I am now reading “The Myth of National Defense” and am pleasantly surprise at what I am reading.
That’s an interesting way to put it and I essentially agree. Glad I could help!
In the Middle Ages, communes served as private police forces.
Indeed. There were many legal and institutional features of ancient and middle ages society that libertarians often know nothing about, and which often provide an enlightened understanding of just how a property-and-contract society would function.
Not so sure that it is exactly what you are looking for but I’ll post it. You may have heard of H.H. Holmes. He has often been called “the first modern serial killer”. He killed an unknown number during the 1893 World Fair in Chicago in his so called “Murder Castle”. He was brought down by a private detective of the famous Pinkerton firm, Frank Geyer. Geyer was investigating an insurance fraud committed by Holmes (who apparently made a fortune through such schemes) and he became concerned about the fate of three children of a woman Holmes had seduced. Although this was strictly none of his business, he managed to convince his superiors to give him time and money to find the missing children. And the rest is history as they say.
Without Geyer there’s little doubt Holmes’s nefarious murders would have ever been uncovered. He had been arrested but nobody suspected he was a savage serial killer: the authorities thought they had just arrested a sophisticated swindler.