Questions for Austrian Economists

Miscellaneous General
1

Question 1: Since Mises himself was not an anarchist, but a minarchist; why are the latterday followers of Mises so oppossed to minarchists? For any objection to a modern day minarchist must be applied to Mises, inorder to be intellectually consistent. So why does Mises get special treatment and modern day minarchist don’t? Also why is Ayn Rand attacked for her minarchism, but not Mises?

Question 2: If all aspects of praxeology are synthetic apriori in origin how can Mises and Hoppe, both using praxeology state that (Mises) democratic peace theory works:

Liberal pacifism demands peace because it considers war
useless. That is a view understandable only from the standpoint
of the free-trade doctrine as developed in the classical theory
of Hume, Smith, and Ricardo. He who wants to prepare a lasting
peace must, like Bentham, be a free-trader and a democrat
and work with decisiveness for the removal of all political rule
over colonies by a mother country and fight for the full freedom
of movement of persons and goods. Those and no others
are the preconditions of eternal peace. If one wants to make
peace, then one must get rid of the possibility of conflicts
between peoples. Only the ideas of liberalism and democracy
have the power to do that.
Nation, State, and Economy, p. 86

and (Hoppe) it cannot. (found here http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe17.html) If one is using apriori knowledge then the two people must achieve the same answers. Since both hold two opposite opinions only one can be correct. Yet they both are using praxeology, which if they were both doing would achieve the same answer.

Question 3: I don’t see how a Private Defense Agency (PDA from know on) is a market structure. In the Human Action Glossary under Market economy, the free or unhampered. A pure or unhampered (i.e., free) market economy is an imaginary construction which assumes: (1) The private ownership (control) of the means of production; (2) The division of labor and the consequent voluntary market exchanges of goods and services; (3) No institutional interferences with the operation of the market processes which generate prices, wage rates and interest rates which reflect the actual conditions of supply and demand for all goods and services; (4) A government, the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, which is intent on preserving market processes while protecting peaceful market participants from the encroachments of those who would resort to the threat or use of force or fraud.

And under Market process we find. The voluntary and peaceful complex interaction of men deliberately striving toward the best possible removal of human dissatisfaction. The leadership in the process is assumed by promoters, speculators and entrepreneurs competing for the profits awarded to those who prove themselves superior in providing the most valued means for satisfying human desires. Every step in the market process depends on human decisions so that there is nothing automatic or mechanical in the process. By an inseparably interrelated series of human actions the market process determines the price structure of the market, the allocation of the factors of production and the share of each participating individual in the combined result.

So it seems that a market entity by definition cannot be coercive. I mean a shoe maker cannot attack another shoe maker to prevent him from competing, unlike say a union. Yet a PDA has the ability to coerce others. The expectation is that it will not, but whether it does or not is not the point I’m trying to make, but doesn’t the very fact the PDA can use coercion make it a non-market entity? Note it does not necessarily make it the state mentioned in point 4, but would it not be some kind of third way?

Question 4: I have heard Thomas Woods and Hans Hoppe say it is impractical to produc a limited state since it will always centralize power. My question is, while not explicitly stated in anything I have read, do anarcho-captialists claim that power will never be centralized under their system? Because if power can be centralized under even an ancap system then the rejection that Woods and Hoppe made toward the state would be equally relevant to the ancap society.

Lastly if any one of the above mentioned austrians were misquoted or misunderstood then correction is desired.

2

If one is using apriori knowledge then the two people must achieve the same answers.

Because it is fallibilistic apriorism. In other words, both the high level concepts used and deductions can be erroneous and thus subject to revision. Both Mises and Hoppe are pretty clear on this, though usually more so with respect to deduction than concept-formation. If you want a fuller analysis of this look at Plauche’s paper on Aristotelianism and the Austrian method in the reading list on Praxeology. Apriorism is not tantamount to infallibilism. A number of rationalist philosophers have explored the concept, including Hoppe, Barry Smith and Laurence BonJour, if you’re curious.

3

We’re not opposed to minarchists, we’re opposed to government. An important distinction. I have a lot of respect for Judge Napolitano, for example, but I would never stop agitating for anarchy even if we arrived at some sort of night watchman state as he envisions.

At any rate, Mises was an economist. His student, Rothbard, was an economist plus a whole lot of other things, and it is his influence that has made Austrianism so connected with anarchy.

Correct, and it usually is. Again, I respect Mises like I respect Napolitano, but I will never except the State, no matter how limited and no matter how small.

I don’t see her being attacked for her minarchism. There are a lot of other things about Miss Rosenbaum that draw the ire of Rothbardians.

Question two handled above.

Because a producer of, in this case, services offers them to willing buyers in exchange for (fill in the blank, probably money).

Government does not preserve market processes in law, law enforcement, protection, arbitration and criminal punishment. It creates its own monopoly (and may create other monopolies as well).

Sure it can, it simply cannot aggress against others (initiate coercion). A cobbler who shoots looters entering his shop is using coercion. He remains a market participant. It is the initiation of coercion that is the key point.

Everyone has the ability to. If the PDA uses coerction only to protect its clients, enforce property rights and seek restitution and retribution, it is a market participant. When it initiates coercion it becomes criminal.

I have seen this claim made. I think it’s a matter of odds. Power can be centralized, but lots of relevant factors will have a hand in determining whether it is. The Irish were anarchists for over a millenium, while the people of Pennsylvania gave up their freedom after only a decade.

Not at all. The moment a monopolist forms in an ancap society, it ceases, to that extent, to be an ancap society.

4

“government does not preserve market processes in law, law enforcement, protection, arbitration and criminal punishment. It creates its own monopoly (and may create other monopolies as well).”

I think you missed the point. I merely provided that quote to show how Mises saw the government. I wanted to show that any organizatio based on force is coercive.

“Everyone has the ability to. If the PDA uses coerction only to protect its clients, enforce property rights and seek restitution and retribution, it is a market participant. When it initiates coercion it becomes criminal.”

Again I don’t think you say the point I was trying to make. I know that any individual can turn to crime and abuse others, but I meant that as an institution a PDA is expected to use force. A shoe maker is not expected to use force. It was this cultivation and application of force that I was trying to bring out that makes a PDA totally distinct from say a shoe maker or a salesman.

“Not at all. The moment a monopolist forms in an ancap society, it ceases, to that extent, to be an ancap society.”

That is kind of the point I was trying to make. I power cannot be eternally checked and the beast of totalitarianism can spring not just from a limited state i.e. USA, but also from a anarchist state then I think Hoppe’s and Wood’s view that limiting state power is pointless shoulld be expanded to say that limitations of all power are pointless. I’m not saying I agree with this statement, but that the logic of Wood’s and Hoppe’s ideology seem to lead that way.

5

Turin, very good OP. Looking forward to the responses.

Z.

6

I did not miss the point. I am aware of how Mises saw government; I was showing how he was wrong.

That’s tautological.

If I didn’t see that point it is because you didn’t make it. Expectation of force is a new element absent from the OP. At any rate, expectation of coercion is not what makes something criminal. A bouncer at a club may be expected to use force; he is still a market participant. I agree that a PDA is distinct from a cobbler in this instance, but the distinction does not make one a non market participant. You are participating in the market so long as you are producing and trading your surpluses without committing criminal acts. A PDA, if it does not aggress (initiate coercion) against others, is not acting criminally though it may act coercively. The importance is the distinction between coercion and criminality.

Should the Irish not have bothered with freedom and formed a State because they only got twelve or so centuries of anarchy? As Rothbard said, even if anarchy lasts only a month, it is a blessed holiday from government. And if the anarchy lasts ten years, as in Pennsylvania, that’s an entire decade without taxes and regulation (and wonderful relations with the Indians, too). If the anarchy lasts several decades, as in parts of the Old West, even better. If it lasts three centuries or so, as in Iceland, that is indisputably worth it. If it lasts over a millenium, as in Ireland, that’s fantastic. If it lasts even longer…

Should I not build my house because it will only start to decay immediately? Should I not date that sexpot because I know the relationship will only last for six torrid months of kinky sex? Even if anarchy were absolutely doomed to devolve into archy once again, you at least are starting further away from absolute tyrrany, as well as laying historical foundations and traditions to support the next revolution. History is the struggle of freedom versus power. This is unlikely ever to end, and things will swing back and forth over time. But rather than tell the anarchists to give up their dreams because they may one day end, instead tell the statists to relinquish theirs, because anarchy will come one day.

7

“I think you missed the point. I merely provided that quote to show how Mises saw the government.”

Look I was not intending for this quote to be used as an argument for or against government, but only to be used as a means to provide a defintion, however disputable, that government is coercion. Nothing less nothing more.

“That’s tautological.”

I’ m not certain what that is supposed to mean? A tautology is not logically fallacious and thus is logically valid. What is the point of raising that point?

"

Should the Irish not have bothered with freedom and formed a State because they only got twelve or so centuries of anarchy? As Rothbard said, even if anarchy lasts only a month, it is a blessed holiday from government. And if the anarchy lasts ten years, as in Pennsylvania, that’s an entire decade without taxes and regulation (and wonderful relations with the Indians, too). If the anarchy lasts several decades, as in parts of the Old West, even better. If it lasts three centuries or so, as in Iceland, that is indisputably worth it. If it lasts over a millenium, as in Ireland, that’s fantastic. If it lasts even longer…

Should I not build my house because it will only start to decay immediately? Should I not date that sexpot because I know the relationship will only last for six torrid months of kinky sex? Even if anarchy were absolutely doomed to devolve into archy once again, you at least are starting further away from absolute tyrrany, as well as laying historical foundations and traditions to support the next revolution. History is the struggle of freedom versus power. This is unlikely ever to end, and things will swing back and forth over time. But rather than tell the anarchists to give up their dreams because they may one day end, instead tell the statists to relinquish theirs, because anarchy will come one day."

The point I was trying to make is that ancaps claim that since power in the state cannot be limited therefore it is futile to try to reform it. That line of reasoning, ancaps not mine, should be applied to all attempts to limit power. If you think this line of reasoning is erroneous, i.e. don’t bother doing since it will ultimately fail, then ancaps should not use that line of argument against the state. That was my point and nothing more. Read more carefuly what I am saying, there are things you think I am saying that I am not, or at least did not mean to convey. In closing I might say even if the Jeffersonian expirament lasts only a day, which it did not, then it to would be a blessed exemption from the tyranny of Monarchs.

8

Mises supported secession, so if village/city X want secede from state Y, they have right to do it. As Hoppe said, this was quite an anarchist idea.

Well, then someone has made something wrong. I think it is possibly Mises, because Austrian praxeologian theories have advanced since Mises did his job.

9

The point of raising that point was to point out that it was pointless to point that point out. Your statement was: “I wanted to show that any organizatio [sic] based on force is coercive.” That’s like saying “I wanted to show that anyone living north of the equator is in the northern hemisphere.” It’s not that it’s fallacious - it isn’t - it’s that it is unnecessary. We know that government uses force, i.e., is coercive, and we know that PDA’s might need to use force now and then. The difference is that government, as a matter of definition, initiates coercion while PDA’s do not.

Strawman.

No, Turin, there was much more than that. Perhaps you should read more carefully what you are saying. You raised the following points:

  1. For any objection to a modern day minarchist must be applied to Mises, inorder to be intellectually consistent.

  2. Also why is Ayn Rand attacked for her minarchism, but not Mises?

  3. I don’t see how a Private Defense Agency (PDA from know on) is a market structure.

a. Yet a PDA has the ability to coerce others.

  1. So it seems that a market entity by definition cannot be coercive.

So after pointing out that Mises should be criticised by anarchists, wondering why Ayn Rand is more criticised than he, doubting that PDA’s could be considered a market structure because they use force and claiming that a market entity cannot be coercive, and after I rebutted and answered these points/questions, you now want to say, “[A]ncaps should not use that line of argument against the state. That was my point and nothing more.” And then you have the cheek to suggest that I read more carefully?