This is not a matter of my own dislike of anarcho-capitalism, by the way.
Not to drive this thread off track, but why are you opposed to anarchy?
Judging from your constant, yet vacuous, appeals to authority you have a problem understanding the very concepts of learning and knowledge acquisition. For you, it seems, they’re nothing more than cataloging what other people (more “prominent” and “respected” than yourself) have said on any matter. Try thinking with your own head for a change – it’s very liberating.
I don’t think I’ve ever said one shouldn’t think things through on their own. But if you’re going to be arguing about money and banking, it’d be good to have taken at least a course on the subject so that you know what you’re talking about.
In regards to meeting demand for money, Hülsmann wrote a piece on demand for money and time preference. He argues against Mises’ and Rothbard’s beliefs that the demand for money was time-neutral. In it, he points to a footnote in Man, Economy, and State, where Rothbard makes a minor note,
Strictly, the ceteris paribus condition will tend to be violated. An increased demand for money tends to lower money prices and will therefore lower money costs for gold mining. This will stimulate gold mining production until the interest return on mining is again the same as in other industries. Thus the increased demand for money will also call forth new money to meet the demand.
You don’t know how much I know about what I’m talking about.
Z.
Quite an inflammatory introduction. Let’s see if you substantiate it.
People use the same words differently, by the way. Based on the definition of the word “statism” that people on this forum use, Adam Smith was a statist. For, “statist”, in that sense, just refers to anyone supporting compulsory monopolies of provision of law and order, which almost everyone does. So, again, in that sense, to call someone a “statist” is not very remarkable. But perhaps not everyone uses the word like that.
When I asked you to define your use of “statist”, I was just asking you to clarify what you meant. To respond to that with “let’s please not pretend we don’t what what “statist” means in this forum” is, not only an inflammatory accusation that I was bullshitting, but is also an evasion of my question. You are continuing to use the word; yet, despite my requests for clarification, you have yet to define it.
Cool.
Not based on the definition of it that most of us here use.
Did they support compulsory monopolies of provision of law and order? Or are you defining it differently?
Sure.
Of course not.
Really, Mr. Olovetto: I never said that I wasn’t. I said that my position is beside the point.
For Jonathan: My argument about Smith concerns whether he deserves to be called a statist. In fact, Rothbard did try to portray him as such, aqnd that’s were I reject Rothbard. As for Schumpeter, it is well known that his idea of good economics–in his history of thought mode, that is, rather than in his own positive contributions–was Walrasian economics. (He denied, for instance, that Bastait deserved to be considered an economist at all.) So his strictures against Smith must be taken with a grain of salt.
It is news to me that anyone who isn’t an anarcho-capitalist, or who merely supports government-based legal arrangements, is a “statist.” The usual definition, even among libertarians, refers to an advocate of central-government direction of economic activity, whether by outright socialism or through systematic interventionism. Friedman surely doesn’t deserve to be called a statist; likewise any minimal-state classical liberals, of which Smith was an example. Apart from Rothbard, none of the most famous Austrains were anarcho capitalists–not even Mises. Would you label even him a “statist”? I hope not! It is easily shown that Menger and other Austrians did excuse government monopolies in such things as coinage. I think they were wrong, but I wouldn’t dream of labelling them statists!
But then, you do suggest that “practically everyone” is a statist. So I suppose you might well say that Mises was one. A gold star for you for consistency, then.
But perhaps I misjudge this forum–perhaps the majority here share your view. If so, that’s a shame, because no good can come from having the idiosyncratic use of "statist"as a synonym for “non-anarcho capitalist” become widespread.
Words are not sacred. Try not to get so entangled in them.
I don’t think there is any reason for hostility.
Using unconventional definitions is a reliable way to become entangled in sterile debates about the meaning of terms.
First of all, I don’t like the term “anarcho-capitalism”. What I said was that the word “statist” can refer to people supporting compulsory monopolies of law and order, not just people who aren’t “anarcho-capitalists”. Now the next question is this, what is your definition of the relevant sense of the word “state”? I tend to define it as referring to compulsory monopolies of law and order. So, in that sense, to call people supporting such institutions “statists” is pretty reasonable. In fact, I think that most people define “state” in that way, whether explicitly or not.
I agree. But see what I wrote above.
I didn’t mean it to come off like that. But I understand why it did.
Apparently even libertarians are mostly statists.
"because no good can come from having the idiosyncratic use of “statist"as a synonym for “non-anarcho capitalist” become widespread.”
It’s not as if such terms have absolute and precise objective definitions anyway. When does one become a Statist or a socialist? What is the threshold? Can anyone agree? No.
So it’s a relative term that will be used differently in different contexts. To us, Obama is a socialist, but to hard-core socialists, he’s a Capitalist.
As of now, this forum represents the final destination, the final frontier, and the last stop in “following your logic to its ultimate conclusions”. In such a place, everybody in support of a State is a statist.
Exactly.
So is it the consensus on this forum, then, that Mises was indeed a statist?
"So is it the consensus on this forum, then, that Mises was indeed a statist? "
There was already a thread on this, I can’t find it.
There is never a consensus, but I would think that yes, most would consider Mises a statist, but not because he believed in the State, but because he was not familiar with the alternative. Intellectual progress, like all progress, is incremental. Those who took market theory to its ultimate conclusions had the luxury of building on previous works of those before them, just like Mises did, just like Hayek did, and just like everybody else. It doesn’t mean, of course, that this makes them correct. However, it does mean that if they are correct, their intellectual predecessors cannot be condemned for not realizing all of the further progress that was made after them. That would mean that the first intellectual genius would have had to solve all of the secrets of the universe by himself
There were already individualist anarchists is the 19th century, and it is not like Mises and Hayek was unaware of Rothbard.
Selgin: “So is it the consensus on this forum, then, that Mises was indeed a statist?”
Any consensus would be an over-generalization.
“There were already individualist anarchists is the 19th century, and it is not like Mises and Hayek was unaware of Rothbard.”
It takes more then just being aware of something, and Rothbard became an anarchist, when? when Mises was like 70 already. And it takes more then just Rothbard to make the compelling case for a complete voluntary society. New ideas penetrate intellectual thought very slowly. We have all been spoon fed by the works of others. Mises was busy what, revolutionizing economic thought?
Mises particular use of the term “Anarchy” and his condemnation of it in the literature is unambiguously clear. He is condemning the lawless society, the pacifist anarchists, and the society lacking a system of coercion and compulsion necessary to protect property and the “smooth operation of the market”.