well just because he was for succedding doesnt necessarily mean he was for anarchy… he attacked anarchy, Even Robert Murphy states that Mises supported a government to protect private property. It is pretty far fetched to consider Mises an anarchist, unless he specifically said, " I am an anarchist," he isnt one. If he were alive today, we might assume he might support right-anarchy, but we can only assume that…
“he attacked anarchy”
/facepalm. You clearly didn’t read the Kinsella article, nor Han’s Hoppe’s explanation in the interview, nor his intro to TEOL.
“Rothbard’s anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. “The anarchists,” Mises had written…”
How about you go do that now & alleviate your ignorance. And if you still take issue with it, address their arguments then.
“Even Robert Murphy states that Mises supported a government to protect private property.”
Where? I’d like to see that. Chaos Theory right? Even still argument from authority fallacy? And even if we’re to go there… Hoppe trumps Murphy imo. But not by much. I’m assuming he hasn’t seen either any of the above things I linked too, and if he did - he’d change his mind.
“It is pretty far fetched to consider Mises an anarchist”
Which is why I said he was a philosophical anarchist.
“we might assume he might support right-anarchy”
No such thing as “left” or “right” anarchy. False paradigm.
Murphy’s comment on Mises could be found on Chaos Theory…
if you read Mises’ critique on Man, Economy, and State, which is on this site, you can see that Mises disagrees with Rothbard in some major areas…
Apparently you do not know what ‘‘philosophical anarchist’’ means… read Political Obligations by Klosko… a philosophical anarchist could still be for a state as a ‘‘necessary evil’’…
there is such thing as right or left… the political spectrum is a little messed up but i believe readers know the difference between right and left anarchy… even in that article you are referring to, Hoppe is using the term ‘‘left utopias’’, so whether you like it or not, the meaning of ‘right and left’’ exist…
“Murphy’s comment on Mises could be found on Chaos Theory…”
Like I said.
“if you read Mises’ critique on Man, Economy, and State”
I’m already aware of it.
“Mises disagrees with Rothbard in some major areas”
And now if you read this interview with Rothbard about it:
AEN: What were your thoughts on Mises’s review of MES when it appeared in the New Individualist Review?
MNR: I liked it, but he didn’t say much about the book. I would have preferred him to go into more depth.
AEN: Was he bothered by some of your corrections and of his theories?
MNR: I don’t know because he never said. Mises and I had only two friendly arguments. One was on monopoly theory where he wound up calling me a Schmollerite. Although nobody else in the seminar realized it, that was the ultimate insult for an Austrian. The other argument was on his utilitarian refutation of government intervention. I argued that government officials can maximize their own well-being through economic interventionism, if not those of the public. He in turn argued that those kind of politicians wouldn’t survive popular vote, thus changing the terms of debate.
Nothing that at all pre-cludes from calling him a philosophical anarchist.
“Apparently you do not know what ‘‘philosophical anarchist’’ means”
Except I do:
“So I recon it’d be more accurate to kind of call him a “philosophical anarchist” like Albert J. Nock, as opposed to a minarchist or supporter of “government” because he is far better than the classical liberals or other minarchists today.. who don’t advocate individual or even anything close to village secession at all.”
Don’t worry mate I’m up to speed on the etymology of the word. You’re just using a different definition. Read the Kinsella article and you should understand what I mean by philosophical anarchist.
“there is such thing as right or left…”
It’s not legitimate, nor does it exist in reality.
“the political spectrum is a little messed up but i believe readers know the difference between right and left anarchy…”
It is only conceptions of what they believe will happen in a stateless society. They are projections. It is “thick” libertarianism & it is a joke.
“even in that article you are referring to, Hoppe is using the term ‘‘left utopias’’, so whether you like it or not, the meaning of ‘right and left’’ is exist…”
Another appeal to authority. And he is wrong.
And yet here you are… having done nothing to address the arguments cited by Kinsella, Rothbard and Hoppe… just more red herrings.
Do I need too physically reprint them all here for you to then engage them? Because I will.
you are too ignorant… you are just stepping over your own words… i am not here to argue… whether you choose to accept the fact that you have no case is up to you…
“you are too ignorant…”
Baseless assertion. Back up your claim. Arrogant, yes. Ignorant, hellz no.
“you are just stepping over your own words…”
Except I haven’t. I’ve been consistent & crystal clear the whole way.
“i am not here to argue…”
You state that you’re not, but that’s what you’ve been doing.
“whether you choose to accept the fact that you have no case is up to you…”
Lmao! Haha! You’ve done everything but address their arguments. What a joke. Like I said I would… here we go, 3…2…1!
Hoppe:
Rothbard’s anarchism was not the sort of anarchism that his teacher and mentor Mises had rejected as hopelessly naive, of course. “The anarchists,” Mises had written,
contend that a social order in which nobody enjoys privileges at the expense of his fellow-citizens could exist without any compulsion and coercion for the prevention of action detrimental to society. . . . The anarchists overlook the undeniable fact that some people are either too narrow-minded or too weak to adjust themselves spontaneously to the conditions of social life. . . . An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. Society cannot exist if the majority is not ready to hinder, by the application or threat of violent action, minorities from destroying the social order.[10]
Indeed, Rothbard wholeheartedly agreed with Mises that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat to force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel a person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society.[11]
Inspired in particular by the nineteenth-century American anarchist political theorists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker and the Belgian economist Gustave de Molinari, from the outset Rothbard’s anarchism took it for granted that there will always be murderers, thieves, thugs, con artists, etc., and that life in society would be impossible if they were not punished by physical force. As a reflection of this fundamental realism—anti-utopianism—of his private-property anarchism, Rothbard, unlike most contemporary political philosophers, accorded central importance to the subject of punishment. For him, private property and the right to physical defense were inseparable. No one can be said to be the owner of something if he is not permitted to defend his property by physical violence against possible invaders and invasions. “Would,” Rothbard asked, “somebody be allowed to ‘take the law into his own hands’? Would the victim, or a friend of the victim, be allowed to exact justice personally on the criminal?” and he answered, “of course, Yes, since all rights of punishment derive from the victim’s right of self-defense” (p. 90). Hence, the question is not whether or not evil and aggression exist, but how to deal with its existence justly and efficiently, and it is only in the answer to this question that Rothbard reaches conclusions which qualify him as an anarchist.
…
"Here we go again. (HT: Kinsella)
"How far would Mises push the principle of secession, of self-determination? Down to a single village, he states; but would he press beyond even that? He calls the right of self-determination not of nations, “but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit.” But how about self-determination for the ultimate unit, for each individual? Allowing each individual to remain where he lives and yet secede from the State is tantamount to anarchism, and yet Mises comes very close to anarchism, blocked only by practical technical considerations:
If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. This is impracticable only because of compelling technical considerations, which make it necessary that the right of self-determination be restricted to the will of the majority of the inhabitants of areas large enough to count as territorial units in the administration of the country.
That Mises, at least in theory, believed in the right of individual secession and therefore came close to anarchism can also be seen in his description of liberalism, that “it forces no one against his will into the structure of the State.” - MNR
Liberalism pp. 109-10:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. … 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."
…
AEN: Was Mises better than the classical liberals on the question of the state?
HOPPE: Mises thought it was necessary to have an institution that suppresses those people who cannot behave appropriately in society, people who are a danger because they steal and murder. He calls this institution government.
But he has a unique idea of how government should work. To check its power, every group and every individual, if possible, must have the right to secede from the territory of the state. He called this the right of self determination, not of nations as the League of Nations said, but of villages, districts, and groups of any size. In Liberalism and Nation, State, and Economy, he elevates secession to a central principle of classical liberalism. If it were possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, he says, it would have to be done. Thus the democratic state becomes, for Mises, a voluntary organization.
AEN: Yet you have been a strong critic of democracy.
HOPPE: Yes, as that term is usually understood. But under Mises’s unique definition of democracy, the term means self rule or self government in its most literal sense. All organizations in society, including government, should be the result of voluntary interactions.
In a sense you can say that Mises was a near anarchist. If he stopped short of affirming the right of individual secession, it was only because of what he regarded as technical grounds. In modern democracy, we exalt the method of majority rule as the means of electing the rulers of a compulsory monopoly of taxation.
Mises frequently made an analogy between voting and the marketplace. But he was quite aware that voting in the marketplace means voting with your own property. The weight of your vote is in accord with your value productivity. In the political arena, you do not vote with your property; you vote concerning the property of everyone, including your own. People do not have votes according to their value productivity.
AEN: Yet Mises attacks anarchism in no uncertain terms.
HOPPE: His targets here are left-utopians. He attacks their theory that man is good enough not to need an organized defense against the enemies of civilization. But this is not what the private-property anarchist believes. Of course, murderers and thieves exist. There needs to be an institution that keeps these people at bay. Mises calls this institution government, while people who want no state at all point out that all essential defensive services can be better performed by firms in the market. We can call these firms government if we want to.
“Government is essentially the negation of liberty”
-Ludwig Von Mises
That sounds statist!
How appropriate for these accusations of Mises and Ron Paul being statists ending up on one thread.
I’m with BrainPolice.
Ron Paul does speak some truth and has some value as a public figure but he still has some conservative and negative aspects e.g. inspires constitution worship.I’m thankful to him for bringing me here but now I think he’s quite moderate in the libertarian scene.It’s a bit worrying to see anarchists worship a politician like this- whether he’s running for president or not.
Too easy.
Mises also supported public education in certain occasions. Doesn’t sound that anarchist to me.
It’s also true that he argued with Rothbard on the prospots of anarchy, but was never convinced of it. If you read Hulsmann book pg 1023-1030, it gives a good overview. Mises was never convinced of the validity of an anarchist order.
He would probably support it, but he didn’t think a society could do without a monopoly on violence, just like James Buchanan. And he calls himself a philosophical anarchist too.
Too much Ron Paul love from Anarchists!
Ok then.
-
He inspires constitution love which in light of Spooner is absurd.
-
He inspires founding father worship
-
He’s anti-immigration
-
pro-life
-
inconsistent in deed and word
-
a distraction from legitimate strategy
-
counterproductive to have antistatists looking up to a statist.
Without Ron Paul’s presidential campaign, there would probably be at least hundreds (maybe more) less anarcho-capitalists than there are now.
What legitimate strategy do you have in mind? Why isn’t it working better than Paul’s strategy?
The word legitimate is so funny. You can almost count on the person using it not having any legitimacy whatsoever.
I concur about Ron Paul SC. He’s brought potentially thousands of people to ancap. Listening to youtube philosophers and internet anarchists poo poo him is hilarious.
Ron Paul compared to the most notable classical liberal statesman throughout history.
David Lloyd George
Aforementioned introduced income tax, land tax, luxury tax, and sin tax for the building of more battleships and military armament. Ron Paul never supported a single bill for appropriations for new military weaponry and never supported a single tax.
Campbell Bannerman
Held that union members could not be held liable for violence they conduct during strike. Ron Paul has never had double standards on violence till date.
Frederic Bastiat
Believed in taxation for recession stimulus public works, subsidised art, high pay for public servants, large army, and also believed in regulation of trades and commerce. Ron Paul opposed the stimulus.
Walter Bagehot
Okay, not a statesman, but a notable liberal. He was among the first to support a taxpayer funded bailout of banks if they fail, and recommended this repeatedly, despite problems of moral hazard. Ron Paul always opposed bank bailouts.
Edmund Burke
Supported libel laws.
On reflection, liberals have always supported freedom to some arbitrarily defined limits, and decided at some point that beyond this, they must compromise. Ron Paul’s consistency…it is legendary and simply with little precedent. Remember that even Thomas Jefferson supported progressive taxation.
How liberal is this?
“Economics neither approves nor disapproves of government measures restricting production and output. It merely considers it its duty to clarify the consequences of such measures. The choice of policies to be adopted devolves upon the people. But in choosing they must not disregard the teachings of economics if they want to attain the ends sought. There are certainly cases in which people may consider definite restrictive measures as justified. Regulations concerning fire prevention are restrictive and raise the cost of production. But the curtailment of total output they bring about is the price to be paid for avoidance of greater disaster. The decision about each restrictive measure is to be made on the ground of a meticulous weighing of the costs to be incurred and the prize to be obtained. No reasonable man could possibly question this rule”
- 3. He’s anti-immigration
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought his stance on immigration was driven more by the implications it has with the US’s current entitlement programs, rather than a general anti-immigrant sentiment? That is, in a more perfect system, he wouldn’t have a problem with immigration. Of course I’m sure it helps him score some rhetoric points with voters, being in a border state.
- pro-life
Again, my understanding was that he was personally pro-life, but generally favored the state staying out of the process. He opposes stuff like Roe vs Wade on constitutional grounds, and to my knowledge hasn’t called for a federal ban on the process or something.
However, logically, being pro-life isn’t un-libertarian in an of itself. If you classify the fetus as a human individual, then with the NAP protecting that individual from danger is laudable. In a minarchist or society you could have laws against abortion if you consider it murder. This is an entirely other can of worms though, so lets not dive into that discussion. I just wouldn’t use the point that he’s “pro-life” against him unless he’s trying to get the process banned at the federal level.
To me that you find it hilarious is part of the cultish mentality surrounding him.Those who oppose voting normally are giving it up to vote thinking things will change.I just see the whole thing as crazy.