Rothbard implies in The Ethics Of Liberty that Mises’ approach makes one into a “methodological slave to every goal that the majority of the public might happen to cherish” since he is a utilitarian. (Chapter 26, Section C)
Is this a sound critque? Also is there a utilitarian counter to Rothbard’s natural rights? Sorry, I am new to all of this and trying to wrap my head around terminology.
Geez, free enterprise coddles to the demands of the unwashed and tasteless masses. We 'ought to show them the real man’s way of doing things. Natural/Divine right proponents seek to appeal to some ‘higher’ authority for justification, utilitarians make no such proposition. In the scheme of things, it is what the majority wants that will take hold. For Mises, liberalism was more like “if you want to have this, convince others to see it your way” as opposed to Rothbard’s “This is the way it is absent the state”.
Thanks for the one star rating when I was simply asking a question…
William,
Thank you for the link. It seems to me Mises felt capitalism is best supported on utilitarian grounds while Rothbard felt it needed something extra to cover all the bases, if that makes sense. So natural rights theory and utilitarianism are not really a verus scenario but two different means reaching the same end?
Telpeurion,
If I reading your sarcasm right, Rothbard is just making ‘what ought to be’ statements. What do you mean real man’s way of doing things?
Don’t take it personally. There are some emotionally stunted losers who regularly express themselves through anonymous star voting systems, rather than articulate an intelligent discussion.
Your question was a good one (as many sincere questions are), and welcome to the community.
From Danny’s 1st paragraph in the article I linked:
For those of you who still think that, ask yourself this. If you were convinced that (A) complete adherence to the natural right of property happened to necessarily engender untold poverty, suffering, and death, but (B) the tiniest imaginable abrogation of the non-aggression principle, undertaken on a very infrequent basis necessarily engendered prosperity, happiness, and long life for virtually everybody, which would you choose, (A) or (B)?
I think there is a very real danger when thinking about things from a “rights” perspective, as it may take ones eye off the prize and lead to a bit of cognitive dissonance, an lead ones actions blindly into things they don’t understand. When going about it in the manner Mises was promoting, you are doing everything soley for yourself. You don’t work for markets, markets work for you. My 2 cents on that.
I would reccomend reading that thread I linked a few times over and ask any questions you may have on that thread. There are some very bright people who are willig to talk on that thread (boh Rothbardians and Miseans I think). It is a great thread to learn and participate in for the questions you have.
Liberty Student,
Thank you, I appreciate the reply.
William,
I just finished reading every last word in that thread, Heh. I must say you guys loose me here or there but I can get the gist of it.
If you seperate society from something with a natural rights perspective, wouldn’t this leave wiggle room in private courts to gain ‘social democratic’ (for lack of a better word) characteristics? Could both be just as necessary? Twice as big of a hammer to debate with.
Hi mahall, I respond to this in the Why Capitalism? thread.
Mr. Sanchez or to whom it may concern,
I’m guessing you would refer to yourself as a Misesian? Is there a obvious critique of Rothbardian natural rights that I do not see? Did he take it too far so it became nearly Randian?
I’m having a hard time putting it to words. I’m just wondering if there is any consensus I’m not aware of.
In a rush, but the real quick and overly simplistic answer is discussions about rights or morality get very ugly very quickly with both parties feeling dissatisfied. Imagine how people would be if they felt so passionate about vanilla v chocolate (the correct answer is vanilla by the way), nothing good would ever get accomplished
NO, THE CORRECT ANSWER IS CHOCOLATE YOU DIRTY LITTLE @&#$^@#$&^@#&@@***!
Perhaps I’m reading into your post, but are you implying that there should be a market for morality, as there is for chocolate and vanilla? That sounds quite relativistic…
The layman’s terms are much obliged, Heh.
I suppose I should keep digging on this and find what I feel is best for me. I guess this just further justifies the need for non-monopolization in justice.
Don’t you mean is a market for morality?
No, we’re thinking about it from two different perspectives (I think). I’m thinking that, using the chocolate vs. vanilla comparison, perhaps there should be a market for morality, i.e. that each person gets to choose their own morality, presumably by purchasing a satisfactory plan from a PDA or somesuchthing which enforces their beliefs. You’re thinking that there is a market for morality, in the sense that people ascribe to theories and beliefs voluntarily?
In any case, I’ve come to the conclusion that the one true morality is ethical egoism… But that’s for another time and place. Haha.
Thanks for another important question, however formative it may yet be in your mind. I’ve responded again in the other thread, so as to keep all these important considerations gathered in one easy-to-reference place.
“In any case, I’ve come to the conclusion that the one true morality is ethical egoism… But that’s for another time and place. Haha.”
Kaju,
From what little I know concerning egoism, it alone seems to violate the non-aggression principle (e.g. Stealing is justified when starving). Is ethical egoism a different variety of this concept? And how does it relate to the non-aggression principle?
I’d be careful when accepting the NAP as an ethical principle. An ethical egoist can easily accept NAP as a good guiding principle for organizing a free and prosperous society. But as an ethical principle, NAP stands on weak ground. JMHO
In hindsight my post seems to read in support of the NAP but I’m trying to put myself before different options. I’ve been poking around in The Ethics Of Liberty so I have more of that material on the mind at the moment.
What is the source of the weak ground that the NAP stands on?
This may sound Objectivist, but how does one act not in their self-interest? I feel altruism has a physcological self-interest. Also, is ethical egoism saying that everyone should pursue satisfaction and chose means considering their specific potential consequences?
I have some Nomenclature to learn here, Heh.
Mahall,
Objectivist it may be, but in the praxeological framework, you are correct: there is no place for actions that are disconnected from the individual in such a way that they are purely altruistic. Any conscious action by man is an attempt to remove a felt “uneasiness”; being, by necessity, a means to an end. It is true that an action may be entirely directed at helping another individual, but this does not mean it is an unselfish action. The two categories (“selfish actions” and actions intended to help others) are not mutually exclusive.
I wish I could quote you Mises speaking on the subject in Human Action, but my pdf viewer is being lame.
NonAntiAnarchist,
I appreciate you confirming my presumption through Mises.
I was recently given a copy of Human Action from a companion of mine. I plan on aquainting myself with Mises more.