Lvmi is not a cult. It is a place for studying and promoting the studies of Austrian economics and libertarian thought, for which Mises’ profound contribution to is recognized, respected, and cherished.
Here, here! The fastest way to ensure that the absolutists never take you seriously again is to take an agnostic position. That is certainly a nuance the “black and white” idealogues on this forum disdain more than anything. It is a symptom of fundamentalism, in this case a fundamentalist sect of Humanism (Rothbardism).
I never said it was a cult. I was referring (mainly to Liberty Student’s argument) to the view that was put forth in this thread about the black and white nature of libertarianism. I know that Ludwig von Mises wasn’t a ‘statist’ but do people who hold argue such things think he was?
Just to clarify, I don’t think LS’s position is that the state is just simply evil, end of story. It’s far deeper then that and Ancaps who simply only take that position are cutting themselves short. Calling the state evil is just a simple assertion that can be dismissed, there is far more to voluntaryism then that. As I understand it, and LS correct me if I am wrong, it’s that the state is necessarily, due to the nature of its operation, a direct negation of markets and freedom. It is a direct negation of voluntary cooperation and trade. The role of the state is to alter and manipulate otherwise free human action. The consequences are of course sub-optimal rationing and allocation of resources.
The AnCap argument is grounded in Praxeology, and uses a more utilitarian approach, not an ethical approach that statism is simply evil, end of story. IMHO that would be a mischaracterization of what, in my opinion, should be an AnCaps position.
Why is it just simply not possible to assume that perhaps Mises didn’t get to that point? Or that the political environment of that time differed in such a way that these ideas never fully matured. The fact that Mises never mentions anarchy as we see it, but recalls anarchy as something entirely different, could mean any number of things. Is it really even worth analyzing? Alot of people do this, like Retropper, and attempt to use Mises advocacy for a nightman state as justification for the state in general. This specific appeal to authority is out of place, and holds no weight as being relevant.
Yea many of them are scared to take their beliefs in the market to it’s logical conclusion.
Are your political beliefs disconnected from your economic beliefs? Are you really arguing that?
It’s very dangerous, and often naive, to play the “Satire Game” on a web-forum where other users interpret your tone in various ways. Satire really only works when people can hear your voice. Otherwise it’s hard to tell if someone is being condescending, or funny. That goes for Jackson as well.
I strongly disagree. Grayson is great, but LS is no where near combative. There are plenty of others on this forum who fill that role. Ironically the only people who are calling for Moderator moderation are those who hold substantially different ideological views in conflict with LS’s views, and those who get upset that they cannot coherently defend their own positions. It’s interesting that only THAT group of people are asking for moderation. Kind of petty IMHO.
He did? On another note, Mises definitely was a statist, or at least we are lead to believe that based on some of his writings. Ironically I contend however that he is still the largest contributor of modern market anarchy.
No we don’t care that he may have been a statist to some degree. Because if we dismissed someone’s entire intellectual work based on a political belief, well that would be a silly fallacy to perform. People often label us as ideologue’s, here is an example of where we are not. Principled yes, ideologue’s not.
If any person dismisses the information of another man, who happens to disagree on a certain matters, well that person is likely to live a very lonely life.
Exactly, he was more interested in the value-free aspects of praxeology. The discipline of value-free analysis is, of course, invaluable to forming a clearer understanding of the human condition but it’s of no use in offering recommendations on what someone should do who wants to leave the world in a better condition than he found it. For that, we need ethics. Trying to dance around ethics, like many of the positive economics types do, is no help either. “Efficiency” is also value-free… perhaps gassing the Jews was efficient for the Nazi social goals … but it was obviously evil and immoral, if words have any meaning at all.
One thing that I think is important to point out is that it’s not necessary for liberty to be a shared or even a majority value for the conditions of liberty to exist. Liberty is notoriously difficult to define but the closest thing to a definition is probably the NAP. But I think that the ultimate value underlying NAP is really the Golden Rule… unitary ethics. So, we can argue for a society in which the potential for liberty is maximized simply by arguing for a society where there is only one standard of right and wrong, not different standards for different classes of individuals or even different classes of roles and offices in society. Unfortunately, Western left-liberalism has distorted this idea of classless ethics to take the existence of the State* as exogenous to the analysis of right and wrong. As a result, the idea that a different set of rules apply to a public actor in his or her official role doesn’t even count as an instance of dual ethics. It’s just simply a feature of society.
Clayton -
*Only the form of the State is considered endogenous
That’s good, Filc. I’m glad that you don’t dismiss economists for not conforming to your views 100% (a la David Kramer). I realize now that I was strawmanning a bit about supporting an institute that is named after someone who advocated conscription. I guess I mainly have a problem with calling someone like Mises (or Hayek and Friedman for that matter) ‘statists’. Here’s the quote you’re looking for.
He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.
Seriously, I was kissing Lilburne’s backside before he was staff, so you have a lot of catching up to do.
You’d probably be surprised to know I have privately defended your right to post here, even when I feel that you’re basically trolling half the time, and have near zero interest in being part of of a community or the LvMI orbit.
For those people who find my attitude an issue, you either don’t know me, you don’t know about me, or you aren’t reading my arguments. You’re making the most superficial critique you can, and I don’t even want to take a stab at motives, except to say, it is intellectually unsatisfying and very disappointing because I was under the impression this community was stocked with a higher caliber of thinker these days.
If I seem combative and dismissive to some posters, look at the arguments you feel I am combative and dismissive about, because clearly I have an excellent relationship here in many threads, with a great many people, so the lowest common denominator is definitely not my attitude.
When you learn how to debate with as much veracity, clarity and passion as Lilburne, then I will get Lilburne on chat and he can teach me about etiquette, mkay?
Start a new thread, and bring more than Wikipedia, or don’t waste my time please.
Rothbard is a squishy libertarian, statist in disguise.
Can you be a libertarian and hold pro-state views, yes or no? If yes, then what is the definition of a libertarian? Do you not agree that aggression is the divining line? Or is it just strangeloopian “sometimes I gotta aggress” sort of laissez-faire ethics?
~Liberty Student
Am I a fundamentalist?
Yes, but you must recognize that Mises was human and could not be 100% consistent all the time. There are other later statements that by implication contradict any sort of such coercion.
Mises was however very consistent in his opposition to any form of Nationalism. He dedicated an entire book to this opposition. I contend that Statism without nationalism is a contradictory of terms.
There is no contradiction between Mises’ positions and claiming that his teachings reinforce the anti-statist position, just like Hayek and his “Spontaneous order” is also contributing greatly to the core theory behind anarchy.
If your beliefs match your rhetoric, I would feel confident labeling you as a “hardcore fundamentalist” humanist.
I’m not sure I agree with this completely, but there is some merit in it. Why will not one take up a debate with me? Am I not worthy, or am I too worthy?
Surely if I am so wrong, someone could take me to the woodshed over it. We’re apparently overflowing with genius, which should make a self-educated, gramatically challenged layman easy pickings for this crowd.
I’ve been at this mod thing a long time. Some people like to attack the mod as a mod, instead of attacking his argument. It’s frequently a proxy for a weak argument.
I’d be curious to know what you don’t agree with, but you’re correct. I am semantically correct, and no one wants to address that.
Proclaiming yourself humble isn’t.
I’d be curious to know which of my rhetoric inspires that conclusion.
I was asking you about aggression. I could care less if people are Rothbardian, Hoppean, Kinsellian, Paulian or Marxian.
Is there a difference between institutionalized aggression and private aggression? Is it the aggression that is the issue, or that it is institutionalized? That is the question I have been asking. What differentiates the two because clearly both are aggression. I am trying to figure out your perspective, but you make it like pulling teeth to get a clear answer.
I’m trying (still) to get you to acknowledge the law of identity. If someone is 90% libertarian, is he a libertarian? What is the difference between a 90% libertarian and 100% libertarian? What is the difference between a 0.00001% libertarian and a 90% libertarian?
You and student, arguing that it’s not so black and white, are implying the inverse of what I am saying. You’re implying that you can be a libertarian if you are partially libertarian, but that in order to be a statist, one has to be for the total state. An acceptable middle ground would be, people who are neither anarchist nor for the total state are something different than libertarians and statists. Maybe they are moderates. But regardless, your argument (and that of student) is my argument reversed, and that’s pretty lame to claim I am the one staking out a black and white POV.
You can’t be a statist and an ancap. Rothbard is known as the “enemy of the state” so I find it concerning that you would claim his pov wasn’t powerfully anti-statist.
Again, blame the aesthetic, when you refuse to answer direct yes and no questions on basic things like definitions and terms. This can’t be very satisfying for you, I know it doesn’t satisfy me.
Has anyone read what I wrote about Mises in this thread or elsewhere? Is it so extreme that I insist that a statist is someone who doesn’t always support markets and a libertarian is someone who never supports aggression? SERIOUZLY?
If you guys don’t have more game than this, we might have to postpone the revolution.
I agree with this one. I hate semantic wrangling in a debate:
Sorry LS, can you link this to us? It’s hard to search through an individual thread. I for one missed this sorry.
Well it’s not really due to anything wrong in your argument, it’s just that I’m not well versed enough into Rothbard to agree that Rothbardianism is the fullest expression of libertarianism. (at least not yet)
I.O.W. it’s not you, it’s me!
Essentially because anarcho-capitalism, like all different flavors of anarchy, advocates a certain economic order within a given fiat land claim. I know of no more basic definition of the state than that right there. They want to presuppose their own economic order within a given geographical area. The difference is, anarcho-capitalists are far more tolerant of other economic ideologies (and have an advanced economic theory as to what would happen in the absence of a state) and want extreme decentralization of power. Therefore, Rothbardians are anarchists (not traditional ones though), but I wouldn’t necessarily call them anti-statists. At least, this is how I’ve come to see the issue.