wasn’t mises talking about left-anarchists anyway?
stalin didnt acknowledge private property rights.
Wow really fucked yourself up there buddy. So if you deny private property you are communist. If you sometimes deny it you are hardcore awesome realistic capitalist?
What i also don’t understand is this: The entire reason for the existence of PDA’s in the first place, is the reason that some people use coercion instead of free trade. So the solution to your insane ramblings are PDAs. Where is the discussion?
Is the use of violence in order to possess another’s property an example of acknowledging/respecting/promoting property rights?, or is it the opposite?–graham uk
of course not.
those that use coercion to take private property do not respect property rights — their actions are based on profit and economic gain (capitalism)
it is painfully obvious to see where you are going with this simply argument.
wasn’t mises talking about left-anarchists anyway?-- yessir
read the quotes, he wasnt taking about left-anarchists when he specifically mentioned the necessity of government
Can you find me 1 other person (maybe even a public intellectual) that agrees with your definition of capitalism?
it is painfully obvious to see where you are going with this simply argument.
good.
uhm first of all, yes he was talking about left-anarchist when he was insulting them.
2nd of all he believed in secession and self-determination, in practice therefore he was an anarchist. He just never took his theory to its logical extreme.
What i also don’t understand is this: The entire reason for the existence of PDA’s in the first place, is the reason that some people use coercion instead of free trade. So the solution to your insane ramblings are PDAs. Where is the discussion?–yessir
please read my posts, not just the last one.
Can you find me 1 other person (maybe even a public intellectual) that agrees with your definition of capitalism? --yessir,
i stand correct on all points,
nice rebut.
seriously, now go back and read my posts and rebut at your leisure.
do you have a point graham, its past six here and I am heading home.
you said the point I was arguing towards was painfully obvious …? now you are asking me to make it?
Stop acting like a smartass. I am asking you a question. Who else shares your definition of capitalism, because I would like to read about their theory. Not everything is an insult.
You might also want to extend the quotes you use, forexample you could have added the following:
The essential teaching of liberalism is that social cooperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production
2nd of all he believed in secession and self-determination, in practice therefore he was an anarchist. He just never took his theory to its logical extreme. – yessir
because Mises believed in secssion from an unjust government doesnt mean that he rejected all government.
how can you rationalize he was an anarchist by this quote ?
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
stalin didnt acknowledge private property rights.
--------------
Wow really fucked yourself up there buddy. So if you deny private property you are communist. If you sometimes deny it you are hardcore awesome realistic capitalist? – yessir
no, I think you fuaqed up because you misrepresented or misunderstand the basics of my argument.
namely that when a economically mismanaged resource is reallocated by coercion to a more efficient owner then the property is still in private hands — hence capitalism.
by your “logic” ---- it is not private ownership that represents capitalism or profitable allocation of valued resources – but simply the means by which property changes hands that is important to you.
essentially, you dont consider that the property that was heretofore mismanaged and idle is now open to more productive and beneficial economic use to society as a whole.
you are focused on the means that was used to make the property more productive.
I can only wish some ‘capitalist’ will violently incorporate your computer(s) into his production process (in the spirit of true capitalism which respects property rights) so we are spared all this madness…
What i also don’t understand is this: The entire reason for the existence of PDA’s in the first place, is the reason that some people use coercion instead of free trade. So the solution to your insane ramblings are PDAs. Where is the discussion?-- yessir
if coercion did not have economic utility in allocating resources from less productive enterprises to more productive enterprises – then why the need for PDAs in the first place.
moreover, within ancap society – inefficiently managed resources will always be subject to predation because they will earn less capital to provide for a defense commensurate to the resource’s economic value.
so your insane ramblings ring hollow,
btw, read my previous posts instead of entering the thread with half-cocked arguments based on my last few posts.
Your understanding of private property is that it is managed in private hands?
Someone who uses resources inefficiently merely has to increase his percentage spending on PDA, since no one spends 100% on PDA (it would be useless), one can survive while using resources inefficiently. BOOYA
Read murphys study guide:
People often ask, “Was Mises an anarchist?” As the discussion on pages 148–149
makes clear, the immediate answer is no. However, a closer reading shows that Mises
here uses anarchism to mean a lack of law enforcement. Nowhere does Mises discuss
why the state must provide law, police, and military defense. He simply assumes that
these are the proper functions of the state, and since they are necessary for society,
therefore (Mises argues) the state is necessary.