@ Laughing Man
Spooner was the "straw that broke the camel's back" on my road to anarchism, too.
============================
David Z
"The issue is always the same, the government or the market. There is no third solution."
liberty student: All forms of statism are socialism.
All forms of statism are socialism.
liberty student: Rooster: So minarchism = socialism Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution. Rooster: If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes. Distinctions can still be made, but there is no such thing as capitalist government. It is an oxymoron.
Rooster: So minarchism = socialism
So minarchism = socialism
Right. The state or the market, there is no third solution.
Rooster: If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes.
If you want to lose all distinctions between words, then yes.
Distinctions can still be made, but there is no such thing as capitalist government. It is an oxymoron.
It seems that you have redefined those terms. From "Human Action":
"The market economy must be strictly differentiated from the second thinkable--although not realizable--system of social cooperation under the division of labor; the system of social or governmental ownership of the means of production. This second system is commonly called socialism, communism, planned economy, or state capitalism. The market economy or capitalism, as it is usually called, and the socialist economy preclude one another. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy., a system that would be in part capitalist and in part socialist. Production is directed by the market or by the decrees of a production tsar or a committee of production tsars."
You did seem to imply agreement with that. However, you seemed to define pure capitalism as capitalism and any deviations as socialism. And, however, Mises defines pure socialism as socialism and any deviations as capitalism:
"If within a society based on private ownership by the means of production some of these means are publicly owned and operated--that is, owned and operated by the government or one of its agencies--this does not make for a mixed system which would combine socialism and capitalism. The fact that the state or municipalities own and operate some plants does not alter the characteristic features of the market economy. The publicly owned and operated enterprises are subject to the sovereignty of the market. They must fit themselves, as buyers of raw materials, equipment, and labor, and as sellers of goods and services, into the scheme of the market economy. They are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits or, at least, to avoid losses. The government may cover losses of its plants or shops by drawing on public funds. But this neither eliminates nor mitigates the supremacy of the market; it merely shifts it to another sector. For the means for covering the losses must be raised by the imposition of taxes. But this taxation has its effects on the market and influences the economic structure according to the laws of the market. It is the operation of the market, and not the government collecting the taxes, that decides upon whom the incidence of the taxes falls and how they affect production and consumption. Thus the market, not the government bureau, determines the working of these publicly operated enterprises.Nothing that is in any way connected with the operation of a market is in the praxeological or economic sense to be called socialism. The notion of socialism as conceived and defined by all socialists implies the absence of a market for factors of production and of prices of such factors. The "socialization" of individual plants, shops, and farms--that is, their transfer from private into public ownership--is a method of bringing about socialism by successive measures. It is a step on the way toward socialism, but not in itself socialism. (Marx and the orthodox Marxians flatly deny the possibility of such a gradual approach to socialism. According to their doctrine the evolution of capitalism will one day reach a point in which at one stroke capitalism is transformed into socialism.)Government-operated enterprises and the Russian Soviet economy are, by the mere fact that they buy and sell on markets, connected with the capitalist system. They themselves bear witness to this connection by calculating in terms of money. They thus utilize the intellectual methods of the capitalist system that they fanatically condemn."
socialdtk:"thousands of Americans have died so that you can enjoy all of the privileges of democracy and if I disagreed with them America probably isn't a good match for you."
This nonsense in particular pisses me off. Even granting the purest of motives for every member of the armed forces, it suggests that everytime the civilian leaders tell the military to cut a fart they're 'defending our freedom' and have no alterior motives, and make no mistakes in threat assessment or policy implementation. I would have told the professor right off the bat that I thought he was an f-ing idiot.
I was popular with the staff in school.
Rooster:That's fine, but you're still not using the word socialism correctly, and you're also creating your own radical definition of capitalism.
Private and public ownership of the means of production. Is it radical? Absolutely. I am a radical, from the latin radic, meaning root.
Rooster:Otherwise, you can do quite a radical restructuring of Austrian history by using your own definition.
An obsessive devotion to the established forms leads to a life that is numbed by narrow expectations and expected experiences.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
liberty student: Rooster:Otherwise, you can do quite a radical restructuring of Austrian history by using your own definition. An obsessive devotion to the established forms leads to a life that is numbed by narrow expectations and expected experiences.
Gotcha. Proceed with the lexicographical revolution.
liberty student: Private and public ownership of the means of production. Is it radical? Absolutely. I am a radical, from the latin radic, meaning root.
Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy (i.e., an economy that is partially socialistic and partially capitalistic)? The above quote seems to imply that you do because certain facets of the economy can be prviately owned while other facets of the economy can be publicly owned.
fsk:I thought that the War of 1812 was fought because the Federal government failed to renew the First Central Bank charter in 1811?
It was.
Rooster:Gotcha. Proceed with the lexicographical revolution.
Thanks for your permission.
I. Ryan:Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy
I believe it can, but it is socialism.
I think the point LS is making is that every government always lays claim to everything, regardless of how much they allow the serfs to "own". Even supposed "socialist" countries still allow quite a bit of private ownership of things. The USSR government even allowed farmers to own something like 10% of their crops or something. So like he said, there is government or there is the market, there is no third option. Or said differently, either we are free or we are slaves.
At most, 5% of the population would need to stop complying to bring down the government.
Spideynw: I think the point LS is making is that every government always lays claim to everything, regardless of how much they allow the serfs to "own". Even supposed "socialist" countries still allow quite a bit of private ownership of things. The USSR government even allowed farmers to own something like 10% of their crops or something. So like he said, there is government or there is the market, there is no third option.
I think the point LS is making is that every government always lays claim to everything, regardless of how much they allow the serfs to "own". Even supposed "socialist" countries still allow quite a bit of private ownership of things. The USSR government even allowed farmers to own something like 10% of their crops or something. So like he said, there is government or there is the market, there is no third option.
Precisely. The mixed economy is a fiction in the sense that any genuine capitalism is involved.
A harder criticism of the third way is that its a lie. The people who advocate it are communists. Does anyone really believe that they would stop communizing at some arbitrary point?
----
If you really want to embarass a teacher in a political class, just give a little math lesson in front of the class. The probability of your marginal vote having an effect on the outcome of an election is equal to the probability of the election being a tie or 1 vote difference. Ask him how often he plays the lottery.
Please send your professor to have a little talk with me. I am probably as old as he is, maybe older, so he cannot sell me all the usual "young people do not care". He also cannot sell me the usual "uninformed" since I can still show my party cards as a proof I was actively engaged in politics. I haven't voted in years and I probably won't ever gain since there are zero chances the situation will change in my lifetime. It will only get worse.
Not voting at least gives me the comfort of being just part of the robbed and not a robber myself. There's nothing that I can do except "not" doing my part.
You are being given a taste of what State-sponsored education is: indoctrination. Nothing more, nothing less. Your fellow students will become, say, journalists, writers, CEOs of powerful companies. They'll die thinking voting for the "right" person will change the world and won't ever question democracy or redistribution. They'll just ask the system to become "fairer". This kind of pathetic dissent is what the system is geared up to produce.
Oh and next time he'll talk about people dying for freedom, democracy or whatever ask him if he would send his sons to the trenches to fight Kaiser Wilhelm or to Afghanistan to hunt down the Talibans. The answer will be undoubtely the same "yes". Here I suggest a visit to the nearest military hospital or to the military cemeteries dotting Europe.
Yes, it's time for the Dr Goebbels show!
Tell your professor that in the 2008 US election there was a 1 in 60 million chance of your vote counting, then ask him what the rational choice was. Failing that, just point him in the direction of Caplan's work.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
I. Ryan: Do you believe that an economy can be a "mixed" economy (i.e., an economy that is partially socialistic and partially capitalistic)? The above quote seems to imply that you do because certain facets of the economy can be prviately owned while other facets of the economy can be publicly owned.
What Mises meant by "mixed economy" seems to be sharing of responsibility in all business between enterpreneurs and the state. An alternative "mixed economy" could be some industries run by the state and others not, however unlikely.
Caley McKibbin: What Mises meant by "mixed economy" seems to be sharing of responsibility in all business between enterpreneurs and the state. An alternative "mixed economy" could be some industries run by the state and others not, however unlikely.
Ludwig von Mises: "[T]here is no such thing as a mixed economy[.]"
I'm saying that his definition was the former and not the latter. Otherwise, minarchism is socialism.
Caley McKibbin: I'm saying that his definition was the former and not the latter. Otherwise, minarchism is socialism.
Umm, yeah, minarchism is socialism...
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap