Fucking libertine fag.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
GilesStratton:Perhaps they're wrong, but I don't think that they "didn't get it". Now, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I agree with the arguments put forth by Mises and Kirzner, but I certainly do have a great deal of respect for both of them. Of course, I used to have a lot of points of agreements with Hoppe, since then I've evaluated my position and now I disagree with him.
Now, I'm not entirely sure whether or not I agree with the arguments put forth by Mises and Kirzner, but I certainly do have a great deal of respect for both of them. Of course, I used to have a lot of points of agreements with Hoppe, since then I've evaluated my position and now I disagree with him.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Not only that, but you project a "worship" onto others. Therein lies just one of your problems
I don't understand the point you're trying to make, do you have anything else to add that might help clarify what you're saying.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Juan:Lilburne, you have no moral standing to dictate to me how I write. Do you understand that ? If the people you mention have any problem with me, let them sort it out. I don't think it's your business to interfere. Your chivalry in defending them is totally uncalled for IMO.
I am completely justified in enforcing forum rules and promoting civil, fruitful discussion here.
Human Action Comics Issues 1-6
Juan:Oh, not to mention that I've not insulted Giles and co. Here's something that IMO qualifies as an insult Fucking libertine fag. I don't think I've used that sort of language...
I denounced Giles over that a long time ago, so don't think I'm being partial. In this thread, he is being more than civil toward you, and you are being a punk. So lay off, or go flame somewhere else.
and you are being a punk.
Lilburne: you are being a punk.
you are being a punk.
i'm sorry but "WOW"
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
Juan:and you are being a punk. is that an insult ?
Alright, I'll rephrase: "gratuitous insults".
GilesStratton:I don't understand the point you're trying to make
I think we are disagreeing on the point of the OP now. I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments, however I don't think the cited critiques do an adequate job of explaining, as I don't think they are even an attempt at it. Mises' not explicitely embracing Rothbards views has nothing to do with the point I was making.
Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même
Bank Run:That is an absurdity. It borders on being offensive.
It borders on being offensive to state that while Mises was indeed a great man who we can learn much from, he may have been wrong on some fundamental issues, such as the necessity of the state?
I guess I'm just an offensive person then.
Bank Run:There are a lot of socialist systems. I define communism as world socialism. Perhaps I am wrong, if so explain.
I define communism (or total communism, or state-communism) as 100% of the property of the nation, in the hands of th state. In other words, 100% public property, 0% private property. I think this is a fairly good definition, considering the central aspect that Marx placed on the total elimination of private property.
So if communism is 100% private property and 0% private, then how does it not follow that 5%~ public and 95%~ private property (as Minarchists would suggest) is still partial communism?
Bank Run:I will always be not in favor of state granted monopoly.
Except in the cases of justice, law and protection.
In other words, the issues which are too important to be left to the free market. Sound familiar?
Angurse: I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments
I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments
Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
Paul: Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
Are you saying that Mises agreed with Rothbard?
Mises was a neo-Kantian, Rothbard was a defender of natural rights, they disagreed.
Mises:Less successful than his [Rothbard] investigations in the fields of general praxeology and economics are the author's occasional observations concerning the philosophy of law and some problems of the penal code. But disagreement with his opinions concerning these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying Rothbard's work as an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and, up to now, best-elaborated part, economics.
I think Rothbard was right about some things (consumer sovereignty) and Mises was right about some others (monetary equilibrium).
GilesStratton: JonBostwick:Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these Care to be a bit less cryptic?
JonBostwick:Since there are preconditions for government, it follows that the government cannot provide these
Care to be a bit less cryptic?
The market is a result of social organization, just as government is. Neither of them creates society or the tendency towards cooperation.
Seph:I guess I'm just an offensive person then.
I'm not calling you offensive, and apologize if I gave that impression.
I find it absurd to call any individualist such as Mises, a communist(soft or otherwise), a Marxist, a socialist, or a collectivist. I believe most minarchists are individualists. Mises, Hayek, and other limited government individualists consistently opposed collectivism. They crushed Marxism, Saint-Simonianism, and the like.
Seph:So if communism is 100% private(public) property and 0% private, then how does it not follow that 5%~ public and 95%~ private property (as Minarchists would suggest) is still partial communism?
I wasn't aware that there was a minarchist treatise somewhere, let alone one that divied up the amount of property owned?
I think your statement falls under inappropriate generalization.
Seph: Except in the cases of justice, law and protection. In other words, the issues which are too important to be left to the free market. Sound familiar?
I should of said that monopoly prices should be the focus of an analysis of monopoly.
I made a mistake. I wasn't conveying my message clearly. I wish to question; where does one find the rules, and what is the best way to apply them? Should there be rules? Would there be a profit motive to protect the lame?
I am not a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am an individualist who wishes to spread the ideal of autarchy.
"The position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has."
The reason I felt the urge to comment on this thread, is I felt that two groups of individualists don't need to fight over how much if any government is necessary until they can actually start reducing the size of government.
Please forgive me if I took this thread off course.
Individualism Rocks
Bank Run:I find it absurd to call any individualist such as Mises, a communist(soft or otherwise), a Marxist, a socialist, or a collectivist. I believe most minarchists are individualists. Mises, Hayek, and other limited government individualists consistently opposed collectivism. They crushed Marxism, Saint-Simonianism, and the like.
They crushed particular forms of collectivism, for which they should receive due praise. It doesn't mean they should receive a free pass for advocating ideas which are fundamentally wrongheaded.
Bank Run:I wasn't aware that there was a minarchist treatise somewhere, let alone one that divied up the amount of property owned? I think your statement falls under inappropriate generalization.
If you can demonstrate a system where a state exists, yet there is no public property whatsoever I will gladly retract my statement. Until then, I stand by what I said.
Bank Run:Should there be rules?
I think we all agree there needs to be rules. I have yet to meet a serious anarchist who disagrees with this.
Bank Run:what is the best way to apply them?
Bank Run:Would there be a profit motive to protect the lame?
Protect or support?
A definite 'yes' to protection and likely 'no' to support.
Bank Run:The reason I felt the urge to comment on this thread, is I felt that two groups of individualists don't need to fight over how much if any government is necessary until they can actually start reducing the size of government.
I absolutely agree that co operation (as long as ones ideals remain uncompromised) towards limiting government is a good thing. At the same time, I think exposing what we see as flaws within our own community is a fruitful exercise. If you want surround yourself with people who disagree with that, then become a Randian.
Bank Run:I am not a minarchist. I am not an anarchist. I am an individualist who wishes to spread the ideal of autarchy. "The position of the autarchist is one that supports self-rule rather than a lack of rule. It calls for social order of a high caliber and totally eschews violence for any reason whatever. The autarchist does not seek to overthrow government even by peaceful means, certainly not by violent means. The autarchist has no political objective whatever. He will abandon reliance on the state in favor of self-reliance. The autarchist seeks to build a useful and constructive order by reliance upon economic law and the manifest self-interest each of us unquestionably has."
The state is the ultimate instrument of collectivism. One cannot lend any intellectual support to the state, without first sacrificing a portion of one's own individualism.
JonBostwick:The market is a result of social organization, just as government is. Neither of them creates society or the tendency towards cooperation.
The market, as envisioned by Mises, was a process. It involved the voluntary exchange of property rights between consenting individuals. But the market won't function correctly if people have radically different conceptions of property rights and what constitutes voluntary exchange. Moreover, if individuals are wont to disobey the law due to dispersed costs and concentrated benefits the market will run into difficulties. In Mises' view, a government could solve all of these problems.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Don't play dumb, Giles.
Don't play dumb, Giles.
No, I genuinely don't get it. Cryptic remarks of just a few words aren't great for getting your point across.
Angurse:I think we are disagreeing on the point of the OP now. I think that its certainly true that Mises did disagree with Rothbards arguments, however I don't think the cited critiques do an adequate job of explaining, as I don't think they are even an attempt at it. Mises' not explicitely embracing Rothbards views has nothing to do with the point I was making.
So I guess the dispute over whether or not Mises disagreed with Rothbard is besides the point. However, I would still argue that the quotations in the OP are at least in part aimed at the "Rothbardian system". The point for Mises, as expressed in the quotations provided is that the market presupposes the existence of property rights and voluntary exchange, and as such, a state.
Paul:Why? Did Mises say so? When/where? (ISTR reading a quote from Mises saying something along the lines of "I agree with everything Rothbard says", without adding "except about the state" or anything)
This is a joke, right? Rothbard wasn't even Mises' most "faithful" student. Kirzner and Hayek were both far more true to Mises than Rothbard was. Rothbard disagreed with Mises on issues such as the state, monetary equilibrium, fractional reserves, monopoly prices, consumer sovereignty, methodology, natural rights and more.
GilesStratton:Moreover, if individuals are wont to disobey the law due to dispersed costs and concentrated benefits the market will run into difficulties. In Mises' view, a government could solve all of these problems.
Based on what I read, it seems like Mises could mean "polycentric legal order" by "government". What you haven't done is show how this "problem" being solved by coercive states is necessary. You later basically say that rights are derived from the state. Mises and Rothbard are just wrong on some things.
Why does many a man write? Because he does not possess enough character not to write. ---Karl Kraus.
GilesStratton:However, I would still argue that the quotations in the OP are at least in part aimed at the "Rothbardian system". The point for Mises, as expressed in the quotations provided is that the market presupposes the existence of property rights and voluntary exchange, and as such, a state.
I disagree, his critiques cited repeatedly delve into the case of anti-social individuals "...anarchists implied that all men without any exception will be endowed with perfect wisdom and moral impeccability," "...and if all had the moral strength always to act accordingly, there would not be any need for the establishment of a social apparatus of coercion and oppression." This, in my opinion, makes the point behind his critiques far more narrow and inapplicable to anarcho-capitalism.
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