Juan: But why should people like Lam get away with his statist propaganda ?
Karma gets people in the end, truth doesn't always win in the short term but the progress towards liberty is inevitable. Don't be burned out by the defeatist pessimism of some. Keep radical liberty in your heart and libertarian ideals in your head. Remain ever an optimist and do not be faint of heart.
Juan:What's the point of a libertarian forum where people get to post any sort of nonsense that goes unchallenged ?
Hence why I say publish articles and provide lectures, the battlefield of ideas is not here. It's in the lecture halls of academia. Its in the printing press rooms of national news providers. Get involved in writing articles for LRC and the Mises Daily. Do you see what I mean?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
laminustacitus:You are completely divorced from reality, are you? The governments of the Western world are overall successes: despite all their flaws, they have cultivated, and allowed the flowering of an era of world capitalism where the furthering of the division of labor has brought forth an era of hitherto unknown prosperity.
What a joke. This is bad historicism at best. By its very definition, the modern state has crippled the spread of world capitalism.
laminustacitus:In fact, the basis of justice is the preservation of social cooperation, and coercion is necessary in preserving it.
And here you've redefined 'cooperation' to mean 'acting in a way in which I favor'. There is absolutely nothing 'cooperative' about an extortion racket.
Juan: lam:I said an overall success, I have never once stated that the state has not unleashed destruction, so how about we don't indulge in the quicky, easy, yet also intellectually dishonest straw men. No straw men. All you did was lie about the allegedly achievements of government and forget to mention all the destruction government caused. So let me set the record straight, again : Wars, slavery, plunder, etc. : caused by government
lam:I said an overall success, I have never once stated that the state has not unleashed destruction, so how about we don't indulge in the quicky, easy, yet also intellectually dishonest straw men.
I said no lies.
Juan:Economic progress and respect for individual rights : something that exists DESPITE government.
That's simply a Rothbardian dream scenario; sorry, but respect for individual rights, and the resulting economic progress only comes with government - please actually read authors like Hayek.
Juan:And who are you? If you want to condemn me, feel free to burn the books of Mises, and Hayek along with me - I've learned my anti-Rothbardian positions directly from those two. I've no problems with totally dismissing Mises' and Hayek's views on government. Specially Hayek's. Your appeal to authority fails. And as I said a couple of times, so called anarcho capitalism is as old as Molinari - 1849.
And who are you? If you want to condemn me, feel free to burn the books of Mises, and Hayek along with me - I've learned my anti-Rothbardian positions directly from those two.
I am not arguing to authority, I am simply elucidating the conclusions of your condemnation.
Juan:So, you are not against 'anarcho-capitalism' you are against classical liberalism.
I am a classical liberal in the vein of Mises, Hayek, Acton, and J.S. Mill, the necessity of a limited state is one of the tenets of classical liberalism - read J.S. Mill's On Liberty if you don't believe me.
You narrowly define libertarianism as communion with the cult of Rothbard, and anarcho-capitalism.
Good thing nonsense like yours can only go defended on the internet.
Juan:I doubt you've ever read anything about ancient civilization - without their governments, there would not have been ancient civilizations. In fact, this is reflected in the languages of the ancients: notice how in ancient languages there are no separate words for "Society", and "State" - rather the two are understood as the same word, because in those days there was not civilization without a arbiter of justice. Again, Juan, you reveal the fact that you have never looked outside of the anarcho-capitalist box; rather, everything for you is in black, and white - you have yet to understand the fact that the world is gray: organizations that can unleash such destruction like the state have also provided necessary in the development of civilization itself. Should I laugh or cry ? That was a perfectly content-free paragraph - well, not really content free but full of conservative nonsense. Now would you be so kind as to explain how government, a bunch of thieves and murderers, enables civilization ?
I doubt you've ever read anything about ancient civilization - without their governments, there would not have been ancient civilizations. In fact, this is reflected in the languages of the ancients: notice how in ancient languages there are no separate words for "Society", and "State" - rather the two are understood as the same word, because in those days there was not civilization without a arbiter of justice. Again, Juan, you reveal the fact that you have never looked outside of the anarcho-capitalist box; rather, everything for you is in black, and white - you have yet to understand the fact that the world is gray: organizations that can unleash such destruction like the state have also provided necessary in the development of civilization itself.
explain how government, a bunch of thieves and murderers, enables civilization ?
There was a lot of content in that paragraph; sadly, Juan, you are too thick to understand it. In fact, the "content-free paragraph" completely answered your question, but, alas, you actually have to be willing to learn from history rather than attack yourself to a priori reasoning to understand the ramifications: there has never been civilization without some form of arbiter of justice, and government has been with civilization since its conception, playing an absolutely integral role in its first development.
banned: laminustacitus:You are completely divorced from reality, are you? The governments of the Western world are overall successes: despite all their flaws, they have cultivated, and allowed the flowering of an era of world capitalism where the furthering of the division of labor has brought forth an era of hitherto unknown prosperity. What a joke. This is bad historicism at best.
What a joke. This is bad historicism at best.
Someone really needs to read Mises' Theory, and History, and Popper's The Poverty of Historicism, and The Open Society and Its Enemies. What I am discussing is not historicism, you are utterly mistaken for nowhere do I elucidate a theory of history. You, banned, are yet another ignorant, internet intellectual who thinks he understands a subject he does not even know.
banned:And here you've redefined 'cooperation' to mean 'acting in a way in which I favor'. There is absolutely nothing 'cooperative' about an extortion racket.
Cooperation cannot exist outside of the realm of law; there are some form of antisocial behavior that simply need to be punished. I do not see behavior that is not conductive to social cooperation like rape, and murder to be social cooperation; rather, I see them as behaviors that must be punished.
I am becoming a Burkean Whig.
- F.A. Hayek
the necessity of a limited state is one of the tenets of classical liberalism
- read J.S. Mill's On Liberty if you don't believe me.
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."
There was a lot of content in that paragraph; sadly, Juan, you are too thick to understand it.
@ laminustacitus Isn't a limited state just as unlikely as you claim an anarchist society is? We certainly can't find any limited governments that remained that way for any significant periods of time.
Ska is lame and so am I.
Juan:That's simply a Rothbardian dream scenario; sorry, but respect for individual rights, and the resulting economic progress only comes with government - please actually read authors like Hayek. Please read authors like Herbert Spencer and Frederic Bastiat. You might learn what classical liberalism is. Or maybe not.
Both of them would agree with me that a small state is necessary for justice to flourish so I don't understand the big fuss you make, neither of them were anarchists by any stretch of the term.
Juan:the necessity of a limited state is one of the tenets of classical liberalism Too bad it's a wrong tenet.
Not according to On Liberty.
Juan:- read J.S. Mill's On Liberty if you don't believe me. Read Molinari if you don't believe me.
J.S. Mill is a far more important figure in classical liberalism than Molinari; in fact, he was practically unknown before Rothbard resurrected him.
Juan:There was a lot of content in that paragraph; sadly, Juan, you are too thick to understand it. No Lam, you are too morally corrupt to admit that the state doesn't create justice but actually destroys it.
Justice isn't created, it is only cultivated.
Skanarchist: @ laminustacitus Isn't a limited state just as unlikely as you claim an anarchist society is? We certainly can't find any limited governments that remained that way for any significant periods of time.
Would anarchy even cultivate justice?
laminustacitus:Would anarchy even cultivate justice?
If anarchy could not cultivate justice, how could government?
What can government do, that individuals cannot?
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
laminustacitus: Skanarchist: @ laminustacitus Isn't a limited state just as unlikely as you claim an anarchist society is? We certainly can't find any limited governments that remained that way for any significant periods of time. Would anarchy even cultivate justice?
Would you even answer my question?
Too bad it's a wrong tenet.
J.S. Mill is a far more important figure in classical liberalism than Molinari;
Juan: Should I laugh or cry ? That was a perfectly content-free paragraph - well, not really content free but full of conservative nonsense. Now would you be so kind as to
I don't know why he keeps bringing it up. it's just ad nauseam at this point, since ladyattis has debunked it in a few of his videos.
Juan:And if you read Bastiat's La Loi you won't find any claim that the state is necessary.
The Law by Bastiat: What Is Law ? L.7 What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense. L.8 Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? L.9 If every person has the right to defend even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups. L.10 Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces? L.11 If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to causejustice to reign over us all. A Just and Enduring Government L.12 If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable—whatever its political form might be. L.13 Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government. L.14 It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions. L.15 The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.
Each of us has a natural right—from God—to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend even by force—his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right—its reason for existing, its lawfulness—is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force—for the same reason—cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to causejustice to reign over us all.
If a nation were founded on this basis, it seems to me that order would prevail among the people, in thought as well as in deed. It seems to me that such a nation would have the most simple, easy to accept, economical, limited, nonoppressive, just, and enduring government imaginable—whatever its political form might be.
Under such an administration, everyone would understand that he possessed all the privileges as well as all the responsibilities of his existence. No one would have any argument with government, provided that his person was respected, his labor was free, and the fruits of his labor were protected against all unjust attack. When successful, we would not have to thank the state for our success. And, conversely, when unsuccessful, we would no more think of blaming the state for our misfortune than would the farmers blame the state because of hail or frost. The state would be felt only by the invaluable blessings of safety provided by this concept of government.
It can be further stated that, thanks to the non-intervention of the state in private affairs, our wants and their satisfactions would develop themselves in a logical manner. We would not see poor families seeking literary instruction before they have bread. We would not see cities populated at the expense of rural districts, nor rural districts at the expense of cities. We would not see the great displacements of capital, labor, and population that are caused by legislative decisions.
The sources of our existence are made uncertain and precarious by these state-created displacements. And, furthermore, these acts burden the government with increased responsibilities.
Frankly, Juan, I don't know how to take your points seriously if you cannot be bothered to read the first couple of pages from a book before making absolute claims about it. Especially, after accusing me of intellectual dishonesty earlier today.
Juan: Your quotes don't show that Bastiat says that the state is necessary - he only says that the 'collective' self-defense that the state provides derives from individual self-defense. And, probably you don't get it, but if you follow that premise to its logical conclusion you get no-government.
One does not need to assert that the state is necessary for it to be understood that one's theory is that the state is necessary, and the quotation I give from Bastiat is a solid endorsement of the state.
Juan:Furthermore, Bastiat makes it very clear that rights predate government...
The Law by Bastiat: Life Is a Gift from God L.3 We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life. L.4 But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course. L.5 Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
We hold from God the gift which includes all others. This gift is life—physical, intellectual, and moral life.
But life cannot maintain itself alone. The Creator of life has entrusted us with the responsibility of preserving, developing, and perfecting it. In order that we may accomplish this, He has provided us with a collection of marvelous faculties. And He has put us in the midst of a variety of natural resources. By the application of our faculties to these natural resources we convert them into products, and use them. This process is necessary in order that life may run its appointed course.
Life, faculties, production—in other words, individuality, liberty, property—this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it.
According to Bastiat, rights come from God, which is the position that I myself endorse.
laminustacitus:According to Bastiat, rights come from God, which is the position that I myself endorse.
So you are a natural rights theorist. Interesting.
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