I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless. My personal belief is that it's none of my business what another does with his/her property. Personally when I give charity, no one notices it but myself, my wife, and the person that recieves it- that is based on the same belief- it isn't anyone else's business what I do with what is mine.
spetsnaz:it is utopian to think that it is possible to perfectly protect the personal private sphere of individuals and still live in a community.
But no one is claiming that. So once you remove the fallacy that anyone is striving for utopia with anarchy, then what are we left with as an analysis?
The monopoly state cannot protect any property, because it must have a higher claim to property than individuals in order to exist and limit competition.
spetsnaz:what they mostly said was how to minimise and limit that coercion.
You can limit coercion by eliminating the coercer. Monopoly government adds nothing that individuals cannot accomplish through cooperation.
There is no need to rely on aggression for social organization. Man can organize cooperatively, which renders the state unnecessary.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
brooksh:Personally when I give charity, no one notices it but myself, my wife, and the person that recieves it- that is based on the same belief- it isn't anyone else's business what I do with what is mine.
That's good, and I would agree that when I engage in a charitable act, I don't like anyone to know. It attracts more people in need, some sincere, but many not.
However, it is a good thing that charity is recognized and lauded publicly. It says something about us, that generally charity (giving/sharing) is seen as a noble endeavour. The incentives are lined up the right way.
Ultimately, capitalism boils down to voluntary exchange. All people exchange things because of a perceived benefit they get from doing so. Charity occurs because one party gets a kind of psychological return when they give another party something that improves their life. That is why charity increased so much during the 1980s, when tax rates were cut from the 70s down to the high 20s.
Mises Community Natural Rights Discussion Group
GilesStratton: See, this is the probem I have with Objectivism, it's tautological. If you're using "selfish" in the sense that it fulfils ones values, then essentially every act will be selfish.
See, this is the probem I have with Objectivism, it's tautological. If you're using "selfish" in the sense that it fulfils ones values, then essentially every act will be selfish.
liberty student:The monopoly state cannot protect any property, because it must have a higher claim to property than individuals in order to exist and limit competition.
no. a liberal state does not have a higher claim to property. that is the whole point of a liberal state that is is not a monopoly. under proper rule of law government, other individuals or any other organisations has no claim or more right over an individual's property. without law, there is no liberty, because one's persoan l private sphere is left in the open for the strongest bully to take.
liberty student:You can limit coercion by eliminating the coercer. Monopoly government adds nothing that individuals cannot accomplish through cooperation.
how does one enforce contracts? what happens when someone robs you? national defence? liberals recognise that government has a role, very strong role to play. however this role is very limited and well defined. what you are proposing is anarchy. in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law. even if there was perfect cooperation and direct democracy there would be the tyranny of the majority which is even worse.
it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy. would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases? or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
My conscience is clear when my motivation is pure: that is, when I am motivated by self-interest. I do not always know what is in my own interest, but I can live with a certain amount of experimentation. It is not only non- but anti- libertarian for me to experiment with what might be in someone else's interest.
spetsnaz:no. a liberal state does not have a higher claim to property.
So it has no taxes or tariffs? How is it funded?
spetsnaz:that is the whole point of a liberal state that is is not a monopoly.
So then we can have competing laws?
spetsnaz:without law, there is no liberty
You can have liberty in the absence of law. When you don't have liberty, is when there is coercion.
spetsnaz:however this role is very limited and well defined.
And is built on a utopian fallacy of limited and controlled government.
spetsnaz:what you are proposing is anarchy.
You figured me out. I am indeed saying a liberal society must be voluntary. That once it has coercion, it stops being liberal.
spetsnaz:in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law.
Then it will no longer be anarchy. It will be a state.
spetsnaz:it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy.
lol, you have no idea my friend.
spetsnaz:would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases?
But they cannot, because moderators act as agents over the property of the forum. And property rights dictate that the forum can publish what it chooses, and can discriminate when it selects members, and whether members remain in good standing.
spetsnaz:or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
Right, but this forum is not a monopoly. I don't claim the right to tell other forums how to operate. There is no single code of forum etiquette or posting guidelines.
You have confused law with property. Positive law, is a restriction on property. Legal norms can be used to defend property rights, however the fact that property rights exist, predates any law about property rights.
Kinsella had a piece called minarchy revisited. He showed that these kinds of organizations either did not constitute as governments or were in fact coercive and monopolistic.
What we are proposing is a type of anarchy. Establishing a state does not get us out of anarchic relationships, since even though the state resolves disputes between its citizens there is no higher authority to resolve conflicts between individuals and the state.
spetsnaz:in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law
spetsnaz:it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy
"It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But the half-wit remains a half-wit and the emperor remains an emperor." ~Dream
Spetsnaz. I would like to know how a piece of paper (constitution) was able to limit the size and scope of government power? It certainly hasn't, nor has it in any governments past.
What happens when you have limited government? A fast growing economy, is what.
What happens when you have a fast growing economy? More wealth for government officials to tax.
What is the saying? Absolute power corrupts absolutely?
spetsnaz: how does one enforce contracts? what happens when someone robs you? national defence? liberals recognise that government has a role, very strong role to play. however this role is very limited and well defined. what you are proposing is anarchy. in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law. even if there was perfect cooperation and direct democracy there would be the tyranny of the majority which is even worse.
This says to me that you do not have the imagination to figure it out. If you've read any Anarchy books or articles, you'd find a variety of answers.
spetsnaz: it is strange how a moderator, an enforcer of rule of law in this forum, is suggesting anarchy. would you like it so anyone could post anything on this forum and do anything one pleases? or do you wish that people respected certain minimal negative rules which protect others and the community as a whole?
Considering this is a private forum, a private company has the right to set it's own rules. It is a voluntary interaction. This forum and a government have zero in common.
"I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do."
Spetsnaz - I forgot to add: the "who will enforce contracts" bit says to me that you also have a dim view of your fellow man, in general. Considering, if you and I had a contract with each other, it is not a government coercion that is keeping me from honoring it. It's the benefits I will reap by sticking to it. Your own self-interest is what will lead you towards an honorable path in business dealings, those who refuse to honor their contracts will fail.
brooksh: I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless...
I don't think it's a myth as much as it is a very effective tool that the opposition uses to make "us" (in a broad scope) look greedy and heartless...
It's a myth that college students believe in, but their professors use it as a tool as you mention. :D
krazy kaju: Ultimately, capitalism boils down to voluntary exchange. All people exchange things because of a perceived benefit they get from doing so. Charity occurs because one party gets a kind of psychological return when they give another party something that improves their life. That is why charity increased so much during the 1980s, when tax rates were cut from the 70s down to the high 20s.
My favorite online shop: www.cafepress.com/libertyphile
Precisely!
I wouldn't be so hasty. It's an Aristotelian system and consequently dichotomises one's "rational self interest" (essential to achieving eudaemonia/flourishing in the Aristotelian system, a form of happiness where one's valuations are conditioned by practical reasoning, i.e. reasoning concerning action) and mere want-satiation. Agree with it or not it is not incoherent.
To darkness I condemn you...
The government is itself allegedly contractually established in order that it may garner legitimacy... if people don't keep to their end of the bargain, how will this contractually formed government even get off the ground?
ok. i see we have a difference of opinion here. i am more steeped in classical liberalism and you all seem to be anarchists. that is interesting, but strange seeing as von mises was not an anarchist.
yes i do not think very highly of people. we are naturally very savage and brutish. in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago. we would live in a culture of honour. that is not the kind of life i would like to have. i am a strong believer that law is freedom, as everyone from adam smith to hayek have pointed out. sorry.
spetsnaz:in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago
spetsnaz:in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago.
And I'm not living in fear now, as my country engages in endless war on behalf of NATO and the UN?
The problem with the classic liberal position, is that it isn't consistent. You can't be free but tied to a monopoly legal system at the same time. You can't be free, and born into a social contract. You can't say man is inherently evil or violent, and then give some men absolute power.
Law is a means to resolve disputes, it is not a replacement for morality or property.
If you're interested spetsnaz, give this a read.
spetsnaz: ok. i see we have a difference of opinion here. i am more steeped in classical liberalism and you all seem to be anarchists. that is interesting, but strange seeing as von mises was not an anarchist. yes i do not think very highly of people. we are naturally very savage and brutish. in an anarchy we would all live in fear and a state of perpetual war as hobbes pointed out many centuries ago. we would live in a culture of honour. that is not the kind of life i would like to have. i am a strong believer that law is freedom, as everyone from adam smith to hayek have pointed out. sorry.
It's worth pointing out that Hobbes would have nothing Smith or Hayek's beliefs. Hobbes imagined a social contract in which rulers themselves are in a state of nature and cannot be challenged whatsoever by the people. Basically a double standard that prevents even a balance of powers. Hobbes was writing specifically during the time of the English civil war and various parties being in conflict and seeing no end to it. They must keep absolute rule. In order to have even a minarchist democracy you have to believe at the very least that the ability to reason, to have inalienable "rights" in order to delegate to a state to protect, and peaceful economy (in order to pay for the state) preceding not succeeding the state. As Locke and others believed.
Hobbes probably predicted the centralization of power into the executive and world governmental bodies (since they lessen state of nature of rulers themselves). But few would agree, today, that those things are good.
john ess: i do not of course believe in every idea hobbes had. but i do agree on with him on certain points, especially natural law and our natural state of being.
liberty student:monopoly legal system
so i may have a competing legal system which i can implement? how about a system where i think all blonde people must die, or that all Canadians may be robbed?
but then i hear you say "wait, property rights are fundamental". but you just said that there may exist alternative/competing law systems, why do you moralise about my system? do you by some chance look towards some key fundamental principles.
hmm, sounds like you want to have legal positivism but then decided to stick to fundamental principles of natural law (aka rule of law).
nothing good will come of breaking the rule of law.
spetsnaz:
“in anarchy there may exist some cooperation but the strongest will group together, subjugate the rest and there will be rule of men and not rule of law.”
This sounds an awful lot like the ideas with which Nietzche struggled (the will to power, beyond good and evil). I say 'struggled' advisedly for he truly wished that human beings were primarily independent, but was (at least nearly) convinced that within each individual was the Übermensch, that which drives us to either be, to develop, or to adopt a ruler over all of mankind.
"Even the body within which individuals treat each other as equals ... will have to be an incarnate will to power, it will strive to grow, spread, seize, become predominant—not from any morality or immorality but because it is living and because life simply is will to power." F. Nietzche
I believe that those who have the least control over themselves seek to exert the most control over others. Had Nietzche been totally sane (like me, for instance) he would have recognized this as the moral equivalent of the fifth law of thermodynamics in physics. In fact, early on in his battle against a god that does not exist, he actually thought he had newly discovered a fundimental law of nature -- which, indeed he had -- but later doubted himself.
We would have all benefitted were Nietzche alive and at his peak today. What would he have been able to accomplish in chaos theory!
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