If anything, states indoctrinate people to abandon ambition. Ambitious people make lousy serfs.
eliotn: Capitalism is the economic system that goes with deomcracy. Socialism is the economic system that goes with communism. [...]What can you find wrong with this?
Capitalism is the economic system that goes with deomcracy. Socialism is the economic system that goes with communism. [...]What can you find wrong with this?
It is my strong feeling that capitalism goes with "aristoi" - not with "demos".
Sad to say, but...
The general public - "demos" - always tends to be socialistic - "let's rob the elite and feast"!
Nonetheless...
I think it is a problem of liberty - or lack of it rather...
If I know that I can go as high as I want, and nobody is to stop me - I will go high freely and joyfully.
But...
If I know that I cannot go as high as I want because some people or laws burden me unjustly, then...No wonder that I will become an anarchistic / socialistic / whatever the name...
Desperado!
I say - liberty and respect for other people - that's the cure...
But everyone must begin with himself and then promote this attitude by his good - successful - example.
Hobbes was right.
There is really no such thing as absolute anarchy. Trying to argue against its desirability is like trying to argue against the desirability of monopole magnets. Hierarchy is implicit even in anarcho-capitalism. It just isn't a fixed privilege and unlimited domain as in statism.
Hobbes was still wrong.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean, Caley. I don't see anything mutually exclusive about "absolute anarchy" and division of labor and comparative advantage leading to natural hierarchies within the social order. The issue would be the statist monopoly of force. In the absence of that, I would consider it anarchy.
"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. ... Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."
All of the arguments against "anarchy" are based on the anarcho-communist conception. Anarcho-communists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy because it has private property, which they call mini-states. Hoppe argued convincingly that anarcho-communism is not possible because everyone could either do anything (such as murder) in the case of not requiring any permission or nothing (such as breathe) in the case of requiring universal permission. It's dubious to define anarchy as NAP+property rights.
Following from that, what Hobbes described as a state of nature was not anarchy. It was disorganized hierarchy; chaos.
Okay, but that still doesn't clear up for me what you mean by "absolute anarchy." The abolition of private property requires an outside enforcement agency because of the extension-of-person definition that Rothbard describes, I would think. So, anarcho-communism isn't anarchy; as you say, it's chaos. But people will employ private security if they feel the need to, which will privately enforce the assertion of private property. Certainly, in general people need to accept the idea of private property for this to work - if no one is respecting p.p. then you probably end up with the concertina-wire and broken-glass "garden fences" we see in many parts of the world. But I still don't see why anarcho-capitalism wouldn't be considered "absolute."
ETA: Even "anarcho-communism" is viable from a philosophical standpoint as long as it is a private arrangement. Of course, I don't consider that communism because I believe that Marx and his followers were quite clear on the use of force, at least initially, to bring everyone on board with the good life, but in terms of the communitarian aspect, certainly. I have lived in semi-communal environments, which worked just fine, because everyone who was there was clear on their desire to be there and on the ease of exit.
Absolute anarchy: no rights, no force. (id est no winner and loser in any case of conflict)
Anarcho-communism: absolute anarchy plus the the assumption that conflict will not exist.
Anarcho-capitalism: the assumption that conflict will exist, thus, rights.
When you look at it like this, what Mises said in Poptech's sig makes perfect sense if you take "anarchism" as anarcho-communism, which is the only kind that was described with that root word when he wrote it.
In an-cap, the idea of rights in the case of conflict translates into one will winning over another, the hierarchy aspect.
Caley McKibbin:When you look at it like this, what Mises said in Poptech's sig makes perfect sense if you take "anarchism" as anarcho-communism, which is the only kind that was described with that root word when he wrote it.
Precisely. Mises has enough other quotes which indicate a sympathy for radical individualism.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
scineram: Hobbes was right.
If I recall correctly, didn't Hobbes have an argument about people being in a perpetual state of warfare because they locked their houses? What is wrong with his reasoning was that people don't lock their houses in small towns or in places they feel comfortable in. In fact, it takes an incredible ammount of crime for people to lock their houses. In fact, all early civilizations didn't even HAVE locks, and they still survived.
laminustacitus: Anarchist:Oh, and I also forgot. If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree? Why this interest in me? Anarchist:Or would you refrain from killing your fellow human beings because it would be an intrusion on their right to life? I would not do so for other reasons, I do not believe that one can rigorously justify man's right to life without either consequentialist, or religious arguments; the entire idea that there is some "natural law" that gives man the right to life qua man is babble. Anarchist:I'm willing to bet you are not really a savage animal, but a rational human being capable of empathy. The two traits can co-exist.
Anarchist:Oh, and I also forgot. If government was removed, would YOU go on a killing spree?
Why this interest in me?
Anarchist:Or would you refrain from killing your fellow human beings because it would be an intrusion on their right to life?
I would not do so for other reasons, I do not believe that one can rigorously justify man's right to life without either consequentialist, or religious arguments; the entire idea that there is some "natural law" that gives man the right to life qua man is babble.
Anarchist:I'm willing to bet you are not really a savage animal, but a rational human being capable of empathy.
The two traits can co-exist.
Aside from your stupid other post, which is full of so many fallacies that I SHALL NOT take the time to dissect it (anyone with common sense realizes that if Laws were necessary to keep people in check, who keeps those upholding the law in check? And if people are able to overcome their instincts, why is government needed? You yourself said it was 'nothing special'. Quite so. That's why I'm an anarchist. It takes nothing special to love your fellow human beings. However, it DOES take something very unusual to make people resort to crime. People aren't born with the inherent need to destroy everything. They are born with the need to organize. What anarchists claim is that you don't need government for organization. Simple as that)..
Don't play stupid and ask, why the interest in you. You know quite well why. Because you claimed that "Savage animal" was the perpetual state of mind for human beings. And then you contradited your claim by saying that it was just an instinct to be a "savage animal" that could be overcome. Funny, but when you actually point out the full implications of being "savage" animals, the aggressive stance turns to something defensive. It's easy to accuse, but to take the actual blame isn't, huh?
Babble huh? So you would have no qualm against me killing you? Wait...what's that, you want to live? The Golden Rule, my friend.
The "two-traits" can co-exist is quite a detraction from your previous "Man is a savage animal that must be protected from other savage animals by giving some savage animals more power than others" statement.
Caley McKibbin: All of the arguments against "anarchy" are based on the anarcho-communist conception. Anarcho-communists argue that anarcho-capitalism is not anarchy because it has private property, which they call mini-states. Hoppe argued convincingly that anarcho-communism is not possible because everyone could either do anything (such as murder) in the case of not requiring any permission or nothing (such as breathe) in the case of requiring universal permission. It's dubious to define anarchy as NAP+property rights. Following from that, what Hobbes described as a state of nature was not anarchy. It was disorganized hierarchy; chaos.
Hoppe was a fool. Then Government would not be possible because government could do either anything (murder, because it can) or nothing (confiscate everything and demand everyone not to breath). Besides, even in a society with government, you have people committing murder. Following that logic, nothing is possible because anyone can chose to do anything or nothing. Stupid, stupid, stupid. It's like the, "What if.." Game.
But what if everyone in Government decided to confiscate everything and copensate only themselves? Therefore, Government cannot work.
Or, against Anarcho-Capitalism
But what if everyone decided that rights didn't matter? Therefore, anarcho-capitalism can't happen.
It's hard to figure out exactly what you're saying through your condescension, but I don't think you understand Hoppe's argument against communism. What Hoppe described is the logical contradiction implied by Communist theory. The Communists assert, both as a matter of normative and positive fact, that nobody owns anything individually; that as there is no property, every person has an equal claim to every thing.
If this were true, then two mutually exclusive cases must follow:
1. that everyone must be able to act without impediment by others (because an impediment to action would constitute a higher claim by the one doing the impeding, which claim would constitute a condition of ownership); but simultaneously that
2. nobody may act at all, because in so doing they would limit the ability of all other persons to act by establishing an exclusive claim on scarce resources (such as air, food, ground on which to stand, etc).
A proposition that is contradictory is objectively false. So if one goes tossing about moral propositions, one had better make sure that they are not contradictory. To act upon a false moral premise is to act immorally. Hoppe demonstrated that the moral proposition asserted by the Communists is self-violating, contradicory, in the most literal sense, impossible; and that Communism is therefore morally wrong.
Pro Christo et Libertate integre!
I'm not sure absolute rejection of private ownership is a popular or commonly touted ideal by most communists. As I understand it, their main rejection is to the ownership of capital goods, as private ownership of those goods lead to 'wage exploitation'.
The ultimate goal of Communism - which is to say, their moral objective - is the eradication of property. Marxists, the Utopians, and the anarcho-communists all believe that socialism, which is the common ownership of capital goods, is only as a step along the path toward that end.
Anarchist:Babble huh? So you would have no qualm against me killing you? Wait...what's that, you want to live? The Golden Rule, my friend.
This is just a plea. You haven't justified any sound form of right based ethic from this. Evidencing another's will to live as binding on that individual to not violate such a will in others is unsubstantiated. It may be 'empathically' contradictory (and i'm not using the word in a valuative sense, but rather in the sense that one can abstract the existence of other sentient egos outside the self), but so what? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that actions which contradict individual desires being applied to others are wrong (i.e. "I don't want others to harm me, and I know Mr. A doesn't want to be harmed (like me), but I am going to harm Mr. A") , nor would such a thing (if it were demonstrated) have any substance if that notion were to not be understood or disagreed upon (as in the case of a solipsist or masochist).
MacFall: It's hard to figure out exactly what you're saying through your condescension, but I don't think you understand Hoppe's argument against communism. What Hoppe described is the logical contradiction implied by Communist theory. The Communists assert, both as a matter of normative and positive fact, that nobody owns anything individually; that as there is no property, every person has an equal claim to every thing. If this were true, then two mutually exclusive cases must follow: 1. that everyone must be able to act without impediment by others (because an impediment to action would constitute a higher claim by the one doing the impeding, which claim would constitute a condition of ownership); but simultaneously that 2. nobody may act at all, because in so doing they would limit the ability of all other persons to act by establishing an exclusive claim on scarce resources (such as air, food, ground on which to stand, etc). A proposition that is contradictory is objectively false. So if one goes tossing about moral propositions, one had better make sure that they are not contradictory. To act upon a false moral premise is to act immorally. Hoppe demonstrated that the moral proposition asserted by the Communists is self-violating, contradicory, in the most literal sense, impossible; and that Communism is therefore morally wrong.
As much as I think this is a misapplication of what Communists believe (something along there being common ownership and that everyone gets their fair share, not the exact same item, a subtle difference), one could argue against it by saying that as long as the human temporarily uses something, but shares it with their fellow human beings, it is not an impediment, but rather a necessary step that is then passed along to others.
banned: Anarchist:Babble huh? So you would have no qualm against me killing you? Wait...what's that, you want to live? The Golden Rule, my friend. This is just a plea. You haven't justified any sound form of right based ethic from this. Evidencing another's will to live as binding on that individual to not violate such a will in others is unsubstantiated. It may be 'empathically' contradictory (and i'm not using the word in a valuative sense, but rather in the sense that one can abstract the existence of other sentient egos outside the self), but so what? You haven't demonstrated anywhere that actions which contradict individual desires being applied to others are wrong (i.e. "I don't want others to harm me, and I know Mr. A doesn't want to be harmed (like me), but I am going to harm Mr. A") , nor would such a thing (if it were demonstrated) have any substance if that notion were to not be understood or disagreed upon (as in the case of a solipsist or masochist).
Well, the reason being is that for any society to survive, there must be some contracts. It is without a doubt that in isolation, human beings are less likely to survive than those within a society. For a society to prosper, there has to be some mutual respect. If you have one individual killing all others, the society will perish, and the individual doing the killing is lowering his/her chances of survival. Thusly, killing your fellow human beings is irrational. Furthermore, you do not want to be killed. Why should this be taken into consideration? Because if we all have a common goal, doesn't that allow us to work together? And if this common goal is achieved by "The Golden Rule", then it is a rational course of action, and not outside human nature. It is within human nature to prefer peace over violence, as it takes provocation for humans to result to violent impulses.
Anarchist: As much as I think this is a misapplication of what Communists believe (something along there being common ownership and that everyone gets their fair share, not the exact same item, a subtle difference), one could argue against it by saying that as long as the human temporarily uses something, but shares it with their fellow human beings, it is not an impediment, but rather a necessary step that is then passed along to others.
Quite right, but that is not communism. It's a use-based theory of property, similar to what Mutualists believe.
Hoppe did not actually rephrase what communists say, but rather explained the logical implications of what they say. The subtle difference you described is a sort of concession to non-universal ownership which is necessary to make communism practicable. But it destroys the foundation of communist property theory; which is that there should be no property, and that eventually there shall be no property once communism is instituted. Because if there is no property then it must be true that nobody has a higher claim than anyone to any thing, as I explained above. Any superior claim, at any time, on any thing, by any person, brings into existence a condition of ownership by that person at that time upon that thing - and property is thereby created, no matter how poorly constituted.
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