What justification does Mises give for the state? I have read the bit in Human Action (page 148-9 Scholar's Edition pdf), which simply seems so very weak, considering his anti-interventionism.
Well, he had some cognitive dissonance on this issue. He holds the premises that lead to anarchism (government is plagued by incentival and informational problems), but he just didn't apply them consistently. Mises' justification for the state is basically that "we need a government." After all, anarchy would be chaos. It's preposterous to even put forward the idea.
Mises' arguments against anarchy apply to the Utopian anarchists. He just never conceived of market anarchism; he was missing Molinari's insight that free market competition applies to protection and law.
Happily, Mises did support individual secession:
The right of self-determination in regard to the question of membership in a state thus means: whenever the inhabitants of a particular territory, whether it be a single village, a whole district, or a series of adjacent districts, make it known, by a freely conducted plebiscite, that they no longer wish to remain united to the state to which they belong at the time, but wish either to form an independent state or to attach themselves to some other state, their wishes are to be respected and complied with. This is the only feasible and effective way of preventing revolutions and civil and international wars. ... However, the right of self-determination of which we speak is not the right of self-determination of nations, but rather the right of self-determination of the inhabitants of every territory large enough to form an independent administrative unit. If it were in any way possible to grant this right of self-determination to every individual person, it would have to be done. - Liberalism, p.109-110
Another interesting approach is Pete Leeson's project of extending Mises' rendition of the Ricardian Law of Association to show that people can cooperate under conditions of anarchy:
Traditionally, economists have considered the implications of the RLA in the context of externally-supplied institutions of property and contract. However, in my view, key to the Austrian approach is the idea that such institutions may themselves be endogenously created per social interactions engendered under the RLA.
In other words, social cooperation under the division of labor applies to exogenous (government-imposed) social institutions as well as to "endogenously emergent institutions of social cooperation".
So there are three different approaches to show how Mises was logically committed to anarchism: competition, secession, and social cooperation.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
I believe Jorg Guido Hulsmann goes into this in the last chapter of his "Mises, the Last Knight of Liberalism" in a section titled "last skirmishes with the anarchists."
Mises believed that seccession should occur down to the smallest functioning political unit. It was never his focus to determine what unit that would be. I believe he took a "let the market decide" stance.
Raibe: What justification does Mises give for the state? I have read the bit in Human Action (page 148-9 Scholar's Edition pdf), which simply seems so very weak, considering his anti-interventionism.
For what its worth, my understanding, is that Mises' first draft of "Human Action" [i.e. pre submission to a publisher] did not grant a state exclusivity even in the areas of national defense, police or the courts, and that he was persuaded to change his anarchistic stance in order to get published.
I have never seen any proof that this was in fact the case- but it certainly seems like a possible scenario- maybe someone else here knows more about this?
Hello From a "Post- Austrian",Anarcho-Capitalist ,Taoist, 911 "No- Planer" :
JonBostwick:Mises believed that seccession should occur down to the smallest functioning political unit. It was never his focus to determine what unit that would be. I believe he took a "let the market decide" stance.
Yes, Mises seems to have advocated the "voluntary state" idea. Reisman advocates the "voluntary state" idea, as well. So does Hoppe. So does Rothbard.
Where is the disagreement? Reisman attacked Rothbard for being a "self-described anarchist", and yet they both seem to advocate the "voluntary state" idea, which, no matter who is right in theory, would lead to the same thing. That is, even if these four men disagree about what would end up happening to the state's responsibilities, it seems like they all support the same fundamental theory.
Yesno?
I. Ryan: JonBostwick:Mises believed that seccession should occur down to the smallest functioning political unit. It was never his focus to determine what unit that would be. I believe he took a "let the market decide" stance. Yes, Mises seems to have advocated the "voluntary state" idea. Reisman advocates the "voluntary state" idea, as well. So does Hoppe. So does Rothbard. Where is the disagreement? Reisman attacked Rothbard for being a "self-described anarchist", and yet they both seem to advocate the "voluntary state" idea, which, no matter who is right in theory, would lead to the same thing. That is, even if these four men disagree about what would end up happening to the state's responsibilities, it seems like they all support the same fundamental theory. Yesno?
Not exactly. The "voluntary state" idea ALA Rand and Objectivists still has a territorial monopoly on law and will initiate force to stop people from forming or patronizing alternative competing institutions. Objectivists like Reisman also support intellectual property law, which anarchists normally reject. Furthermore, from an anarchist perspective, the concept of a "voluntary state" is a rank contradiction in terms - it ceases to be a state qua state upon being voluntary in any genuine sense.
But, to take things further, anti-statism in a narrow sense has never been the sole goal of anarchism - it is a significant and necessary part of it, but not entirely sufficient. Neither is a right of secession entirely sufficient by itself - yes, anarchists recognize the right to secede, but not the right to then turn around and form authoritarian territorial institutions which one cannot secede from and which uniformly binds people intergenerationally (I.E. a defacto mini-state). That is, one can endorse the right of secession while still implicitly supporting what is *internally* a state.
I think Mises's position is Hobbesian at its root. In this sense Hayek was better: Hayek rejected Hobbes and saw the source of all social order as indigenous to society itself.
Jeffrey TuckerEditorial VP, Mises
Brainpolice:anti-statism in a narrow sense has never been the sole goal of anarchism - it is a significant and necessary part of it, but not entirely sufficient.
That's a value statement. It is not sufficient for you. It is sufficient for me if we define the state as a monopoly on force. The goals of anarchism are as varied as the goals of statism. There is no homogeneity to anarchism in social definition or objective, nor should there be any, as it promotes decentralized outcomes over centralized ones.
This is one of the inherent contradictions I frequently see in your positions.
Brainpolice:Neither is a right of secession entirely sufficient by itself - yes, anarchists recognize the right to secede, but not the right to then turn around and form authoritarian territorial institutions which one cannot secede from and which uniformly binds people intergenerationally (I.E. a defacto mini-state)
This is a strawman. Obviously a right to secede rests upon not preventing others to secede.
Brainpolice:That is, one can endorse the right of secession while still implicitly supporting what is *internally* a state.
Th implicit is the subjective playground of many leftists. Let's stick to what is explicit. It is a lot clearer, a lot simpler and less likely to lead to errors by pre-supposing a homogeneity that anarchism is based on avoiding.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
jtucker: I think Mises's position is Hobbesian at its root. In this sense Hayek was better: Hayek rejected Hobbes and saw the source of all social order as indigenous to society itself.
I'm not so sure that he feared anarchy would be "war of all against all" so much as he felt that those people capable of voluntary interaction would choose to form states to protect themselves from people that did not, or could not, engage in social behavior.
After all, he saw the Austrian Army not as imposing order on Austria, but as protecting Austrian order from foreign barbarians.
That's a value statement. It is not sufficient for you. It is sufficient for me if we define the state as a monopoly on force. The goals of anarchism are as varied as the goals of statism. There is no homogeneity to anarchism in social definition or objective, nor should there be any, as it promotes decentralized outcomes over centralized ones. This is one of the inherent contradictions I frequently see in your positions.
It is you who is misunderstanding and strawmanning here. In philosophical anarchism, anti-statism is a consequence of the more fundamental principle of individual liberty and non-rulership. Anarchism is not only anti-statism alone - anti-statism is a central conclusion of anarchism, but not its very definition. This is the fact of the matter with respect to how philosophical anarchists have defined themselves since the 19th century and well into the 20th century (and in modern libertarian terms: the opposition to the state is a conclusion of the NAP, not the other way around, and the NAP applies to interpersonal relations in general). Neither is decentralization, in and of itself, entirely sufficient for a society to be free - for the obvious reason that internal to a given decentralized region there can still be liberty violations (for example, in a scenario in which the state of California seceded yet still existed as a state internally - this would be minarchism at best, and totalitarian in internal potential).
This isn't a contradiction on my part, it's me pointing out and correcting a contradiction. The existance of a bunch of little states is not anarchism, it's mini-statism. The fact that the territory that a state controls is smaller does not in and of itself mean that it cannot still violate people's liberty - localized political authority, while it may have certain benefits relative to less localized political authority, can still potentially violate people's liberty. Furthermore, the fact that an institution or organization isn't a state does not necessarily mean that it cannot or does not violate people's liberty - anti-statism is merely a large-scale application of a much more fundamental principle that opposes authoritarian and aggressive means of control, and without a culture that is sufficiently fundamental-rights-respecting in the first place, the likelyhood and sustainability of an anarchist society in lesser. This should be obvious in the basic sense that a large-scale and dominant public demand for unlibertarian things will probably not lead to libertarian results, and there is a certain psychology of political power going on.
Brainpolice:Neither is decentralization, in and of itself, entirely sufficient for a society to be free - for the obvious reason that internal to a given decentralized region there can still be liberty violations (for example, in a scenario in which the state of California seceded yet still existed as a state internally - this would be minarchism at best, and totalitarian in internal potential).
This is the strawman. It is not decentralization, if it is not down to the individual. You keep conflating statism with anarchy, then saying anarchy is not enough.
Simply, if there is no coercion, NONE, then that is good enough for me. I suspect if you took a poll here, most people would agree, no coercion, we'll suss out the rest voluntarily.
Brainpolice:The existance of a bunch of little states is not anarchism, it's mini-statism.
Without a doubt. Who proposed that?
Brainpolice:he fact that the territory that a state controls is smaller does not in and of itself mean that it cannot still violate people's liberty - localized political authority, while it may have certain benefits relative to less localized political authority, can still violate people's liberty. Furthermore, the fact that an institution or organization isn't a state does not necessarily mean that it cannot or does not violate people's liberty - anti-statism is merely a large-scale application of a much more fundamental principle that opposes authoritarian and aggressive means of control, and without a culture that is sufficiently fundamental-rights-respecting in the first place, the likelyhood and sustainability of an anarchist society in lesser.
The non-bolded part, you keep repeating the strawman. We have coercion, and you point out this is not anarchy. Obviously BP. This is your strawman. But no one has said that. You just keep hammering the same point over and over regardless if anyone holds it.
Re: the bolded part, that's an idea, but it's relatively pointless IMO because in the absence of coercion, people will figure out how to structure a voluntary society, and what sort of values are more common and beneficial to it. If you know now, then that's an anti-market argument. You're saying that you know how to plan a free society, which we all know is an oxymoron. You don't know, you can only theorize, because none of us can know.
Likelihood and sustainability are all based on projections. I sincerly doubt you will be able to determine the needs and wants, resources and conditions that a free society will face, let alone what the collective decisions of the market actors amount to, when they are all functioning independently.
To infer otherwise (which seems to be habit forming among the thick crowd) is silly as a first premise.
liberty student: Brainpolice:Neither is decentralization, in and of itself, entirely sufficient for a society to be free - for the obvious reason that internal to a given decentralized region there can still be liberty violations (for example, in a scenario in which the state of California seceded yet still existed as a state internally - this would be minarchism at best, and totalitarian in internal potential). This is the strawman. It is not decentralization, if it is not down to the individual. You keep conflating statism with anarchy, then saying anarchy is not enough. Simply, if there is no coercion, NONE, then that is good enough for me. I suspect if you took a poll here, most people would agree, no coercion, we'll suss out the rest voluntarily. Brainpolice:The existance of a bunch of little states is not anarchism, it's mini-statism. Without a doubt. Who proposed that? Brainpolice:he fact that the territory that a state controls is smaller does not in and of itself mean that it cannot still violate people's liberty - localized political authority, while it may have certain benefits relative to less localized political authority, can still violate people's liberty. Furthermore, the fact that an institution or organization isn't a state does not necessarily mean that it cannot or does not violate people's liberty - anti-statism is merely a large-scale application of a much more fundamental principle that opposes authoritarian and aggressive means of control, and without a culture that is sufficiently fundamental-rights-respecting in the first place, the likelyhood and sustainability of an anarchist society in lesser. The non-bolded part, you keep repeating the strawman. We have coercion, and you point out this is not anarchy. Obviously BP. This is your strawman. But no one has said that. You just keep hammering the same point over and over regardless if anyone holds it. Re: the bolded part, that's an idea, but it's relatively pointless IMO because in the absence of coercion, people will figure out how to structure a voluntary society, and what sort of values are more common and beneficial to it. If you know now, then that's an anti-market argument. You're saying that you know how to plan a free society, which we all know is an oxymoron. You don't know, you can only theorize, because none of us can know. Likelihood and sustainability are all based on projections. I sincerly doubt you will be able to determine the needs and wants, resources and conditions that a free society will face, let alone what the collective decisions of the market actors amount to, when they are all functioning independently. To infer otherwise (which seems to be habit forming among the thick crowd) is silly as a first premise.
The fact that you keep saying that I'm strawmanning is a misunderstanding of yours - my statements are not directed towards anyone in particular (I.E. I have not made any specific accusations)! I'm simply clarifying my position, and you're being a bubble-headed half-troll. You're jumping into this as if I've presented an argument against you or your ideology, in response to what actually are my statements distinguishing anarchism from minarchism. It's not me confusing them, the entire point of what I wrote is to clearly make the distinction. This thread's topic is essentially the question of the difference between minarchism and anarchism, and I have spelled that difference out.
I'm not claiming to "determine the needs and wants, resources and conditions that a free society will face, let alone what the collective decisions of the market actors amount to, when they are all functioning independently". I'm pointing out the *obvious* fact that a society full of people who don't give a shit about rights isn't likely to be a libertarian society! That isn't a particularly "thick" proposition at all. Suggesting that people ought to respect each other's rights isn't a controversial libertarian claim - it's THE libertarian claim.
You are the one strawmanning here. You're a lame debater - you spit virtol and onslaught people with endless red herrings. Way to go liberty student, you just totally read your own presuppositions into what I wrote and then proceeded to accuse *me* of "strawmanning". It's ridiculous. You have such a vested in interesting in being an antagonist against me that you simply don't even properly interpret what I say in the first place. That's why you never have been able to outrow me in a debate here - I have you outrowed by far, you don't even honestly interpret or adequately understand half of what you're trying to argue against.
Brainpolice:The fact that you keep saying that I'm strawmanning is a misunderstanding of yours - my statements are not directed towards anyone in particular (I.E. I have not made any specific accusations)!
So you are arguing your own assertions? That's fine if that is your position, but your assertions still fail for the reasons I outlined above.
That you are strawmanning yourself is largely irrelevant given that your positions on freedom are not logical, ie. free societies require a particular culture, that culture must be sufficient [sic].
Brainpolice:I'm simply clarifying my position, and you're being a bubble-headed half-troll.
These insults make you look bad, and make me look good. You might want to rethink this tactic.
Brainpolice:I'm pointing out the *obvious* fact that a society full of people who don't give a shit about rights isn't likely to be a libertarian society!
But people obviously care about rights. That is why they would choose not to have a coercive government. They have to care enough about rights to secede, or to overthrow a coercive government. Obviously to get from A -> B we would have to care about rights. Seems redundant again to me. It's proposing a problem where none does, nor is one likely to exist.
Brainpolice:You're a lame debater - you spit virtol and onslaught people with endless red herrings.
You've insulted me twice in the last couple days. I have kept the debate civilized. If you are having trouble debating on merit, that's ok. Take a break. Come back to it later. But this is not worth getting angry or agitated over.
The problem is that you didn't actually properly understand my position, and hence your "reasons" for disagreeing are against - none other than a caricature or strawman of my point. You're not argueing against what I was argueing, you're hijacking the thread to play your usual role as BP's antagonist.
That you are strawmanning yourself is largely irrelevant given that your positions on freedom are not logical, ie. free societies have to be planned, BP has the plan.
See, this is simply a non-sequitor. Nothing about anything that I have said implies that. I made a post distinguishing anarchism from minarchism, and you've jumped into it being an antagonist against an argument that I never made. It's really lame. Instead of telling me what I'm saying for me and just making things up as you go along, it'd be nice if you actually didn't misinterpret and misrepresent what I say. I njever suggested that free societies have to be planned, I suggest a fact: that societies that adhere to authoritarian ideologies, societies that do not respect basic individual rights, are not likely to be free. This claim is not even a specifically left-libertarian claim and it has nothing to do with the red herrings that you are making. Furthermore, to suggest that this claim = claiming that free societies have to be planned is a non-sequitor. Sorry, you lose.
sults mean you are losing the debate. Was it this easy?
You have never honestly debated me. I always outrow you.
If you would stop side-tracking the thread, the original post I made was mostly about correcting the concept of "voluntary state" as a misnomer, pointing out some distinctions between the objectivist view and the libertarian anarchist view (namely, that objectivism retains the territorial monopoly on law) and clearly distinguishing minarchism from anarchism specifically in terms of the difference between decentralist minarchism and anarchism (namely, that decentralist minarchists still support regional states, while anarchists do not). As for my point about anti-statism being necessary but not sufficient alone, I expressed that in explicitly libertarian terms above when I said that anti-statism is a conclusion that follows from applying the NAP, which is a more fundamental principle that applies to interpersonal relations in general. It was you who took the oppurtunity to jump in and flame by taking my statements out of contexts to start a flamewar.
I edited my post. You should check your response against my revised argument.
And a response on the A -> B passage would be appreciated as well.
Thanks!
I don't think Mises really went so far as to "defend" government. He just couldn't envision justice and defense as being dispensed by the free market, and so that leaves government by default.
Everything you needed to know to be a libertarian you learned in Kindergarten. Keep your hands to yourself, and don't play with other people's toys without their consent.
Mises was a busy man. Between working out praxeology and fighting the commies he didn't have much time to ponder over anarchism.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
Perhaps it is kind of like Einstein's General Theory of Relativity that predicted the expanded Universe, but was mistakenly rejected by Einstein himself, which made him add the Cosmological constant. He latter called this mistake his biggest blunder.
Misses' own theory (and Austrian economics in general) predicts market-anarchy. There is nothing in the economic theory that predicts market failure for anything.
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