Stranger:Capitalism is in that sense closely aligned with monarchism.
What are you talking about? Capitalism is a product of a decentralized western Europe. The weakening of monarchism was what gave rise to it, not the excerbation of it.
Stranger: The state, under a hereditary monarch, produces security at a large enough scale that organized capitalist production is possible.
So you would deny the division of labor?
Stranger:The monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise itself, relying on an organized bureaucracy instead of a system of kinship relations to secure the livelihood of its subjects from external threats
Then I propose this challenge to you. If the monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise then why is not the modern day democratic government?
Stranger: Once the state severs its obedience to the monarch, it then takes on a much different character comparable to that of a large corporation vis-a-vis its small shareholders. It can grow without limits and consume their capital at will. That is when it becomes most destructive.
And a monarch never proposed growth of his/her power without limits.
Stranger:It suffices to say that no anarchist society could withstand aggression from an organized enemy unless it was itself organized on capitalistic lines, thus showing that anarchism is a death-wish not only economically but also quite literally.
And why can't an anarchist society be capitalistic? Did I miss something? Aren't we all capitalists here?
Stranger:a natural order libertarian only wants to fight it to such a point that it surrenders its power, thus making a progressive and peaceful transition towards a natural order possible with no period of "anarchy" where only self-defense is available.
Translation: What you propose is a delusion. The natural order is complusory service to any degree to an institution whose supposed purpose is to protect us whether we wish it or not?
I will ask you what I ask all minarchists: What is the legitimate basis for your government [ by what power do you establish a government ]?
'It is difficult to imagine any normal person wishing to meet Marx for a third time.' - Alexander Gray, The Socialist Tradition
Juan, I generally agree with your opinions; Molinari indeed provides the essential feature that distinguishes minarchism from anarcho-capitalism. I was merely trying to connect my comments to your earlier discussion with Stranger, namely "the confused and confusing" part. I found that statement too strong and felt that it gave too much credit to Molinari at the expense of Rothbard. Rothbard did redefine libertarian anarchism, and Molinari's theory on private defense, while a crucial feature, needs to be combined with additional laissez-faire doctrine to form a complete theory of anarcho-capitalism. To suggest otherwise, I think, is too sweeping of a claim.
Juan:I don't see any reason to justify their mistakes.
It doesn't. Even withouth Molinari, I am not sure why Mises failed to arrive at this. I did not mean to defend such thinkers on this issue, but give more weight to Stranger's Rothbard remark which you disagreed with. In hindsight, perhaps my comment was too subtle and indirect. I apologize.
Laughing Man: laminustacitus:They stayed very much consistent after the war, they weren't really that radical to begin with. Trying to enact a premise that government is contractarian in nature and that if provoked citizens can take back their rights through Lockean principles had never been tried in the world. Mainstream outlooks towards divine will stated that the citizens will always tied to a king for good or bad. Breaking that tradition and establishing something new [ perhaps not agreeable to anarchists ] is none the less radical.
laminustacitus:They stayed very much consistent after the war, they weren't really that radical to begin with.
Trying to enact a premise that government is contractarian in nature and that if provoked citizens can take back their rights through Lockean principles had never been tried in the world. Mainstream outlooks towards divine will stated that the citizens will always tied to a king for good or bad. Breaking that tradition and establishing something new [ perhaps not agreeable to anarchists ] is none the less radical.
I completely agree. Going from monarchy (even one limited by a parliament) to a federal, constitutional, republic was an enormous step in the right direction.
Periodically the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots.
Thomas Jefferson
Laughing Man:Then I propose this challenge to you. If the monarchical state is a capitalist enterprise then why is not the modern day democratic government?
Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally.
Laughing Man: Translation: What you propose is a delusion. The natural order is complusory service to any degree to an institution whose supposed purpose is to protect us whether we wish it or not?
I was only quoting Hoppe's proposition. He has stated clearly in the past that for a natural order to have been established up to the 20th century, it was only sufficient in places like the Austrian Empire to force the emperor to allow subjects to choose others protectors within the empire as their source of security.
Microsecession as a strategy for revolution | Challenge to minarchist | How would a private road system work?
The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise
Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant.
But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic in nature.
I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space" without such terms being decided ahead of time by an elite group of adminstrators who would kick me off of it at the drop of a hat. Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy suffices as a much more accurate description
Stranger:Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally.
You really think the democratic government is commually owned? I think of it as a plutocracy.
Stranger:it was only sufficient in places like the Austrian Empire to force the emperor to allow subjects to choose others protectors within the empire as their source of security.
That would presuppose that the subjects don't have the right in the first place. To force the king to allow you to do something is pure nonsense.
Brainpolice: The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant.
Capitalism is not dependent on the state if the state is capitalistic. That would be an impossible redundancy.
The characteristics of the state are capitalistic. It consists of an organization of laborers earning wages in return for operating capital owned by a separate class whose directives they must follow. This is vastly different from a system of vassalage or venal offices.
Brainpolice: Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally. But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies.
But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies.
That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership.
Communal resources will benefit those with power more than those without.
Stranger:Capitalism is not dependent on the state if the state is capitalistic. That would be an impossible redundancy.
Well the state doesn't legitimately own anything. And capitalism is based on private property, therefore the state is not in any manner capitalistic.
Laughing Man:That would presuppose that the subjects don't have the right in the first place. To force the king to allow you to do something is pure nonsense.
I am not going to lecture you if you are not even interested in understanding the problem.
Stranger:That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership.
Ownership implies ability of usage.
Stranger:I am not going to lecture you if you are not even interested in understanding the problem.
I would never expect you to lecture me if you propose such statements. You can argue with me about it but lecturing implies a higher knowledge concerning the subject in question, much like a teacher/student. You are no teacher.
Stranger: Brainpolice: Obviously its ownership structure is not proprietary. It is owned communally. But this is clearly not true. "The people" do not actually have substantive decision-making power in so-called modern "democracies"; they are still oligarchies that are more or less owned by an elite of fairly rich interests that merely "allow" a marginal degree of decision-making power to the public. So-called "democracies" are not actually "democracies" in any direct or participatory sense. They're actually fairly plutocratic. I'll believe that the state is owned "communally" when I'm allowed to sell off my portion of it and when I can do whatever I want on "public space". Until then, the premise that "democracy" is an illusion for the purpose of an elite class's legitimacy sufficies. That the people have no power in democracy in no way contradicts the fact that it is in communal ownership. Communal resources will benefit those with power more than those without.
Actually it directly contradicts it. To say that the "community" owns something that it doesn't actually have the decision-making power of ownership over makes no sense. This is why the term "public property" is misleading: "the public" doesn't actually own it, the state (which is directly controlled by a small group of people) functionally owns it and only "allows" limited access rights to "the public" and determines the policy for how it is to be used.
To say that I "own" something that I essentially have no decision-making power over is a joke. If anything, the only historical examples of any geniune sense of "communal ownership" have been small tribes, not modern democracies.
stranger, im shocked to hear you say those things?
is all state property communal propoerty. can a citizen pick a tank from the local army base to drive off in? can he decide what time of night he will stay in the public library? I wonder if you think citizens each own an equal portion of all state property equal to 1/300million-th size? that would be absurd also . the fact of the matter is that you cant sell you portion. i.e. you dont own your portion.
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
I don't see a problem with what Stranger meant. His usage of communal is being misinterpreted by his peers methinks.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
No, he isn't being misinterpreted. He's claiming that existing democracies are actually owned by "the public", which is basically taking the "conventional wisdom" about what they are at face value.
No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree with Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
"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
wilderness: Brainpolice: The state being an organized capitalistic enterprise Way to concede the social anarchist's claim that "capitalism" is inherently state-dependant. No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
No, Stranger and I have had this discussion before and I agree Stranger when he explains it (maybe more thoroughly if need be). The state Stranger is discussing here is also called civil society. It's not a new concept. The civil society term is the state without it's definitional monopoly/governmental/destructive slant. Social anarchism seems to once again display it's inclination to make something out of nothing.
Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading. In either case, I think you just conflated two different debates that are going on here - one debate is over the definition of "capitalism", while the other is over what so-called "democracies" actually are.
Brainpolice: Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading.
Actually, libertarians typically distinguish the state from civil society. To conflate the two is nonsensical. In so-called "democratic states", the idea that the state actually is "the people" is clearly an illusion. Taking the notion of "the state as civil society" at face value is highly misleading.
I understand that and that's why I stick with the term 'civil society' to not have to redefine what I would mean by Stranger's usage of the term state. It was discussed by him and I before and I believe we agree, him and I, that we were talking about the same concept. Now if I am wrong and Stranger has differed from the last time him and I discussed this topic, then that's up to Stranger to denote this.
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