Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33

Thread: Mises On The State

  1. #1

    Default Mises On The State

    Mises, The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science, Ch. 10, Sec. 5

    "[In] order to preserve peace, it is, as human beings are, indispensable to be ready to repel by violence any aggression, be it on the part of domestic gangsters or on the part of external foes. Thus, peaceful human cooperation, the prerequisite of prosperity and civilization, cannot exist without a social apparatus of coercion and compulsion, i.e., without a government. The evils of violence, robbery, and murder can be prevented only by an institution that itself, whenever needed, resorts to the very methods of acting for the prevention of which it is established...In cognizance of this fact some people have called government an evil, although admitting that it is a necessary evil. However, what is required to attain an end sought and considered as beneficial is not an evil in the moral connotation of this term, but a means, the price to be paid for it...Government as such is not only not an evil, but the most necessary and beneficial institution, as without it no lasting social cooperation and no civilization could be developed and preserved.

    ...it is
    a double-edged makeshift to entrust an individual or a group of individuals with the authority to resort to violence. The enticement implied is too tempting for a human being....The main political problem is how to prevent the police power from becoming tyrannical. This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty.

    ...A shallow-minded school of social philosophers, the anarchists, chose to ignore the matter by suggesting a stateless organization of mankind. They simply passed over the fact that men are not angels. They were too dull to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless..."
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-20-2017 at 12:42 AM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    "....and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members."


    Also. Ludwig did wisely reference Plato in "In Praise of Government." I read and hear many people refer to Plato's Republic. But I don't know if many of them who refer to it have actually read it. The fact of the matter is that Plato didn't even remotely discuss anything governmental in that work. And certainly nothing resembling a true Republic. It's humorous when friends do reference Plato in that regard. Which, as Ludwig notes in the work, does not take into consideration the nature of man.

    As far as most mainstream anarchists go, few understand that the socialists will come to them at gunpoint and force them to hand over their wealth at the end of their barrels in order to support their socialist program. It's funny. The grass is always greener on the other side, they say. But eventually, one ends up in the same situation they were trying to escape.

    Again, how to solve that problem...I dunno. Nobody knows how to fight anymore. Today, the will to finish something only lasts as far as the next reality show or humorous meme. And the fact of the matter is that only worthy men can be free men.

    As it is, it's impossible to escape the State. As it is, the more historic or popular spoken solution to the State is yet another form of the same State. Effectively the same monopoly which must always resort to aggression in order to support itself.

    Good post, rev.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-20-2017 at 01:46 AM.
    Carpe Diem!

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Mises, The Ultimate Foundations of Economic Science, Ch. 10, Sec. 5

    / without a government. The evils of violence, robbery, and murder can be prevented only by an institution that itself, whenever needed, resorts to the very methods of acting for the prevention of which it is established.../
    This is fanciful. No state prevents violence, robbery, and murder. It can, however create conditions that exacerbate crime. What a state actually does is foster the illusion of social order, in other words, makes people feel safe. With or without the state, the primary responsibility of protection from ne'er-do-wells is the individual.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    "....and at the mercy of its least intelligent and most brutal members."


    Also. Ludwig did wisely reference Plato in "In Praise of Government." I read and hear many people refer to Plato's Republic. But I don't know if many of them who refer to it have actually read it. The fact of the matter is that Plato didn't even remotely discuss anything governmental in that work. And certainly nothing resembling a true Republic. It's humorous when friends do reference Plato in that regard. Which, as Ludwig notes in the work, does not take into consideration the nature of man.

    As far as most mainstream anarchists go, few understand that the socialists will come to them at gunpoint and force them to hand over their wealth at the end of their barrels in order to support their socialist program. It's funny. The grass is always greener on the other side, they say. But eventually, one ends up in the same situation they were trying to escape.
    Wut? You haven't actually read anarchists, I see. They condemn socialists for this and numerous other reasons. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it.

    Again, how to solve that problem...I dunno. Nobody knows how to fight anymore. Today, the will to finish something only lasts as far as the next reality show or humorous meme. And the fact of the matter is that only worthy men can be free men.

    As it is, it's impossible to escape the State. As it is, the more historic or popular spoken solution to the State is yet another form of the same State. Effectively the same monopoly which must always resort to aggression in order to support itself.

    Good post, rev.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 08-20-2017 at 08:53 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    This is fanciful. No state prevents violence, robbery, and murder. It can, however create conditions that exacerbate crime. What a state actually does is foster the illusion of social order, in other words, makes people feel safe. With or without the state, the primary responsibility of protection from ne'er-do-wells is the individual.
    Well said.
    Quote Originally Posted by misterx View Post
    Yeah, I like cops. They keep the streets safe. Get over it.
    ď
    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    The Fed is NOT safe from audit, Trump has said he wants to audit the fed and we may have some bills coming up soon.

    Trump is helping Rand pass his healthcare plan, if you think Trump actually supported RyanCare then you are foolish and you need to go read the threads where I addressed this topic. Rand was talking to Trump 2-3 times a week, and Rand told Trump straight up it wasn't going to pass, it didn't have the votes. Trump knew it wasn't going to pass, so he supported it to make sure it was all Paul Ryan's failure and none of it could be blamed on him. Trump hates Paul Ryan.

    Trump is going to help save Syria, with Russia's help.
    Quote Originally Posted by Mordan View Post
    It is not about brainwashing. You can support Trump for practical reasons. I think Danno is right about the Syria missile strikes helping Trump politically in the US. The media stopped talking about the sickening russian narrative. Proof again it was just a hoax to manipulate the public opinion.

    Trump made a good call as a politician. Libertarian souls can bitch all they want about principles and being conned. Trump is going to disappointed again. I have enough hairchest.

    Just answer the question. Which game is Trump playing?

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Wut? You haven't actually read anarchists, I see. They condemn socialists for this and numerous other reasons. If you can find evidence to the contrary, I'd be glad to see it.
    Some may very well condemn it. And usually after the fact. But it does not change the fact of the matter.

    And I stress the word 'some'

    Wandering around mainstream political environments these days, you'd be hard pressed to run into anyone who identifies as an anarchist who has really thought it all the way through. Similar to the situation of libertines who think they're libertarians. And unfortunately these are the people who are redefining libertarianism and turning it into some libertine play ground. Much the same as today's anarchist make anarchism sound like it's something that it isn't. Ultimately, it comes down to one simply not understanding their own ism.

    Get out of the echo chamber once in a while and you'll surely witness it. Then again, you don't really have to leave the echo chamber. Heck, just a few months ago here we witnessed a movement from within for the end of property rights. We witnessed a direct movement from within for the end to the very rights to Individual Life and Liberty. And under the banner of liberty no less.

    You could take a guy like occams and make case that he has thought it through and concluded the positives and negatives in a realistic manner. But wandering around the political wild, this is not the general case. It's usually just a bunch of hipsters holding up a sign or popping off on a keyboard about something they read on the Internet and inviting consequences that they cannot even begin to understand. But that's how coercion works. The drones don't understand what they're actually working toward.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-20-2017 at 03:53 PM.
    Carpe Diem!

  8. #7

    Default

    Actually, I'd be for anarchism if it could work. But it can't work.

    And we could prove that by first asking if we can opt out once we've opted into it. Sure, one may be permitted to opt out as a matter of political grandstanding by whatever hierarchy exists within the pogram, but what happens when one starts his own private miitary and private roads and private fire company and private everything. I'll tell you what happens. Eventually, there will be a knock at one's door. More likely, though, it'd be kicked down much like the consequences of living under A Democracy. Rule by Omnipotent Majority. To quote from a very good book on the topic, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 08-20-2017 at 11:54 AM.
    Carpe Diem!

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    No state prevents violence, robbery, and murder.
    If you mean that the state cannot prevent all crime, that's certainly true, but no minarchist would claim that it could. If you mean that the state cannot even reduce the incidence of crime, that's false. The state can reduce the incidence of crime in two ways. First, criminals respond to incentives (many of them, anyway). If the state's actions result in a certain fraction of criminals being caught and punished, certain people who would otherwise have chosen to commit crimes will refrain from doing so, judging the risks to outweigh the potential reward; i.e. they will be deterred. This should not be controversial. Second (and this is really just a special case of deterrence) the state prevents a great deal of crime simply by existing. How's that? Its existence prevents the emergence of another state; and that process by which states emerge, which might be called civil war, is very ugly and involves much more crime than occurs under an existing state.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If you mean that the state cannot prevent all crime, that's certainly true, but no minarchist would claim that it could. If you mean that the state cannot even reduce the incidence of crime, that's false. The state can reduce the incidence of crime in two ways. First, criminals respond to incentives (many of them, anyway). If the state's actions result in a certain fraction of criminals being caught and punished, certain people who would otherwise have chosen to commit crimes will refrain from doing so, judging the risks to outweigh the potential reward; i.e. they will be deterred. This should not be controversial. Second (and this is really just a special case of deterrence) the state prevents a great deal of crime simply by existing. How's that? Its existence prevents the emergence of another state; and that process by which states emerge, which might be called civil war, is very ugly and involves much more crime than occurs under an existing state.

    All of which is speculation. You have no data to back your claims. Meanwhile, the state by it's existence creates criminals by making victimless acts criminal.
    At best, the state is nothing more than expensive tiger repellent.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    All of which is speculation.
    The first point is praxeological; we know that punishment deters crime in the same way we know that the demand curve is downward sloping.

    The second point is supported by empirical evidence; i.e. every time a state has collapsed, the result has in fact been civil war.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The first point is praxeological; we know that punishment deters crime in the same way we know that the demand curve is downward sloping.

    The second point is supported by empirical evidence; i.e. every time a state has collapsed, the result has in fact been civil war.
    Consequences deter crime. This does not require a state. IRT civil war, if a state actually worked for the benefit of it's people, it wouldn't collapse. As it stands, all states have collapsed, or will collapse, as it is the nature of power that they expand their authority to disenfranchise a segment of their population.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  13. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Consequences deter crime. This does not require a state.
    The activities of hypothetical private defense agencies would have the same deterrent effect, yes.

    ...which brings us to point #2, i.e. that the absence of the state would mean civil war, not a free market in security.

    As it stands, all states have collapsed, or will collapse...
    All states that once existed, which don't now exist, collapsed? Well, yes, I suppose that's true by definition.

    All states that presently exist will eventually collapse? Sure, nothing lasts forever.

    The question is: what happens when states collapse?

    The answer is: civil war followed by the construction of a new state (not the emergence of a free market in security).
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  14. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The activities of hypothetical private defense agencies would have the same deterrent effect, yes.

    ...which brings us to point #2, i.e. that the absence of the state would mean civil war, not a free market in security.



    All states that once existed, which don't now exist, collapsed? Well, yes, I suppose that's true by definition.

    All states that presently exist will eventually collapse? Sure, nothing lasts forever.

    The question is: what happens when states collapse?

    The answer is: civil war followed by the construction of a new state (not the emergence of a free market in security).
    I made no claim about PDAs. Consequences need not be exacted by any outside agency. It's why people keep firearms. Outside agencies are for those who won't stomach the wetwork, as if violence is sanitized when someone else does it on their behalf. This is the foundation of the state. In addition, arguing the state's inevitability doesn't justify it's necessity. Like I've already written, all the state provides is an illusion of order.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  15. #14

    Default

    I don't think he gives an explanation (in this passage) as to why he thinks coercion is better suited than voluntary market interaction for the defense of liberty. He admits they share the same 'problem':

    it is a double-edged makeshift to entrust an individual or a group of individuals with the authority to resort to violence. The enticement implied is too tempting for a human being....The main political problem is how to prevent the police power from becoming tyrannical.
    an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests.
    Or as otherone put it:

    With or without the state, the primary responsibility of protection from ne'er-do-wells is the individual.
    I simply do not see how removing the voluntary nature from an exchange can ever lead to better service, quality, or costs.

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    I made no claim about PDAs. Consequences need not be exacted by any outside agency. It's why people keep firearms. Outside agencies are for those who won't stomach the wetwork, as if violence is sanitized when someone else does it on their behalf.
    Alright, then I'll amend my response as follows:

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0
    The activities of hypothetical private defense agencies [or individuals] would have the same deterrent effect, yes.

    ...which brings us to point #2, i.e. that the absence of the state would mean civil war, not a free market in security.
    The problem remains.

    Quote Originally Posted by Otherone
    In addition, arguing the state's inevitability doesn't justify it's necessity.
    Mises said it best:

    Quote Originally Posted by Mises
    ...some people have called government an evil, although admitting that it is a necessary evil. However, what is required to attain an end sought and considered as beneficial is not an evil in the moral connotation of this term, but a means, the price to be paid for it
    The state is morally justifiable because the alternative (civil war) is worse; the state is the price we pay to avoid civil war.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-20-2017 at 01:58 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    I simply do not see how removing the voluntary nature from an exchange can ever lead to better service, quality, or costs.
    Mises wasn't (and I'm not) arguing that the state provides security better/cheaper than it would be provided on the market. He was (and I am) arguing that it can't be produced on the market at all. The alternative to the state isn't market produced security, but civil war. Put another way, the alternative to a monopoly extortion racket isn't no extortion rackets, but a street fight between would-be monopoly extortion rackets (which one such will eventually win, acquiring a monopoly [becoming a state]).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mises
    [the anarchists failed] to realize that in the short run an individual or a group of individuals can certainly further their own interests at the expense of their own and all other peoples' long-run interests. A society that is not prepared to thwart the attacks of such asocial and short-sighted aggressors is helpless...

    In other words, aggression can be profitable for the aggressors.

    There is no reason to assume that market participants in stateless society would abide by the NAP.

    Rather, they would use aggression to enrich themselves: such criminal enterprises ultimately growing into states.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-20-2017 at 02:18 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    The state is morally justifiable because the alternative (civil war) is worse; the state is the price we pay to avoid civil war.
    Spoken like a Tory. You don't advocate regional self-determination? Given your concern of conflict, there can never be liberty.
    All modern revolutions have ended in a reinforcement of the power of the State.
    -Albert Camus

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otherone View Post
    Spoken like a Tory.
    I'll choose to take that as a compliment.

    You don't advocate regional self-determination?
    I'm in favor of a form of federalism, if that's what you mean.

    Given your concern of conflict, there can never be liberty.
    Human nature makes perfect liberty impossible; the best we can hope for is an approximation.

    And the closest we can get to liberty is with minarchy, not statelessness.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  20. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Some may very well condemn it. And usually after the fact. But it does not change the fact of the matter.

    And I stress the word 'some'
    If you have any that DON'T, I'd be greatly surprised and would like to be alerted to it, thnx.

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Wandering around mainstream political environments these days, you'd be hard pressed to run into anyone who identifies as an anarchist who has really thought it all the way through. Similar to the situation of libertines who think they're libertarians. And unfortunately these are the people who are redifining libertarianism and turning it into some libertine play ground. Much the same as today's anarchist make anarchism sound like it's something that it isn't. Ultimately, it comes down to one simply not understanding their own ism.

    Get out of the echo chamber once in a while and you'll surely witness it. Then again, you don't reallty have to leave the echo chamber. Heck, just a few months ago here we witnessed a movement from within for the end of property rights. We witnessed a direct movement from within for the end to the very rights to Individual Life and Liberty. And under the banner of liberty no less.

    You could take a guy like occams and make case that he has thought it through and concluded the positives and negatives in a realistic manner. But wandering around the political wild, this is not the general case. It's usually just a bunch of hipsters holding up a sign or popping off on a keyboard about something they read on the Internet and inviting consequences that they cannot even begin to understand. But that's how coercion works. The drones don't understand what they're actually working toward.
    Oh, no doubt. Same can be said of any movement attracting and energizing the youth, such as constitutionalists. I've on numerous occasions witnessed minarchist youngsters on social media arguing passionately for constitutionalism against libs and utterly failing because all they had was talking points and a superficial understanding of the dogma they're arguing for.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  21. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Natural Citizen View Post
    Actually, I'd be for anarchism if it could work. But it can't work.

    And we could prove that by first asking if we can opt out once we've opted into it. Sure, one may be permitted to opt out as a matter of political grandstanding by whatever hierarchy exists within the pogram, but what happens when one starts his own private miitary and private roads and private fire company and private everything. I'll tell you what happens. Eventually, there will be a knock at one's door. More likely, though, it'd be kicked down much like the consequences of living under A Democracy. Rule by Omnipotent Majority. To quote from a very good book on the topic, The Individual, and any group of Individuals composing any Minority, have no protection against the unlimited power of The Majority. It is a case of Majority-over-Man.
    Meh, there's lots of anarchist literature explaining how it can work if you aren't lazy. (I consider myself a Voluntaryist, btw. I have enough problems with Rothbard that I only consider him an authority on certain things)
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  22. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    Meh, there's lots of anarchist literature explaining how it can work if you aren't lazy.
    There is plenty of anarchist literature explaining how anarchists would like to work: none that explains why it would actually work that way. Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, for instance, is a fine account of the anarchist vision; but it fails to explain how it could exist in reality. Basic questions like "why wouldn't the owner of a large PDA honor the NAP, when he could not honor it and make more money" have no answer.

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I've on numerous occasions witnessed minarchist youngsters on social media arguing passionately for constitutionalism against libs and utterly failing because all they had was talking points and a superficial understanding of the dogma they're arguing for.
    If they're losing arguments to leftists, that's a function of economic ignorance, not their minarchism.

    There are plenty of libertarians with only a superficial understanding of libertarianism, from all camps.
    Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 08-20-2017 at 03:23 PM.
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  23. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Mises wasn't (and I'm not) arguing that the state provides security better/cheaper than it would be provided on the market. He was (and I am) arguing that it can't be produced on the market at all. The alternative to the state isn't market produced security, but civil war. Put another way, the alternative to a monopoly extortion racket isn't no extortion rackets, but a street fight between would-be monopoly extortion rackets (which one such will eventually win, acquiring a monopoly [becoming a state]).
    Why don't market participants have the ability to counteract that?

  24. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Why don't market participants have the ability to counteract that?
    Why wouldn't market participants engage in that?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  25. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    If they're losing arguments to leftists, that's a function of economic ignorance, not their minarchism.

    There are plenty of libertarians with only a superficial understanding of libertarianism, from all camps.
    I'm referring to civic debates, where their knowledge of minarchism *should* help them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  26. #25

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    There is plenty of anarchist literature explaining how anarchists would like to work: none that explains why it would actually work that way. Bob Murphy's Chaos Theory, for instance, is a fine account of the anarchist vision; but it fails to explain how it could exist in reality. Basic questions like "why wouldn't the owner of a large PDA honor the NAP, when he could not honor it and make more money" have no answer.
    That's how theory works. Minarchists do the same thing. Hell, The Federalist is full of such treatises (and as we know, the Federalists' claims didn't exactly work out-or we wouldn't be here). Which reminds me-the world is still waiting for a sound legal theory to base Constitutionalism on if you want to make a name for yourself.
    Last edited by heavenlyboy34; 08-20-2017 at 05:05 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Torchbearer
    what works can never be discussed online. there is only one language the government understands, and until the people start speaking it by the magazine full... things will remain the same.
    Hear/buy my music here "government is the enemy of liberty"-RPEphesians 6:12 (KJV)For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  27. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Why wouldn't market participants engage in that?
    Its not to say that some wouldn't. But how do those who choose to engage in that overcome the resources of the participants that are directed at counteracting that?

  28. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Its not to say that some wouldn't. But how do those who choose to engage in that overcome the resources of the participants that are directed at counteracting that?
    Tribal warfare.
    If the Crooked win you get Tyranny, if the others win you get a repeat sooner rather than later.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

  29. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swordsmyth View Post
    Tribal warfare.
    If the Crooked win you get Tyranny, if the others win you get a repeat sooner rather than later.
    The only difference is that the resources were directed by market participants rather than a central planner. If security in the absence of the state is tribal warfare/civil war then how can we not call it tribal warfare in the presence of a state?

    As to the later, the same is true when referencing the state whether you are talking democracy or succession. But when you think of the principle of deterrence as was talked about above, how great of a deterrence is losing an election? Compared to watching an attempted usurper get put down?
    Last edited by P3ter_Griffin; 08-20-2017 at 05:37 PM.

  30. #29

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    Its not to say that some wouldn't. But how do those who choose to engage in that overcome the resources of the participants that are directed at counteracting that?
    How do existing criminal enterprises (from street gangs to states) do it?

    Why would such techniques cease to be effective?

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    That's how theory works.
    If all you want is a list of possible futures (well, things might be this way, or that way, or this other way...), well alright.

    But I'm interested not only in how things conceivably could be, but in how they actually will/are likely to be.

    Consider what economics does; it doesn't just list logically possible outcomes, it predicts which of those will actually occur.

    Quote Originally Posted by heavenlyboy34 View Post
    I'm referring to civic debates, where their knowledge of minarchism *should* help them.
    I don't know what you mean.

    Would you give an example of a leftist argument which a minarchist qua minarchist is unable to refute?
    "The program of liberalism, ...if condensed into a single word, would have to read: property..."

    -Ludwig von Mises

    "Patriotism, not nationalism, should inspire the citizen. The ethnic nationalist who wants a linguistically and culturally uniform nation is akin to the racist who is intolerant toward those who look (and behave) differently. The patriot is a "diversitarian"; he is pleased, indeed proud of the variety within the borders of his country; he looks for loyalty from all citizens. And he looks up and down, not left and right."

    -Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

    "The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible "to God alone," rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can. While it is perhaps true that "one cannot fool all the people all the time," it seems one can fool millions for centuries."

    -Ibid.

  31. #30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by P3ter_Griffin View Post
    The only difference is that the resources were directed by market participants rather than a central planner. If security in the absence of the state is tribal warfare/civil war then how can we not call it tribal warfare in the presence of a state?

    As to the later, the same is true when referencing the state whether you are talking democracy or succession. But when you think of the principle of deterrence as was talked about above, how great of a deterrence is losing an election? Compared to watching an attempted usurper get put down?
    The state minimizes and delays the violence, tribal societies experience war at home all the time those with states have periods of peace between civil wars.
    Never attempt to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and annoys the pig.

    Robert Heinlein

    Give a man an inch and right away he thinks he's a ruler

    Groucho Marx

    I love mankindÖitís people I canít stand.

    Linus, from the Peanuts comic

    You cannot have liberty without morality and morality without faith

    Alexis de Torqueville

    Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to repeat it.
    Those who learn from the past are condemned to watch everybody else repeat it

    A Zero Hedge comment

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast





Similar Threads

  1. Mises: How to Fight the Modern State
    By presence in forum U.S. Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-19-2013, 08:02 AM
  2. Mises.tv live stream lecture right now! (Mises.org circle in Huston)
    By hazek in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 02:19 PM
  3. LIVE Mises University Lectures streaming at Mises.org!!!
    By Nate-ForLiberty in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-28-2011, 03:09 PM
  4. Auditing the Fed will Audit the State--Mises daily
    By bobbyw24 in forum Audit The Fed
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2009, 06:50 AM
  5. Quotable Mises - STATE
    By Truth Warrior in forum Austrian Economics / Economic Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 09:16 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •