Did Milton Friedman

[UltraWright]

Well, he was an anarcho-capitalist, what do you think?

[hatzel]

He did sometimes not use the term 'freedom'. Sometimes he used the term 'and' or 'but' or 'money', none of which are the term 'freedom'. Therefore, sometimes he did not use the term 'freedom', you're right.

Hint: stop posting, you're not funny...

[Bronco]

Well, he was an anarcho-capitalist, what do you think?

Erm.. no he wasn't.

[UltraWright]

He did sometimes not use the term 'freedom'. Sometimes he used the term 'and' or 'but' or 'money', none of which are the term 'freedom'. Therefore, sometimes he did not use the term 'freedom', you're right.

Hint: stop posting, you're not funny...

I am not trying to be funny, actually! Will you believe me if I tell you that I seriously don't recall what was the title of my original post or where I posted it? I don't remember what the rest of the question "Did Milton Friedman" was supposed to be!!!


Erm.. no he wasn't.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Blake's Baby]

EDIT: because this thread is confusing enough what with the deletion of the first post, so I'm just getting out of Dodge.

[Bronco]

I am not trying to be funny, actually! Will you believe me if I tell you that I seriously don't recall what was the title of my original post or where I posted it? I don't remember what the rest of the question "Did Milton Friedman" was supposed to be!!!



Can you elaborate on that?

LOL you didnt start this thread & he wasnt replying to you, the thread was started by someone who subsequently got banned and his post was deleted so it looks as if you made the thread. The original question was something along the lines of "Did Milton Friedman ever not use the word freedom" or something like that

And Friedman was not an An-Cap, he was just a free market Libertarian, he believed government was necessary to create the conditions for a free market to thrive.

[Demogorgon]

Can you elaborate on that?
He was a supporter of a free market within conventional capitalist society. He supported a role for the Government in both economic and social matters. His son, David, is an anarcho-capitalist however.

[UltraWright]

LOL you didnt start this thread & he wasnt replying to you, the thread was started by someone who subsequently got banned and his post was deleted so it looks as if you made the thread. The original question was something along the lines of "Did Milton Friedman ever not use the word freedom" or something like that


Phew! I thought I was going crazy :D

[Spartacist]

I thought he was a dickhead.

[ZombieRothbard]

Mises called Friedmen a socialist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds). And Mises wasn't even an ancap.

[Thirsty Crow]

Mises called Friedmen a socialist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds). And Mises wasn't even an ancap.
Well, here's a testimony to the intellectual capacity of good ol' Ludwig.

[Bronco]

Mises called Friedmen a socialist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds). And Mises wasn't even an ancap.

Yeah I've heard that one, I believe it was after some had advocated for the possible benefit of a progressive income tax. He was apparently always very quick to anger whenever someone disagreed with him, here's another little anecdote: "Another occasion which is equally telling: Fritz Machlup was a student of Mises's, one of his most faithful disciples. At one of the Mont Pelerin meetings, Fritz gave a talk in which I think he questioned the idea of a gold standard; he came out in favor of floating exchange rates. Mises was so mad he wouldn't speak to him for three years. Some people had to come around and bring them together again" :laugh:

[agnixie]

Mises called Friedmen a socialist (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkQfK8hn0ds). And Mises wasn't even an ancap.

Mises thought everyone he didn't like was a socialist - not surprising from an economic advisor to the austrofascists

[ZombieRothbard]

Mises thought everyone he didn't like was a socialist - not surprising from an economic advisor to the austrofascists

Is it different from revlefters who call everybody fascists they don't like? :rolleyes:

[#FF0000]

Is it different from revlefters who call everybody fascists they don't like? :rolleyes:

No. In both cases it shows the individual has no clue whatsoever what the word means.

[Agnapostate]

Is it different from revlefters who call everybody fascists they don't like? :rolleyes:

The idea that RevLefters call everybody that they don't like a fascist is an obvious strawman, as is the insinuation that Mises was called a fascist. No one in this thread called Mises a fascist, though as one of the pseudo-libertarians with an explicitly racist worldview (at least at one point in his life), as with his disciple Rothbard, he might deserve the label. Also of interest are his statements of at least partial support or affinity for fascism, such as, "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Regardless, he was called an economic adviser to the Austrofascists because that is what he was, an adviser to Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, whose dictatorial rule transformed Austria into a one-party state under the Vaterländische Front (Fatherland Front), and who implemented the May Constitution of 1934, which is regarded by historians as implementing a period called Austrofascism that endured until the Anschluss and absorption into Nazism.

[Obs]

Is it different from revlefters who call everybody fascists they don't like? :rolleyes:
You have literally no knowledge of your own to argue with, so you namedrop academics in the hope that this will make you look smart, blissfully unaware that it only succeeds in making you look like a fucking desperate loser, though you really should be aware by now that this is what you are since you lose every discussion you enter with people who actually know what they're talking about. I don't know what kind of deep psychological fucking trauma made you delude yourself into thinking that if only the state would disappear and allow for the free market to truly rule, the masses would be able to live peacefully in worship of industrial giants (like yourself, obviously), but I think I speak for many when I ask that you don't show off your ugly mental scars like they were some kind of prized trophy. Everything you write reeks of stupidity and arrogance to a point where I can't help imagine you as some ugly, pudgy motherfucker with acne all over your pasty fucking face, justifying your social incompetence by imagining yourself 20 years from now as some CEO denying all the cool kids from your school a job, when in fact you're gonna be the exact same in 20 years as you are now - a lonely, hopeless loon who desperately needs to be put to sleep like a fucking poodle. No one finds your posts interesting, no one finds your lazy paraphrasing of Rothbard impressive or convincing, and no one, absolutely no one, likes you. Fucking stop posting, and stop calling yourself an anarchist, because it's painfully obvious you're using the label solely to sound smart, which is the image you so sadly hope to build, with the one, singular obstacle that you're a goddamn moron. Fuck you, and fuck all your "an"cap e-buddies. I bet half of y'all can't even hold your liquor.

Now, on the topic of Friedman:

Like the poster of whom I spoke above, Friedman was a jackass. What he envisioned functioned only in the most intellectually bankrupt of theories, since it requires you to just plain pretend class struggle neither exists nor has ever existed. It requires for everything from price fixing to wage disputes to just stop happening, which isn't gonna happen in any real world scenario. Friedman was nothing but a dreamer, but since he couldn't be content with that, he had to go and write a bunch of shitty books like an asshole.

[#FF0000]

g-g-g-g-g-godamn obs.

[ZombieRothbard]

You have literally no knowledge of your own to argue with, so you namedrop academics in the hope that this will make you look smart, blissfully unaware that it only succeeds in making you look like a fucking desperate loser, though you really should be aware by now that this is what you are since you lose every discussion you enter with people who actually know what they're talking about. I don't know what kind of deep psychological fucking trauma made you delude yourself into thinking that if only the state would disappear and allow for the free market to truly rule, the masses would be able to live peacefully in worship of industrial giants (like yourself, obviously), but I think I speak for many when I ask that you don't show off your ugly mental scars like they were some kind of prized trophy. Everything you write reeks of stupidity and arrogance to a point where I can't help imagine you as some ugly, pudgy motherfucker with acne all over your pasty fucking face, justifying your social incompetence by imagining yourself 20 years from now as some CEO denying all the cool kids from your school a job, when in fact you're gonna be the exact same in 20 years as you are now - a lonely, hopeless loon who desperately needs to be put to sleep like a fucking poodle. No one finds your posts interesting, no one finds your lazy paraphrasing of Rothbard impressive or convincing, and no one, absolutely no one, likes you. Fucking stop posting, and stop calling yourself an anarchist, because it's painfully obvious you're using the label solely to sound smart, which is the image you so sadly hope to build, with the one, singular obstacle that you're a goddamn moron. Fuck you, and fuck all your "an"cap e-buddies. I bet half of y'all can't even hold your liquor.

Now, on the topic of Friedman:

Like the poster of whom I spoke above, Friedman was a jackass. What he envisioned functioned only in the most intellectually bankrupt of theories, since it requires you to just plain pretend class struggle neither exists nor has ever existed. It requires for everything from price fixing to wage disputes to just stop happening, which isn't gonna happen in any real world scenario. Friedman was nothing but a dreamer, but since he couldn't be content with that, he had to go and write a bunch of shitty books like an asshole.

I admire your passion, but I think you might vent it in a way that isn't conducive to advancing your position. I am sure you have some very good reasons to believe what you believe, just as I have very good reasons to believe what I believe.

I think you may have criticized me unfairly though. For one, I don't recall ever paraphrasing Rothbard. I think I may have quoted Roderick Long at one point. Many of my positions are actually ones that Rothbard may not have endorsed, for example, I am against most forms of intellectual property, something Rothbard wasn't entirely against. I also have my own theory and criticisms of incorporation, something that hasn't been covered very much to my knowledge by market anarchists. Finally, my views on private security differ from Rothbard's. And when it comes to social views, I am almost the complete polar opposite to Rothbard, as he was quite culturally conservative in his later years, while I am quite culturally liberal.

Whether or not I have lost "every" debate I have had here is a matter of opinion. I personally feel like I have defended my position quite successfully. Although I will be the first to admit, that some of the posters here have some very good points about the coercive nature of property ownership, etc.

As for calling myself an anarchist, I could take it or leave it. The label isn't something I find important. I think Robert LeFevre's use of "autarkist" instead of anarchist might be more appropriate, personally.

And as for me not being able to hold my liquor, you are quite right. I don't drink, and I am a bit of a lightweight, so I probably wouldn't hold my liqour well at all :blushing:

[#FF0000]

And as for me not being able to hold my liquor, you are quite right. I don't drink, and I am a bit of a lightweight, so I probably wouldn't hold my liqour well at all :blushing:

Called it

[ZombieRothbard]

The idea that RevLefters call everybody that they don't like a fascist is an obvious strawman, as is the insinuation that Mises was called a fascist. No one in this thread called Mises a fascist, though as one of the pseudo-libertarians with an explicitly racist worldview (at least at one point in his life), as with his disciple Rothbard, he might deserve the label. Also of interest are his statements of at least partial support or affinity for fascism, such as, "It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history."

Regardless, he was called an economic adviser to the Austrofascists because that is what he was, an adviser to Austrian chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, whose dictatorial rule transformed Austria into a one-party state under the Vaterländische Front (Fatherland Front), and who implemented the May Constitution of 1934, which is regarded by historians as implementing a period called Austrofascism that endured until the Anschluss and absorption into Nazism.

I didn't mean for this to become a discussion on whether Mises was a fascist or not. I was just trying to point out that Revlefters have been known to be just as hyperbolic as Mises was at the Mt. Peleron meeting.

[Thirsty Crow]

I didn't mean for this to become a discussion on whether Mises was a fascist or not. I was just trying to point out that Revlefters have been known to be just as hyperbolic as Mises was at the Mt. Peleron meeting.
You didn't mean for this to become a discussion on whether Mises was fascist or not because you don't know your history?

[#FF0000]

People are little but harsh for no reason right now.

[ZombieRothbard]

You didn't mean for this to become a discussion on whether Mises was fascist or not because you don't know your history?

Mises wasn't a fascist, in fact most of his critiques of interventionism were challenging what most would consider economic fascism. His advising in Austria was focused on trying to sway their state against destructive monetary policy (he succeeded in stopping the runaway inflation).

Mises fled Austria when the Nazi's rolled in. The Nazi's confiscated Mises' writings and actually hid them during the war, since Mises was an outspoken opponent of national socialism.

Mises also spoke for extending economic and cultural freedoms to the minorities of the collapsed Austrian Empire after WWI. He wrote on this in his book Nation, State and Economy.

Mises meets none of the criteria of a fascist, except the fact that he was against marxism, which alone doesn't make somebody a fascist (at least by the vast majority of peoples standards of what constitutes fascism).

Now I could say you don't understand history, are an idiot, blah blah blah. But I won't, because I have no idea what history you know, and I am sure you are an intelligent person whose beliefs are derived from rigorous study. I don't think you are a bad person, or an ignorant person. I wish you would extend the same courtesy to me.

[#FF0000]

Fun Fact: ZombieRothbard isn't one of the trolls. Don't be dummies.

[agnixie]

Mises wasn't a fascist, in fact most of his critiques of interventionism were challenging what most would consider economic fascism. His advising in Austria was focused on trying to sway their state against destructive monetary policy (he succeeded in stopping the runaway inflation).

Mises fled Austria when the Nazi's rolled in. The Nazi's confiscated Mises' writings and actually hid them during the war, since Mises was an outspoken opponent of national socialism.

Mises also spoke for extending economic and cultural freedoms to the minorities of the collapsed Austrian Empire after WWI. He wrote on this in his book Nation, State and Economy.

Mises meets none of the criteria of a fascist, except the fact that he was against marxism, which alone doesn't make somebody a fascist (at least by the vast majority of peoples standards of what constitutes fascism).

Now I could say you don't understand history, are an idiot, blah blah blah. But I won't, because I have no idea what history you know, and I am sure you are an intelligent person whose beliefs are derived from rigorous study. I don't think you are a bad person, or an ignorant person. I wish you would extend the same courtesy to me.

I consider actions to speak louder than theory, and while Mises may have written negatively of fascism ex post facto, in 1927, he wrote of its positive merit and expected good things from it, like most of the european aristocracy, might I add, and from 1934 to the anschluss, he advised the austrian fascists on economic matters - he's far from having clean hands in the historical rise of fascism, even if he was arguably not one (he can probably be likened to a Schacht or a Papen, i.e. an old guard enabler), and his flight had probably a lot more to do with his ethnicity.

[ZombieRothbard]

I consider actions to speak louder than theory, and while Mises may have written negatively of fascism ex post facto, in 1927, he wrote of its positive merit and expected good things from it, like most of the european aristocracy, might I add, and from 1934 to the anschluss, he advised the austrian fascists on economic matters - he's far from having clean hands in the historical rise of fascism, even if he was arguably not one (he can probably be likened to a Schacht or a Papen, i.e. an old guard enabler), and his flight had probably a lot more to do with his ethnicity.

Him advising fascists on economic policy doesn't mean he was a fascist, it means he was trying to liberalize them.

And I am familiar with Mises' quote on the "merits of fascism", but he was basically saying that the authoritarian brand of communism was much more dangerous than the authoritarian fascism that Mises recognized would implode soon. He is basically saying it is the lesser of two evils, in much the same way that a revlefter might say the Taliban is the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well, he was an anarcho-capitalist, what do you think?Do anarcho-capitalists support China and Pinochet? Then sure.

[∞]

As for calling myself an anarchist, I could take it or leave it. The label isn't something I find important. I think Robert LeFevre's use of "autarkist" instead of anarchist might be more appropriate, personally.

And as for me not being able to hold my liquor, you are quite right. I don't drink, and I am a bit of a lightweight, so I probably wouldn't hold my liqour well at all :blushing:

What pisses me off the most is how many dumb-ass labels you guys give yourself. I'm an autarkist, derp. Wait fuck that, that happens here to! We got all kinds of random ists and -isms and its so fucking stupid. Honestly its more pretentious than a latin quote. Which is a fetish with you fucking Misesians "derpus maximus" "IM SMURTER CUZ I KNOW STUPID LATIN PHRASES DON'T EVEN MEAN SHIT!" Fuck, all of you, left-right-center. But oh the left always has some crazy shit in store "YEAH IMA HOXHAIST, PrOLLY NEVER HEARD OF HIM", "BUKHARIN MAN, 3RD PERIOD MARXIST LENINIST DERP", "WELL IMA TECHNOCRAT, I ENVISION A SOCIETY THAT ONLY EXISTS IN MY FUCKING IMAGINATION." If I hear more hyper-theoretical gibberish on revleft I'm going to punch a baby goat. Don't make do it, they're really fucking cute.

[Thirsty Crow]

Mises meets none of the criteria of a fascist, except the fact that he was against marxism, which alone doesn't make somebody a fascist (at least by the vast majority of peoples standards of what constitutes fascism).

Now now, did I say that Mises WAS a fascist? I don't think so.
All I said is that your non-chalant dismissal of any kind of charges directed at Mises do not hold up to, at least for being a collaborative supporter of the Austrian fascist regime. And yes, if you participate in the workings of the regime, you are no doubt a specific kind of supporter.

Another thing, it is hardly honest to put forward the intepretation of "lessere of two evils" when it comes to that fantastic quote on Fascism and its historic merit. What was it again, Fascism "saved European civilization" and that "the merit Fascism won for itself will live on eternally in history"?
Boy, if this rhetoric resembles any kind of "lesser of two evils" argument...And finally, I think that there is enough reasonable doubt to conclude that Mises might have been a sympathizer of Fascism, even though he didn't agree with its core economic policies.

And just to be clear, I don't think that it's nice or useful to post stuff like Obs did. I know well enough that you're not a troll, but sometimes your arguments are so dishonest and naive that they make me cringe. I mean, c'mon, you can't expect that anyone would buy your interpretation of the quote which is rhetorically flourishing with praise for Fascists.

He is basically saying it is the lesser of two evils, in much the same way that a revlefter might say the Taliban is the lesser of two evils in Afghanistan.
There are people on this board who'd disagree with that proposition.
Moreover, there are people for whom all this talk of "lesser of two evils" is nothing but a pile of bullshit.

[ZombieRothbard]

Now now, did I say that Mises WAS a fascist? I don't think so.
All I said is that your non-chalant dismissal of any kind of charges directed at Mises do not hold up to, at least for being a collaborative supporter of the Austrian fascist regime. And yes, if you participate in the workings of the regime, you are no doubt a specific kind of supporter.

Another thing, it is hardly honest to put forward the intepretation of "lessere of two evils" when it comes to that fantastic quote on Fascism and its historic merit. What was it again, Fascism "saved European civilization" and that "the merit Fascism won for itself will live on eternally in history"?
Boy, if this rhetoric resembles any kind of "lesser of two evils" argument...And finally, I think that there is enough reasonable doubt to conclude that Mises might have been a sympathizer of Fascism, even though he didn't agree with its core economic policies.

And just to be clear, I don't think that it's nice or useful to post stuff like Obs did. I know well enough that you're not a troll, but sometimes your arguments are so dishonest and naive that they make me cringe. I mean, c'mon, you can't expect that anyone would buy your interpretation of the quote which is rhetorically flourishing with praise for Fascists.

There are people on this board who'd disagree with that proposition.
Moreover, there are people for whom all this talk of "lesser of two evils" is nothing but a pile of bullshit.

The thing is, neither of us know exactly what Mises meant by that quote. It is entirely possible he meant it in the way you took it to mean. But I have to put the quote into the context of Mises' life. In the quote, he talks about how he believes fascism would soon fail. Based upon that, I took it to mean that he believed fascism "saved" Europe, in the sense that it allowed for a temporary hedge against authoritarian communism. Mises was always anti-interventionism in all of its forms, including fascism. It is hard for me to believe he was a "supporter" of fascism.

And just because he gave economic advice to the Austrians doesn't mean he was a collaborator or a supporter. It would be like a member of Revleft sending letters to Obama urging him to change his economic plans. Can you call that person a sympathizer or a supporter, or even a collaborator? If you take this argument down to its logical conclusion, you could call anybody that buys something made in a third world country an aristocrat, and you could call anybody that joins the military out of poverty a murderer and fascist (I am guilty of that one sometimes).

[Thirsty Crow]

The thing is, neither of us know exactly what Mises meant by that quote. It is entirely possible he meant it in the way you took it to mean. But I have to put the quote into the context of Mises' life. In the quote, he talks about how he believes fascism would soon fail. Based upon that, I took it to mean that he believed fascism "saved" Europe, in the sense that it allowed for a temporary hedge against authoritarian communism. Mises was always anti-interventionism in all of its forms, including fascism. It is hard for me to believe he was a "supporter" of fascism.Do you really intend to belittle the rhetorical bomb that is "Fascism saved European civilization" and the eternal historical merit of Fascism?
Though, the hermeneutics here shouldn't be so hard. What he meant was that Fascism is not inherently in opposition with "European civilization" precisely because it served to save it, which presupposes a degree of affinity between the core practices and principles of "European civilization" and Fascist principles and practices.
On the other hand, "authoritarian" communism is seen as something inherently disconnected from and hostile to "European civilization", with possible connotations of a very nasty kind (racial and ethnic).

If that does not guarantee a kind of a support, let's say "critical support", on behalf of Ludwig von...

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

He was a supporter of a free market within conventional capitalist society. He supported a role for the Government in both economic and social matters. His son, David, is an anarcho-capitalist however.

My friend used to play counter strike with David Friedman. While debating anarcho captitalistic theory. :P

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

The thing is, neither of us know exactly what Mises meant by that quote. It is entirely possible he meant it in the way you took it to mean. But I have to put the quote into the context of Mises' life. In the quote, he talks about how he believes fascism would soon fail. Based upon that, I took it to mean that he believed fascism "saved" Europe, in the sense that it allowed for a temporary hedge against authoritarian communism. Mises was always anti-interventionism in all of its forms, including fascism. It is hard for me to believe he was a "supporter" of fascism.

And just because he gave economic advice to the Austrians doesn't mean he was a collaborator or a supporter. It would be like a member of Revleft sending letters to Obama urging him to change his economic plans. Can you call that person a sympathizer or a supporter, or even a collaborator? If you take this argument down to its logical conclusion, you could call anybody that buys something made in a third world country an aristocrat, and you could call anybody that joins the military out of poverty a murderer and fascist (I am guilty of that one sometimes).

Yes, I don't think anyone seriously thinks he was a fascist. However its clear, I think, from his rather glowing phrase "The merit of which will live eternally in history" he felt that fascism, as a movement, was creditable in the context of the time, not only simply as it prevented the growth of socialism, but that there were meritable things inherrant to fascism as well. While it is sure that Mises didn't believe fascism or fascist measures were "ideal", he was pragmatic enough in his general dealings for me to feel that the best interpretation of this passage is that Mises felt there were some merit in fascist ideas in the context of the time, on an emotional or cultural level, even if he felt they were ultimately unsustainable or less than ideal, he would seem to respect, or admire, some of the fascist rhetoric and ideology, particually its "heroic" resistance to socialism, which is a little bit problematic for him :blushing:.

[ZombieRothbard]

Yes, I don't think anyone seriously thinks he was a fascist. However its clear, I think, from his rather glowing phrase "The merit of which will live eternally in history" he felt that fascism, as a movement, was creditable in the context of the time, not only simply as it prevented the growth of socialism, but that there were meritable things inherrant to fascism as well. While it is sure that Mises didn't believe fascism or fascist measures were "ideal", he was pragmatic enough in his general dealings for me to feel that the best interpretation of this passage is that Mises felt there were some merit in fascist ideas in the context of the time, on an emotional or cultural level, even if he felt they were ultimately unsustainable or less than ideal, he would seem to respect, or admire, some of the fascist rhetoric and ideology, particually its "heroic" resistance to socialism, which is a little bit problematic for him :blushing:.

I agree with what you said here. That is how I interpreted the quote anyways. I am sure after the Nazi's and WWII ended Mises had a different view of fascism, but at the time without the benefit of hindsight, he believed that it could at least act as a buffer to authoritarian communism.

[Kadir Ateş]

"anarcho-"capitalist? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

[∞]

No its total liberty. Just like egalitarian Fascism.

[Demogorgon]

I agree with what you said here. That is how I interpreted the quote anyways. I am sure after the Nazi's and WWII ended Mises had a different view of fascism, but at the time without the benefit of hindsight, he believed that it could at least act as a buffer to authoritarian communism.
After the war, he got himself involved in the Paneuropean Union, a group with a fascist element to them. The trouble with cries of "fascist" is that people link it to Nazism, and Mises was obviously not a Nazi, but there are other forms of fascism and Mises retained an association with them throughout his life.

Obviously, of course, some of his later followers have been rather more blatant in that regard. Many who claim to be followers of Mises these days are pretty open racists and ultra-authoritarians.

[ZombieRothbard]

After the war, he got himself involved in the Paneuropean Union, a group with a fascist element to them. The trouble with cries of "fascist" is that people link it to Nazism, and Mises was obviously not a Nazi, but there are other forms of fascism and Mises retained an association with them throughout his life.

Obviously, of course, some of his later followers have been rather more blatant in that regard. Many who claim to be followers of Mises these days are pretty open racists and ultra-authoritarians.

I don't know of any racist followers of Mises these days. Rothbard was a racist near the end of his life. Earlier in his life his works stressed the importance of racial equality and a rejection of efforts like public schooling to force people to assimilate to our culture. In this way, even though Rothbard later began to stand for things I didn't agree with, I still respect the young Rothbard that was allied with the New Left, that hadn't fallen into the conservative claptrap yet. I just think he got old and ornery, and perhaps a touch of senility later in his life.

EDIT: Actually, Lew Rockwell is probably a racist. But he is a douchebag, so I always forget him.

And saying Mises followers are "ultra-authoritarian" is quite a leap. Most followers of Mises today either view the state as a necessarily evil, or a gang of thieves to be overthrown and permanently abolished. You are likely referring to some followers of Mises saying monarchy would be better than democracy. I personally disagree, I would rather have an ineffective mob rule of idiots than a single, cold calculating dictator making decisions. But their point isn't that we need to go back to monarchism, their point is that democracy is worse than monarchism, so obviously we need to abolish that shit and live in a stateless society.

[Demogorgon]

I don't know of any racist followers of Mises these days. Rothbard was a racist near the end of his life. Earlier in his life his works stressed the importance of racial equality and a rejection of efforts like public schooling to force people to assimilate to our culture. In this way, even though Rothbard later began to stand for things I didn't agree with, I still respect the young Rothbard that was allied with the New Left, that hadn't fallen into the conservative claptrap yet. I just think he got old and ornery, and perhaps a touch of senility later in his life.

EDIT: Actually, Lew Rockwell is probably a racist. But he is a douchebag, so I always forget him.

And saying Mises followers are "ultra-authoritarian" is quite a leap. Most followers of Mises today either view the state as a necessarily evil, or a gang of thieves to be overthrown and permanently abolished. You are likely referring to some followers of Mises saying monarchy would be better than democracy. I personally disagree, I would rather have an ineffective mob rule of idiots than a single, cold calculating dictator making decisions. But their point isn't that we need to go back to monarchism, their point is that democracy is worse than monarchism, so obviously we need to abolish that shit and live in a stateless society.
Well Hoppe springs to mind as a good example of a racist Mises follower, and naturally if you look at the internet following of Mises (around mises.org) you will find racism everywhere. Indeed I looked there earlier and the very first thread that came up involved Holocaust denial. To their credit about half the posters vigorously attacked the notion and made clear that the Holocaust did happen and that it was fully deliberate, but the other half were minimising it and it was even called a piece of leftist propaganda.

As for Rothbard and him going racist in later years, obviously we don't know why it happened. You may be correct in your analysis, but I doubt he was senile as he wasn't that old. Personally I think that given his attempts to ally with the New Left came to nothing, he was trying to shift his rhetoric to appeal to a new set of potential allies.

To move on though to my point about some of Mises followers being ultra-authoritarian, well the defence of monarchy wasn't specifically what I was thinking of, though I have brought it up before. To address it briefly though, in the first instance to even claim that monarchy was a lesser evil completely ignores what actually happened throughout history and shows the weakness of rationalism that someone could come up with that claim. Moreover I have seen no shortage of Mises followers being rather more keen on monarchy than seeing it as the "lesser evil".

To move onto my general claim that Mises' thought attracts authoritarians (and to be a bit broader that Libertarianism in general is, in spite of its name, appealing to authoritarians), the problem here is that you regard liberty as being absence of Governmental restrictions (and conversely an infringement on liberty would be the Government banning or requiring something). I on the other hand think that liberty is infringed by any restraint regardless of its source and the Government is just one agent amongst many. If the Government by imposing something removes a greater restraint on liberty I am more free.

For instance I am completely happy for the Government to ban me from killing as the quid pro quo is that I am reasonably protected from being murdered. In this case of course I lose nothing as I don't want to kill anyone anyway. But suppose we take another way the Government infringes upon me in that it requires me to pay taxes. That does restrain me but provided that the money is then spent on things that are beneficial in that they remove very great restraints upon people such as poverty, disease etc then the trade off has been worth it. Of course rather a lot of taxes are not spent like that, but we can at least conclude that taxes are maximising liberty where the money is being well spent.

To an authoritarian who is angry that the Government is in fact removing a restraint upon somebody's liberty, libertarianism becomes very appealing as it may well remove that ability. For instance Christian fundamentalists angry at a Government protecting gay people are naturally attracted to a philosophy that removes Government's ability to provide that protection.

Le's make the point a little broader now. I have implicitly referred to liberty as maximising ones ability to control the course of their own life. I call Libertarianism authoritarian (including the Mises strand) because it rejects this. To take a different species of Libertarian, we'll use Nozick as an example (chosen because I have a copy of Anarchy, State and Utopia here on my lap) and look at p270 of said book where Nozick discusses whether it can be justified by liberty to allow people to have a say in their own life (that is if it would be permissible for the political process to allow for this) he says: "after we exclude from consideration [matters regarding to the non-aggression principle] it is not clear that there are any decisions remaining about which even to raise the question of whether I have the right to a say in those that importantly affect me" (original emphasis). To a Libertarian that is compatible with liberty, to me to say that one in many circumstances must accept the decisions of others upon their own lives without any kind of say in the matter is extraordinarily authoritarian. It is that value difference that leads me to claim that Libertarianism (including the Mises variety) is prone to attracting authoritarians.

None of what I say is intended to be a criticism against you. I am sure you are entirely sincere in your beliefs that I gather from what I have read of your posts are "left-libertarian" and I certainly don't think you are a racist, but rather I am pointing out that these views are both compatible with racist and authoritarian views and perhaps more importantly attract those sorts of people.

[sattvika]

To be honest, I thought Mises was a bit too socialistic for my liking

[ZombieRothbard]

Well Hoppe springs to mind as a good example of a racist Mises follower, and naturally if you look at the internet following of Mises (around mises.org) you will find racism everywhere. Indeed I looked there earlier and the very first thread that came up involved Holocaust denial. To their credit about half the posters vigorously attacked the notion and made clear that the Holocaust did happen and that it was fully deliberate, but the other half were minimising it and it was even called a piece of leftist propaganda.

I haven't known Hoppe to be racist. I could imagine him being racist, but I haven't heard him expressing racist sentiments in any of his works. I am not sure about the holocaust denial deal, I haven't been on the Mises forums much. I don't know any ancaps or Austrians personally that deny the holocaust.


As for Rothbard and him going racist in later years, obviously we don't know why it happened. You may be correct in your analysis, but I doubt he was senile as he wasn't that old. Personally I think that given his attempts to ally with the New Left came to nothing, he was trying to shift his rhetoric to appeal to a new set of potential allies.

I don't have any idea what happened to Rothbard. It seems in 71 when the libertarian party formed, he started paying lipservice to conservatives. It puzzles me because from all the accounts I have read from Rothbard's colleagues, they constantly say he was "uncompromising", yet his social views took a total turn.


To move on though to my point about some of Mises followers being ultra-authoritarian, well the defence of monarchy wasn't specifically what I was thinking of, though I have brought it up before. To address it briefly though, in the first instance to even claim that monarchy was a lesser evil completely ignores what actually happened throughout history and shows the weakness of rationalism that someone could come up with that claim. Moreover I have seen no shortage of Mises followers being rather more keen on monarchy than seeing it as the "lesser evil".

To move onto my general claim that Mises' thought attracts authoritarians (and to be a bit broader that Libertarianism in general is, in spite of its name, appealing to authoritarians), the problem here is that you regard liberty as being absence of Governmental restrictions (and conversely an infringement on liberty would be the Government banning or requiring something). I on the other hand think that liberty is infringed by any restraint regardless of its source and the Government is just one agent amongst many. If the Government by imposing something removes a greater restraint on liberty I am more free.

I think liberty means people should have the freedom to be intolerant. I support property rights, which you would likely characterize as authoritarian, since I would support store owners turning away people based on whatever ignorant/arbitrary criteria they want. However I feel like that is the tolerant and proper libertarian position to hold. As long as people aren't being physically harmed by others, their social views and preferences of personal association shouldn't be dictated to them by anybody.


For instance I am completely happy for the Government to ban me from killing as the quid pro quo is that I am reasonably protected from being murdered. In this case of course I lose nothing as I don't want to kill anyone anyway. But suppose we take another way the Government infringes upon me in that it requires me to pay taxes. That does restrain me but provided that the money is then spent on things that are beneficial in that they remove very great restraints upon people such as poverty, disease etc then the trade off has been worth it. Of course rather a lot of taxes are not spent like that, but we can at least conclude that taxes are maximising liberty where the money is being well spent.

I personally think the private sector can do a better job at everything, so I think taxes are not only an immoral act of robbery, but also inefficient wastes of money that are usually aimed at fattening corporate cronies bankrolls.


To an authoritarian who is angry that the Government is in fact removing a restraint upon somebody's liberty, libertarianism becomes very appealing as it may well remove that ability. For instance Christian fundamentalists angry at a Government protecting gay people are naturally attracted to a philosophy that removes Government's ability to provide that protection.

Sombody that doesn't like gay people could prevent them from coming onto their property or associating with them, but that is all. I think security can be provided by the free market, that would protect gays from physical violence.


Le's make the point a little broader now. I have implicitly referred to liberty as maximising ones ability to control the course of their own life. I call Libertarianism authoritarian (including the Mises strand) because it rejects this. To take a different species of Libertarian, we'll use Nozick as an example (chosen because I have a copy of Anarchy, State and Utopia here on my lap) and look at p270 of said book where Nozick discusses whether it can be justified by liberty to allow people to have a say in their own life (that is if it would be permissible for the political process to allow for this) he says: "after we exclude from consideration [matters regarding to the non-aggression principle] it is not clear that there are any decisions remaining about which even to raise the question of whether I have the right to a say in those that importantly affect me" (original emphasis). To a Libertarian that is compatible with liberty, to me to say that one in many circumstances must accept the decisions of others upon their own lives without any kind of say in the matter is extraordinarily authoritarian. It is that value difference that leads me to claim that Libertarianism (including the Mises variety) is prone to attracting authoritarians.

Libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberties of ALL individuals, including that of people you may not agree with. Being forced not to go onto somebodies private property may be considered authoritarian to you, but what I consider more authoritarian is having a collective of people forcing you to associate and share the product of your labor with others. In a libertarian society, you own your own body and the product of your labor. In a collectivist/socialist society, the society owns you and the product of your labor.


None of what I say is intended to be a criticism against you. I am sure you are entirely sincere in your beliefs that I gather from what I have read of your posts are "left-libertarian" and I certainly don't think you are a racist, but rather I am pointing out that these views are both compatible with racist and authoritarian views and perhaps more importantly attract those sorts of people.

Libertarianism likely attracts people of all sorts, since it promises a society that is tolerant of many different viewpoints. And I am a left-libertarian personally.

[Revolution starts with U]

I think liberty means people should have the freedom to be intolerant. I support property rights, which you would likely characterize as authoritarian, since I would support store owners turning away people based on whatever ignorant/arbitrary criteria they want. However I feel like that is the tolerant and proper libertarian position to hold. As long as people aren't being physically harmed by others, their social views and preferences of personal association shouldn't be dictated to them by anybody.
Whole swaths of people living in the dregs, without access to adequate food, and that is not "being physically harmed?"



Sombody that doesn't like gay people could prevent them from coming onto their property or associating with them, but that is all. I think security can be provided by the free market, that would protect gays from physical violence.
1) Be banned from the supermarket because you think guys have sexy asses
2) ???? (free market)
3) Profit

Does that about sum it up?




Libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberties of ALL individuals, including that of people you may not agree with
Capitalist libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberty of the property holding interests of society, nothing more or less.

Being forced not to go onto somebodies private property may be considered authoritarian to you, but what I consider more authoritarian is having a collective of people forcing you to associate and share the product of your labor with others. In a libertarian society, you own your own body and the product of your labor. In a collectivist/socialist society, the society owns you and the product of your labor.
In capitalism the property holding class owns me and the product of my labor. Workers are not paid on a .07% property share :rolleyes:

[ZombieRothbard]

Whole swaths of people living in the dregs, without access to adequate food, and that is not "being physically harmed?"

I am unaware of any example in the United States of people being without access to adequate food.


1) Be banned from the supermarket because you think guys have sexy asses
2) ???? (free market)
3) Profit

Does that about sum it up?

That supermarket is alienating a large portion of their customer base, not only of gays, but of anybody that dislikes their policy on gay bashing.


Capitalist libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberty of the property holding interests of society, nothing more or less.

Landlords typically attempt to attract tenants to their property by affording them quite a bit of freedom to do as they wish with the property. So actually no, even renters hold quite a bit of sovereignty. At least more freedom to do as they wish than they would in a socialistic society, where everybody owns the land and everybody is your landlord.


In capitalism the property holding class owns me and the product of my labor. Workers are not paid on a .07% property share :rolleyes:

They own you? Then why can you leave whenever you want, or save and buy your own property? And if they owned the product of your labor, then subsisting would be more profitable than working for a capitalist.

[REVLEFT'S BIEGGST MATSER TROL]

Libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberties of ALL individuals, including that of people you may not agree with. Being forced not to go onto somebodies private property may be considered authoritarian to you, but what I consider more authoritarian is having a collective of people forcing you to associate and share the product of your labor with others. In a libertarian society, you own your own body and the product of your labor. In a collectivist/socialist society, the society owns you and the product of your labor.

Except property rights to decide what is a product of labour, and what isn't, come prior to the fact that you feel people should own the products of their labour.

For instance, a major moral accusation of socialists is that capitalists, though doing no work of their own, though effort or value contributed to society, are able to make money. Libertarians on the other hand, argue that socialism would have people give up that which they laboured in accordance to various whims of the community. I think you've got it backwards and clearly, the assessment of what constitutes just property comes prior to deciding people should own products of their labour.

[Demogorgon]

I haven't known Hoppe to be racist. I could imagine him being racist, but I haven't heard him expressing racist sentiments in any of his works. I am not sure about the holocaust denial deal, I haven't been on the Mises forums much. I don't know any ancaps or Austrians personally that deny the holocaust.
Well I've seen even other Austrians acknowledge that Hoppe is a Nazi-sympathiser (one I spoke to even said he was an out and out Nazi) so I don't think there should be that much controversy there. Have a look into some of the stuff he believes and you will see what I mean.


I think liberty means people should have the freedom to be intolerant. I support property rights, which you would likely characterize as authoritarian, since I would support store owners turning away people based on whatever ignorant/arbitrary criteria they want. However I feel like that is the tolerant and proper libertarian position to hold. As long as people aren't being physically harmed by others, their social views and preferences of personal association shouldn't be dictated to them by anybody.

People's views should not be dictated to them, but you are making as much wider


I personally think the private sector can do a better job at everything, so I think taxes are not only an immoral act of robbery, but also inefficient wastes of money that are usually aimed at fattening corporate cronies bankrolls.

You may believe that the private sector can provide everything better, but without empirical evidence that is no more useful a claim than to say you personally believe that one must remove the thetans from one's soul in order to achieve one's full potential.

As for the claim that taxation is theft, such a claim is emotive, but pretty meaningless. What exactly is theft and if the definition is wide enough to cover taxation can theft still be considered to always be wrong. We consider theft to be wrong based on the normal understanding of what theft is. if we change the definition can we still draw the same conclusion about its morality?

Taxation sometimes goes towards benefiting the already rich, sometimes it doesn't. Where it does I obviously oppose it, but blanket statements are not useful.


Sombody that doesn't like gay people could prevent them from coming onto their property or associating with them, but that is all. I think security can be provided by the free market, that would protect gays from physical violence.

Those who could afford it maybe, but a society that offers people nothing more than the right to buy protection from those who would harm them is not a particularly appealing society.

To go back to my point however, Libertarianism is attractive to those who seek to impose social oppression. Why do you think that is?


Libertarianism intends to maximize the personal liberties of ALL individuals, including that of people you may not agree with. Being forced not to go onto somebodies private property may be considered authoritarian to you, but what I consider more authoritarian is having a collective of people forcing you to associate and share the product of your labor with others. In a libertarian society, you own your own body and the product of your labor. In a collectivist/socialist society, the society owns you and the product of your labor.

To claim that society owns people under socialism simply looks like you don't understand what we believe. But to go back to what I said. Do you agfree with Nozick that there is no area in which people have the right to have a say over those matters that affect their lives?

[#FF0000]

I am unaware of any example in the United States of people being without access to adequate food.

Food insecurity is a huge problem in America (relative to other industrialized countries). Obviously people aren't starving, but there is hunger and there is definitely malnutrition. If you live in a poor part of The City, then good luck finding any real food.


And if they owned the product of your labor, then subsisting would be more profitable than working for a capitalist.

In a way. You'd definitely own the entirety of your labor but you'd be stuck, you know, subsisting.

[ZombieRothbard]

Well I've seen even other Austrians acknowledge that Hoppe is a Nazi-sympathiser (one I spoke to even said he was an out and out Nazi) so I don't think there should be that much controversy there. Have a look into some of the stuff he believes and you will see what I mean.

I have never heard Hoppe called a nazi. I know he did an interview with a far-right paper in Germany, where he said monarchy is preferable to democracy. He also said the Nazi's were vile. So take from that what you will.


You may believe that the private sector can provide everything better, but without empirical evidence that is no more useful a claim than to say you personally believe that one must remove the thetans from one's soul in order to achieve one's full potential.

With all due respect, I think the far-left has even less empirical evidence than the Austrian School does. The Austrian School uses logical praxeological deduction to come to its conclusions, as well as some empiricism. The far-left seems to use "this is how it should be" arguments (except for the Carsonian Mutualists, who I respect to a degree).


As for the claim that taxation is theft, such a claim is emotive, but pretty meaningless. What exactly is theft and if the definition is wide enough to cover taxation can theft still be considered to always be wrong. We consider theft to be wrong based on the normal understanding of what theft is. if we change the definition can we still draw the same conclusion about its morality?

I think rights are emotive. I don't believe in natural rights or standard morality. I just think that since taxation is the same as our current definition of theft, it should be recognized as being contradictory and therefor abolished. I don't offer any moral claim, since morality is relative, and such a claim would be unconvincing.


Taxation sometimes goes towards benefiting the already rich, sometimes it doesn't. Where it does I obviously oppose it, but blanket statements are not useful.

Taxation is entirely beneficial to the rich, since the rich control politics and can influence where the tax money is spent after it has been collected. Taxation has failed, it sucks wealth from the poor to give to the rich in virtually every instance I can think of.


Those who could afford it maybe, but a society that offers people nothing more than the right to buy protection from those who would harm them is not a particularly appealing society.

Well I obviously disagree with your analysis of how it would work.


To go back to my point however, Libertarianism is attractive to those who seek to impose social oppression. Why do you think that is?

Libertarianism is appealing to any social belief. It treats social beliefs as personal preference, which is what they should be. Social beliefs shouldn't be law, they should be personal preferences that have nothing to do with politics.


To claim that society owns people under socialism simply looks like you don't understand what we believe. But to go back to what I said. Do you agfree with Nozick that there is no area in which people have the right to have a say over those matters that affect their lives?

I haven't read Anarchy, State and Utopia, nor do I ever intend to. I don't regard Nozick as being important enough.

As for Nozick's statement, I can't really answer it. He says you have no "right" to have control over your own life. My answer would depend on what Nozick meant by "right".

[ZombieRothbard]

Food insecurity is a huge problem in America (relative to other industrialized countries). Obviously people aren't starving, but there is hunger and there is definitely malnutrition. If you live in a poor part of The City, then good luck finding any real food.

I find it hard to believe there is an untapped food market anywhere in the United States.




In a way. You'd definitely own the entirety of your labor but you'd be stuck, you know, subsisting.

Isn't the problem barriers to entry then? Instead of capitalism?

[Demogorgon]

With all due respect, I think the far-left has even less empirical evidence than the Austrian School does. The Austrian School uses logical praxeological deduction to come to its conclusions, as well as some empiricism. The far-left seems to use "this is how it should be" arguments (except for the Carsonian Mutualists, who I respect to a degree).

Any political ideology, including yours has a view of what should be and looks at how best to achieve that. Obviously I have a vision of what I want, but it is hardly the be all and end all of what I believe. I look at the world to observe how it works and what the effects of various things are. The Austrian school relies on Rationalism and is useless. Sophistry and Illusion to be committed to the flames to paraphrase David Hume.

I fear you are dodging the point however. You said all goods and services can be better provided by the private sector. I responded by saying there was no empirical evidence to that effect. Am I wrong?


I think rights are emotive. I don't believe in natural rights or standard morality. I just think that since taxation is the same as our current definition of theft, it should be recognized as being contradictory and therefor abolished. I don't offer any moral claim, since morality is relative, and such a claim would be unconvincing.

You say you offer no moral claim, but:

I think taxes are not only an immoral act of robbery
Which is it?

Moreover taxation does not meet normal definitions of theft simply because people using the word would not include taxation in its meaning. I do not deny that sometimes words need to be redefined apart from their everyday meanings-hell sometimes it seems that is what economics is about!-but when we do we have to cast off the previous connotations of the word. This is a mistake that is often made, just look at some of the discussions on "scarcity" here, and I fear you are making it.


Taxation is entirely beneficial to the rich, since the rich control politics and can influence where the tax money is spent after it has been collected. Taxation has failed, it sucks wealth from the poor to give to the rich in virtually every instance I can think of.

You are dealing yet again in blanket statements without any kind of nuance. Taxation does not just benefit the rich as there are all sorts of factors at play. The system of taxation and public expenditure as it existed in Nineteenth century Britain for instance would perhaps be closest to a system solely and exclusively maximising the rich to the maximum extent. Yet the system drastically changed because the rise of the labour movement amongst other things forced changes to the tax system and the introduction of social spending. That wasn't for the benefit of the rich.

If you are asking me if I think that the current system of Government finance is set up for the benefit of the most powerful, the answer is of course yes, given my political outlook it could scarcely be anything otherwise, but I cannot possibly claim that it is an absolute law that is always true.

Moreover it does not mean that an alternative system could not be devised that would be for the benefit of ordinary people.


Well I obviously disagree with your analysis of how it would work.

My analysis that private security agencies would only protect people that could afford to pay for them? I would take that as self evident.


Libertarianism is appealing to any social belief. It treats social beliefs as personal preference, which is what they should be. Social beliefs shouldn't be law, they should be personal preferences that have nothing to do with politics.

That is just crazy. You wish to adopt a position that claims to be neutral and let people do as they please, but there are no neutral positions on social policy. Either you wish to permit discrimination and mistreatment or you do not. To say that "I don't like it personally but others are free to do it" is to make it a valid part of society and discrimination and mistreatment should not be accepted parts of society. You may think you are backing liberty by pulling the state out of this, but you are in fact saying that any kind of tyranny is acceptable so long as whoever is carrying it out is not called the state.

I'm not one to draw on feminist slogans where it can be avoided, but their most fundamental one is undeniable here I think: "the personal is political". Male dominance was maintained not by law, but by pretending that it was not an area for law. Those who claimed that the law should keep out of gender power relations were not taking a neutral view, they were actively backing up female entrenchment. The same principle is true when extended to race, sexuality etc.


I haven't read Anarchy, State and Utopia, nor do I ever intend to. I don't regard Nozick as being important enough.While I am all for dismissing Nozick, it is a bit much to describe him as not being important from a Libertarian point of view. Moreover (and the cynic in me wonders if this is why you won't read him) he does show practically why anarcho-capitalism wouldn't last. To him the process of powerful groups "consensually" forming institutions that come to be a minarchist state is a great thing that shows how a state could come about without violating rights. Of course his endorsement of this shows his perverted notion of what is good in that the powerful forming an institution solely for their own benefit that would act against the interests of others would hardly come under most people's definition of "good", but it does seem to me undeniable that it is what would happen. Eventually anyway, I suspect such a society would go through a less than pleasant phase before it reached that, but that is for another thread.


As for Nozick's statement, I can't really answer it. He says you have no "right" to have control over your own life. My answer would depend on what Nozick meant by "right".
Basically he was addressing the argument that a democratic state can be justified, because democracy is the only way people can have input into the decisions that affect them. He dismisses the argument on the grounds that he believes that people have no right to any say in what affects them. If I am still not clear I can only advise reading the book!

I believe I have committed a first in this thread. I very much doubt I have ever advised anyone to read Nozick before. I seldom even admit that I have!

[ZombieRothbard]

Any political ideology, including yours has a view of what should be and looks at how best to achieve that. Obviously I have a vision of what I want, but it is hardly the be all and end all of what I believe. I look at the world to observe how it works and what the effects of various things are. The Austrian school relies on Rationalism and is useless. Sophistry and Illusion to be committed to the flames to paraphrase David Hume.

I think observation is an important part of the Austrian School. Part of it is also thought experiments, but it is important to mention that other schools of thought are simply tautologies anyways. The Austrian School strives for internal consistency. If you really object to the Austrian School however, it is important to note that there are neo-classical ancaps as well. So I don't believe that being a fan of the Austrian School is necessarily a prerequisite to being an ancap.


I fear you are dodging the point however. You said all goods and services can be better provided by the private sector. I responded by saying there was no empirical evidence to that effect. Am I wrong?

Well it depends on what you would consider empirical evidence, and what you would define "better" as. If you want a certain level of empiricism, you can look at Medieval Iceland, Ancient Ireland and the American West to get an idea of what heavily decentralized/anarchic societies look like.

If you look at how the market functions (void of state coercion) it functions quite well in all area's that the government hasn't monopolized or regulated. It shouldn't be that great of a leap to extend this same view of markets to other area's such as security and all else.


Which is it?

Your criticism here is correct, that I made a moral claim and then commented that moral claims were useless. I was speaking from my own view of morality that taxation is robbery, and that robbery is wrong.


Moreover taxation does not meet normal definitions of theft simply because people using the word would not include taxation in its meaning. I do not deny that sometimes words need to be redefined apart from their everyday meanings-hell sometimes it seems that is what economics is about!-but when we do we have to cast off the previous connotations of the word. This is a mistake that is often made, just look at some of the discussions on "scarcity" here, and I fear you are making it.

I must say that the semantics of it are unimportant. People, generally, believe the forceful taking of anothers property is wrong, and most would refer to this act as theft or robbery. To say taxation is theft is simply a simpler way of saying that taxation is the forceful taking of anothers property. I recognize that some people may say that it is legitimate in the instance of states, but most people don't. They will actually argue that social contract and all that irrational bullshit makes taxation voluntary or just, rather than simply admitting that they believe that people with guns should have the right to take your property. It is the irrational contradiction that I am opposed to, not the semantics of it. And if somebody believes it is legitimate for the state to steal wealth from people at gunpoint, and that robbery is ok, that is fine by me. As long as people are being intellectually honest and not using mystical veils like social contracts as arguments.


You are dealing yet again in blanket statements without any kind of nuance. Taxation does not just benefit the rich as there are all sorts of factors at play. The system of taxation and public expenditure as it existed in Nineteenth century Britain for instance would perhaps be closest to a system solely and exclusively maximising the rich to the maximum extent. Yet the system drastically changed because the rise of the labour movement amongst other things forced changes to the tax system and the introduction of social spending. That wasn't for the benefit of the rich.

I would argue that taxation helps nobody other than the rich. When you factor in the opportunity costs that I believe are lost with the socialization and collectivization of property, not even the poor benefit, even if the tax system was up to the utopian standards people believe it should be. It also serves to amass large reserves of money to spend on mass killing of brown people overseas.


If you are asking me if I think that the current system of Government finance is set up for the benefit of the most powerful, the answer is of course yes, given my political outlook it could scarcely be anything otherwise, but I cannot possibly claim that it is an absolute law that is always true.

If you believe that untaxed markets would raise the standard of living of the poor as well as provide a safer and more peaceful society, then I think it is easy to say that taxation in every instance is bad for the poor.


My analysis that private security agencies would only protect people that could afford to pay for them? I would take that as self evident.

Even those without security would likely be helped by passing private security officers. They would ask for a voluntary donation afterwords, to which the victim could opt out of if they chose. There would be free riders also.


That is just crazy. You wish to adopt a position that claims to be neutral and let people do as they please, but there are no neutral positions on social policy. Either you wish to permit discrimination and mistreatment or you do not. To say that "I don't like it personally but others are free to do it" is to make it a valid part of society and discrimination and mistreatment should not be accepted parts of society. You may think you are backing liberty by pulling the state out of this, but you are in fact saying that any kind of tyranny is acceptable so long as whoever is carrying it out is not called the state.

Discriminating against discriminators is a form of discrimination. Not enforcing social policy is indeed extending liberty and tolerance to all. And no, not every kind of "tyranny" is acceptable. People own themselves, and cannot be slaves or bound by slave contracts or unlawful incarceration. And even racial discrimination would likely not last. In fact, the market would likely weed out discriminators, since discrimination is poor business practice.


I'm not one to draw on feminist slogans where it can be avoided, but their most fundamental one is undeniable here I think: "the personal is political". Male dominance was maintained not by law, but by pretending that it was not an area for law. Those who claimed that the law should keep out of gender power relations were not taking a neutral view, they were actively backing up female entrenchment. The same principle is true when extended to race, sexuality etc.

Firstly, I don't accept the idea of male patriarchy or any of those kind of charges leveled by feminists of that sort. So therefor, I don't see how it extends to race or sexuality. If you are saying that culture has an impact on how people are treated, that may be true, but any society is victim to culture. And supposedly in a democratic society, the state and its laws are supposed to represent the majority of the people. So if the majority of the people are inbred hillbilly fucks, your society is going to be racist and shitty. To say that the state shouldn't represent the will of the majority is to propose some sort of dictatorship or other less direct form of governance (or a free market, which I am assuming you reject). So if you reject dictatorship, and agree that democracy, if functioning correctly, would allow for redneck hillbilly fucks to institute racial inequality, then you should like the democracy of the free market. At least in a free market system, you can find SOMEBODY who would be willing to serve you. In a society wrought with institutionalized discrimination, you wouldn't even be able to find small rebellious vendors who wish to capitalize on the market that the majority of societies ignorance had created.

In other words, in a free market, vast cultural movements would have less affect on completely barring people from free and voluntary associations and lifestyles than the state would.


While I am all for dismissing Nozick, it is a bit much to describe him as not being important from a Libertarian point of view. Moreover (and the cynic in me wonders if this is why you won't read him) he does show practically why anarcho-capitalism wouldn't last. To him the process of powerful groups "consensually" forming institutions that come to be a minarchist state is a great thing that shows how a state could come about without violating rights. Of course his endorsement of this shows his perverted notion of what is good in that the powerful forming an institution solely for their own benefit that would act against the interests of others would hardly come under most people's definition of "good", but it does seem to me undeniable that it is what would happen. Eventually anyway, I suspect such a society would go through a less than pleasant phase before it reached that, but that is for another thread.

To be honest, I just have no interest in Nozick. He is just some footnote in libertarian history that I don't find very interesting, a bit like my views on Rand. I just simply have no present interest to read his work.


Basically he was addressing the argument that a democratic state can be justified, because democracy is the only way people can have input into the decisions that affect them. He dismisses the argument on the grounds that he believes that people have no right to any say in what affects them. If I am still not clear I can only advise reading the book!

Well, as I stated earlier, I think the free market is the most direct form of democracy possible. So I would disagree with Nozick that state tyranny by majority is preferable to a free market.


I believe I have committed a first in this thread. I very much doubt I have ever advised anyone to read Nozick before. I seldom even admit that I have!

:lol:

[Revolution starts with U]

]I am unaware of any example in the United States of people being without access to adequate food.

I am unaware the US is an adequate example of a free market. Now, pre 1930 maybe.. not really, but more than now...



That supermarket is alienating a large portion of their customer base, not only of gays, but of anybody that dislikes their policy on gay bashing.
And? If this doesn't stop them from making competitive profits... what's to stop them?


Landlords typically attempt to attract tenants to their property by affording them quite a bit of freedom to do as they wish with the property. So actually no, even renters hold quite a bit of sovereignty. At least more freedom to do as they wish than they would in a socialistic society, where everybody owns the land and everybody is your landlord.
Is - ought fallacy. I've actually rented. Even with our "socialistic" renter's rights, it is not as you portray it.
followed by sweeping generalization.




They own you? Then why can you leave whenever you want, or save and buy your own property?
I can do no such thing. I can just trade masters.
I cannot by property because I don't have the money, regardless of how much passion, drive, or know-how I have.

And if they owned the product of your labor, then subsisting would be more profitable than working for a capitalist.
It almost certainly would be... if they didn't own all the meaningful land in the world.


you can look at Medieval Iceland
Not for any semblance of anarchy, you can't. I'm sure you've heard of ancaps talking about it and just assumed it were so. But even a cursory glance at the history shows a lack of what we would think of as anarchy. It is feudalism.... maybe "anarcho-feudalism" if that could even make sense.


Discriminating against discriminators is a form of discrimination.
Ya, and imprisoning a kidnapper is kidnapping... :rolleyes:



Not enforcing social policy is indeed extending liberty and tolerance to all. And no, not every kind of "tyranny" is acceptable. People own themselves, and cannot be slaves or bound by slave contracts or unlawful incarceration
Why couldn't they be slaves? Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their property?
You sound like a filthy communist, trying to obstruct the functions of the market through force. :rolleyes:

[ZombieRothbard]

And? If this doesn't stop them from making competitive profits... what's to stop them?

Nothing. But at the same time, who is stopping a store that serves gays from opening?


Is - ought fallacy. I've actually rented. Even with our "socialistic" renter's rights, it is not as you portray it.
followed by sweeping generalization.

Explain?


I can do no such thing. I can just trade masters.
I cannot by property because I don't have the money, regardless of how much passion, drive, or know-how I have.

Why can't you buy property?


It almost certainly would be... if they didn't own all the meaningful land in the world.

A good argument for privatizing the oceans.



Not for any semblance of anarchy, you can't. I'm sure you've heard of ancaps talking about it and just assumed it were so. But even a cursory glance at the history shows a lack of what we would think of as anarchy. It is feudalism.... maybe "anarcho-feudalism" if that could even make sense.
It wasn't anarcho-capitalism, but it is a good example of decentralized security.


Ya, and imprisoning a kidnapper is kidnapping... :rolleyes:

Kidnapping kidnappers is a tad different from saying you oppose discrimination, then turning around and discriminating against somebody for discriminating. Discrimination isn't a threat on your life. At worst it will hurt your feelings, unless you live in a society that bases its rule of law on its social preferences.


Why couldn't they be slaves? Who are you to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their property?
You sound like a filthy communist, trying to obstruct the functions of the market through force. :rolleyes:

:laugh: You cannot own somebody else, because at best they can only promise to let you own them. And I subscribe to the title transfer theory of contract, which would exclude the ability to sell yourself into slavery both directly and contractually.

[Queercommie Girl]

Nothing. But at the same time, who is stopping a store that serves gays from opening?


Who is stopping a store that serves homophobes from opening?



:laugh: You cannot own somebody else, because at best they can only promise to let you own them. And I subscribe to the title transfer theory of contract, which would exclude the ability to sell yourself into slavery both directly and contractually.Real world realpolitik has little to do with abstract dogmatism on paper, whether ultra-leftist or right-wing in nature. Your little "theory of contract" has never stopped slavery in the real world.

Obviously anti-slavery or anti-discrimination laws we have today come from outside the framework of free market theory, rather than something that is deduced from first principles in an abstract sense from it.

You cannot deduce human rights from the free market. The "free market" in the fundamentalist sense tramples over human rights by definition.

[ZombieRothbard]

Who is stopping a store that serves homophobes from opening?

Nothing. But I think homophobes should be entitled to purchase food just like anybody else. I don't think we should discriminate against people just because they are ignorant, or vile redneck scum.


Real world realpolitik has little to do with abstract dogmatism on paper, whether ultra-leftist or right-wing in nature. Your little "theory of contract" has never stopped slavery in the real world.

Obviously anti-slavery or anti-discrimination laws we have today come from outside the framework of free market theory, rather than something that is deduced from first principles in an abstract sense from it.

You cannot deduce human rights from the free market. The "free market" in the fundamentalist sense tramples over human rights by definition.

You are correct that pieces of paper alone can't ensure anything in the real world. There is something separate from economics, both the free market economics and socialist economics, which is culture. And unless you have a society that values freedom and a certain degree of tolerance, you will never have human rights, whether in a free market society or a socialistic society. You need a society that recognizes the principle of self ownership. Once you have established that, the rest falls into place.

[Demogorgon]

Well it depends on what you would consider empirical evidence, and what you would define "better" as. If you want a certain level of empiricism, you can look at Medieval Iceland, Ancient Ireland and the American West to get an idea of what heavily decentralized/anarchic societies look like. Well none of these actually amount to anarcho-capitalist societies. Nor were they particularly appealing societies either for that matter, so citing them would not be that persuasive even if they were good examples.


If you look at how the market functions (void of state coercion) it functions quite well in all area's that the government hasn't monopolized or regulated. It shouldn't be that great of a leap to extend this same view of markets to other area's such as security and all else.

The free market areas of the economy quite plainly do not outperform state run areas however. The new rail companies in Britain provide an inferior service to the old British Rail, the NHS outperforms what came before it and so on. You may deny this of course, but if you do you give the impression you are counting "better" as simply "closer to the free market" and are thus begging the question.


I must say that the semantics of it are unimportant. People, generally, believe the forceful taking of anothers property is wrong, and most would refer to this act as theft or robbery. To say taxation is theft is simply a simpler way of saying that taxation is the forceful taking of anothers property. I recognize that some people may say that it is legitimate in the instance of states, but most people don't. They will actually argue that social contract and all that irrational bullshit makes taxation voluntary or just, rather than simply admitting that they believe that people with guns should have the right to take your property. It is the irrational contradiction that I am opposed to, not the semantics of it. And if somebody believes it is legitimate for the state to steal wealth from people at gunpoint, and that robbery is ok, that is fine by me. As long as people are being intellectually honest and not using mystical veils like social contracts as arguments.

"Taxes taken at gunpoint" is just a Libertarian slogan though. Has the government ever pointed a gun at you when collecting taxes? Me neither. You may argue that guns come in at some point down the line (and even that is doubtful here where police are unarmed) but that is hardly the same as an actual robbery.


I would argue that taxation helps nobody other than the rich. When you factor in the opportunity costs that I believe are lost with the socialization and collectivization of property, not even the poor benefit, even if the tax system was up to the utopian standards people believe it should be. It also serves to amass large reserves of money to spend on mass killing of brown people overseas.

Some of it goes towards war and the like, but not all of it. Would you say for instance that the poor in Nineteenth century Britain were better off than the poor in Britain today? if not, that would seem to contradict your claim that social programmes can only work against them.


If you believe that untaxed markets would raise the standard of living of the poor as well as provide a safer and more peaceful society, then I think it is easy to say that taxation in every instance is bad for the poor.

Well yeah, but you are the only person saying that so you are effectively saying "If I am right then I am right"


Even those without security would likely be helped by passing private security officers. They would ask for a voluntary donation afterwords, to which the victim could opt out of if they chose. There would be free riders also.

You think so? If paying was voluntary, it would not be a very profitable service to offer. I think your position is a naive one.

What would actually happen would be a version of the "bastard feudalism" seen during the War of the Roses where most people would have to turn to more powerful individuals for their protection in return for rendering services (as opposed to just paying) for the benefit of their patrons. Not a pleasant sort of society to live in.


Discriminating against discriminators is a form of discrimination. Not enforcing social policy is indeed extending liberty and tolerance to all. And no, not every kind of "tyranny" is acceptable. People own themselves, and cannot be slaves or bound by slave contracts or unlawful incarceration. And even racial discrimination would likely not last. In fact, the market would likely weed out discriminators, since discrimination is poor business practice.

You say that people can't be bound by slave contracts but many Libertarians disagree with you on that one. Are you proposing that there is one area at least in which it is permissible to interfere in the free market?

As for your claim that not enforcing equal rights is extending liberty to all, it is to take Liberty in the utter abstract. In real life a right or freedom does not mean anything at all unless it is enforced.


Firstly, I don't accept the idea of male patriarchy or any of those kind of charges leveled by feminists of that sort. So therefor, I don't see how it extends to race or sexuality. If you are saying that culture has an impact on how people are treated, that may be true, but any society is victim to culture. And supposedly in a democratic society, the state and its laws are supposed to represent the majority of the people. So if the majority of the people are inbred hillbilly fucks, your society is going to be racist and shitty. To say that the state shouldn't represent the will of the majority is to propose some sort of dictatorship or other less direct form of governance (or a free market, which I am assuming you reject). So if you reject dictatorship, and agree that democracy, if functioning correctly, would allow for redneck hillbilly fucks to institute racial inequality, then you should like the democracy of the free market. At least in a free market system, you can find SOMEBODY who would be willing to serve you. In a society wrought with institutionalized discrimination, you wouldn't even be able to find small rebellious vendors who wish to capitalize on the market that the majority of societies ignorance had created.

In other words, in a free market, vast cultural movements would have less affect on completely barring people from free and voluntary associations and lifestyles than the state would.In the first instance you are mad if you think that women have not been subjugated, further you are also flat out wrong if you think that the free market would weed out discrimination. The reason people wanted anti-discrimination laws in the first place was that the market was not weeding out discrimination.

You claim further that the state will discriminate to a worse degree than the market, history shows that that is sometimes true and sometimes not. At any rate however I am not advocating that the state discriminate, rather that it prevent discrimination.


Well, as I stated earlier, I think the free market is the most direct form of democracy possible. So I would disagree with Nozick that state tyranny by majority is preferable to a free market.

in what way is a system here everyone has a different number of votes "democratic"?

[agnixie]

I find it hard to believe there is an untapped food market anywhere in the United States.


If the facts disagree with the model, the problem is with the model.


A good argument for privatizing the oceans.

Thanks for confirming the stupidity of the model. Also, the opposite of private property is not state property. State property and private property basically come from the same thing.

[∞]

I'm an ancap cuz if wear yellow and black you got hella swag.