Comments on: The Mises Circle

By: chris

chris — Mon, 12 Feb 2007 07:26:35 +0000

The download of the recording of the speech worked fine for me, try using a download accelerator as they split files into smaller parts as you download.

By: bkMarcus

bkMarcus — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 08:17:52 +0000

Was Mises a Misesian?

I know there are those who find definition debates tiresome, but we clearly need to define terms here to address anything useful.

“Liberalism is not anarchism… The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion the existence of society would be endangered …”

This is an objection to anarcho-pacifism, of course, and not to the sort of Molinarian private-law anarchism Roderick Long was addressing.

“For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity …”

As someone pointed out in one of the other MP3 lectures available here (I’m sorry I can’t remember who it was), Mises was a philosophical anarchist whether he realized it or not, because he believed that liberalism required the right of secession, even at the household or individual level.

If the so-called State can’t compel me to obedience and can’t command a monopoly within a given territory, then it is not really a State.

To use Albert J. Nock’s distinction and terminology, Mises was conflating the necessity of “government” with the necessity of the State.

My guess is that Mises’s explicit rejection of the A-word had to do with the limited varieties of European anarchism (socialist and pacifist) he would have been exposed to. He was almost certainly unaware of the American Individualist Anarchist tradition (Spooner, Tucker) which advocated private security and a jury-centered court system based in the principle of jury nullification. Tucker’s “liberal anarchism” was certainly consistent with Mises’s “minarchist” liberalism, once the right of secession is acknowledged.

By: bkMarcus

bkMarcus — Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:58:54 +0000

Can laughter be reincarnated?

Rod’s laugh pleasantly reminds me of Murray’s cackle.

I had the same reaction, especially during the applause, when it was more subdued.

By: Anonymous Coward

Anonymous Coward — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 19:29:51 +0000

So I guess other people have been able to download this talk? I’ve tried half a dozen times now, over 3 days, and every time I get about 4 MB downloaded and then get an error (“the source file could not be read. Try again later or contact the server administrator”)

By: Ken Gregg

Ken Gregg — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 08:18:22 +0000

Rod’s laugh pleasantly reminds me of Murray’s cackle. Could probably do a good imitation if he haven’t already tried. Been listening lately to some of the Mises Media audio files and just finished this.
Good discussion. I’m on a list (or two) that constantly go back and forth on the anarchy-minarchy stuff and am often surprised that the financing of protection/defense aren’t better analyzed.
There is a rather huge grab-bag of goods and services that comprise this field and if you look at the marketplace, pricing and purchases depends a lot on the given type of property to be protected. Some are site-specific and require ongoing protection/insurance (e.g., land, buildings, fixed apurtenances) which may mean a monthly fee dependent upon the risk and evaluation. Others are point-of-sale purchases which may just require the momentary protection until the merchandise is consumed or transformed–those may require a one-time only service. Still others may be ongoing but not site-specific, like life insurance (term, disability, employment, etc.) and protection of intellectual property (I would maintain that a private property-based social system would not “communize” such a valuable resource) are entirely different and need different fee structures.
Why in the world would such widely varying forms of property ever be protected by the same agency or in the same way? It makes no sense to me.
It’s like law. I’ve heard of Objective Law (in large caps, of course), but this is largely a fiction. Business law is different from criminal law, which is different from domestic law. Each has origins in different fields and maintain a unique place in law. In some ways, these compete with each other today, and court cases can be addressed in a wide range of areas, not always interrelated. Not quite anarchocapitalism, but closer than many objectionable objectivists are cognizant about.
I work in an odd area, mediation in domestic relations, often educating individual parties about how to cooperate with each other, helping to facilitate a satisfactory path (or least unsatisfactory one) in their personal lives without their former significant other. Sometimes issues have to be addressed in more than just Domestic Court–Bankruptcy Court, even the criminal courts may be involved. They are each different with their own rules and procedures, just as mine are.
Personally, I feel (probably why I’m a mediator) that if the parties can come to an agreement prior to going to a binding arbitrator (which is what a judge actually is, if he/she isn’t too much of a politician!), the likelihood of ongoing cooperation is much better than if they go up in front of a judge and he/she tells them what they are going to live by. Hmm, probably why I’m a libertarian, too.
Just Ken
kgregglv@cox.net
http://classicalliberalism.blogspot.com/

By: Magnus AndersÃ©n

Magnus AndersÃ©n — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 07:03:53 +0000

Hello all.

This was a very good speech, very interesting. I really wish I could have attended.

I think those who claim that you consent to the government by living in a territory should also properly be called to answer Lysander Spooners arguments raised in No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority ( http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig4/spooner1.html ).
Most of you here are probably familiar with it but for those who are not: He basically argues that the constitution, which is a contract, is invalid since it has not been signed or consented to by all those it claim to represent.
Also, I think it needs to be mentioned in regards to the claims that the protection agencies would cartelize and become a state is that they represent costumers who can withdraw their support and payment whenever they want.
The fact that there would also need to be independant arbitrators in conflicts between a client and a arbitration/protection agency will probably keep persons very vigilant about any such cartelization.

Best, Magnus AndersÃ©n.

By: reader

reader — Sat, 14 Aug 2004 05:26:37 +0000

[quoting selectively]

Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace.
http://mises.org

The Foundations of Liberal Policy
8. Democracy
Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped.
http://mises.org/liberal/ch1sec8.asp

[see also Human Action ]

Anarchism, 149 , 191 , 286n ., 582 -583

http://mises.org/humanaction/theindex.asp

By: adam

adam — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 13:29:42 +0000

Professor Long’s talk was incredibly informative, and I’m glad to have a copy of it now. I was a student at this past Mises University and feel compelled to point out just how significant this speach was to many of us. The debate between minarchy and anarchy was one of the more popular topics kicked around the dinner table that week, especially after Dr. Hoppe’s talk about privitizing security.

Professor Long’s step-by-logical-step talk helped a lot of us. Thanks Dr. Long!

By: Dennis Sperduto

Dennis Sperduto — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 08:35:25 +0000

Michael, you are not wrong; Mises was not an anarchist. I believe he can best be classified as an extremely limited government Classical Liberal. An excellent exposition of Mises’s political philosophy can be found in his book Liberalism.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:28:03 +0000

Was Mises an anarchist? Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe he was.

By: Micha Ghertner

Micha Ghertner — Fri, 13 Aug 2004 07:19:56 +0000

Are there any plans to write this up in outline or essay form? This was a wonderfully organized speech, especially as an introduction to anarchist thought for the uninitiated. Any volunteers?