1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/7200/the-right-to-ignore-the-state/

The Right to Ignore the State

September 21, 2007 by

  1. Voluntary Outlawry
  2. Legislative Authority Can Never Be Ethical
  3. The Only Legitimate Source of Power
  4. The Immorality of Majority Rule
  1. Representation versus Consent
  2. Religious Liberty and Civil Liberty
  3. Social Morality and Social Evolution
  4. Notes

Government being simply an agent employed in common by a number of individuals to secure to them certain advantages, the very nature of the connection implies that it is for each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. If any one of them determines to ignore this mutual-safety confederation, nothing can be said except that he loses all claim to its good offices, and exposes himself to the danger of maltreatment — a thing he is quite at liberty to do if he likes. He cannot be coerced into political combination without a breach of the law of equal freedom; he can withdraw from it without committing any such breach; and he has therefore a right so to withdraw….


Probably a long time will elapse before the right to ignore the state will be generally admitted, even in theory. It will be still longer before it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty of checks upon the premature exercise of it. A sharp experience will sufficiently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst, in the majority of men, there is such a love of tried arrangements, and so great a dread of experiments, that they will probably not act upon this right until long after it is safe to do so. FULL ARTICLE

{ 46 comments }

Adam Smith September 21, 2007 at 5:13 pm

The problem with this utopian nonsense is that, like the Communist Manifesto, it sounds great but, alas, falls short because of the frailties of man. Oh yes, I should be able to exist on my own and through my own and gather unto me my property and all other worthful things and be left alone by the state, the horrible and oppressive state, so that I can help or hurt only myself and no one else. Likewise, my neighbor, although we shouldn’t have to know each other, has the same freedom as I have and we sit around all day in our respective igloos marvelizing over how fortunate we are to know the truth. Grow up, you imbeciles, there are 6.7 billion people in the word and before long we will be walking over each other like cockroaches. Von Mises couldn’t have envisioned this when he dreamed up his theology. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s nice to sit around and bs all day about how great a world this would be if we all adopted the Von Mises credo. That’s exactly what the Bolsheviks did in 1917 and actually had themselves convinced that they were on the right path. Well, we all know how that turned out. This Von Mises fantasy, in my humble opinion, is destined for the same dust bin. Don’t take it personally, if you’re reading this, you can still change your mind, which is a lot more than those poor old Bolsheviks could do then or now, for that matter.

Kevin B September 21, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Adam Smith,

“Evil will always triumph, because good is dumb.” – Dark Helmet

I see he had an apprentice.

Joe Cochran September 21, 2007 at 5:30 pm

I am well aware that it is quite possible the person calling themselves Adam Smith is just trolling the comment section, but for the sake of those drawn in, a humble question comes to mind.

Has the argument you used not been used all throughout history in regards to things like electing government as opposed to a monarchy? Or when people spoke out against caste systems, were they not accused of wishful thinking, with human nature brought in as the backup?

It seems to me that seeking a less oppressive society is a general aspiration that has been fought by those who claim it to be Utopian.

I have to be amazed how many times people describe the world as a Hobbesian nightmare, and claim theres nothing better on the horizon. Its especially amazing when one realizes history has been the tale of individuals freeing themselves of their shackles. To think that trend has met its conclusion seems altogether more naive.

Jean Paul September 21, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Amen Joe.

M E Hoffer September 21, 2007 at 6:03 pm

similiar to Mr. Cochran’s point(s), though, in video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc7oZ9yWqO4&NR=1

Nelson September 21, 2007 at 6:04 pm

You already can ignore any government. And you can defend yourself if anyone comes after you for doing so. Its just that the odds of doing that successfully over a long period of time aren’t that great.

Anthony September 21, 2007 at 6:55 pm

“Grow up, you imbeciles, there are 6.7 billion people in the word and before long we will be walking over each other like cockroaches.”

Relevance?

“That’s exactly what the Bolsheviks did in 1917 and actually had themselves convinced that they were on the right path.”

Yes, so let’s never press for change. Compelling argument indeed.

“Well, we all know how that turned out. This Von Mises fantasy, in my humble opinion, is destined for the same dust bin. ”

I believe dustbins were intended for stupid comments like yours, not luminaries like von Mises.

Brainpolice September 21, 2007 at 8:34 pm

A fantastic classic. What more is there to say.

Adam Smith September 21, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Thank you all for your erudite comments. But, as Von Mises might say, it is not through defending your positions that you find truth but in questioning them. He was indeed brilliant and I will grant him that but he was utopian, not unlike Ayn Rand, for example, who also sought to change the course of history. Philosophers, like grandmothers, are wonderful to listen to at times but we must not mistake their intentions or ours for what is. I’m sure that Von Mises was a nice fellow and meant well and if he were around today I wouldn’t mind having a beer with him and perhaps discussing his views. But, let’s face facts folks, his words meant something when horses were still the main mode of transportation. Let him and his ideas rest in peace and not be perverted by anarchists on this website looking for approbation for failed fantasies.

Anthony September 21, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Poor little troll.

josh m September 22, 2007 at 12:26 am

Adam Smith,

Those who claim liberty to be utopian, fantastical, or ‘only works on paper, not in the real world’ display a profound misunderstanding of just how the real world actually DOES work: the real world ONLY functions to the extent the individual’s self-determination is present. Voluntary association—NOT coercion— is the ONLY element in the real world by which those 6.7 billion humans attain ANYTHING of value–whereas society takes a step backward with every instance of coercion.

In short, the world IS libertarian– the state an unnecessary parasite that feeds off the backs of voluntary association. Hence the absurdity of the claim that advocating the increase of the former and minimizing or eliminating the latter to be ‘utopian.’

Those who advance the worn-out “works on paper, not in the real world” thesis have it exactly backwards: However flawed liberty is on paper, it is the ONLY element by which the real world works.

Thomas Hobbes September 22, 2007 at 1:22 pm

At “Adam Smith,” 1st post:

Engenious ass’n ‘tween State and people.

Daniel M. Ryan September 22, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Whoever this “Adam Smith” is, he or she has the habit of treating ideas as if they were trends, or styles. Not the best approach, as the progress of historical knowledge opens up the potentiality for many embarrassing comparisons.

How many pet ideas of modern liberals were promulgated by loyal subjects and vassals of the House of Hohenzollern? Dabbling in the genetic fallacy is a game that several (not just two) can play.

Adam Smith September 22, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Josh: Thank you for the kind words, some of which I agree with. The “it only works on paper” statement, trite as it is, remains valid. To see this, you need only to visit your yard or a park, perhaps. Millions of “voluntary associations” are taking place in the animal world around us. That, I submit, is the natural state of such relationships and we would fare no better if we didn’t agree to hedge our voluntary associations with a little consensual coercison, shall we say.
I think the “real” Von Mises advocates understand and accept this. Unfortunately, this website is also home to some pseudo-Miseseans who find in its fantacies reasons to justify their own anti-government wacko sentiments.

Daniel M. Ryan September 22, 2007 at 1:54 pm

“…no subject of England can be constrained to pay any aids or taxes even for the defense of the realm or the support of government, but such as are imposed by his own consent, or that of his representative in parliament…”

Sir William Blackstone was far more meticulous than our contemporaries with regard to the final modificatory clause. The agent is not the principal: a principle that any contemporaneous corporate-governance advocate would be glad to expound upon.

Juan September 22, 2007 at 3:01 pm

I’m sure that Von Mises was a nice fellow…his words meant something when horses were still the main mode of transportation.

I wonder if this is to be taken as a sign of how well educated Adam Smith is ?

Let’s see : the Dresden-Leipzig railway was built in 1837. 80 years after that, Mises was a well known economist. And he died in 1973. I wonder if people still ‘drove’ to work on horseback at that time ?

Daniel M. Ryan September 22, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Juan,

You can take it in stride – even satirize it, like so: “Hayek died knowing nothing of complexity theory, and he didn’t even have the requisite mathematical or computer-science training to understand it if he did. What could he know about self-organizing spontaneous orders?”

The gag I pulled in my comments above was more subtle, but it was of the same type.

Anthony September 22, 2007 at 8:01 pm

Don’t feed the sad little troll. It hungers for attention. Let it starve.

rhys September 22, 2007 at 11:19 pm

Adam Smith said, “The problem with this utopian nonsense is that, like the Communist Manifesto, it sounds great but, alas, falls short because of the frailties of man.”

Adam Smith is arguing that the right to ignore the state does not exist and cannot exist, therefore it is a waste of time to talk about it. But the right to ignore the state is inalienable. And not because nobody CAN aggress against me for acting on my right, but because 1. There is no moral justification for their aggression (they MAY not), and 2. There is no way to remove my choice to act in accordance with my right. I never have to limit my actions to the so called “legitimate” choices provided by the state. So regardless of the power of others to claim that I must conform to their rules, and to even punish me for failing to heed their power, they can never limit my right to ignore them. (ie. I have the right to defend my life from aggressors. But, if I were to die defending myself, does that mean I really never had the right to self defense? Obviously, the rights that I have are not dependent on the successful defense of these rights because true rights are based on moral principle and are inalienable.)

Adam Smith also said, “Oh yes, I should be able to exist on my own and through my own and gather unto me my property and all other worthful things and be left alone by the state, the horrible and oppressive state, so that I can help or hurt only myself and no one else.”

Despite the sarcasm, this is an attempt to discredit liberal ideas by holding up one of the correlaries of liberalism as ridiculous. This is an inadequate attack on liberalism because a correlary might seem distasteful, but that is not an argument that it is unjust. A correlary to the right to freedom of speech is that I can speak in a way that gets me fired from my job (I speak freely, then my boss speaks freely). Does the distasteful nature of being fired for speaking one’s mind mean that the right to speak freely is unjust? Or that, since there might be “negative” consequences for choosing to act in a way that is supported by my right, the right doesn’t or shouldn’t exist?

The right to ignore the state is no more an obligation than my right to free speech. I may heed the state or bite my tongue at will. These are also my rights.

Just because a state does not allow me the free expression of my rights, does not limit my rights. The value of pointing out these rights is to allow people to rationally work to eliminate the unjust consequences of acting within their right. This is the idea that led to the creation of this nation. Why dismiss this idea now?

To conclude: The fact that we don’t live in a state of perfect justice does not imply that justice cannot be improved or that justice should be ignored. It could simply be that justice, like mathematics, only reveals itself over time. In which case, we should work together to uncover the exact nature of justice as well as the most efficacious ways to implement it. This article was one such attempt, and a pretty profound one at that.

Adam Smith, do you actually have an argument that sheds light on how the right to ignore the state is incompatible with justice?

Paul Marks September 23, 2007 at 1:50 pm

“Existing on your own” so called “atomistic indiviudalism” is, of course, nothing to do with libertarianism.

It is the statists who confuse (often deliberatly)society and the state.

Society is the complext web of civil (voluntary) interactions between human beings – this does not just cover commercial enterprises, but also families, churches and so many other things.

If someone does not use force or fraud against other people they should not use violence (or the threat of it) against him. This is what Herbert Spencer meant by “equal freedom”. Hardly “utopian nonsense” just simple common sense – and the exact opposite of the total statism imposed by “Lenin” and the other Marxists in Russia.

Of course if someone (or a group of people) do use force or fraud then things are different – but neither Herbert Spencer or Ludwig Von Mises ever said that things were not different if that happened.

Neither man ever thought that human wickedness (the violation of other people) did not exist, or that acts of violation should be ignored.

Juan September 23, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Juan,
You can take it in stride

Daniel,

Well, yes, I should, sorry.

Daniel M. Ryan September 23, 2007 at 6:03 pm

No need to apologize, Juan. At least, you’re serious.

Adam Smith September 23, 2007 at 7:14 pm

Gentlemen, gentlemen, gentlemen — and, I assume, you are all gentlemen, since ladies engage in such worthless sophistry. That said, I am prepared to apologize should any of my interlopers possess both X and Y genes. Rhys and Juan, you speak eloquently but naively about “rights” and liken them to “inalienable” forces. I applaud you for being very de rigueur in your analogous descriptions. If we weren’t discussing this topic on this website, I would classify you both as being excellent and typical bureaucrats. Here are the facts. Man has no “rights,” as you and so many contemporary politicians would define them to be. And somewhat contrary to the Declaration of Independence, the purported “rights” you claim only become inalienable when guaranteed by the government, yes, that horrible, despicable, concept of authority you are incapable of understanding. As a human being, if it was not for your mother’s intervention or that of some other person, you would likely have perished at birth. Think about this for a moment. Now, think about this for another moment. If you have followed my instructions you will have come to the realization, perhaps with angst, that were it not for your mother or some other person, your so-called beloved and inalienable rights would have been extinguished at birth. Thus, your initial existence, as much as you would like to think it was all your own doing, is owed to another party, albeit someone related to you. This is the first form of government and it exists to bring you into existence. From this, we postulate all other forms of human convention to sustain life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, to quote folks who seemed to know what they were talking about. Von Mises surely understood this and would likely agree with my analysis were he still around. Regrettably, his acolytes are mostly incapable of original thought, as found herein, and rely, instead, on worn out ambiguous quotations from some long gone irrelevant wizards of another age.

Anthony September 23, 2007 at 7:31 pm

“And somewhat contrary to the Declaration of Independence, the purported “rights” you claim only become inalienable when guaranteed by the government, yes, that horrible, despicable, concept of authority you are incapable of understanding.”

Then you run afoul of a well-known problem in philosophy concerning the origins of rights; whence the right to contract, to form a government? It cannot itself come from the government.

Adam Smith September 23, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Anthony: Why not? The “natural” state guarantees us no rights, not even the right to live. The moment you would enforce your “rights,” you would be establishing a government that I, in turn, might rightfuly challenge as oppressive.

Anthony September 24, 2007 at 7:43 am

You didn’t solve the problem I posed; you merely deflected it. And please do explain, how would I be acting as a “coercive monopolist of force”? If acting in self-defence, I would be doing no such thing.

It always fascinates me how people conflate enforcement of a right with its origins.

Adam Smith September 24, 2007 at 9:30 am

Anthony: I apologize if you misunderstood what I was saying. I wasn’t intending to caue the origin and enforcement of “right” to appear synonymous. I questioned the notion of “right” as a human enterprise. Yes, there are theoretical rights, as Jefferson and others spoke of that may indeed be “unalienable.” The paradox here and one that Von Mises didn’t speak to, is that in order to exercise one’s inalienable rights, one must be the beneficiary of alienable rights. The latter are conferred and guaranteed by the state. I will grant you that in a make-believe world, where everyone acts in accordance with a Von Mises-like “invisible hand” (please forgive the pun; I just couldn’t resist), there would be no reason for a state because we each would exercise our inalienable rights to our heart’s content. But, of course, my friend, we do not live in a make-believe world and so, just as Von Mises had to don the uniform of his state to defend it, we must do the same or perish at the hands of those who see things differently.

Anthony September 24, 2007 at 10:03 am

A violator of rights can never be their guarantor. It is a contradiction to assert that it can. But since you dismiss alternatives as “make-believe” there is no need to press this conversation further.

Jacob Steelman September 24, 2007 at 4:33 pm

Adam Smith
I note that you have selected the name of a philosopher who was one of the earliest proponents of this freedom philosophy a theoretical idea which assisted in moving the world from poverty to more widely distributed wealth and prosperity. In the process wherever in the world freedom was expanded (eg. England and the USA) it had the practical and real affect of dramatically improving the living conditions of men,women and children. Why, because ideas make a difference.

Adam Smith September 25, 2007 at 8:12 am

Yes, yes, yes, Jacob, a hundred times yes! That’s my point, my only point. The competition of ideas is what is important, not whether Von Mises had cheese for breakfast or that Hulsmann was correct in writing that Von Mises believed Menger’s value theory could be applied to money. It is not a sin to question Jefferson, Von Mises, or one’s self, for that matter. It is healthy as the competition inherent in that process brings us to synthesis, which helps one to find the truth. The Talibans on this site, however, reject that notion of freedom and insist, instead, that those of us who see Von Mises as a smorgasbord of ideas, not the font of all wisdom, are misguided. I, for one, refuse to wear their ideological burqa, because, as you state, Jacob, ideas make a difference. It is not incompatible to respect the state and the views of Von Mises who, after all, spent most of his adult life working for the state in one form or another. For those able to get beyond von Mises, he and his contributions are great and meaningful. For those who cannot get beyond von Mises, they, like he, will be conflicted by their fantasies of life without the state as they ponder their next meal. Thank you, Jacob, for bringing some brilliance to this discussion that I regret having tried to take to a higher level too quickly and in the process challenged and threatened some primitive beliefs among my dear colleagues here.

Scott D September 25, 2007 at 9:50 am

Arguing from the Hegelian dialectic, Adam Smith? It is an inherently collectivist idea, which might account for why you are so quick to brush aside the contributions of a few great thinkers.

You are also incorrect to assert that no one questions Mises. There is contention on a number of points, and his intellectual successor, Rothbard, creates more controversy still. Nonetheless, without Mises’ contributions to economics and political thought, it is unlikely that libertarianism would have taken root in our time.

Now, if you came here just to rile up those goofy, deluded libertarians, I suggest you take to lurking and reading for a bit. Start with Austrian economics, which you’ll find to be eminently sensible and enlightening, and see if it doesn’t lead you to honestly evaluate some of the silly ideas we espouse here.

Sam Dominguez September 25, 2007 at 11:46 am

I thought the excerpt was from Herbert Spencer not Ludwig von Mises. First of all, it is von Mises or Mises, not Von Mises. A small point, I grant, but it’s annoying.
Mises was a brilliant economist and thinker. He was not utopian. Austrian economics is full of common sense and “real world” applicability. Certainly, many people have disagreed with the Austrian school: so what?

Daniel M. Ryan September 25, 2007 at 11:57 am

Actually, Scott D, this “Adam Smith” seems to be fond of using analogy; one emotionally-charged analogy used just above is straight metaphor.

Adam Smith September 25, 2007 at 12:13 pm

I agree with you, Scott, neither of us should ever brush aside the notions of great thinkers. And yes, there are, as you put it, too many “goofy, deluded libertarians” capable of little more than exchanging quotes from thinkers they wish they were. Surprisingly few can actually think on their own and can only resort to repeating their favorite one-liners from some long dead philosopher-king. And for my Miseolgist friends, I am truly sorry for misspelling the name of your Lord and Savior. I should have known better and, indeed, I would argue that I do know better but, alas, my typing raced past my better judgment. That happens from time to time. If someone with an IQ higher than his/her pulse doesn’t come around soon I may leave this little group for more intellectual surroundings. Most of my interlocutors cannot debate the science of my statements but must, instead, to ad hominum silliness that von Mises would have laughed at, as he polished the brass on his uniforms that bore the insignia of the king.

Nasikabatrachus September 25, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Mr. Smith, don’t get so indignant: if you can’t refrain from calling people imbeciles in your opening, and if you consistently insult people in further posts, then you have no right to the respect and courtesy of anything more than ad hominums (sic).

Kevin B September 25, 2007 at 12:35 pm

*waves to Adam Smith*

Daniel M. Ryan September 25, 2007 at 1:03 pm

As “Adam Smith” goes out the door with a dignity salve? If this goes on, we’re likely to get a comment from that same poster calling Prof. Hoppe’s argumentation-ethos proof ‘stupid’, or perhaps we’ll be favoured with Murray N. Rothbard being called some kinduva Mooslim.

Scott D September 25, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Adam Smith:

I take my hat off to you for acting the consummate hypocrite.

Farewell.

Adam Smith September 25, 2007 at 1:41 pm

Nasikabatrachus: You are indeed correct; I did throw the first stone and for that I must apologize. Please try to understand how difficult it is for me to read and endure the remarks of my colleagues and friends on this blog. My New Year’s resolution several New Years ago was to suffer fools with kindness. That and avoiding Kit Kat bars at the supermarket checkout counter have regrettably eluded me. Thank you, though, for your attempt to help me. It is sincerely appreciated. A friend from Europe told me this morning that French President Nicolas Sarkozy recommended removing from the new European Constitution the commitment to “free and undistorted competition.” Should this happen, Europe will likely revert to its protectionist past, complete with mini-monopolies it likes to call “national champions.” Opponents to the Sarkozy move, believe it or not, cited the U.S. Constitution as a preferred model, noting that its 13 pages of text, including amendments, have stood up pretty well over two centuries, while the European Constitution, already a tangled mess of more than 400 pages, has yet to get out of the starting gate before folks like Sarkozy are recommending major changes. Now, why wouldn’t our European friends look to one of their own, von Mises, for guidance? What do they know that we don’t know – or vice versa?

Nasikabatrachus September 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Smith,

I’m very glad you took that so well. I doubt the others will find your contrition very satisfying, though.

I’m a bit confused by your post. New Year’s resolutions, Sarkozy, the European constitution–I don’t see the connections.

Scott D September 25, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Ah, so you might be open to serious discussion after all? Then I withdraw my last comment, for the moment at least.

George Gaskell September 25, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Attention whores are tiring enough, but narcissistic attention whores are worse.

Adam Smith September 25, 2007 at 3:33 pm

Nasi (May I call you that? It’s really difficult trying to remember the spelling of your name.): I’m not sure there is a connection but if you need to see one, then there shall be one for you. The other day a friend asked me if I would be voting for Mike Gravel or Alan Keyes for the Republican nomination. I said I was really excited about the Ron Paul candidacy. In 1988, when Dr. Paul last ran for president, he garnered one-quarter of one percent of the popular vote as a libertarian candidate. I told my friend that I thought his campaign this time is better organized and more visible and his positions better articulated than they were in 1988. I said I thought because of this he could easily garner twice, maybe even three times the number of votes this time around. Then it suddenly dawned on me that anti-statists of the like that I see on this blog from time to time probably don’t vote since there would be no purpose in doing so. That reminded me of the old aphorism that “evil men succeed when good men fail to act.” I suppose we could say the same for women. See, I am capable of saying something nice now and then about my dear colleagues who have been kind enough to respond. But I would seriously like to know if my “Austrian” pals vote.

mikey September 25, 2007 at 5:33 pm

The problem with this utopian nonsense is that, like the Communist Manifesto, it sounds great but, alas, falls short because of the frailties of man. Oh yes, I should be able to exist on my own and through my own and gather unto me my property and all other worthful things and be left alone by the state, the horrible and oppressive state, so that I can help or hurt only myself and no one else. Likewise, my neighbor, although we shouldn’t have to know each other, has the same freedom as I have and we sit around all day in our respective igloos marvelizing over how fortunate we are to know the truth. Grow up, you imbeciles, there are 6.7 billion people in the word and before long we will be walking over each other like cockroaches. Von Mises couldn’t have envisioned this when he dreamed up his theology. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s nice to sit around and bs all day about how great a world this would be if we all adopted the Von Mises credo. That’s exactly what the Bolsheviks did in 1917 and actually had themselves convinced that they were on the right path. Well, we all know how that turned out. This Von Mises fantasy, in my humble opinion, is destined for the same dust bin. Don’t take it personally, if you’re reading this, you can still change your mind, which is a lot more than those poor old Bolsheviks could do then or now, for that matter.———————————————————————–
Sorry for rerunning this entire post, but feel it was neccessary. The Communist Manifesto sounds great? To whom? To me its a load of irresponsible babbling.(Marx, the friend of the working man never
worked a day in his life,let his family starve while he sat all day in the Library of the British Museum.)
Marxism failed because of the frailties of man?
Implied here is that Marxism was the perfect system, it was man that let the system down.Contrast this with the market economy, which recognizes Human nature for what it is, it is compatible with man’s self interest.It is completely wrong to make any comparison between the two economic systems, the free economy does not hold out the promise of a Utopia as you claim.
No Austrian has ever said that you should be able to exist on your own, they stress the importance of the division of labor, and mutual cooperation,as being of paramount importance.
The individual, acting in his own self interest, is led to benefit others,through his puposeful action.He does not help (or hurt) only himself.
There is nothing imbicilic about pointing out the harm done by government intervention.If Austrian economists have a failing it would be that they don’t answer the question why, if government is the cause of so much misery, then what is the cause of government? Why do we have so much of it?

Anthony September 25, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Adam Smith, if you’re going to claim some sort of intellectual superiority (as opposed to feigning it, which I will say you do rather well), it’d serve you well to be done with the silly insults, pointless dodges and hollow assertions. Act like a troll and you will be treated as one.

Ben-T September 25, 2007 at 8:12 pm

“The problem with this utopian nonsense is that, like the Communist Manifesto, it sounds great but, alas, falls short because of the frailties of man. Oh yes, I should be able to exist on my own and through my own and gather unto me my property and all other worthful things and be left alone by the state, the horrible and oppressive state, so that I can help or hurt only myself and no one else. Likewise, my neighbor, although we shouldn’t have to know each other, has the same freedom as I have and we sit around all day in our respective igloos marvelizing over how fortunate we are to know the truth. Grow up, you imbeciles, there are 6.7 billion people in the word and before long we will be walking over each other like cockroaches. Von Mises couldn’t have envisioned this when he dreamed up his theology. Don’t misunderstand me, it’s nice to sit around and bs all day about how great a world this would be if we all adopted the Von Mises credo. That’s exactly what the Bolsheviks did in 1917 and actually had themselves convinced that they were on the right path. Well, we all know how that turned out. This Von Mises fantasy, in my humble opinion, is destined for the same dust bin. Don’t take it personally, if you’re reading this, you can still change your mind, which is a lot more than those poor old Bolsheviks could do then or now, for that matter.” – Adam Smith

The Bolsheviks adopted a flawed theory. Without a price mechanism it is impossible to allocate resources according to subjective wants and needs, and so hunger and violence will be the rule of the day.

Do you have any similar theoretical criticism of Austrian economics or are you just trolling?

“Likewise, my neighbor, although we shouldn’t have to know each other, has the same freedom as I have and we sit around all day in our respective igloos marvelizing over how fortunate we are to know the truth.” – Adam Smith

Surprising that you would name yourself Adam Smith, when you clearly believe capitalism to be an anti-social and therefore anti-human ideology. It is capitalism that encourages voluntary inter-personal cooperation. The state, because it is based on coercive violence, is fundamentally incapable of voluntary, cooperative, interpersonal action. It behaves in society as would a sociopath.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: