Comments on: The Right to Ignore the State

By: Ben-T

Ben-T — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 14:12:27 +0000

“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.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:21:19 +0000

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.

By: mikey

mikey — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 11:33:47 +0000

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?

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 09:33:12 +0000

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.

By: George Gaskell

George Gaskell — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:04:03 +0000

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

By: Scott D

Scott D — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 08:02:24 +0000

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

By: Nasikabatrachus

Nasikabatrachus — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:51:38 +0000

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.

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:41:07 +0000

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.â€ 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 â€“ or vice versa?

By: Scott D

Scott D — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:36:03 +0000

Adam Smith:

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

Farewell.

By: Daniel M. Ryan

Daniel M. Ryan — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:03:59 +0000

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.

By: Kevin B

Kevin B — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:35:49 +0000

*waves to Adam Smith*

By: Nasikabatrachus

Nasikabatrachus — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:33:23 +0000

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).

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 06:13:58 +0000

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.

By: Daniel M. Ryan

Daniel M. Ryan — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:57:51 +0000

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

By: Sam Dominguez

Sam Dominguez — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 05:46:21 +0000

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?

By: Scott D

Scott D — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 03:50:36 +0000

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.

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 02:12:37 +0000

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.

By: Jacob Steelman

Jacob Steelman — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 10:33:57 +0000

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.

By: Anthony

Anthony — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 04:03:20 +0000

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.

By: Adam Smith

Adam Smith — Mon, 24 Sep 2007 03:30:10 +0000

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.