1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://blog.mises.org/6590/the-individual-in-society/

The Individual in Society

May 4, 2007 by

What impels every man to the utmost exertion in the service of his fellow men and curbs innate tendencies toward arbitrariness and malice is, in the market, not compulsion and coercion on the part of gendarmes, hangmen, and penal courts; it is self-interest. The member of a contractual society is free because he serves others only in serving himself. What restrains him is only the inevitable natural phenomenon of scarcity. For the rest he is free in the range of the market…. A man whose fate is determined by the plans of a superior authority, in which the exclusive power to plan is vested, is not free in the sense in which the term “free” was used and understood by all people until the semantic revolution of our day brought about a confusion of tongues. FULL ARTICLE

{ 5 comments }

David C May 4, 2007 at 9:43 am

As a side note, did anyone else watch the republican debates last night? It was a real shocker. Ron Paul was the only one that even bothered to mention habeas corpus, and IMHO it’s gotta be the first time in history that anybody on a mainstream media show advocated abolishment of the income tax and the Federal Reserve. He even correctly defined inflation as the printing of money. When he said if elected he would abolish the IRS immediately – my jaw dropped to the floor. Somebody actually said it on TV – the censors probably had to restrain themselves from bleeping it out. I’m surprised that more people aren’t talking about it.

David White May 4, 2007 at 10:19 am

Paul’s winning the MSNBC poll:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18436681

(McCain’s toast.)

RogerM May 4, 2007 at 2:03 pm

“Thus the advocates of totalitarianism chose other tactics. They reversed the meaning of words. They call true or genuine liberty the condition of the individuals under a system in which they have no right other than to obey orders.”

After two years of reading Mises, his insightfulness still surprises me. For more detail on how the left reverses the meanings of words, I highly recommend Thomas Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions.” Most of the book explains the leftist definitions of freedom, power, justice and other important words. We are not winning converts from socialism because we use the historically correct definitions of those terms while the left has its own dictionary.

For example, take the term “freedom of speech.” Most of the world uses that term to mean that the state cannot restrict what a person writes or says, which is a process oriented definition. The left, on the other hand, defines freedom of speech as the ability to reach a mass audience, which is a results oriented definition. According to the left, no one has free speech but the owners of mass media. In order for all of us to have free speech, the government must redistribute that media power among the rest of us.

If we’re going to make progress against socialism in this country, we have to challenge them constantly on their use of false definitions for words and at the same time show them that their definitions are wrong. For example, the left defines social justice as the right of everyone on the planet to an equal share of production, regardless of their contribution to that production. This is one of the Ten Commandments of socialism. We must challenge them on that right and show that no such right exists. Sowell writes that except for Hayek, most libertarian writers have just ignored the left’s tactics.

JIMB May 4, 2007 at 3:11 pm

A sustainable market does not appear possible unless a systematic enforcer of contracts and non-violent interaction exists. In that sense, the ‘state’ … however it is organized, is necessary, and it may in fact be ‘natural’ to the market processes.

What I like about Mises, is he doesn’t get into what the state should or shouldn’t do, he just tells the consequences of the illogic, which completely avoids the tangents to the real issue: what the state should do (if anything) and what is the proper scope of it, and how can it be constrained…

Vanmind May 6, 2007 at 4:31 pm

“A man whose fate is determined by the plans of a superior authority…”

I do wish he hadn’t included the word “superior” in there.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: