If Men Were Angels
In If Men Were Angels Robert Higgs analyzes James Madison's famous passage from The Federalist No. 51 containing the quotable line "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." This is an excellent article with several useful analytical approaches to thinking about the state. Of particular value is a section on the "dynamic considerations" left out by the Hobbesian or Lockean account of moving from the "state of nature" to a state:
Suppose, if only for purposes of discussion, we conceded that the initial establishment of the state reduces the degree of social disorder. The obvious question, however seldom philosophers may have asked it, then becomes, What happens next? Does the degree of social disorder remain constant... ?
All in all, the article is a wonderfully hard-headed critique of the rather naive approach often taken by political philosophers and political scientists: Giving the state the benefit of the doubt.
Comments (51)
RogerM
So I guess Higgs is saying the the US form of government is no improvement at all upon the monarchies of the past? As for anarchism improving society, history favors the state. While anarchists can site two or three successful, though controversial, anarchist states, whole encyclopedias could be written about the unsuccessful attempts.
What's missing from Higg's analysis is any indication that a continuum of degrees of state oppression exists, with anarchism on one end and totalitarianism on the other. The US stands somewhere in the middle. Since we have no purely anarchist societies to study, the next best thing would be to compare oppression/freedom between existing states on the continuum. One would expect that more freedom from the state would result in greater individual freedom and greater prosperity, and that's exactly what we find in indexes such as the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom.
The main question is whether the relationship between less state oppression and economic freedom/growth is linear or non-linear, such as quadratic. If linear, then as nations move down the continuum to democracy and then anarchy, we should see greater economic growth and wealth under anarchy. But if the relationship is non-linear, say quadratic, then we'll find that an optimum level of government exists and once you get below that level, freedom and wealth decline. If we look at the states that went from communism to quasi-democracies, such as Russia and Poland, we find a decline in wealth and an increase in crime. Albania, Somalia, and the current state of Iraq are other good examples. France after its revolution is another.
Hayek is important here. He warned socialists of the danger of relying too much on pure logic and ignoring the accumulated wisdom of tradition. The same warning applies to anarchists.
Published: June 15, 2007 9:18 PM
TLWP Sam
Furthermore, RogerM, the argument that States during the 20th century caused xxx million deaths is rather biased in asmumas well most people lived in States during the 20th century such that non-Staters causing xxx million deaths was going to be unlikely. Similarly, it could be said about Religion causing xxx million deaths over the last xxx thousand years but then again most people just happened to be religious back then too. After all, what incentive was there to be an atheist in times past? There wasn't enough science for most people to be anything other than religious, save for the occasional smart-alec contrarian. And the Independent article implies technology helped out with the great carnage of the 20th century, if we didn't have much technology the death toll would not have been nearly as high?
Well, of course, if people went back to family farms and cooperated and traded with their neighbours, had only the firearms necessary to defend themselves, others and their possessions, went to church on Sundays, had horses and buggies, used gold chips as money, etc., then the capacity for great carnages, wars, theft, enslavement is inevitably going to be unlikely.
Published: June 16, 2007 1:37 AM
Scott D
TWLP,
I think the claims of states causing deaths that you've seen is strictly counting deaths that were directly ordered by the state. This would include all wars and state directed massacres. The question is not one of technology or population density but "who initiates the violence?"
Published: June 16, 2007 10:07 AM
josh m
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide
An accidental coincidence? I don't think so.
Published: June 16, 2007 1:52 PM
TLWP Sam
Interestingly that wiki article pointed out that authoritarian regimes were most liable to carry out mass killing.
Published: June 16, 2007 9:21 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
Only the reverse holds true, only if men were angels could governments run by men work.
Published: June 16, 2007 10:48 PM
RogerM
Jonathan: "Only the reverse holds true, only if men were angels could governments run by men work."
So do you also see no difference between say Nazi Germany and the US? Maybe it would take angels for government to work perfectly, but is perfection the only standard? Can we hold anarchism to that same standard? I would argue that as long as humans are involved anywhere, neither government nor anarchism will be perfect. So the real question is which will produce the best results?
Many anarchists argue that anarchy will produce less theft and murder because all taxation is theft and all war is murder. But that's nothing but an attempt to win an argument by changing the definitions of words to benefit your cause. If all taxation is theft and all war murder, then by definition government fails. But if you're honest and retain the commonly accepted definition of those terms, then you would have to show that under anarchism people would become wealthier and freer than under government. And to make it fair, the government would have to be one limited to national defense and police work. No fair comparing anarchism with socialism.
Condemning government because most are bad is no different than condemning marriage because most fail; half end in divorce and a fourth are very unhappy marriages.
Published: June 17, 2007 12:35 AM
M-la-maudite
RogerM,
Re/ murder and theft:
Precisely! Under commonly accepted definitions, all taxation is theft and all war murder, and then we can agree that by definition government fails /is intrinsically immoral.
Murder is commonly accepted to be constituted by the wilful killing of another human being or a particularly brutal way of killing someone. War would qualify under both accounts. Theft is, equally commonly, used to refer to the act of appropriating someone else's holding or services without their consent. This obviously covers taxation (which i would incidentally rather define as slavery, but never mind).
If you tell me that the distinction lies in the legal element banning those crimes safe when committed by the criminal monopoly holder, the burden of prove would rest on you to prove under which law this is so and why the self-called norm is legitimate in establishing the said distinction. Quite clearly, neither natural law nor public international law, that both go in the opposite direction, can be invoked to support your claim. The next question is how do you intend to justify murder and theft on the basis of (coercion-backed positivistic domestic) rules precisely created by the murderer and thief themselves? what about the mafia's pick on that? does it make their activities any different than crimes committed by less successful thugs? so, how do you figure that the state, simply being the most grand-scale criminal organisation, could have a more legitimate claim?
Best, M-
Published: June 17, 2007 10:55 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
RogerM,
You're confusing the point. I'm talking in the broadest sense possible.
Governments are a contrived mechanism to determine Justice. Only if ran by super humans could these institutions provide true justice.
Even in the utopian minarchies justice suffers from the fundamental flaw of socialism. No one can determine justice without a market anymore than someone could determine price without a market.
Published: June 17, 2007 2:49 PM
RogerM
M: "Under commonly accepted definitions, all taxation is theft and all war murder..."
Not true. Those are strictly anarchist definitions.
Jonathan: "Governments are a contrived mechanism to determine Justice. Only if ran by super humans could these institutions provide true justice."
I agree completely. But I would argue the same thing is true of anarchy.
Jonathan: "Even in the utopian minarchies justice suffers from the fundamental flaw of socialism."
Maybe I don't understand minarchy. I thought it was government limited to police work and national defense. Is that not right? If it is, then that would eliminate socialism.
All I'm asking is that when you compare anarchy with government, that you allow miniarchy to be the government you criticize. This is only being fair. To compare anarchy, which is highly theoretical, with the current socialist US government in very unfair. Reality will always look bad against any theoretical construct. You should compare reality with reality and theoretical with theoretical. Since minarchy is as theoretical as anarchy, that would be a fair comparison. If you want to compare the current US government with another form of government, it should be a real one that existed in history or exists today. Comparing the current US government with that of the 19th century is a good comparison.
Don't get me wrong. I'm totally anti-socialist and consider the current US government to be socialist. I'm very interested in tearing down the socialism and getting as close to minarchism as possible.
Published: June 17, 2007 9:27 PM
Luke M
RogerM,
Would you be able to clarify for us your distinction vis-a-vis that of the anarchist's as regards the definitions of murder/war & tax/theft, etc.?
Published: June 18, 2007 12:01 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
"Maybe I don't understand minarchy. I thought it was government limited to police work and national defense. Is that not right? If it is, then that would eliminate socialism."
You do understand it.
It would have socialized police and courts, and socialized defense.
Those things are consumer goods able to be traded on the market.
Just because its the socialism that (almost) everyone argues on doesn't mean its not socialism.
Published: June 18, 2007 1:06 PM
RogerM
Luke: "Would you be able to clarify for us your distinction vis-a-vis that of the anarchist's as regards the definitions of murder/war & tax/theft, etc.?"
Without getting out the dictionary, I would say that most people understand murder as unjustified killing. Killing another human in self-defense, capital punishment, accidents and most killing in warfare is justified. Theft is the unjustified taking of someone's property.
Jonathan: "It would have socialized police and courts, and socialized defense."
That's a weird concept of socialism.
As you can see, the side that gets to define the terms, especially terms like murder, theft, socialsim, will win the debate. But it's not really winning, it's just changing the parameters of the debate. To really debate minarchism and anarchy, we have to use the same definitions of words, otherwise neither side will make sense to the other. That's why I insist on commonly accepted definitions of words; it's the only way we can have a real discussion.
Published: June 18, 2007 1:44 PM
Luke M
"Without getting out the dictionary, I would say that most people understand murder as unjustified killing. Killing another human in self-defense, capital punishment, accidents and most killing in warfare is justified."
I assume, Roger, that when talking about killing someone in self-defense you have some degree of proportionality in mind - you can't just wantonly murder someone and claim you were only acting in self defense.
To many people capital punishment is immoral, and, to them, is always unjustifiable. I also don't think I would use the word 'justified' to talk about deaths resulting from accidents..
The biggest 'YIKES', though, is that you believe "most killing in warfare is justified".
Wow...
You also said that "theft is the unjustified taking of someone's property", but you didn't show how taxation, i.e. the State's theft, is justifiable..
Published: June 19, 2007 12:44 AM
Jonathan Bostwick
We are using the terms consistently. You want special consideration for certain circumstances.
Going out and looking for someone to kill is murder, you can't call a battle self defense.
Governments owning a monopoly on a service is socialism, you don't get special consideration because thats the way its always been.
But the real point is that without markets government is blind in trying to figure out how much and want kinds of protection people want: the fundamental flaw of socialism.
Published: June 19, 2007 3:57 AM
RogerM
Luke: "The biggest 'YIKES', though, is that you believe "most killing in warfare is justified".
Does the victor in war charge all enemy soldiers with murder? No, just the ones who have intentially killed civilians without justification. There have always been people who considered war to be murder. Tolstoy was one. But the generally accepted definition of war does not equate it with murder.
Luke: "you didn't show how taxation, i.e. the State's theft, is justifiable." Taxation has always been justified by the fact that the state has a legitimate purpose and reason for existing. Only anarchists consider the state an illegit institution and they are trying to impose their definitions of murder and theft upon the rest of us.
Jonathan: "We are using the terms consistently."
I didn't accuse you of inconsistency. I know you're consistent in your usage. What I'm saying is that anarchists have invented new definitions for commonly used words and that these definitions are accepted only by anarchists. Anyone who accepts anarchist definitions for murder and theft have no choice but to agree with them that all war is murder and all taxation is theft. But if we stick to the commonly understood definitions of those terms, then war isn't murder and taxation isn't theft.
The anarchist strategy of changing the meaning of words in order to win the debate is exactly the same strategy used by socialists for over a century. Socialists have insisted on their own private definitions of justice (defined as equality in outcomes) and freedom (freedom from poverty) and other words and that strategy makes dialogue with them totally impossible. And it's a dishonest strategy.
Jonathan: "Governments owning a monopoly on a service is socialism..."
That's a ridiculous definition of socialism. You're defining all government as socialism, no matter how limited. No socialist would agree with that definition and you would have a hard time finding anyone but an anarchist who would accept it. Again, you're creating a new, private dictionary with definitions that favor anarchism so that you win the debate by default. That's the "heads I win, tails you lose" strategy.
Published: June 19, 2007 9:12 AM
TLWP Sam
Mind if I chip in RogerM?
I thought Libertarians would be have no problem with killing in wartime providing they were defending themselves against invaders. Or going out, hunting down and killing someone is OK provided that person was already a known murderer.
Socialism on the other hand refers the public ownership of the means of production not the existence of a government per se. I s'pose other type of goverment that some get confused is one of Fascism which I presume pretty much is when people have no problem using Capitalism with the help of force and fraud. Or maybe a Welfare State which is a hybridised Capitalist/Socialist set up which is underpinned by a notion of 'social justice'.
To say anything that isn't perfectly Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian is full-on Communism is as spurious as a Creationist calling anyone who doesn't believe in a 6000 year old, six day creation a filthy Satanist.
Published: June 19, 2007 9:40 AM
Anthony
RogerM:
"What I'm saying is that anarchists have invented new definitions for commonly used words and that these definitions are accepted only by anarchists. "
Right, so if I go run over say 20 people in my car due to recklessness, do I get to call this 'collateral damage'? If I go get say 50 people to recognize me as their king and then go conquer some other person's land, do I get to call this 'spoils of war'? If I decide with my cronies to compel those under my jurisdiction to pay me for my protection racket, do I get to call this taxation, and not theft? No, quite clearly it is statists who have been using the terms in an unconventional fashion, and in an arbitrary manner. We anarchists are not out to confuse - we are out to get individuals to realize what is really going on.
TWLP:
"I thought Libertarians would be have no problem with killing in wartime providing they were defending themselves against invaders. Or going out, hunting down and killing someone is OK provided that person was already a known murderer."
That is correct.
"Socialism on the other hand refers the public ownership of the means of production not the existence of a government per se."
It is indeed silly to call everything that is a government socialist. However, if socialism is government/public ownership of the means of production, then what exactly are the courts, police etc.? Not government owned services? Or are they in fact socialist elements?
Published: June 19, 2007 11:03 AM
geo-anarchy
"Socialism on the other hand refers the public ownership of the means of production not the existence of a government per se."
socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.
the "public" being one form of collective ownership.
Published: June 19, 2007 1:07 PM
RogerM
Anthony:"If I decide with my cronies to compel those under my jurisdiction to pay me for my protection racket, do I get to call this taxation, and not theft?"
You're the one making up definitions, not me. So I guess you can define things anyway that pleases you.
Anthony: "quite clearly it is statists who have been using the terms in an unconventional fashion, and in an arbitrary manner. We anarchists are not out to confuse - we are out to get individuals to realize what is really going on."
Now you've changed even the definition of "unconventional". If I redefine black to mean white, doesn't that cause some confusion when talking to people who retain the "conventional" meaning? I haven't accused anarchists of being arbitrary, because you're not. You're very deliberate. Of course, if you redefine every word in the sentences above to mean their opposites, then you'll have no idea what I'm saying.
Published: June 19, 2007 2:22 PM
Anthony
"You're the one making up definitions, not me. So I guess you can define things anyway that pleases you."
Making up? No. I am just showing how it is inconsistent to use the word in one way then just use it another because the State is using it. Want to call it taxation? Fine. It is still theft on a mass scale.
"Of course, if you redefine every word in the sentences above to mean their opposites, then you'll have no idea what I'm saying. "
As above. We are not so much redefining as disambiguating. Our attempt is to show how people come to accept things they would never see as permissible when done by private citizens. Rather than saying P is not P, we're explaining what certain euphemisms truly mean.
Published: June 19, 2007 11:02 PM
Luke M
Roger, I would argue that you are the one who is changing the definitions of words, or rather, who is being inconsistent when applying terms. And just because many others are also similarly inconsistent when applying certain terms, doesn't mean that the anarchist's usage is incorrect.
You say that "anyone who accepts anarchist definitions for murder and theft have no choice but to agree with them that all war is murder and all taxation is theft. But if we stick to the commonly understood definitions of those terms, then war isn't murder and taxation isn't theft."
Okay, so in other words, your argument is that you reject the anarchist's definitions, of (e.g.) murder and theft, in lieu of the "generally accepted definition".
I think this is specious reasoning because your argument depends upon time and place and culture, etc. It rests upon what a certain number of people regard as the "commonly understood definitions of...terms". This is in stark contrast to the anarchist (or, perhaps more accurately, libertarian) definitions which are universal and hold regardless of time and place.
Let's say that members of a hypothetical society's general definition of theft is "the acquisition of property through forceful means, EXCLUDING, though, property that belongs to minority group x". Then, by your reasoning, the taking of property belonging to that minority group is, in fact, NOT theft. The libertarian would argue that, no, that is theft, regardless of what the majority's definition is.
Similarly, if rape in that society was defined as "sexual penetration through the use of force, UNLESS, they are redheads - in which case it is not rape but love", then again, you would have to conclude that if someone were to force themselves on a redhead, that is not rape. The libertarian would counter that, no, that is rape, regardless of the majority of the members in that society's definition of the term.
So, I do not think that it is anarchists who are "changing the meaning of words in order to win the debate", but rather it is yourself (and others who argue along the same lines). You are changing the meaning of the words theft and murder to exclude the theft and murder perpetrated by the State so that tax is not theft, and war is not murder.
Luke
Published: June 20, 2007 12:29 AM
Luke M
hehe, or what Anthony said.
(I'm at work and I didn't see his above response in time to agree with it)
Published: June 20, 2007 12:34 AM
josh m
RogerM: “Theft is the unjustified taking of someone's property.”
“Taxation has always been justified by the fact that the state has a legitimate purpose and reason for existing.”
Let’s see…the positivist gets to decide what is ‘justified’ taking and what isn’t…
RogerM: “…they [anarchists] are trying to impose their definitions of murder and theft upon the rest of us…”
Oh, but it’s the self-determinist who “imposes” his “subjective” definition on the rest of us.
Yes, I’m starting to understand the world you inhabit.
Published: June 20, 2007 3:00 AM
RogerM
Luke: "I think this is specious reasoning because your argument depends upon time and place and culture, etc. It rests upon what a certain number of people regard as the "commonly understood definitions of...terms".
It is true conventional usage depends on time, place and culture. The conventional meaning of words changes with time, but very slowly, and can vary slightly with culture. That's why we have to be careful in the selection and use of words if we want to communicate effectively.
Luke: "This is in stark contrast to the anarchist (or, perhaps more accurately, libertarian) definitions which are universal and hold regardless of time and place."
So you're admitting that anarchists have changed the definitions of theft and murder from their conventional ones? After all, which came first, the conventional meaning or the anarchist ones?
The only purpose for language is communication, but to communicate effectively everyone must have similar definitions of words. That's why adhering to conventional usage is so important. If conventional usage changes, we have to adapt with it. If you have a concept that can't be expressed in conventional language, you should invent a new word for it, possibly borrowing from the Greek or Latin as scientists do. But no one has the right to decide for himself that the conventional usage of a word is wrong so he's going to change the meaning. That destroys communication. To be honest, anarchists should at least put a warning label on every essay stating that they don't use the conventional meanings of words.
But I can understand why anarchists write their own dictionary because that's the only way they can win the debate on the legitimacy of government.
Luke: "I am just showing how it is inconsistent to use the word in one way then just use it another because the State is using it."
That's not an honest characterization of the conventional usage of theft. Conventional usage of "theft" isn't inconsistent; the circumstances are different enough that taxation doesn't fit the definition of theft any more. I suppose you would be OK with the socialist definition of profits as theft? Socialists have as much right to define words as anarchists do. And socialists define justice as equality of outcomes so that social justice means everyone makes the same income. And socialists define capitalism as murder because they believe we're stealing the food from poor people and starving them to death. Is that OK with you?
Luke: "We are not so much redefining as disambiguating."
No, you're deliberating changing the meanings of words in order to win the debate.
Published: June 20, 2007 9:56 AM
RogerM
I think Hayek's "The Fatal Conceit" should be considered when discussing the issue of word definition. Hayek viewed law, language, morals and the market as spontaneous orders that arise from human action but not from human design. Positive law is the opposite of this spontaneous order. In the same way, socialist and anarchist attempts to change the definitions of words and direct the evolution of language to suit their idiologies are similar to the attempt in positive law to direct the evolution of natural law. That's why you'll find Hayek spending a lot of time in his writings discussing the conventional usages of words and struggling to find a word that suits the ideas he wants to convey.
Published: June 20, 2007 10:51 AM
josh m
Semantical quibbling is tiresome, so stop this game, please.
The dispute surrounds whether or not forceful expropriation is ever ‘justified.’ The libertarian say ‘no.’ It is the positivist who ‘justifies’ force based on his subjective, ad hoc reasoning.
Published: June 20, 2007 12:46 PM
Kevin B.
josh m,
It was my understanding that libertarians are in favor of a "minimal" State.
Is it that those people feel taxation is justified, being necessary to the justified minimal State, that minimal taxation is a necessary evil, or that both are necessary evils?
Published: June 20, 2007 1:54 PM
josh m
Kevin, I'm no authority, by any means, but, just taking a stab, I'd say libertarians attribute the contradiction you raise to a state of paradox.
My point, however, was that no semantical quibbling is necessary vis-a-vis definitions.
Published: June 20, 2007 2:20 PM
RogerM
Kevin B. "It was my understanding that libertarians are in favor of a "minimal" State."
That was Mises's position. Mises saw a minimal state as necessary and good for the prosperity of mankind. Hayek seems to have taken the same view. Though Rothbard was a studen of Mises, he invented the idea that states of any kind and any size are illegit and therefore any activity the state undertakes is theft and/or murder. He did so by inventing an ethical system in which property can never be violated under any circumstances, even for taxation.
But if you see, as Mises did, and as did natural law theory for over a millenium, that minimal states are necessary for society to thrive by providing national defense and police work, then taxation becomes necessary, legit, and definately not theft. Anarchists would call Mises a statist and a socialist, but that would also be ridiculous.
Published: June 20, 2007 3:18 PM
DC
Before we totally write Mises off, let me quote from Liberalism:
So it is only ethical that any group of people, from a small village all the way up to a county or state, should be allowed to determine the scope of the government overseeing them.
Mises continues:
What Mises is not identical to your position, RogerM. Mises simply didn't think it was practical for individuals to exist without a government.
Then again, Rothbard was only arguing against States -- that is, any organization that forced membership and fees. Rothbard, like Hayek and Mises, believed that society was capable of organizing itself. I doubt that he would have many complaints with a country where even a single neighborhood in a small suburb could secede and hire its own security services, were the arrangements made voluntarily (as current neighborhood agreements generally are).
You're trying to paint Rothbard as a believer that individuals can only exist morally as individuals and not grouped together; you are likewise trying to make Mises sound like he'd be a supporter of the U.S. over and above my town's wishes to cease our association with the country.
I think you need to be a bit more honest and rigorous in how you are presenting the different views.
Published: June 20, 2007 3:40 PM
Kevin B.
RogerM: "Anarchists would call Mises a statist and a socialist, but that would also be ridiculous."
I agree that such an accusation would be ridiculous. I am sure that is why Rothbard and others fall under the apt category "anarcho-capitalist," since no reasonable person would describe such a champion of the free market as Mises as a statist and/or socialist.
However, I disagree regarding Rothbard's "invention" of an ethical system. It appears that, in fact, his effort was to take the idea of the right of self-ownership to its logical conclusion.
Published: June 20, 2007 3:49 PM
RogerM
DC: "You're trying to paint Rothbard as a believer that individuals can only exist morally as individuals and not grouped together; you are likewise trying to make Mises sound like he'd be a supporter of the U.S. over and above my town's wishes to cease our association with the country."
There is no way an honest person could construe my posts as attempting to do what you claim I'm attempting.
Mises's position was that states are necessary and good, as I stated above. Rothbard clearly believes that any state, regardless of the size, is evil by definition. Mises makes a practical case for states; Rothbard makes it a moral issue. If you don't understand that, then you don't understand either man.
I'm perfectly willing to give anarchy a try. I just don't believe it is morally superior to minarchism as anarchists do. The question of whether taxation is theft or not is a moral argument. Anarchists can win the debate only by making property an absolute that the state cannot violate for any reason. Only by making property an absolute can anarchists claim that taxation is theft and war is murder.
Kevin B. "It appears that, in fact, his effort was to take the idea of the right of self-ownership to its logical conclusion."
Rothbard invented one subtle change to the argument: he made property an absolute. No other ethical system had done so before Rothbard, which is why I claim he invented it. Under minarchism, property would be inviolate except for taxes because the state upon which people had agreed would need the taxes to carry out the duties the people assigned to it.
Published: June 20, 2007 5:48 PM
DC
RogerM, Rothbard's justification for anarcho-capitalism was moral, but he argued that it was no less a practical matter than LvM had considered it to be. I do see in your posts the construction of a false dichotomy between on the one hand Rothbard who makes a 'god' out of rights and LvM on the other who sees proper limits to such rights. I think that particular distinction is neither precise nor helpful.
Mises in his lifetime did not identify with Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, but it logically follows from the principles that he upheld. My argument is that Rothbard's model of social organization is perfectly compatible with Ludwig von Mises' envisioned State. Further, I can use the principles of anarcho-capitalism to show how voluntary contract could do everything a State does, expect more effectively, without aggression, and without taking property against people's will. Hence, when you say:
Under minarchism, property would be inviolate except for taxes because the state upon which people had agreed would need the taxes to carry out the duties the people assigned to it.
I actually see you departing from Ludwig von Mises.
Suppose my neighborhood (of, say, 300 people) doesn't want to pay the taxes of the city anymore, and decides to leave that government's jurisdiction. Does this State of yours, supposedly agreed upon by 'the people', have the right to come in and take our property anyway? Is our right to property still subject to the exception of the city council, who we feel no longer represents us in any meaningful way?
If so, and you think the State has a rightful claim to our stuff, then you aren't in agreement with Ludwig von Mises. That's okay, I'm not attacking you here, but don't claim that this idea originates only in some extreme version of libertarianism found in Rothbard.
Published: June 21, 2007 8:36 AM
RogerM
DC: "Mises in his lifetime did not identify with Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism, but it logically follows from the principles that he upheld."
Then explain why Kirzner and Hayek didn't go along with Rothbard.
DC: "If so, and you think the State has a rightful claim to our stuff, then you aren't in agreement with Ludwig von Mises."
You're basing your opinions of Mises's concept of the state on one passage. You need to take a broader look at what Mises had to say about the state. Mises repeatedly called the state necessary and good, as did Hayek, because true freedom cannot exist in chaos and that's what they thought a stateless society would cause. Mises said that individuals could leave the government if it were practical. Mises didn't think it was practical.
I think Mises and Hayek might have accepted anarchism in theory because of the works of many anarchists to show that it can work. But they both accepted the existence of the state as necessary and good. I'm speculating, but I don't see that either Mises or Hayek would join Rothbard in defining the state as evil and therefore taxation as theft.
Published: June 21, 2007 9:18 AM
DC
RogerM, the way I would critique your position is to say that it is de-emphasizing (or possibly removing) the importance that Mises placed on the right to self-determination. The passage that I quote from Liberalism is one place where it is articulated well, but it is by no means an isolated case:
"It makes no difference where the frontiers of a country are drawn. Nobody has a special material interest in enlarging the territory of the state in which he lives; nobody suffers loss if a part of this area is separated from the state. It is also immaterial whether all parts of the states territory are in direct geographical connection, or whether they are separated by a piece of land belonging to another state. It is of no economic importance whether the country has a frontage on the ocean or not. In such a world the people of every village or district could decide by plebiscite to which state they wanted to belong." - Omnipotent Government
"A nation, therefore, has no right to say to a province: You belong to me, I want to take you. A province consists of its inhabitants. If anybody has a right to be heard in this case it is these inhabitants. Boundary disputes should be settled by plebiscite." - O. G.
"Liberalism knows no conquests, no annexations; just as it is indifferent towards the state itself, so the problem of the size of the state is unimportant to it. It forces no one against his will into the structure of the state. Whoever wants to emigrate is not held back. When a part of the people of the state wants to drop out of the union, liberalism does not hinder it from doing so. Colonies that want to become independent need only do so. The nation as an organic entity can be neither increased nor reduced by changes in states; the world as a whole can neither win nor lose from them." - Nation, State, Economy.
"No people and no part of a people shall be held against its will in a political association that it does not want." - N. S. E.
"The situation of having to belong to a state to which one does not wish to belong is no less onerous if it is the result of an election than if one must endure it as the consequence of a military conquest." - Liberalism
I would also dispute that Mises held the bold view that the State is good and necessary. Necessary, in his view, maybe, but not good:
"The ordered organization of coercion we call the State." - Socialism
"The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom." - Human Action
"The whole of mankinds progress has had to be achieved against the resistance and opposition of the state and its power of coercion." - Liberalism
"The truth is that every infringement of property rights and every restriction of free enterprise impairs the productivity of labor." - Theory of Money and Credit
Hence, I would say that the only difference between Rothbard and Mises on this matter is the practicality of making a State society work. I can't say for certain, but I would guess that Mises would have no problems with a Stateless society that functioned in the way that Rothbard was envisioning it -- Mises didn't argue that the State had to exist for the sake of existing, but only because he perceived it to be necessary.
"Liberty is always freedom from the government."
Published: June 21, 2007 10:50 AM
Juan
Let me play devil's advocate...for a moment. Here's a fragment from HA that seems to perfectly suit RogerM's position :
"...From this point of view one has to deal with the often-raised problem of whether conscription and the levy of taxes mean a restriction of freedom. If the principles of the market economy were acknowledged by all people all over the world, there would not be any reason to wage war and the individual states could live in undisturbed peace. But as conditions are in our age, a free nation is continually threatened by the aggressive schemes of totalitarian autocracies. If it wants to preserve its freedom, it must be prepared to defend its independence. If the government of a free country forces every citizen to cooperate fully in its designs to repel the aggressors and every able-bodied man to join the armed forces, it does not impose upon the individual a duty that would step beyond the tasks the praxeological law dictates. In a world full of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors. He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all."
However, it turns out that trying to prove or disprove a point by quoting an author is a fallacy...So the fact that Mises says that 'conscription' is 'legal'(or good or proper or whatever) and that death is the inevitable fate of those who want freedom, does not mean that such assertions are true. They are, in reality, quite false.
This, for instance,
"Conscription...does not impose a duty that would step beyond the tasks the praxeological law dictates"
is preposterous. Just what is 'praxeological law' ??
On the other hand, there are many classical liberals who can be 'branded' as anarchists by RogerM - Herbert Spencer and G. de Molinari for instance...
And what about this ? :
"I have defended Natural Religion against a Confederacy of Atheists and Divines. I now plead for Natural Society against Politicians, and for Natural Reason against all three. When the World is in a fitter Temper than it is at present to hear Truth, or when I shall be more indifferent about its Temper; my Thoughts may become more publick. In the mean time, let them repose in my own Bosom, and in the Bosoms of such Men as are fit to be initiated in the sober Mysteries of Truth and Reason. My Antagonists have already done as much as I could desire. Parties in Religion and Politics make sufficient Discoveries concerning each other, to give a sober Man a proper Caution against them all. The Monarchic, Aristocratical, and Popular Partizans have been jointly laying their Axes to the Root of all Government, and have in their Turns proved each other absurd and inconvenient. In vain you tell me that Artificial Government is good, but that I fall out only with the Abuse. The Thing! the Thing itself is the Abuse! "
Edmund Burke - A Vindication of Natural Society (1757)
Published: June 22, 2007 9:43 PM
RogerM
Juan, Good comments. I'm not sure who HA is, though.
I don't think it's really fair to Mises to try to use him in support of or in attack against anarchy since he doesn't seem to have ever addressed it directly. It wasn't an important issue with him; fighting socialism was his life, as was Hayek's. Mises and Hayek devoted their lives and writings to attacking the socialist aspects of government. But occasionally, they would insert a brief caveat that limited government was necessary to prevent chaos. Their arguments were practical and didn't address the morality of governments, but one might guess that if governments were necessary, then morally they are good, too. It seems only logical.
Rothbard wouldn't stop at the practical discussion of a limited state vs. anarchy. Had he kept it in the practical realm, then we could argue which one works the best. But Rothbard had to make it a moral issue, just as socialists make the socialism/capitalism debate a moral one. The result is that socialists know that capitalism is more practical and produces better results, but they can't embrace it because they see it as immoral. Rothbard put anarchists in the same position, for if anarchy proves to be impractical, i.e., reduces freedom and wealth, anarchists must still embrace it because according to Rothbard it's the only moral position anarchists can take.
Published: June 23, 2007 10:38 AM
Juan
HA is Human Action
Published: June 23, 2007 12:39 PM
Juan
Roger,
In my opinion, classical liberalism, or libertarianism, has a good deal of anarchy in it. So, if you want to dismiss 'anarchy', then you must address not only Rothbard, but Spencer, Molinari('inventor' of anarcho-capitalism in 1850), and others. Even Bastiat is very near to anarchism, although he's a miniarchist. Read the Law and notice the total contempt Bastiat had for legislators. Notice what natural law is, according to Bastiat.
You seem to be mising the point that libertarians, socialists, and conservatives, ALL of them make their arguments based on morals.
To regard the conflict between 'capitalism' and 'socialism' as a mere efficiency problem is nonsense. Right now the socialists rule despite the fact that you can win an intelectual argument against them. Why ? Because they're holding the guns. And you know what ? The guns they are holding are the guns of your 'minimal' state. So it seems that in practice the monopoly of the use of force always falls in the wrong hands...
As for the relation between 'anarchy' and history, it also applies to minimal states. That is, there's never been a minimal state. What does it prove ? Nothing. However, if you compare anarchy vs. statism using political economy and/or logic and/or morals, you should realize wich one is impossible and will never happen. No, it's not anarchy...
but one might guess that if governments were necessary, then morally they are good, too. It seems only logical.
Monopolical government is not necesasary and is not moral. Monopolical government rests on an abusrd 'theory' - when a system doesn't make sense it's usually because it's a fraudulent system. Like fiat money...
Published: June 23, 2007 1:25 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
Mises said mixed economies are unstable and tend towards full socialism.
The same could be said of the mixed societies, minarchies are unstable and tend towards full government.
Published: June 23, 2007 2:38 PM
RogerM
Juan: "In my opinion, classical liberalism, or libertarianism, has a good deal of anarchy in it."
That's kind of obvious, isn't it. If there is no difference between minarchism and anarchy, why do we have two different words.
Juan: "You seem to be mising the point that libertarians, socialists, and conservatives, ALL of them make their arguments based on morals."
Mises and Hayek don't. I think a moral argument for capitalism is good; I just think Rothbard's is sloppy and unconvincing.
Juan: "Right now the socialists rule despite the fact that you can win an intelectual argument against them. Why ? Because they're holding the guns."
That's what socialists believe: he who has the power makes the rules. Mises and Hayek believed that people, and eventually the system, could be changed through persuasion. I agree. Besides, if minarchists can't win because socialists control the state, how are anarchists ever going to make progress? Armed rebellion?
Juan: "However, if you compare anarchy vs. statism using political economy and/or logic and/or morals, you should realize wich one is impossible and will never happen."
In other words, compare a highly theoretical construct, anarchism, which admits of no faults and none can be found in history because one has never existed for any length of time, with a real world system that has existed for centuries with all of its warts clearly exposed and is mostly socialist. That's pure cowardess on the part of anarchists, and admitting that your highly theoretical system can't stand up to highly theoretical minarchism. Basically, you're saying that anarchists will debate only socialism and nothing else.
Published: June 23, 2007 5:35 PM
RogerM
Jonathan: "The same could be said of the mixed societies, minarchies are unstable and tend towards full government."
And you could say something similar about anarchism: anarchy is unstable and leads to chaos, loss of freedom and destruction of wealth. Just saying it doesn't make it so.
Published: June 23, 2007 5:37 PM
DC
Rothbard wouldn't stop at the practical discussion of a limited state vs. anarchy. Had he kept it in the practical realm, then we could argue which one works the best.
RogerM, I think this is precisely what I'm trying to argue against. You are creating a false dichotomy between moral and "practical" here.
Was Mises purely a practical philosopher? I don't think so -- he seemed to think that liberty was a moral issue.
Is Rothbard only a moral philosopher? No! He thought that liberty was the most practical system of social organization available -- and that it could be done without the State.
Think of Rothbard's great challenge to the US: Try liberty, even if only for 5 or 10 years. He truly thought it would be the best working system, even though the justification for using it was a moral issue.
Separating practical functionality from morals is foreign to Rothbard because he's a natural rights philosopher. (Remember also: how is a government going to be the best decider of what is "working" best, "practically" speaking? There is a crisis of calculation here as well. . .)
Published: June 23, 2007 5:50 PM
Jonathan Bostwick
"And you could say something similar about anarchism: anarchy is unstable and leads to chaos, loss of freedom and destruction of wealth. Just saying it doesn't make it so."
Its true whether anyone says it or not. But luckily for humanity, people have said it.
Governments are unpredictable and unstable.
Published: June 23, 2007 9:34 PM
Anthony
Juan: "Just what is 'praxeological law' ??"
You do know what praxeology is I hope.
RogerM: "In other words, compare a highly theoretical construct, anarchism, which admits of no faults"
There are theoretical faults with minarchism as well.
As for this whole practicality debate, Mises was a utilitarian. He believed natural rights were best. He was partially inconsistent in this regard.
Published: June 23, 2007 10:43 PM
Juan
Anthony,
I know what praxeology is, though I rather call it political economy.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that Mises' 'authority' can be used to support RogerM's position - and that both RogerM and Mises are wrong regarding the minimal state. At any rate, the judgement Mises pases on conscription, in Human Action, is wrong. It sounds as if Mises is trying to 'scientifically' prove that conscription is OK...Spare me that, please :)
RogerM,
I have not read much Hayek but I did read some Mises. So my following coment aplies more to Mises. Apparently you don't understand that Mises is dealing with morals, whether he likes it or not. Mises' pretension that he's simply doing 'science' is misleading. Also, notice how Mises talks about the socialists. It's obvious that he despises them. That's what Adam Smith and others call 'moral sentiments'. Some people like socialism, some people like conservatism and some people love freedom
This seem to be human nature...So people usually choose a position based on moral preferences and then come up with a theory to justify themselves.
Roger : I think a moral argument for capitalism is good; I just think Rothbard's is sloppy and unconvincing.
Well, so you don't like Rothbad. Fine. Still, private-property-based anarchy is a superior form of social organization than all the rest.
I said : Right now the socialists rule ...Because they're holding the guns.
Roger : That's what socialists believe: he who has the power makes the rules.
Sorry, it's not a 'belief' - it is a fact. Furthermore, it's not only the socialists who rule using force, the conservatives do that as well. Roughly half of the government is 'conservative', or fascist. Btw, I'm refering to 'conservatism's' original sense : a mercantilist, militarist and oligarchical form of social organization - Tories, in a word.
Published: June 24, 2007 3:08 PM
RogerM
Juan: "Well, so you don't like Rothbad."
Actually I love Rothbard's economics and history, especially his history.
Published: June 24, 2007 7:41 PM
Anthony
Anthony,
I know what praxeology is, though I rather call it political economy.
Anyway, I wanted to point out that "Mises' 'authority' can be used to support RogerM's position - and that both RogerM and Mises are wrong regarding the minimal state. At any rate, the judgement Mises pases on conscription, in Human Action, is wrong. It sounds as if Mises is trying to 'scientifically' prove that conscription is OK...Spare me that, please :)"
I won't dispute the above - I only sought to verify your understanding of the term. Even so, praxeology is more or less the study of human action - it would cover all the social sciences, not just political economy.
Published: June 24, 2007 10:13 PM
RogerM
Juan: "Sorry, it's not a 'belief' - it is a fact. Furthermore, it's not only the socialists who rule using force, the conservatives do that as well. Roughly half of the government is 'conservative', or fascist."
Yes, and you've probably seen Elvis, and the Illuminati controls the world's banks, and Area 51 hides aliens.
Published: June 25, 2007 9:04 AM
Kevin B.
It is humanity, not government, that causes this chaos, loss of freedom, and destruction of wealth. Government is not the actual root of the problem, but merely a symptom. Government is had because of bad human behavior. It is not that governments are necessary, but that they are consequential.
Why should we not desire the absence of coercion? When setting a goal, aim for perfection.
Published: June 25, 2007 1:23 PM