This is Mises’s view:
“The intellectual and moral faculties of man can thrive only where people associate with one another peacefully. Peace is the origin of all human things, not—as the ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said—war. But as human nature is, peace can be established and preserved only by a power fit and ready to crush all peacebreakers.Mises’s utililitarian ethics is very clear here, although, in a rhetorical flourish, he even quotes St Paul (Romans 13.1–7) at the end (“for there is no authority except from God, and those authorities that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists authority resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgement”).
Government or state is the social apparatus of coercion and compulsion. Its purpose is to make the world safe for peaceful human cooperation by protecting society against attacks on the part of foreign aggressors or domestic gangsters. The characteristic mark of a government is that it has, within a definite part of the earth’s surface, the exclusive power and right to resort to violence.
Within the orbit of Western civilization the power and the functions of government are limited. Many hundreds, even thousands of years of bitter conflicts resulted in a state of affairs that granted to the individual citizens effective rights and freedom, not mere freedoms. In the market economy the individuals are free from government intervention as long as they do not offend against the duly promulgated laws of the land. The government interferes only to protect decent law-abiding people against violent or fraudulent attacks.
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil in the moral connotation of the term. It is a means, but not an evil. Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization, and no moral life would be possible. In this sense the apostle declared that ‘the powers that be are ordained of God.’” (Mises 2007: 57).
We can see how far even Mises was from anarcho-capitalism, and if there is any doubt let Mises speak for himself:
“There is a school of thought which teaches that social cooperation of men could be achieved without compulsion or coercion. Anarchism believes that a social order could be established in which all men would recognize the advantages to be derived from cooperation and be prepared to do voluntarily everything which the maintenance of society requires and to renounce voluntarily all actions detrimental to society. But the anarchists overlook two facts. There are people whose mental abilities are so limited that they cannot grasp the full benefits that society brings to them. And there are people whose flesh is so weak that they cannot resist the temptation of striving for selfish advantage through actions detrimental to society. An anarchistic society would be exposed to the mercy of every individual. We may grant that every sane adult is endowed with the faculty of realizing the good of social coöperation and of acting accordingly. However, it is beyond doubt that there are infants, the aged, and the insane. We may agree that he who acts antisocially should be considered mentally sick and in need of cure. But as long as not all are cured, and as long as there are infants and the senile, some provision must be taken lest they destroy society.In all fairness, Mises is very probably thinking of left-wing anarchism here, but that does not really matter: his view of the “illusions of the anarchists” is clear.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation. (Mises 2010 [1944]: 48).
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mises, L. von. 2007. Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays (ed. B. B. Greaves), Liberty Fund, Indianapolis, Ind.
Mises, L. von. 2010 [1944]. Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War, Yale University Press, New Haven.
No, the fact that he is speaking about syndicalist type of anarchist does change things.
ReplyDeleteApparently, the anarcho-capitalists (I am not one of them) claim that it's not government they oppose, but the idea of a monopoly on law and order. Who compels or coerces, not whether to compel or coerce seems to be the issue.
So it's a different debate entirely.
Since a government is a monopoly on law and order, I am afraid I disagree.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that what MIGHT be the potential disagreement between Hoppe and Mises, were they to meet, is entirely different from the disagreement between Mises and Bakunin.
ReplyDeleteThe former two are in agreement that coercion and compulsion are necessary.
The latter two are not.
To further a point though, it is quite clear that Mises never hated the State. He never hated the idea of a monopolized institution of force. He hated statism but that is not the same thing as believing in a state. Here is Rothbard on David Friedman:
ReplyDelete"In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals."
"Do You Hate the State?" by Rothbard
Rothbard's criticism on Friedman, which most modern Rothbardians approve of, should be exactly the same criticism on Mises in that neither of them hate the State. So while both approve of coercive forces, Mises still approved of the monopolized version of it, and this is something that Rothbard and his group should highly despise in Mises, if they want to be consistent.
"Mises still approved of the monopolized version of it, and this is something that Rothbard and his group should highly despise in Mises, if they want to be consistent."
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, the anarcho-capitalists are faced with the perfectly conceivable paradox that even in their world of private protection agencies, they would all collapse into one monopoly anyway - a de facto government. And Rothbard - strangely - goes to great lengths to try and defend monopoly in certain markets.
Lk,
ReplyDeleteWell it really depends on what definition of monopoly you are using. Austrians have a different definition of monopoly than other schools.
"Furthermore, the anarcho-capitalists are faced with the perfectly conceivable paradox that even in their world of private protection agencies, they would all collapse into one monopoly anyway - a de facto government."
ReplyDeleteHow? The way monopolies come up on the free market?
LK why are you censoring my comments?
ReplyDeleteWell it really depends on what definition of monopoly you are using. Austrians have a different definition of monopoly than other schools.
ReplyDeleteIt is better to say that there are different definitions of "monopoly" by Austrians: Mises and Kirzner, for example, have a definition of monopoly not far from that used by other economists.
Mises:
"The whole supply of the monopolized commodity is controlled by a single seller or a group of sellers acting in concert. The monopolist — whether one individual or a group of individuals — is in a position to restrict the supply offered for sale ..."
Ludwig von Mises, Human Action (Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998), p. 355.
The neoclassical definition is a market in which there is only one supplier. There is no fundamental difference between Mises and neoclassicals.
But Rothbard defines monopoly only as a right of exclusive production granted by the state to some entity, and this is just a piece of legerdemain that allows him to argue that “monopoly can never arise on a free market” (Rothbard 2009: 670).
Since it is perfectly obvious that one business could come to wholly produce a commodity in an anarcho-capitalist system: private protection could collapse into a service provided by one business too - a de facto government.
Your comments on the MEC are published. The ones here didn't contribute anything to the discussion.
ReplyDeleteA monopoly in private protection might arise voluntarily as a big player buys out the competition.
And you've not anwsered the question of what would happen if such a monopoly arose: will you legislate in your private law code that there must be a competitive market in protection? But that would violate Rothbard's principle that free markets where one producer comes to control supply aren't a problem.
And one other comment on Rothbard: if re-defining words at will were a legitimate method in argument, I could re-define "blue" as "red", then go around attacking people for believing that the sky is blue on a clear day: you're all wrong, because you don't follow my eccentric and hare-brained definition of blue as a red!
ReplyDeleteAnyway, Mises's judgement on the monopoly of force called the minimal state is clear:
ReplyDelete"Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization, and no moral life would be possible."
That is, government is a utilitarian means for attaining the end of peaceful human cooperation and civilization, possibly the most beneficial of all ends.
This is an opinion and underlying ethics far from Rothbard's natural rights ramblings and hatred of the state.
"Since it is perfectly obvious that one business could come to wholly produce a commodity in an anarcho-capitalist system: private protection could collapse into a service provided by one business too - a de facto government."
ReplyDeleteNo, it wouldn't be a de facto government because in an anarcho-capitalist system, each individual has the option to NOT pay and NOT solicit the protection of that protection agency, even if they are the sole protection agency as a matter of individual choice. With government, that choice is not present. With government, each individual is obligated by force to pay the government for "protection" services.
In an anarcho-capitalist world, it would be very, very unlikely that a single provider of protection would be so successful, that 100% of the population would choose it and no other. Even in our society of mandatory monopoly government, there are many who would not pay it if they were free to do so without being coerced.
That monopoly voluntary protection agencies are so unlikely as to be ignored, can be easily seen by the fact that governments today all over the world are ultimately backstopped by violence and not consent. All over the world, taxation is mandatory for all civilians the government sees fit, and nobody can "opt out" of it without being coerced of their person or property. That is proof that monopoly governments would not exist today if we were living in an anarcho-capitalist private law society.
"No, it wouldn't be a de facto government because in an anarcho-capitalist system, each individual has the option to NOT pay and NOT solicit the protection of that protection agency, even if they are the sole protection agency as a matter of individual choice."
DeleteWe tried this -- it was called feudalism!
There are two quasi-stable states when you have competing "private protection agencies":
(1) a monopoly. These are called kingdoms.
(2) competition. This is decades-long war between feudal lords.
Extreme anarcho-capitalism is stupid. Extremely stupid. Sure, it has been tried. It was quite possibly the worst political system ever tried.
"Your comments on the MEC are published. The ones here didn't contribute anything to the discussion."
ReplyDeleteThey did contribute to the discussion, because they show the fallacies of the MEC doctrine, which you favorably cited.
"A monopoly in private protection might arise voluntarily as a big player buys out the competition."
That doesn't mean the customers are obligated to remain customers of the new merged agency.
If mergers became a threat to people's interests, they could sign contracts with private agencies stipulating that they won't merge with other agencies, or they could, but only a preapproved list. Contracting would of course be open and more importantly, explicit, unlike the contradictory "social contract" nonsense that allegedly obligates everyone to pay group X and only group X for protection services.
"And you've not anwsered the question of what would happen if such a monopoly arose: will you legislate in your private law code that there must be a competitive market in protection?"
ReplyDeleteUnlike your desire, I do not legislate on behalf of others without their expressed consent. No, I would not seek to "legislate" that any voluntary protection agency be broken up by force, as long as it doesn't act like a state and initiate violence that is.
If a voluntary monopoly of protection arose, then as long as this voluntary monopoly does not initiate force against its own customers, coercing them into never opting out, and never soliciting or paying another protection agency, then there is in fact competition in the market. Competition is not about what exists, it is about what is allowed to exist if people choose it. A single protection agency would not be a government, because it wouldn't be mandatory at the point of a gun at innocent people.
"But that would violate Rothbard's principle that free markets where one producer comes to control supply aren't a problem."
False. It doesn't violate it. Voluntary monopolies are not a problem. Competition doesn't mean that there must be at least X many providers or sellers. No, competition means entry is open, and exit is open, to anyone.
Your silly understanding of competition is due to the absurd "pure and perfect competition" doctrine.
"If government is the means to attain the end of peaceful human cooperation, then government itself cannot possibly be violate peace. etc. etc."
ReplyDeleteConfused, rambling nonsense.
You're incapable of even sticking to the issue: Mises's view of government. Since Mises opposes government intervention in the eocnomy and UNJUSTIFIED violation of propety rights your rant (which I've deleted for being just another spamming red herring) is irrelevant.
In Mises's view, governments have a monopoly on force and coercion to maintain law and order, enforce contracts and property rights.
When the state arrests some violent criminal, its coercion is justified.
The sheer stupidity of your argument is on this level:
(1) parents exercise coercion and force against children without the latter's consent, in order to raise them;
(2) therefore parenthood is inherently evil and should be abolished.
"If a voluntary monopoly of protection arose, then as long as this voluntary monopoly does not initiate force against its own customers, coercing them into never opting out, and never soliciting or paying another protection agency, then there is in fact competition in the market. Competition is not about what exists, it is about what is allowed to exist if people choose it. A single protection agency would not be a government, because it wouldn't be mandatory at the point of a gun at innocent people."
ReplyDeleteWe have established that you would now approve of a de facto government in your anarcho-capitalist system, if it established itself by peaceful means, which would mean the whole idea of anarcho-capitalism would vanish in a puff of smoke as the fantasy it is once such a private protection agency arose to provide all the supply.
That monopoly voluntary protection agencies are so unlikely as to be ignored, can be easily seen by the fact that governments today all over the world are ultimately backstopped by violence and not consent.
ReplyDeleteLOL... private protetcion agencies are ultimately backstopped by violence and not consent: how else would they arrest criminals or enforce contracts.
All over the world, taxation is mandatory for all civilians the government sees fit, and nobody can "opt out" of it without being coerced of their person or property.
Rubbish: if wish to leave the US and take your wealth you can do so.
"In Mises's view, governments have a monopoly on force and coercion to maintain law and order, enforce contracts and property rights."
ReplyDeleteOK, but an agency that is a systematic violator of property rights cannot itself be considered a protector of property rights. It is a logical and practical absurdity. Governments ARISE when certain morally unscrupulous people violate the property rights of others by coercing them via threats and uses of violence to get them to pay them mandatory money for mandatory protection.
An honest agency devoted to actually protecting and enforcing private property rights would not use threats of violence to coerce people into paying it and soliciting it for protection services and nobody else.
That they have it, doesn't mean they ought to have it.
"When the state arrests some violent criminal, its coercion is justified."
Define "violence". Yes, I have to ask this rather trivial question, because you aren't clear on this yet.
"Governments ARISE when certain morally unscrupulous people violate the property rights of others by coercing them via threats and uses of violence to get them to pay them mandatory money for mandatory protection. "
ReplyDeleteThat is your a priori assertion about the origin of government. In reality, you'd have to look at each individual historical case of government arising to know how it in fact arises.
Not even a month ago, the only thing I knew about anarchy is that there was (is?) group called Sex Pistols, with song named Anarchy in the UK.
ReplyDeleteThan just one book (http://ardentpress.org/enemiesofsociety.html) revealed to me I'm actualy hardcore individualist anarchist.
Than I somehow ended up reading this blog, yet again witnessing the inevitability of failure when it comes to societies.
Right now, it's clear to me as a sunny day - societies are nedeed and sustained by weak stupid "life is prescious, and my life is more prescious than others" cowards. People who never actualy faced the fact everything dies, nor understand futility of "making things better" within an environment in which the only certainty is A CHANGE! What a bunch of losers most humans are - wasting their and lives of countless others, throughout countless generations, on something that won't last ... The more I think of it, the more I understand why whose Zen monks that went meditating into a cave for years later refused to speak with anyone.
"Since it is perfectly obvious that one business could come to wholly produce a commodity in an anarcho-capitalist system: private protection could collapse into a service provided by one business too - a de facto government."
ReplyDeleteSome Austrian-inspired thinkers have answered that the economic calculation problem (the same thing that makes Socialism an impossibility) would also prevent such 'neoclassical' Monopolies from forming in most industries by acting as a diseconomy of scale:
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/economic-calculation-in-the-corporate-commonwealth/
Kevin Carson, a Mutualist who has Austrian leanings, has kind of a "weird" or "alien" position from an Austrian point of view (some Austrians like Reisman despise his position, others like Roderick Long are his close allies) and even more from a Keynesian point of view, but surely is one man to be taken seriously. He has quite unique ideas, mixing Proudhon and Bastiat.
David Friedman has also said something of the sort, that in a free-market each industry would tend to have 'ideal' equilibrium firm sizes that companies would tend to, set by the competitive market mechanisms. Companies being bigger than the 'ideal' firm size would face diseconomies of scale that would bring their profits down and make them shrink. He has argued that the private-law and defense agencies would be a particularly competitive market.