KInsella and Thin Air

[George H. Smith]

Lastly, is it really that much of an insult to be told that you have not earned the same degree of intellectual respect that we owe to Ludwig von Mises? I would say the same thing about myself, and I've published a lot more than you have. You are not in his league, I am not in his league, and neither is anyone else on OL.

Ghs

I don't know much about Mises. I find his defense of liberalism admirable, particularly given his time. I do not find Human Action to be very helpful, I had no desire to finish reading it after having read the first 100 pages or so. I deeply admire and respect Ayn Rand's incredible productiveness and indomitable tenacity, and other achievements of hers. But her "league"? That's irrelevant to me; I'll criticize her words equally to yours, or to anyone else's. For one thing, I don't think Rand was nearly as rational as she liked to think.

It's easy to worship dead authors. That's why so many people do it. I don't think such worship leads to good results. So no, I don't put Mises or Rand on a pedestal.

Shayne

Where did I say anything about putting thinkers "on a pedestal" or worshiping them? I spoke of intellectual respect . Is this what you think "intellectual respect" means?

A decade ago I posted a list of the ten most important books on liberty ever written. Human Action came in second, just behind Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Ghs

[sjw]

Where did I say anything about putting thinkers "on a pedestal" or worshiping them? I spoke of intellectual respect . Is this what you think "intellectual respect" means?

Respect is something you give to someone who is alive. It's not a show you put on for people who are watching you after the revered author is dead. Such shows encourage authoritarianism. Often it is done in order to gain or keep unearned authority. See ARI for an example.

A decade ago I posted a list of the ten most important books on liberty ever written. Human Action came in second, just behind Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Ghs

I haven't seen the list but I think the ranking system is horrible. Economics is for the passive-aggressive defense of liberty. It's what you use when a proper defense is politically denied to you.

I can't give an authoritative opinion because I don't have your breadth of reading, but I would rate Locke over any economist given that he inspired the Declaration of Independence. Anything that actually inspires a passion for sovereign individual rights, rightly understood, is far more important than any work on economics. This is why Ayn Rand is more important than Rothbard or Mises (in spite of the fact that she doesn't fully fit the bill regarding "rightly understood" rights).

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Lastly, is it really that much of an insult to be told that you have not earned the same degree of intellectual respect that we owe to Ludwig von Mises? I would say the same thing about myself, and I've published a lot more than you have. You are not in his league, I am not in his league, and neither is anyone else on OL.

Ghs

I don't know much about Mises. I find his defense of liberalism admirable, particularly given his time. I do not find Human Action to be very helpful, I had no desire to finish reading it after having read the first 100 pages or so. I deeply admire and respect Ayn Rand's incredible productiveness and indomitable tenacity, and other achievements of hers. But her "league"? That's irrelevant to me; I'll criticize her words equally to yours, or to anyone else's. For one thing, I don't think Rand was nearly as rational as she liked to think.

It's easy to worship dead authors. That's why so many people do it. I don't think such worship leads to good results. So no, I don't put Mises or Rand on a pedestal.

This is interesting as I don't either, but that doesn't mean lack of admiration. Also, I rank authors respecting other authors in the same field, just not respecting myself. If I were to write a novel as great in my estimation as Atlas Shrugged, then I might see her as my peer in that context, but if it isn't in that league then as a novelist she would be my superior as a novelist, but I'd certainly not dwell on it; I'd be too involved with my next one.

--Brant

if you are good at what you do, that's great!

[George H. Smith]

Where did I say anything about putting thinkers "on a pedestal" or worshiping them? I spoke of intellectual respect . Is this what you think "intellectual respect" means?

Respect is something you give to someone who is alive. It's not a show you put on for people who are watching you after the revered author is dead. Such shows encourage authoritarianism. Often it is done in order to gain or keep unearned authority. See ARI for an example.

Nonsense -- and insulting nonsense to boot. Stop being such a twit.

A decade ago I posted a list of the ten most important books on liberty ever written. Human Action came in second, just behind Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Ghs

I haven't seen the list but I think the ranking system is horrible. Economics is for the passive-aggressive defense of liberty. It's what you use when a proper defense is politically denied to you.

There is a lot more in Human Action than economics. It is more accurately described as a book on social theory rather than on economics per se.

I can't give an authoritative opinion because I don't have your breadth of reading, but I would rate Locke over any economist given that he inspired the Declaration of Independence. Anything that actually inspires a passion for sovereign individual rights, rightly understood, is far more important than any work on economics. This is why Ayn Rand is more important than Rothbard or Mises (in spite of the fact that she doesn't fully fit the bill regarding "rightly understood" rights).

My list was of the 10 most important books on liberty, not of the 10 most influential books. By "important," I had in mind theoretical contributions. Locke's Second Treatise was third on my list. Paine's Rights of Man also made the list.

Ghs

[sjw]

This is interesting as I don't either, but that doesn't mean lack of admiration. Also, I rank authors respecting other authors in the same field, just not respecting myself. If I were to write a novel as great in my estimation as Atlas Shrugged, then I might see her as my peer in that context, but if it isn't in that league then as a novelist she would be my superior as a novelist, but I'd certainly not dwell on it; I'd be too involved with my next one.

--Brant

if you are good at what you do, that's great!

Ayn Rand was an intellectual powerhouse to be able to write Atlas Shrugged. She was a passionate, committed individualist at an age when most people are lost and confused, and in Soviet Russia to boot. So it's easy to make the mistake of letting how brightly she shines cause us to overlook her errors.

Shayne

[sjw]

Respect is something you give to someone who is alive. It's not a show you put on for people who are watching you after the revered author is dead. Such shows encourage authoritarianism. Often it is done in order to gain or keep unearned authority. See ARI for an example.

Nonsense -- and insulting nonsense to boot. Stop being such a twit.

I only aimed to insult those for whom the shoe fits. For the record, Mises was not an anarchist, and I presume he would have been insulted at the association of his name with an anarchist institute.

My list was of the 10 most important books on liberty, not of the 10 most influential books. By "important," I had in mind theoretical contributions. Locke's Second Treatise was third on my list. Paine's Rights of Man also made the list.

Ghs

Well, if those were there I suppose I shouldn't complain about the order. What's the whole list?

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

My list was of the 10 most important books on liberty, not of the 10 most influential books. By "important," I had in mind theoretical contributions. Locke's Second Treatise was third on my list. Paine's Rights of Man also made the list.

Ghs

Well, if those were there I suppose I shouldn't complain about the order. What's the whole list?

I don't recall the entire list. John Milton's Aereopagitica was on it, and so was Thomas Hodgskin's The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted -- one of my all-time favorite libertarian books. And so, I think, was Spencer's Social Statics.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sadly, I have not read Human Action yet.

You guys are making me want to.

In fact, I think I will.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

Sadly, I have not read Human Action yet.

You guys are making me want to.

In fact, I think I will.

Michael

Why read it, when you can have Jeff Riggenbach read it to you?

http://mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=139

[nskinsella]

Sadly, I have not read Human Action yet.

You guys are making me want to.

In fact, I think I will.

Michael

You want my advice? Start with a very short one; my favorite by Mises; and one of his last written near the end of his life: Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. It's free on mises.org here.

I think Mises would be extremely happy with the work Mises INstitute has done in his name. And it's not officially anarchist. Anyway, for more on the question of whether and to waht extent Mises's ideas were compatible with anarchism, see this post.

[sjw]

I think Mises would be extremely happy with the work Mises INstitute has done in his name. And it's not officially anarchist. Anyway, for more on the question of whether and to waht extent Mises's ideas were compatible with anarchism, see this post.

I agree with Mises more than I agree with Rand or Rothbard or probably any other leading authority. His recognition of the right of secession, and especially his reasons for recognizing it, make him far more politically astute than Rand. But also his recognition of the value and legitimacy of territorial integrity make him far more astute than Rothbard.

I do not however fully agree with Mises. The right of secession does need to be granted to the individual, but that does not necessitate anarchy. Individuals have the right to consensually form territorial unions ("administrative units") that have integrity over time. If individuals want to secede from these units then they just have to leave the territory. There are very specific and very limited conditions on which these unions can justly be created such that statism is not the end result, I discuss these in my book. Incidentally, my view does not prohibit ancaps creating a territorial union within which ancap rules apply. On the contrary, it is the ancaps that are totalitarian: they would forcibly prohibit me and others from forming such unions.

As one whose views are closer to Mises than are the ancaps, I think he would be very unhappy about how his name has been appropriated and associated with them.

Shayne

Edited December 5, 2010 by sjw

[nskinsella]

I think Mises would be extremely happy with the work Mises INstitute has done in his name. And it's not officially anarchist. Anyway, for more on the question of whether and to waht extent Mises's ideas were compatible with anarchism, see this post.

I agree with Mises more than I agree with Rand or Rothbard or probably any other leading authority. His recognition of the right of secession, and especially his reasons for recognizing it, make him far more politically astute than Rand. But also his recognition of the value and legitimacy of territorial integrity make him far more astute than Rothbard.

I do not however fully agree with Mises. The right of secession does need to be granted to the individual, but that does not necessitate anarchy. Individuals have the right to consensually form territorial unions ("administrative units") that have integrity over time. If individuals want to secede from these units then they just have to leave the territory. There are very specific and very limited conditions on which these unions can justly be created such that statism is not the end result, I discuss these in my book. Incidentally, my view does not prohibit ancaps creating a territorial union within which ancap rules apply. On the contrary, it is the ancaps that are totalitarian: they would forcibly prohibit me and others from forming such unions.

As one whose views are closer to Mises than are the ancaps, I think he would be very unhappy about how his name has been appropriated and associated with them.

Shayne

You have no basis for thinking this. Say most of the intellectuals at the Mises INstitute are Catholic--so wwhat? Mises was Jewish. Does that mean he would be upset that a bucnh fo CAtholics are appropraiting his name? No. they promose Austrian economcics; they expound on and research Mises's thought; they make his writings very available. And just like many of them are Catholic many are libertarian anarchists too. So? They never imply Mises was. They are honest. This is ridiculous, Shayne. WTF are you talking about.

[sjw]

You have no basis for thinking this. Say most of the intellectuals at the Mises INstitute are Catholic--so wwhat? Mises was Jewish. Does that mean he would be upset that a bucnh fo CAtholics are appropraiting his name? No. they promose Austrian economcics; they expound on and research Mises's thought; they make his writings very available. And just like many of them are Catholic many are libertarian anarchists too. So? They never imply Mises was. They are honest. This is ridiculous, Shayne. WTF are you talking about.

http://monopoly-politics.com/MisesVAnarchism.htm

"Liberalism is not anarchism, nor has it anything whatsoever to do with anarchism. The liberal understands quite clearly that without resort to compulsion, the existence of society would be endangered and that behind the rules of conduct whose observance is necessary to assure peaceful human cooperation must stand the threat of force if the whole edifice of society is not to be continually at the mercy of any one of its members. One must be in a position to compel the person who will not respect the lives, health, personal freedom, or private property of others to acquiesce in the rules of life in society. This is the function that the liberal doctrine assigns to the state: the protection of property, liberty, and peace."

"Liberalism is therefore far from disputing the necessity of a machinery of state, a system of law, and a government. It is a grave misunderstanding to associate it in any way with the idea of anarchism. For the liberal, the state is an absolute necessity, since the most important tasks are incumbent upon it: the protection not only of private property, but also of peace, for in the absence of the latter the full benefits of private property cannot be reaped."

It is clear that anarchism was anathema to Mises. Maybe your thing should be called The Rothbard Institute. Wouldn't that be nearer to the mark? I mean, isn't the entire mises.org essentially run by anarchists? They certainly are the loudest element there.

I'm glad you pointed out your commentary, it's nice to know that my ideas align so closely with someone like Mises. And he was right. Anarchy is absurd. A government is merely a consensual delegation/transfer of rights to a body charged with certain common functions. Most people even consent to what we have now. The problem is where it violates consent. That's what needs to be fixed. We don't need to obliterate government; we need to reform it such that it is truly consensual.

Shayne

[sjw]

My list was of the 10 most important books on liberty, not of the 10 most influential books. By "important," I had in mind theoretical contributions. Locke's Second Treatise was third on my list. Paine's Rights of Man also made the list.

Ghs

Well, if those were there I suppose I shouldn't complain about the order. What's the whole list?

I don't recall the entire list. John Milton's Aereopagitica was on it, and so was Thomas Hodgskin's The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted -- one of my all-time favorite libertarian books. And so, I think, was Spencer's Social Statics.

Ghs

So what is up with the economics and libertarianism anyway? My view is that I don't need an economic theory to know what my rights are and why they should be respected. To me it looks like kowtowing to give somebody economic arguments when what they really need is some jail time. My view of anyone who would be convinced by economic but not moral arguments is very low, and I see no point in stooping down to such amoral fools. Further, those who hold wrong views on morality are just going to look on piles of economic arguments with contempt. So what's the point?

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

My list was of the 10 most important books on liberty, not of the 10 most influential books. By "important," I had in mind theoretical contributions. Locke's Second Treatise was third on my list. Paine's Rights of Man also made the list.

Ghs

Well, if those were there I suppose I shouldn't complain about the order. What's the whole list?

I don't recall the entire list. John Milton's Aereopagitica was on it, and so was Thomas Hodgskin's The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted -- one of my all-time favorite libertarian books. And so, I think, was Spencer's Social Statics.

Ghs

So what is up with the economics and libertarianism anyway? My view is that I don't need an economic theory to know what my rights are and why they should be respected. To me it looks like kowtowing to give somebody economic arguments when what they really need is some jail time. My view of anyone who would be convinced by economic but not moral arguments is very low, and I see no point in stooping down to such amoral fools. Further, those who hold wrong views on morality are just going to look on piles of economic arguments with contempt. So what's the point?

Economics is all that's left over from an anti-philosophical, non-moral and increasingly non-rights position. The best they can do today apart from best-bathtub arguments is NIOF, NIOF, NIOF! They are a long ways from Rothbard, Hospers and, especially, Rand. The smartest are anarchists. However, you are conflating liberty with contemporary libertarianism. I don't think George is. I don't think historical and contemporary libertarianism are the same thing.

--Brant

Edited December 5, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[sjw]

Economics is all that's left over from an anti-philosophical, non-moral and increasingly non-rights position. The best they can do today apart from best-bathtub arguments is NIOF, NIOF, NIOF! They are a long ways from Rothbard, Hospers and, especially, Rand. The smartest are anarchists.

Brant hits the mark.

However, you are conflating liberty with contemporary libertarianism. I don't think George is. I don't think historical and contemporary libertarianism are the same thing.

--Brant

Brant misses the mark.

Shayne

[Brant Gaede]

Economics is all that's left over from an anti-philosophical, non-moral and increasingly non-rights position. The best they can do today apart from best-bathtub arguments is NIOF, NIOF, NIOF! They are a long ways from Rothbard, Hospers and, especially, Rand. The smartest are anarchists.

Brant hits the mark.

However, you are conflating liberty with contemporary libertarianism. I don't think George is. I don't think historical and contemporary libertarianism are the same thing.

--Brant

Brant misses the mark.

Aw, I overflowed the banks of Shayne's River of Truth.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

So what is up with the economics and libertarianism anyway?

I dunno. What's up with those libertarians who want to show how freedom will lead to economic prosperity and more peaceful international relationships? What's up with those libertarians who want to show that a rights-based society, one based on voluntary cooperation, will produce more wealth than a statist economy ever could? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain how mixed economies will lead to what Mises called "planned chaos" and lead to even more intervention? What's up with those libertarians who want to show how good intentions are irrelevant to economic planning and how detrimental unintended consequences will rule the day? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain the harmful effects of the Fed, fiat money, and many other statist measures? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain why the current economic crisis was caused by government intervention, not by a free market?

In short, what's up with those libertarian economists who want to show how and why freedom works?

Nutty economic libertarians. All people need to do is read philosophical treatises about rights. They are not interested in whether respecting rights will lead to desirable outcomes.

Ghs

[sjw]

Nutty economic libertarians. All people need to do is read philosophical treatises about rights. They are not interested in why a respect for rights will lead to desirable outcomes.

Philosophy identifies why. Economics at it best might show the various details of how. Details which are wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether somebody should respect your rights.

I dunno. What's up with those libertarians who want to show how freedom will lead to economic prosperity and more peaceful international relationships? What's up with those libertarians who want to show that a rights-based society, one based on voluntary cooperation, will produce more wealth than a statist economy ever could? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain how mixed economies will lead to what Mises called "planned chaos" and lead to even more intervention? What's up with those libertarians who want to show how good intentions are irrelevant to economic planning and how detrimental unintended consequences will rule the day? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain the harmful effects of the Fed, fiat money, and many other statist measures? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain why the current economic crisis was caused by government intervention, not by a free market?

In short, what's up with those libertarian economists who want to show how and why freedom works?

Ghs

I consider an understanding of the above as being part of political philosophy. If you don't know basic cause and effect concerning the above then you can't know anything about how society should be structured.

So perhaps part of the issue is that the boundaries between political philosophy and economics have not been properly defined in libertarian circles. Economics should be purely the realm of people who like charts and numbers and stocks etc. It should be a specialized field for technical people (and maybe certain businessmen), like engineering or medicine is.

Shayne

[George H. Smith]

It is clear that anarchism was anathema to Mises. Maybe your thing should be called The Rothbard Institute. Wouldn't that be nearer to the mark? I mean, isn't the entire mises.org essentially run by anarchists? They certainly are the loudest element there.

I'm glad you pointed out your commentary, it's nice to know that my ideas align so closely with someone like Mises. And he was right. Anarchy is absurd. A government is merely a consensual delegation/transfer of rights to a body charged with certain common functions. Most people even consent to what we have now. The problem is where it violates consent. That's what needs to be fixed. We don't need to obliterate government; we need to reform it such that it is truly consensual.

Three brief points:

First, various political traditions, including liberalism, spawned their own versions of anarchism. When Mises comments on anarchism, he always refers to syndicalism, socialist, and other collectivist versions that rejected private property. To my knowledge, he never discussed the liberal versions of anarchism; indeed, he seemed totally unaware of this tradition, at least until Murray Rothbard came along.

Second, as a utilitarian who rejected natural rights, Mises did not accept the consent theory of government that you defend.

Third, before you observe how closely your ideas align with those of Mises, you should read his defense of military conscription in the 3rd edition of Human Action (Regnery, 1966). This reads, in part:

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....He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.

More is involved here than merely conscription. The Misesian view of the legitimacy of government differs considerably from that defended by natural-right libertarians, including you. The great achievement of Murray Rothbard was to integrate Misesian praxeology within a framework of natural rights.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Nutty economic libertarians. All people need to do is read philosophical treatises about rights. They are not interested in why a respect for rights will lead to desirable outcomes.

Philosophy identifies why. Economics at it best might show the various details of how. Details which are wholly irrelevant to the issue of whether somebody should respect your rights.

I dunno. What's up with those libertarians who want to show how freedom will lead to economic prosperity and more peaceful international relationships? What's up with those libertarians who want to show that a rights-based society, one based on voluntary cooperation, will produce more wealth than a statist economy ever could? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain how mixed economies will lead to what Mises called "planned chaos" and lead to even more intervention? What's up with those libertarians who want to show how good intentions are irrelevant to economic planning and how detrimental unintended consequences will rule the day? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain the harmful effects of the Fed, fiat money, and many other statist measures? What's up with those libertarians who want to explain why the current economic crisis was caused by government intervention, not by a free market?

In short, what's up with those libertarian economists who want to show how and why freedom works?

Ghs

I consider an understanding of the above as being part of political philosophy. If you don't know basic cause and effect concerning the above then you can't know anything about how society should be structured.

So perhaps part of the issue is that the boundaries between political philosophy and economics have not been properly defined in libertarian circles. Economics should be purely the realm of people who like charts and numbers and stocks etc. It should be a specialized field for technical people (and maybe certain businessmen), like engineering or medicine is.

Economics is a value-free science; political philosophy is not. In previous centuries, economics was called "political economy," but as it became a more specialized field of study, and as its principles became better understood, it evolved into that purely descriptive discipline that we call "economics." This was a significant advance.

You can, however, rearrange the traditional philosophical and social science disciplines any way you like. The problem is that no one will take you seriously, and you will, with considerable justification, be dismissed as a quack. It is neither necessary nor desirable to reinvent the wheel in this area.

Your statement that economics "should be purely the realm of people who like charts and numbers and stocks etc." is dumb, truly dumb.

Ghs

[nskinsella]

I'm glad you pointed out your commentary, it's nice to know that my ideas align so closely with someone like Mises.

good to know you are figuring these things out *after* you wrote your book.

And he was right. Anarchy is absurd.

Saying "anarchy is absurd" is a dishonest, disguised way of hiding the fact that you endorse aggression. See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. You either oppose aggression, or you do not. If you do, you cannot "oppose anarchy" because to "oppose anarchy" means you favor a state; and a state, by its nature, commits aggression on a systematic basis--even a minarchy. (For a good definition of the state's essential attributes, see my post The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It.)

If you are a "non-anarchist"--that is, you are pro-state--then the only way to avoid being in favor of aggression is to argue that the state does NOT employ aggression. The tricks I've seen Objectivists resort to here involve some kind of confused argument involving "context" and "needs" etc. Basically they say that "in context" to have rights you have to have ("have" to "have") a system to protect rights, which much be objective blah blah blah, and therefore, if you "need" such a system, it is incoherent to say that it contradicts rights--or something like this. Basically they argue that you need a government to have rights, therefore, whatever the gov't has to do to exist has to be okay. I mean this is ridiculous. OR, they pretend the problem away with some ridiculous social contract/everyone consents type argument, which is ludicrous, .... such as....:

A government is merely a consensual delegation/transfer of rights to a body charged with certain common functions. Most people even consent to what we have now. The problem is where it violates consent. That's what needs to be fixed. We don't need to obliterate government; we need to reform it such that it is truly consensual.

I don't consent. To suggest it is consensual is just false.

[BaalChatzaf]

Saying "anarchy is absurd" is a dishonest, disguised way of hiding the fact that you endorse aggression. See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. You either oppose aggression, or you do not. If you do, you cannot "oppose anarchy" because to "oppose anarchy" means you favor a state; and a state, by its nature, commits aggression on a systematic basis--even a minarchy. (For a good definition of the state's essential attributes, see my post The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It.)

If you are a "non-anarchist"--that is, you are pro-state--then the only way to avoid being in favor of aggression is to argue that the state does NOT employ aggression. The tricks I've seen Objectivists resort to here involve some kind of confused argument involving "context" and "needs" etc. Basically they say that "in context" to have rights you have to have ("have" to "have") a system to protect rights, which much be objective blah blah blah, and therefore, if you "need" such a system, it is incoherent to say that it contradicts rights--or something like this. Basically they argue that you need a government to have rights, therefore, whatever the gov't has to do to exist has to be okay. I mean this is ridiculous. OR, they pretend the problem away with some ridiculous social contract/everyone consents type argument, which is ludicrous, .... such as....:

Having a minimal order-keeping state is the lesser of evils. Paine and Hobbes give a good accounting for it. At its best, the State is a necessary evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[nskinsella]

Saying "anarchy is absurd" is a dishonest, disguised way of hiding the fact that you endorse aggression. See my What It Means To Be an Anarcho-Capitalist. You either oppose aggression, or you do not. If you do, you cannot "oppose anarchy" because to "oppose anarchy" means you favor a state; and a state, by its nature, commits aggression on a systematic basis--even a minarchy. (For a good definition of the state's essential attributes, see my post The Nature of the State and Why Libertarians Hate It.)

If you are a "non-anarchist"--that is, you are pro-state--then the only way to avoid being in favor of aggression is to argue that the state does NOT employ aggression. The tricks I've seen Objectivists resort to here involve some kind of confused argument involving "context" and "needs" etc. Basically they say that "in context" to have rights you have to have ("have" to "have") a system to protect rights, which much be objective blah blah blah, and therefore, if you "need" such a system, it is incoherent to say that it contradicts rights--or something like this. Basically they argue that you need a government to have rights, therefore, whatever the gov't has to do to exist has to be okay. I mean this is ridiculous. OR, they pretend the problem away with some ridiculous social contract/everyone consents type argument, which is ludicrous, .... such as....:

Having a minimal order-keeping state is the lesser of evils. Paine and Hobbes give a good accounting for it. At its best, the State is a necessary evil.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Right. This is an honest view. Basically, it amounts to: I am in favor of the aggression that the state commits, because it is necessary to prevent even greater aggression that would exist in a stateless society. I think this argument is flawed, but at least it's honest. The problem is, in structure it's similar to the rationale given for aggression committed by criminals and tyrants: they *all* have some *reason* they are in favor of particular acts of aggression. As the victim of that aggression I have to say I don't much care what "reason" the aggressor has, whether it be a minimal state or common criminal. But at least, the reason you are in favor of small-aggression (as you see it) is to stop big-aggression; so I respect these arguments and understand them, even though they are misguided and ultimately lead to a state taht would never stay minimal. Even worse, minarchists usually defend the *current* American state even though it is obviously way beyond minarchist levels. even if it is obvious to you that you would prefer minarchy to anarchy, why is it so obvious you should prefer today's mammoth state to anarchy?

[BaalChatzaf]

so I respect these arguments and understand them, even though they are misguided and ultimately lead to a state taht would never stay minimal. Even worse, minarchists usually defend the *current* American state even though it is obviously way beyond minarchist levels. even if it is obvious to you that you would prefer minarchy to anarchy, why is it so obvious you should prefer today's mammoth state to anarchy?

I do not consider choosing the lesser evil as misguided. There is little choice. Either we have a Shire-Reeve beating the bounds and locking up the drunkards overnight or we end up like Haiti or Somalia. And when our "servant" the minimal State gets uppity and hard to control we burn it down to the ground, hang the employees of the State from handy overpasses and lamp posts and start over again. Revolution is the answer to a State that has become intolerable. It is a nasty, bloody answer, but it is an answer.

The real problem is that the worst among us lack self control and the best among us have little confidence in the self control of others. I KNOW that I have self control. I am not completely sure about you. I will give the benefit of the doubt only so far.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 5, 2010 by BaalChatzaf