RE: going on about 'statists'
The english term "statist" derives from Mises's use of the words "étatist/ism" and "statist/ism". Mises used the term roughly to describe the opponents of laissez faire. While I do not defend any unspecified "go[ing] on about 'statists'", I think the word "statist" is useful, describes something worthy of disapprobation, and I think it worthwhile to decry statist ideology at length when necessary. Of course, Jan Lester has pointed out that libertarian anarchists are actually probably the opposite of fascists, since one can invert Mussolini's definition of fascism to come up with a very clear statement of anarchism: Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. Gotta love it. Gil Guillory, P.E. Process Design and Project Engineering KBR, KT-3131B email [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 713-753-2724(w) or 281-362-8061(h) or 281-620-6995(m) fax 713-753-3508 or 713-753-5353 > -Original Message- > From: john hull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > No. Although when you go on about "statists" you do > sound a little like Marxists when they go on about "captialists". :) smime.p7s Description: application/pkcs7-signature
RE: going on about 'statists'
Title: RE: going on about 'statists' "Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state." Which is why neither Mises, Rothbard, OR Mussolini ought never have been allowed near the levers of power. A world with the all inclusive Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us" and "me" that works best.
Re: going on about 'statists'
In a message dated 1/10/03 3:31:26 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << Of course, Jan Lester has pointed out that libertarian anarchists are actually probably the opposite of fascists, since one can invert Mussolini's definition of fascism to come up with a very clear statement of anarchism: Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. >> In practice the fascists' states still contained private organizations, not the least of which was the Catholic Church, while in practice most communist states have allowed nothing private, not even Boy Scouts or Red Cross. Thus I've always thought of libertarian anarchists as being the opposite of communists. David Levenstam
RE: going on about 'statists'
--- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... A world with the all inclusive > Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we > debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us" > and "me" that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: going on about 'statists'
The terms statist and statism do not derive from Mises. Please note third definition of statism's first use. Also, statist has for quite some time meant a person skilled in affairs of the state, not just a supporter of statism. If this is incorrect, I implore you to report it to the folks at OED. I understand they try to document the first use in print of every English word, and do so rather successfully. >From Oxford English Dictionary: étatisme etatizm. Also etatism. [Fr. , f. état state sb. + -isme - ism.] Extreme development of the power of the State over the individual citizen. 1923 Contemp. Rev. Aug. 195 What one might almost call the fetishism of the State, an extreme form of étatisme. statism stei.tiz'm. [f. state sb. + -ism.] 1. Subservience to political expediency in religious matters. Obs. rare. 1609 [ W. Barlow] Answ. Nameless Cath. 370 Religion turned into Statisme, will soone prooue Atheisme. 1626 R. Bernard Isle of Man ii. (1627) 137 The Billes of Inditement framed by those false Informers beforementioned,..Machiauilian Statisme [etc.]..against Christian Conference.., and the rest. C. 1660 South Serm. (1715) 150 Hence it is, that the Enemies of God take Occasion to blaspheme, and call our Religion Statism. 2. ? Political science, statecraft. Obs. rare. 1620 E. Blount Horæ Subsec; 40 Such as professe to read Theorie of Statisme. 3. a. Government of a country by the state, as opposed to anarchy. rare. 1880 Echo 2 Jan. 4/1 The Nihilists do not believe in Communism, which is as bad as Statism, and equally deserving of suppression. b. = étatisme. 1919 Sociol. Rev. XI. 62 Traditional phrases such as `The Appeal to Democracy', `Freedom for Little Nations', etc.,..have been used so often, with so poor a result during the past century, in which all the time `individualism' and `statism' have been struggling together for supremacy and power under their cover. 1940 Sun (Baltimore) 5 Nov. 5/7 Republican Senator Charles L. McNary concluded his Vice-Presidential campaign tonight with the charge the New Deal is `taking deeper and deeper refuge in paternalism and statism'. 1945 A. Huxley Let. 8 Aug. (1969) 531 Men and women..brought up under Statism..have been taught to believe that the State is more important than the individual. 1962 Times Lit. Suppl. 23 Nov. 919/1 Anarchic egocentricity thus tugs against a Mum-providing statism. This has caused schizophrenia in British Labour. 1970 Daily Tel. 1 Dec. 9/4 In South America today..various forms of Marxist-inspired Statism are establishing themselves. 1979 Time 2 Apr. 52/2 The shortfall itself is rooted in policies that have led to too much statism and not enough private initiative. >From Gil Guillory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date Friday, January 10, 2003 2:18 pm To "'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject RE: going on about 'statists' Attachments Digital Signature 3K The english term "statist" derives from Mises's use of the words "étatist/ism" and "statist/ism". Mises used the term roughly to describe the opponents of laissez faire. While I do not defend any unspecified "go[ing] on about 'statists'", I think the word "statist" is useful, describes something worthy of disapprobation, and I think it worthwhile to decry statist ideology at length when necessary. Of course, Jan Lester has pointed out that libertarian anarchists are actually probably the opposite of fascists, since one can invert Mussolini's definition of fascism to come up with a very clear statement of anarchism: Nothing in the state, everything against the state, everything outside the state. Gotta love it. Gil Guillory, P.E. Process Design and Project Engineering KBR, KT-3131B email [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 713-753-2724(w) or 281-362-8061(h) or 281-620-6995(m) fax 713-753-3508 or 713-753-5353 > -Original Message- > From: john hull [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > No. Although when you go on about "statists" you do > sound a little like Marxists when they go on about "captialists". :)
RE: going on about 'statists'
A quick check of Nation, State, and Economy (first published in 1919) shows 5 uses of the term "statism": see http://www.mises.org/nsande.asp and search on "statism" Mises's use of the term fits the first definition, "Extreme development of the power of the State over the individual citizen." So, Mises certainly beat the 1923 reference. The rub is, this book was published in German, not English, which I think is required for inclusion in the OED. I must correct my earlier claim that "The english term "statist" derives from Mises's use of the words 'étatist/ism' and 'statist/ism'". Within modern literature, I have only seen the term in the works of Mises or those who have read him, and I reasonably deduce that authors such as Hayek and Rothbard adopted the term from Mises, as opposed to, for instance, Blount Horæ Subsec (the 1620 ref), Echo 2 Jan (the 1880 ref), or even Sociol. Rev. XI (the 1919 ref). Its not that the term was invented by Mises: I'm sure he adopted it from elsewhere. What I mean to claim is that its propagation in 20th century classical liberal works seems to be largely due to *his* frequent use of the term. Do you know of another writer who used the term so frequently? Gil Guillory, P.E. Process Design and Project Engineering KBR, KT-3131B email [EMAIL PROTECTED] phone 713-753-2724(w) or 281-362-8061(h) or 281-620-6995(m) fax 713-753-3508 or 713-753-5353 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2003 12:53 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' > > > The terms statist and statism do not derive from Mises. Please note > third definition of statism's first use. Also, statist has for quite > some time meant a person skilled in affairs of the state, not just a > supporter of statism. If this is incorrect, I implore you to > report it > to the folks at OED. I understand they try to document the > first use in > print of every English word, and do so rather successfully. > > > >From Oxford English Dictionary: > > étatisme etatizm. Also etatism. [Fr. , f. état state sb. + > -isme - ism.] Extreme development of the power of the State > over the individual > citizen. > > > 1923 Contemp. Rev. Aug. 195 What one might almost call the > fetishism of > the State, an extreme form of étatisme. > > > statism stei.tiz'm. [f. state sb. + -ism.] > 1. Subservience to political expediency in religious matters. > Obs. rare. > > > 1609 [ W. Barlow] Answ. Nameless Cath. 370 Religion turned into > Statisme, will soone prooue Atheisme. > 1626 R. Bernard Isle of Man ii. (1627) 137 The Billes of Inditement > framed by those false Informers > beforementioned,..Machiauilian Statisme > [etc.]..against Christian Conference.., and the rest. > C. 1660 South Serm. (1715) 150 Hence it is, that the Enemies of God > take Occasion to blaspheme, and call our Religion Statism. > > 2. ? Political science, statecraft. Obs. rare. > > > 1620 E. Blount Horæ Subsec; 40 Such as professe to read Theorie of > Statisme. > > 3. > a. Government of a country by the state, as opposed to anarchy. rare. > > > 1880 Echo 2 Jan. 4/1 The Nihilists do not believe in Communism, which > is as bad as Statism, and equally deserving of suppression. > b. = étatisme. > > > 1919 Sociol. Rev. XI. 62 Traditional phrases such as `The Appeal to > Democracy', `Freedom for Little Nations', etc.,..have been used so > often, with so poor a result during the past century, in > which all the > time `individualism' and `statism' have been struggling together for > supremacy and power under their cover. > 1940 Sun (Baltimore) 5 Nov. 5/7 Republican Senator Charles L. McNary > concluded his Vice-Presidential campaign tonight with the charge the > New Deal is `taking deeper and deeper refuge in paternalism and > statism'. > 1945 A. Huxley Let. 8 Aug. (1969) 531 Men and women..brought up under > Statism..have been taught to believe that the State is more important > than the individual. > 1962 Times Lit. Suppl. 23 Nov. 919/1 Anarchic egocentricity thus tugs > against a Mum-providing statism. This has caused schizophrenia in > British Labour. > 1970 Daily Tel. 1 Dec. 9/4 In South America today..various forms of > Marxist-inspired Statism are establishing themselves. > 1979 Time 2 Apr. 52/2 The shortfall itself is rooted in policies that > have led to too much statism and not enough private initiative. > > > > > > > > > >From Gil Guillory <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date Friday, January 10, 2003 2:1
RE: going on about 'statists'
Title: RE: going on about 'statists' "Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction." As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining the great contributions Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO seem to remember a number of advances made by mixed economy nations, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, and France. This brings to mind the problem I see with many Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The examples they choose of "good" states/societies generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments their proponents advance. Rothbard admires Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal the bad, centralized, militaristic English. Well, my response is that societies that can not deal with their neighbors and prosper, probably were not very good societies. Medieval Icaland may have been a nice place, what did it accomplish? As to 2) I thought it fairly obvious that we were discussing the "State" not state and society... If I must I say the "state" is that entity that has the legitimate authority for the use of proactive violence. In a number of societies, generally those considered "Western" we have that distinction between Civil/voluntary society and the "state." I would give my definition for the essential characteristic of the state. I simply argue that an all encompassing "state" or a non-existent "state" provide bad outcomes. In fact, I would argue that the absence of the state leads, more often than not, to the creation of the all encompassing state. As the anarchy of no state leads to the Chaos of no state, examples, Beirut 1975 until 1990 (?) Somalia 1992 to present. When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society. -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' --- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... A world with the all inclusive > Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we > debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us" > and "me" that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: going on about 'statists'
Title: Message Joe, you have not answered Fred's questions, and they are directly to the point. On the topic of medieval Iceland, you have not explained what about it was horrific. If you are not familiar with its history, that's fine. Then you have nothing to say on the topic, and you must embrace the implied criticism that an anarchy can exist which is not horrific, as medieval Iceland appears to have been (contra your claim that "NO state would be...horrific". That medieval Iceland did not produce great products of world culture is both debatable and irrelevant, as is any historical defeat of an anarchy by attackers from without. You correctly point out that "[there] needs to be [a collective agency] that can restrain the various [individuals] that make up a society". This does not, in and of itself, make the case either for taxation or for a monopoly collective agency, which are the things the anarchist opposes. I have already noted that your plea that "we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation" makes little sense to me. What are the margins you are talking about? Can you better define "me" and "us" (I assume you have put them in scare quotes because they stand in for more complex ideas)? Why do you presuppose that a state must be the agent of intermediation? Isn't that the topic of debate? Gil Guillory, P.E.Process Design and Project EngineeringKBR, KT-3131Bemail [EMAIL PROTECTED]phone 713-753-2724(w) or 281-362-8061(h) or 281-620-6995(m)fax 713-753-3508 or 713-753-5353 -Original Message-From: Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Wednesday, January 15, 2003 8:49 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' "Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction." As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining the great contributions Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO seem to remember a number of advances made by mixed economy nations, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, and France. This brings to mind the problem I see with many Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The examples they choose of "good" states/societies generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments their proponents advance. Rothbard admires Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal the bad, centralized, militaristic English. Well, my response is that societies that can not deal with their neighbors and prosper, probably were not very good societies. Medieval Icaland may have been a nice place, what did it accomplish? As to 2) I thought it fairly obvious that we were discussing the "State" not state and society... If I must I say the "state" is that entity that has the legitimate authority for the use of proactive violence. In a number of societies, generally those considered "Western" we have that distinction between Civil/voluntary society and the "state." I would give my definition for the essential characteristic of the state. I simply argue that an all encompassing "state" or a non-existent "state" provide bad outcomes. In fact, I would argue that the absence of the state leads, more often than not, to the creation of the all encompassing state. As the anarchy of no state leads to the Chaos of no state, examples, Beirut 1975 until 1990 (?) Somalia 1992 to present. When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society. -Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: going on about 'statists'
RE: going on about 'statists'
--- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland > doesn't exist > anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining > the great contributions > Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO > seem to remember a > number of advances made by mixed economy nations, > such as Britain, the > United States, Germany, and France. Iceland's polycentric enforcement system lasted for approx 290 years. We only recently had our bicentenial in the US and are arguably not the same goverment that was formed in 1787 anyway. For a good History book to learn about Iceland and it's contributions see "Viking Age Iceland" by Jesse Byock. Ben PS My high school history teachers told me antitrust was passed to limit the power of the evil robber barons and god knows how many lies about FDR or the Civil War. I hardly see it as relevant that you didn't learn about Iceland in school. __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: going on about 'statists'
In a message dated 1/15/03 11:12:08 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << "Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction." Joe writes: As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any classes explaining the great contributions Medieval Iceland made to world culture, whereas I DO seem to remember a number of advances made by mixed economy nations, such as Britain, the United States, Germany, and France. This brings to mind the problem I see with many Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The examples they choose of "good" states/societies generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments their proponents advance. Rothbard admires Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal the bad, centralized, militaristic English. Well, my response is that societies that can not deal with their neighbors and prosper, probably were not very good societies. Medieval Icaland may have been a nice place, what did it accomplish? As to 2) I thought it fairly obvious that we were discussing the "State" not state and society... If I must I say the "state" is that entity that has the legitimate authority for the use of proactive violence. In a number of societies, generally those considered "Western" we have that distinction between Civil/voluntary society and the "state." I would give my definition for the essential characteristic of the state. I simply argue that an all encompassing "state" or a non-existent "state" provide bad outcomes. In fact, I would argue that the absence of the state leads, more often than not, to the creation of the all encompassing state. As the anarchy of no state leads to the Chaos of no state, examples, Beirut 1975 until 1990 (?) Somalia 1992 to present. When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society. >> Before I settled on modern economic history, I'd planned to become a Medieval Scandinavian specialist, and even studied the Old Norse language (with Professor Michael Bell, a great fellow, at University of Colorado, Boulder) for a semester (it took more time than my four history course combined). For what it's worth, Iceland did not fall prey to "militaristic England" but rath er to the cunning, conniving King of Norway, who started funding all sides in law suits in the Althing until he'd escalated the lawsuits into open warefare and then could send in troops and take over. That does't change Joe's essential point that Medieval Iceland's anarchic society didn't in the long run survive assault by a more statist society. I wouldn't point out, however, that even taking the most conservative estimate of Iceland's longevity as an anarchic society and comparing it to the most liberal estimate of America's survival as a free society so far, Iceland wins by more than a century. The Norse began to settle Iceland between 860 and 870, adopting a formal legal code for Iceland, creating the Althing (which met for two weeks a year to hear cases from) the four quarter courts, and the local Things. With the influence of the King of Norway, civil war errupted in 1262, ending in 1264 with Norway's conquest. Even if we date the period of an anarchic society only from 930 and end it in 1262, we get 332 years. In the American case, even if we date freedom from 1776 and, ignoring the rampant statism of the 20th century, claim that it still exists, we get only 227 years. So even by estimates most biased toward the US, we're more than a century behind the Icelandic example. (One might well argue for inclusion of the first 70 years in Iceland's tally, bringing it up to 400 years. One might also argue for the omission of more recent years of American history, perhaps since 1933, or 1917, or, some might argue, 1861 ;), as well as the years of the War of Independence reducing the US period of freedom to 220, 150, 134 or even 52.) Even by the estimate most biased in favor of the US, Iceland outperformed the US in longevity by nearly 50%. I might also add that for most of the long history of Icelandic anarchy, most of Icelanders lived peaceably with their neighb
Re: going on about 'statists'
RE: going on about 'statists'On Wednesday, January 15, 2003 9:49 AM Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? > > As to 1) all I can say is that Medieval Iceland > doesn't exist anymore, nor do I remember any > classes explaining the great contributions > Medieval Iceland made to world culture, Whoa! There are a few problems with the above statement. First, the anarchist period in Iceland lasted longer than the US exists. Second, no Medieval state exists today as it was from back then. Take, e.g., Britain, since you use it below. Can we really say the mixed economy of Britain has existed as one continuous polity with one type of government from Medieval times to the present? I'd say we can't even make that claim going back two centuries. Third, what about the sagas? They're considered one of Iceland's artistic contributions to Western literature. Also, why didn't you pick on Ireland here? I don't think anyone would doubt the Irish contribution to Western Civilization in poetry, religion, and music. > whereas I DO seem to remember a number of > advances made by mixed economy nations, > such as Britain, the United States, Germany, > and France. You would also here have to show that the mixed economies in these countries caused those contributions. I tend to think that would be an instance of the broken window fallacy. I believe others factor impinged, especially heavy cultural mixing in all of the instances you mention -- and not government intervention in markets. > This brings to mind the problem I see with many > Libertarians and Libertarian/Anarchists. The > examples they choose of "good" states/societies > generally demonstrates the fallacy of the arguments > their proponents advance. Rothbard admires > Medieval Ireland and laments its inability to deal > the bad, centralized, militaristic English. If I recall Rothbard's statements in _For a New Liberty_ correctly, he pointed out how much longer it took Britain to conquer Ireland than India because Ireland had no central government whereas the Indians were ruled, in most of their territory, by the Moguls. The British had merely to conquer the Moguls -- cut off the top and place themselves in charge. If this is so, it would seem that it might be better to be in an anarchist society under conquest than in a nation state one under conquest -- all other things being equal. One might live free longer in the former, especially if one is not in one of the enclaves initially absorbed. > Well, my response is that societies that can > not deal with their neighbors and prosper, > probably were not very good societies. > Medieval Icaland may have been a nice > place, what did it accomplish? See above. I will admit, however, that anarchism does have a problem in dealing with nation states. Nation states did eventually conquer all anarchist societies, such as those of Ireland and Iceland. This, in my mind, does not mean nation states make for better societies. After all, not only is any nation state a threat to its society, it winds up getting involved with other nation states. My long term solution to this would be to find a way to combat or limit the centralization of nation states. At risk of sounding lunatic fringe, I propose space settlement as a means of achieving this. This is partly based on the observation that free societies, including anarchist ones, generally exist at the fringes of nation states. Iceland and Ireland existed at the fringes of Europe -- along a frontier where there were no other encroaching states or empires. In space, not only would one have a frontier, but one would have one that is permanent. As transport and support technology advance, in space, one would be able to move farther and farther away from any centers of domination. Also, given the "space" of space (virtually infinite), stealth cane be used to avoid detection from would be statists. The same does not hold for the surface of the Earth or any planet. As transport technology advanced on Earth, it became much easier for nation states to enforce their will on society. Cheers! Dan http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/ See my "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at: http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html
RE: going on about 'statists' -- what tax policy works best?
Title: RE: going on about 'statists' Joe, I agree with you, in essence, yet also support Fred's technicalities. I'm not at all sure that the freedom of anarchy, perhaps with chaos/spontaneous order, is as bad as Corporate State (or even what we have now); and I'm pretty sure that Libertarian policies "would be abject failures" -- NOT. But I certainly agree that the most short term relevant debates are in the "middle" ground mixes of "us" and "them", since the VAST majority of US voters consistently vote in a more statist way than I do, or than I think is optimal. 20 years ago, I was more optimistic for faster change, such as school vouchers/ tax credits (a neo-lib? position). You are also very right to imply that it is extremely unlikely that any large geographic area on Earth will be without some local organized 'monoply on the final use of violence' -- and such an org is the essence of gov't. Leading me ... to tax policy. I know most anarchists oppose most taxes, but it seems clear to me that some taxes are worse than others. I think corporate income taxes, for instance, are better than taxes on dividends; one moral reason being that corporations enjoy, justified or not, limited liability. Similarly, land & resource taxes, including pollution, seem excellent candidates for higher taxes, to reduce income taxes. Help please -- is there a good tract on Austrian tax policy, ordering or ranking various taxes? And I'm familiar with, and support the idea that lower taxes generally increase growth Tom Grey When no state exists we have the Hobbesian world of the war by all against all. To escape that disaster, what generally emerges is an authoritarian state, to quell the chaos. It "makes the trains run on time" and that's what people will accept rather than the "freedom" of anarchy. So, I come back to the point, we need to debate at the margins about the proper mix of "me" and "us" in society and the state's role in this intermediation. Personally, I accept that Libertarian domestic polices are often the best. But only from a Utilitarian view point. They work and work well for most people, however, as a basis for society, they would be abject failures. Their needs to be an "us" that can restrain the various "me's" that make up a society. -----Original Message- From: Fred Foldvary [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 5:31 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: going on about 'statists' --- "Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... A world with the all inclusive > Corporatist State or NO state would all be equally horrific. So, we > debate at the margins of the "middle" ground for the best mix of "us" > and "me" that works best. Two questions: 1) How was Medieval anarchic Icerland horrific? 2) It is possible to have a voluntary, non-state "we", so there must be some other necessary distinction. Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: going on about 'statists' -- what tax policy works best?
> Help please -- is there a good tract on Austrian tax policy, ordering or > ranking various taxes? > Tom Grey Probably not, but a good book on tax policy and the effects of current taxes is: The Losses of Nations, ed. Fred Harrison, 1998, Othila Press, ISBN 1 901647 15 3 Fred Foldvary = [EMAIL PROTECTED]
