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' -- 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]
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 2:18 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
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'
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]
