> From: Pinczewski-Lee, Joe (LRC) [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> "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. This is surely odd. Firstly, Mises was not an anarchist. Secondly, the whole point of anarchism is for no one to be near or at the levers of power; so, Rothbard never pined for such a position. It is a bold conjecture, though popular, to claim that anarchy would be as horrific as thoroughgoing fascism. I deny it. Also, I would like your account of how far we are from thoroughgoing fascism today (to get you started, what in the modern US is "outside" or "against" the state?). If we are sufficiently close to ideal fascism, do you mean to say that a switch to anarchy would not greatly affect our aggregate collective welfare? If not, what would? Of particular interest to me lately is Jan Lester's book _Escape from Leviathan_ which argues at (book) length for what Lester calls the "extreme compatibility thesis": "in practice...and in the long term, there are no systematic clashes among interpersonal liberty, general welfare, and market-anarchy..." This is the exact opposite of your conjecture, but put in a more analytical framework. If you'd like to advance criticisms of Lester's thesis, I think that would be both interesting and on-topic for the list. What puzzles me about your post also is what you mean by "the best mix of 'us' and 'me' that works the best". What does that mean?
smime.p7s
Description: application/pkcs7-signature
