von Mises quote on the need for a free society to repel aggressors
"From this point of view one has to deal with the often-raised problem of whether conscription and the levy of taxes mean a restriction of freedom. If the principles of the market economy were acknowledged by all people all over the world, there would not be any reason to wage war and the individual states could live in undisturbed peace. But as conditions are in our age, a free nation is continually threatened by the aggressive schemes of totalitarian autocracies. If it wants to preserve its freedom, it must be prepared to defend its independence. 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. In a world full of unswerving aggressors and enslavers, integral unconditional pacifism is tantamount to unconditional surrender to the most ruthless oppressors. He who wants to remain free, must fight unto death those who are intent upon depriving him of his freedom. As isolated attempts on the part of each individual to resist are doomed to failure, the only workable way is to organize resistance by the government. The essential task of government is defense of the social system not only against domestic gangsters but also against external foes. He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all.
The maintenance of a government apparatus of courts, police officers, prisons, and of armed forces requires considerable expenditure. To levy taxes for these purposes is fully compatible with the freedom the individual enjoys in a free market economy. To assert this does not, of course, amount to a justification of the confiscatory and discriminatory taxation methods practiced today by the self-styled progressive governments. There is need to stress this fact, because in our age of interventionism and the steady "progress" toward totalitarianism the governments employ the power to tax for the destruction of the market economy." - Von Mises, Human Action
I guess many on this forum might consider von Mises a "neo-con". Just something to remember before we get all outraged about Rand Paul.
To me, "NeoCon" is a term for advocates
of international aggression. For domestic aggression the word tyrant is the first that comes to my mind. And certainly the great body of work by Von Mises advocates the very opposite of tyranny and aggression.
If, in the great scope of his work, there are inconsistencies it is no surprise. In Ayn Rand too, there are points we can quibble about though the great body of her work consistently supports freedom, non-aggression, and also good will among peaceful individuals.
All of the greatest thinkers of history engaged in an age-long dialogue, exchanging insights -- reaching height of logic and wisdom by both Ayn Rand and Von Mises. But despite timeless truths they espoused, the dialogue goes on with each new generation. New twists and turns of history reveal new considerations.
Von Mises experienced firsthand a domestic slide into tyranny as well as an aggressive assault of his own country. If he saw no way other than compulsory tax and conscription to defend any country allowing more freedom than most, it's understandable. He was not an anarchist. Nor was A.Rand.
Will we come to a time when an voluntaryist produces a great body of work comparable to those by Ayn and Mises? I am hoping for that time.
Ayn Rand was against conscription
"He who in our age opposes armaments and conscription is, perhaps unbeknown to himself, an abettor of those aiming at the enslavement of all"
Me too,
because I look at it as if it was my ass being conscripted. Conscription is consistent with the statist notion of government power over an individual. Let's face it, if we as individuals or as a nation were faced with real invaders, not perceived threats, the volunteers would dispatch with the enemy before the politicians could organize a bill for the conscription of citizens.
Yes she was. And she
Yes she was. And she believed in voluntary taxation.
Von Mises apparently did not believe in natural rights, but was from the utilitarian school of libertarianism. Thus the rationale for conscription.
I think that the operative term
in the von Mises article is "repel aggressors".
Not, "become the aggressors" which is what the neocons want, and have been doing for the last 8 years, and now Obama is doing it too.
That was my point
That was more or less my point. Many libertarians, including Rand Paul, supported the invasion of Afghanistan, and do believe in spending money on national defense. But that does not make them pro-war nor does it mean that they believe in empire building.
they may not believe in
they may not believe in nation building and imperialism, and that may not be the intention half the time, but it is the result. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions."
Oh, really?
If "that was your point", then you didn't make if very well, because NOTHING that we did had any relationship whatsoever to "solving" what was proposed as the "problem" of finding one person hiding in a cave somewhere on the globe that we never did find.
But we did manage to kill over a million innocent people in the process, as well as taking over 2 whole countries in the region, while never achieving that "ostensible" goal of finding OBL.
And of course, we invaded Afghanistan, even though not one single person from Afghanistan had anything whatsoever to do with the "alleged attack".
A failure? Or was it a "red-herring" used to justify an action that was previously desired, and needed some excuse to make it happen?
Invading Afghanistan does NOT come under the heading of "repelling aggressors". It comes under the heading of "being the aggressor".
Even Ron Paul only wanted Marque of Reprisal, which would search out OBL and bring him back or kill him in a fight. Not invading the whole country to swat a fly with the entire US military.
You're right, I didn't make
You're right, I didn't make my point very well. So here it goes again, I believe that a good libertarian could have supported the invasion of Afghanistan, particularly an invasion with a light footprint of elite special forces. You disagree.
I think
that some "libertarians" might think that way.
My main question is "why would they think that way"?
Is there any reason to believe that Afghanistan had any role?
No, there is none.
There was a "claim" floated that OBL was there, and there was also a "claim" made that he had something to do with the "alleged attack".
None of these "claims" were substantiated, and the charges against OBL have since been dropped, because of lack of evidence tying him to the event.
They were speculation at the very best, or a knowing diversion at worst.
We didn't "know" that OBL was there, and we still don't know, and we never "knew". We never found him.
NONE of the "alleged perpetrators" were from Afghanistan.
They were all Saudi Arabians.
I'm still waiting for the gov't to give any valid reason why a country which had nothing to do with the event, and for which no proof could be made that a fugitive was really there hiding, should be the target of an all-out military invasion.
I'll be happy to entertain any real reasons why an attack should have been made, if you have any.
good point
good point
point of defence...
for existence. Thanks for the info.
Assert Your Authority
Assert Your Authority