Mises był geniuszem ekonomii, ale miał dość naiwnie pozytywistyczne rozumienie kwestii metaetycznych i dość naiwnie hobbesowskie rozumienie teorii anarchizmu.
Hayek również był geniuszem ekonomii, ale jednocześnie stworzył wewnętrznie sprzeczną, momentami kuriozalnie ugodową wobec etatyzmu filozofię polityczną, często zupełnie nijak się mającą do najważniejszych wniosków wypływających z jego analiz ekonomicznych.
Rothbard nie był geniuszem ekonomii ani jakiejkolwiek innej dyscypliny, ale był genialnym erudytą, który wniósł poważny wkład zarówno w ekonomię, jak i w etykę i historię. Jednocześnie w ramach tych dwóch ostatnich nie udało mu się ustrzec paru stwierdzeń równie kontrowersyjnych, co gołosłownych, jak choćby tych o aborcji czy historii i etyce bankowości.
Spooner zmiażdżył intelektualnie teorię "umowy społecznej" i wolnościowe pretensje konstytucjonalizmu, ale jednocześnie miał absurdalne przekonania na temat tzw. "własności intelektualnej".
Bastiat był równie genialnym teoretykiem, co niezrównanym popularyzatorem, a mimo to nie wyprzedził swojego czasu na tyle, żeby wydedukować teorię użyteczności krańcowej.
Itd., itd.
Jaki z tego wniosek? Nie taki, że nikt nie jest doskonały, bo to banał. I nawet nie taki, że nie warto szukać żadnego uniwersalnego autorytetu, bo to, że takich nie ma, to też banał. Może więc taki, że jeśli komuś naprawdę należy na tym, żeby taki uniwersalny autorytet mieć, to musi mieć świadomość, że - jakkolwiek źle to zabrzmi - może być nim jedynie potwór Frankensteina, poskładany z fragmentów najwybitniejszych znawców poszczególnych tematów. Może on okazać się użyteczny, ale nigdy nie będzie ładny.
Showing posts with label Spooner. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Spooner. Show all posts
Saturday, March 12, 2016
Friday, November 30, 2012
10 Differences Between the State and the Mafia
1. The state is the largest apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion within a given territory. The mafia is composed of all the smaller ones.
2. The state is the most well-organized apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion within a given territory. The mafias' inferior organization makes them less influential and their reach more restricted.
3. The state is a monopolistic apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion, that is, the culmination of the process of eliminative competition between groups of stationary bandits that run protection racket schemes. Mafias are the losers in this competition, formally outlawed by the winner and relegated to the black market.
4. The state possesses a powerful apparatus of self-aggrandizing propaganda. The mafia does not, hence its bad reputation.
5. The state is the apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion that possesses the largest clientele within a given territory. The clientele of the mafia is quite small in comparison.
6. The state is usually an open-access apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion. The mafia typically has a much more closed and rigid structure.
7. Mafias, due to their limited influence and reach, do not actively seek to turn all the inhabitants of a given territory into their clients. States do.
8. Mafias, due to their limited influence and reach, do not actively seek to control and regularly expropriate all the inhabitants of a given territory. States do.
9. Mafias are usually pragmatic in their orientation - they employ violence, aggression, and coercion to obtain tangible goods and services. States, on the other hand, are more often than not motivated by ideology - they employ violence, aggression, and coercion out of pure lust for power.
10. The mafia uses physical intimidation. The state uses physical, intellectual, and moral intimidation. The mafia injures its victims. The state injures and insults its victims. Paraphrasing Lysander Spooner, the mafia, unlike the state, does not, in addition to robbing its victims, attempt to make them either its dupes or its slaves.
2. The state is the most well-organized apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion within a given territory. The mafias' inferior organization makes them less influential and their reach more restricted.
3. The state is a monopolistic apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion, that is, the culmination of the process of eliminative competition between groups of stationary bandits that run protection racket schemes. Mafias are the losers in this competition, formally outlawed by the winner and relegated to the black market.
4. The state possesses a powerful apparatus of self-aggrandizing propaganda. The mafia does not, hence its bad reputation.
5. The state is the apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion that possesses the largest clientele within a given territory. The clientele of the mafia is quite small in comparison.
6. The state is usually an open-access apparatus of violence, aggression, and coercion. The mafia typically has a much more closed and rigid structure.
7. Mafias, due to their limited influence and reach, do not actively seek to turn all the inhabitants of a given territory into their clients. States do.
8. Mafias, due to their limited influence and reach, do not actively seek to control and regularly expropriate all the inhabitants of a given territory. States do.
9. Mafias are usually pragmatic in their orientation - they employ violence, aggression, and coercion to obtain tangible goods and services. States, on the other hand, are more often than not motivated by ideology - they employ violence, aggression, and coercion out of pure lust for power.
10. The mafia uses physical intimidation. The state uses physical, intellectual, and moral intimidation. The mafia injures its victims. The state injures and insults its victims. Paraphrasing Lysander Spooner, the mafia, unlike the state, does not, in addition to robbing its victims, attempt to make them either its dupes or its slaves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
