I couldn’t. My first-hand knowledge of Mises is admittedly restricted to a few chapters from Human Action. However, the contention Tom has put up (voluntary exchange is only possible between individuals because only individuals have an inherent human right to property) has been posed in other discussions I have had as an argument by people claiming they mainly draw their arguments from the work of Mises. So, as the saying goes, if they are wrong, then I am wrong also. It should be pointed out, however, that the correct espousal of views/theory of a given source in a debate with those who have only limited or no knowledge of that source is the responsibility of those who base their arguments on that source. If I as a Marxist present Marx’ views in an incorrect manner, then I will have only myself to blame if my version of them is falsely attributed to Marx by other participants in the debate.

“I only meant that most people could find enough to feed themselves, with the exception of naturally occuring famines. It was only during the communist experiment that 70 million people were forced to starve to death.”

“Naturally occuring famines” in China (as well as in the rest of what was to become the Third World) are a Western colonial fairy tale. There was nothing “natural” about them. For details, and especially the role of the “free market” in this monumental crimes of capitalism, I strongly recommend a book by Mike Davis – Late Victorian Holocausts: El Niño Famines and the Making of the Third World.

You are a bit to lax with the numbers – first it was 50, know it is 70 million. Just for the record, both figures are hugely overblown – which is not to deny the existance of massive and horrendous hunger during that period. However, we should not resort to claims which have no serious basis.

“Moreover, there can be no voluntary exchange beyond that of individuals, since only individuals can have an inherent human right to property.”

This is a standard example of a non sequitur – the first part of the sentence does not follow from the second. Let us examine this a bit further: if this “inherent human right to property” (which is here taken as existant for the sake of the argument) includes the right of an individual to use it as it sees fit, that is, also the right to share this property with others as common property (to make the use of it on a communal basis), then it also must include its right to exchange this property an the communal basis – not as an individual, but as a collective owner. That is, there is no contradiction between the “individual’s inherent right to property” (if this includes its right to use it as it sees fit) and the possibilty of voluntary exchange between social entities. (That is the non sequitur in your argument). On the contrary, as shown above, the exact opposite is the case: if there exists “individual’s inherent right to property” that includes its right to use it as it sees fit, then voluntary exchange between groups of people (social entities) is necessarily possible. The supposed “logical” contradiction between “individual’s inherent right to property” and the voluntary exchange between social groups is just another one in the long list of major Misesian fallacies and platitudes.

“- Coercion
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
3. To bring about by force or threat.”

You should notice that you have chosen the worst possibility for the definition of coercion if your argument is to hold water: every defensive action apart from a non-violent one is NECESSARILY included in this very definition of coercion you cite. When you defend yourself from a violent attack, you “dominate, restrain, or control forcibly” the person or persons attacking you by forcibly subduing/impeding their intention to harm you, unless you act in a non-violent manner. Therefore, if you want to exclude defence from coercion, you have to define defence in a strictly non-violent way. Amusingly enough, this is exactly what Economics Junkie doesn’t do: “Voluntaryism: The theory that defense is the only universally permissible application of force.” – he explicitly defines defence as an application of force.

“Coercion is not a two-way street: once a person has chosen to initiate violence against you, you are not ‘forcing them to act in a certain way’ by defending yourself and your property, you are merely defending yourself and your property.”

Any non-violent form of defence is… a violent form of defence, that is, a forceful form of defence. This sort of spearation between defence and force should be obviously nonsensical: force is constitutional to all non-non-violent defence.

So much for know. Will follow up if I catch more time…

Voluntary: Any action that is performed without the threat of aggression.

Aggression: The INITIATION of the use of force.

Force(=Violence=Coercion): The occupation of one’s body or private property against his will.

Defense: The use of force in response to aggression.

Liberty: The absence of aggression.

Voluntaryism: The theory that defense is the only universally permissible application of force.

Cheers, that’s much appreciated.

“This is a matter of definition, but if one defines the market as the place for the (in your sense of the word) voluntary exchange of property not only between individuals but also between social groups and entities, then meaningful planned economy is, in the strict literal sense of the word, nothing BUT a market economy.”

Well that’s not true, the market economy is specifically an economy where prices are fixed through negotiation. To the extent that an economy is planned (or in any other way manipulated), it is not a market economy. Moreover, there can be no voluntary exchange beyond that of individuals, since only individuals can have an inherent human right to property. If individuals choose to cooperate voluntary as a ‘social group or entity’ then that is morally legitimate but it is still only ‘between individuals’, and ceases to be voluntary once the property rights of any one individual involved are not fully respected.

The planned economy can never match the market economy for wealth created, because the former lacks spontaneous order. Spontaneous order is where individuals acting in their own self-interest will cooperate to use their property to the best of their ability in order to produce the greatest return for the least cost/risk. In a population of 50 million, a free market draws from the minds of 50 million people, all of whom are making the best use of their own property that they possibly can. No small group of minds can ever plan anything more efficient and more appropriate to the needs and desires of people than the emergent order of the market because they cannot possibly know the needs and desires of their entire population.

I disagree that china didn’t embrace the market economy in the western sense. They stopped a long way short of the free market, but that doesn’t change the fact that they moved from a communist centrally planned economy to a primarily market-driven economy and enjoyed massive economic success as a result.

I’m not sure what you mean when you ask “for whom and for what”. Material wealth created in the market is for whoever properly owns it and for whatever purpose they choose for it, but I suspect that doesn’t answer your question.

I understand your concept of Communism will likely be more nuanced than mine, but I believe the simplest statement of the Communist principle is this: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need”. In Communist China this was enacted: people were worked to the point of death, and had resources distributed to them as the state saw fit. I understand that Communism is supposed to be a historical end-state which arrives when “superabundance” occurs, but seeing as how this concept of superabundance is some mythical abstraction I see no reason why Communist China’s attempt at achieving the Communist end-state cannot be considered a legitimate experiment in Communism.

I hope I didn’t come across as trying to glorify pre-Mao China, I’m aware of the history. I only meant that most people could find enough to feed themselves, with the exception of naturally occuring famines. It was only during the communist experiment that 70 million people were forced to starve to death. This is what I would define as a ‘wide-spread lack of material goods’.

Voluntaryists do not believe that there is any excuse for enacting violence against someone who has not physically coerced you, regarding of the “state of affairs”.

Definitions absolutely can be erroneous. If I tell you the definition of A is B, that is an erroneous definition. Draper’s definition of liberty as including the right to aggress against others is erroneous as it mis-defines liberty, and renders his quote rather nonsensical in the context of the english language.

From Answers.com:

- Coercion
1. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
2. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
3. To bring about by force or threat.

Coercion is not a two-way street: once a person has chosen to initiate violence against you, you are not ‘forcing them to act in a certain way’ by defending yourself and your property, you are merely defending yourself and your property.

Looking forward to your next response, and apologies for the length! I went through and edited but damn it there’s just so much to say.

You are welcome. And I am forced to retract and apologize for my initial remarks – you may be wrong in some important general points (and I believe you are), but you definitely aren’t a political or historic illiterate. And you engage in discussion in a meaningful way, that is by addressing concrete arguments (which is a crucial qualitative difference to the troll here who already TWICE posted a litany in which he avoided even addressing any single concrete point I have made, which of course doesn’t prevent him from continuing to parade with “logic and reason”, as this sort usually does). So, one has to give credit where credit is due – you do know how to engage in a meaningful discussion.

“You misunderstand, I’m not saying that *only* a strict free market can produce *any* wealth, I’m saying that wealth can only be produced in any considerable quantity while having some level of a market mechanism.”

Then we have no disagreement on this point. I by no means adhere to the liberal caricature of planned economy as an economy in which “all means of production are collectively owned (sic!)”, the “state controles everything” and similar nonsense from the tea party’s cabinet of horrors. This is a matter of definition, but if one defines the market as the place for the (in your sense of the word) voluntary exchange of property not only between individuals but also between social groups and entities, then meaningful planned economy is, in the strict literal sense of the word, nothing BUT a market economy. In other words, it all depends on what we are talking about when we talk about market.

“China as I’m sure you know embraced the market economy in 1978 after the disastrous failure of Communism, and experienced unprecedented growth as a result. During the attempt at a communist economy, about 50 million people died from starvation alone as a result of the Great Leap Fowards.”

a) China never embraced “market economy” in the sense it exists in the western world. Market elements (in this, that is, Western capitalist sense of the word) have always been, and are still subordinated to the central planning (which is, however, driven by the pressures and demands of the world market). A sidenote: this sort of central planning has nothing to do with “Communism” – under the condition one adhers to the general concepts and definitions of Communism as developed in the work of Marx & Engels. However, it does produce “actual material wealth” on a grand scale. The only question is: for whom and for what?

b) China never attempted anything like communist economy. We obvioulsy have a major difference in what we understand under “communist” when we use the term speaking of social and economic relations.Communist economy requires concrete social an material conditions which cannot be pulled out of thin air by any sort of voluntaristic “leaps”, the Great Leap Forward included. China’s pre-Maoist period (I am talking about the late modern world (19th/20th century)was a disaster. This doesn’t make the Maoist period better then it was, but to contrast the dark Maoism with the glorius pe-Mao China would be a travesty. There where no glories there for anybody (with the exception, of course, of the Emperor and his clique, Western colonial thugs (pardon, “democracies”) and a small layer of their local economic and political servants).

“It was only during the attempt to destroy the market economy that the Chinese people suffered for a wide-spread lack of material goods.”

This is wildly incorrect. You should know better.

“It is the contention of the Voluntaryists that no person has a right to initiate physical force against the life, liberty or property of another, and that all people’s rights are morally equal in this axiom.”

Disagree. To adopt this view in the narrow sense of “initiate” (that is, to understand it as ANY initiation of physical force independent of the events which have led to the state in which the force is being initiated)is to fully succumb to cementing any possible state of affairs, no matter which are its origins or consequences. Again, liberty (and, for that matter, property) for what and for whom?

“Draper’s quote is flawed because his definition of liberty is erroneous: absolute liberty only includes all non-coercive actions that one can perform.”

Definitions can’t be erroneous. Only conclusions based on definitions can. His definition is merely another definition (well, not his definition, he is taking the definition of his opponents (it this case, some anarchists against whose notion of individual liberty as absolutely unrestricted he is argumenting against)).

As already stated, this is not to say you cannot define “liberty” as capacity to act freely in non-coercive consensus with others (on a sidenote, such liberty isn’t merely “individual” any more, it is already a SOCIAL PRODUCT, which is a very important point to understand). You can. But, again, this is not the definition of liberty Draper refers to in the context in which he made his statement. On the basis of that definition, his argument is flawless.

“Further, if a person is attempting to harm you then it is not “coercive” to stop them, merely defensive. They are the party behaving in a coercive manner by initiating violence.”

Again, depending on the definition of “coercive”. If you define “coercive” as “forcing somebody to do (or not to do) something against their will and intent” than every defensive act is also a coercive act. If you define “coercive” so that it excludes defensive actions, then, of course, it isn’t. However, then you have to find another word for “forcing somebody to do (or not to do) something against their will and intent” – as this, obvioulsy, encompasses defensive action.

I understand where you’re coming from.

I am addressing you in particular, as I have little interest in the other boring, predictable, and oft-repeated noise and bromides flying by on this comment thread.

As you probably know, to me the conclusions themselves are not so much the issue. Whether someone considers himself a leftie, a socialist, a conservative, or a libertarian is not so important.

What is more important is whether he applies an objective, logical, and proven methodology in his pursuit of knowledge, and whether he displays genuine curiosity in the process, in other words: whether he is capable of thinking.

When one can’t do anything but attempt to insult, humiliate, and ridicule another person without a shred of curiosity, while at the same time studiously avoiding to post even one piece of evidence or reason against that person’s hypotheses, and then hypocritically attacking the other person for not addressing his “arguments”, while topping it all off by citing 3 different quotes that he heard or read someone else say or write somewhere else … then my friend, you are not dealing with such an individual.

You are dealing with someone who indeed needs help and compassion, but on a much deeper psychological level that you won’t be able to reach, I’m afraid, through a few internet comments about politics.

In fact, I’m afraid you will accomplish the exact opposite: When you wrestle with a pig both of you get dirty, one of the two enjoys it.

You reinforce pettiness by attempting to reason with unreason.

So ask yourself this: Back when you were a leftie as you say, were you also a petty, angry, frustrated, paraphrasing, insulting individual as this wretched and traumatized soul here, devoid of any capacity to think, intent to shit all over every single individual who puts forward ideas that seem to oppose your thinking?

If so, then I can understand your desire to bring the light of reason to bear upon similar individuals and I wish you the best in this pursuit, but most of all massive kudos to YOU for turning it around!

If not, then maybe now it makes a little more sense to you when I said that you’d be wasting your precious time that you could use on people who are worth it.

This is indeed something that the irrational and petty people of the world are much better at than we are: They don’t waste their time trying to convert rational people like us. They quickly move on to find people who are susceptible to their propaganda and nonsense. Their success rates over the past millennia speak more than a thousand words.

We should learn from your enemies and actually use that approach for GOOD, wouldn’t that be great?!

Anyway, these are conclusions that I have come to based upon evidence that I myself have gathered over the years, and as always I’d gladly stand corrected should the inconceivable indeed occur.

I’m not holding my breath for it. ;)

Thank you for responding.

You misunderstand, I’m not saying that *only* a strict free market can produce *any* wealth, I’m saying that wealth can only be produced in any considerable quantity while having some level of a market mechanism. China as I’m sure you know embraced the market economy in 1978 after the disastrous failure of Communism, and experienced unprecedented growth as a result. During the attempt at a communist economy, about 50 million people died from starvation alone as a result of the Great Leap Fowards. Since the economic reforms the poverty rate in China has decreased from 64% to 16% in 2004. Before the rise of Mao, China was a market economy and a producer of incredible material wealth. It was only during the attempt to destroy the market economy that the Chinese people suffered for a wide-spread lack of material goods.

This is one clear and objective example of how the market economy is crucial to the creation of wealth, and reflects how attempting to push the Spanish economy further to the left and away from peaceful voluntary exchange will only hurt the people of Spain more.

Robbing someone blind is not a voluntary act, since the victim has not volunteered to be robbed. In this context ‘voluntary’ does not mean “anything one chooses to do”, but instead refers to consensual exchanges of property between individuals. Being a tyrant is not voluntary behaviour.

You define murder as a “freedom”. Liberty only includes that which you have a right to do, to “act in a voluntary fashion”. It is the contention of the Voluntaryists that no person has a right to initiate physical force against the life, liberty or property of another, and that all people’s rights are morally equal in this axiom. Draper’s quote is flawed because his definition of liberty is erroneous: absolute liberty only includes all non-coercive actions that one can perform. To perform a coercive action is to exceed liberty and cross into the boundary of criminal behaviour.

Further, if a person is attempting to harm you then it is not “coercive” to stop them, merely defensive. They are the party behaving in a coercive manner by initiating violence.

I keenly anticipate your response.

@EconomicsJunkie I used to consider myself a leftist until another person’s arguments got through my thick skull mate, so I’d like to think there’s always a possibility of making head-way in these discussions.

@Suttree there’s no call to be rude and insult the man. It’s only a discussion.