tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post2951134695954945546..comments2023-11-05T04:31:48.615-05:00Comments on Elusive Lucidity: The State Will Control Even Your RespirationZChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-43744413608421671362009-06-11T21:55:02.985-04:002009-06-11T21:55:02.985-04:00More on despotism and freedom to come later, I thi...More on despotism and freedom to come later, I think. But thanks for your thoughts, Alex.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-38630359309217305052009-05-30T22:39:07.100-04:002009-05-30T22:39:07.100-04:00Here's one problem with v. Mises' argument:
"It ...Here's one problem with v. Mises' argument:<br /><br /> "It is not merely the return of mankind to the oriental despotism under which, as Hegel observed, one man alone was free and all the rest slaves, for those Asiatic kings did not interfere with the daily routine of their subjects."<br /><br />Essentially, Mises does not understand what freedom is.<br /><br />But ancient democracies / republics were precisely states of the kind Mises seems so exercised about: politics was everything in these states, and everything was (or could be) regulated in ancient republics. Men were free in those tiny ancient republics because they could participate in ruling, not because the there were arbitrary limits to politics. Socrates, of course, was executed in democratic Athens. Rousseau flees from republican Geneva to royal France. Aristotle flees democratic Athens to join the royal court of Alexander. Etc.<br /><br />Mises is taking Locke's version of liberty (which is primarily property rights and control of the private household) and pretending that Locke's liberty was the standard of civilized nations. (Or, put in another way, that Locke's liberty was the only concievable understanding of liberty).<br /><br />But Locke's liberty not only wasn't the standard of civilized nations, it's much closer to what the old-time oriental despotisms offered. Locke's liberty is precisely the flaw in the social contract: the demos does not itself rule, and the demos instead is distracted and diverted from their political passions into pursuit of private gain. <br /><br />That's why the social contract state resembles oriental despotisms in so many ways - because the demos does not directly rule, the social contract state can expand and contract its borders in infinite variations just like an oriental despotism. (If the demos rules directly, the demos must gather together in one place frequently - i.e. the true democracy is limited in geographic size to a very small area). The social contract state, of course, is completely the converse. As long as the small legislature of representatives can meet anywhere, it can control anyplace. The legislature rules, and the vast bulk of citizens are discouraged from politics and their passions diverted into pursuit of private gain.<br /><br />In other words, Mises doesn't understand that the techne of the social contract is the same across all modern states.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.com