Thoughts on economics and liberty

Further proof that Hitler was socialist.

Sheila, my good commentator friend has been persisting on proving I’m a great ignoramus. I may well be. I ask who is not? But I suggest that Shiela is not paying attention to what I’m saying. She is unable to see the forest for the trees.

I was going to delete the whole lot of her last comment, for it added not one iota to her claim that Hitler is not socialist (hence advocate of human liberty). I don’t know this, I don’t know that, etc. That’s all she said. News, also, to me: “Is this what I’ve been “taught” by Swami Ramdev?” But I’ve published her comment for her sake, to let her vent. I’m already such a fool and ignoramus. If I keep deleting irrelevant comments I’ll be branded a censor and opponent of free speech on top of that.

But to carry on the substantive debate let me point out a few key extracts from a few sources.

I hope Shiela will one day realise that I don’t care whether someone decks up their socialist worldview in the guise of Marxism, Fabian socialism, Rawlsian property owning democracy, social democracy, religious fundamentalism, tribalism, xenophobia, divine right of kings, racism, or fascism. Regardless of how someone presents his socialist idea, I’m able to see through to the underlying dimension: that the individual must be submerged and sacrificed for the sake of society (or whatever “society” – read ‘great man’ – thinks society must look like or aspire to).

To Shiela my approach seems ill-informed. Why, she asks, am I bundling a LOT of worldviews into one? To someone used to (like she obviously is) classifying worldviews into different “types”, like a Linnaeus classifying plants or animals, my approach must be extremely vexing.

I seek her forbearance and invite her to pay attention to what I’m saying.

In this regard, I found an amusing Mussolini quote on Wikipedia:

Fascism, sitting on the right, could also have sat on the mountain of the center … These words in any case do not have a fixed and unchanged meaning: they do have a variable subject to location, time and spirit. We don’t give a damn about these empty terminologies and we despise those who are terrorized by these words.

I’m not saying that fascism doesn’t mean something SLIGHTLY different to socialism, but to me it makes little sense to classify human thought into so many categories when all the categories are merely of TWO types.

Shiela is like a rock collector who looks at the colour of a rock, its opacity, its other properties, and classifies it as “diamond”, “quartz”, “granite”, “basalt” whatever.

On the other hand I am like a geologist who looks at the composition and origin of rocks and classifies all of them into two: igneous or sedimentary. Everything else is a derivative of these two.

My classification is therefore a META-classification of human ideas, and that is why Shiela is getting confused. She wants me to distinguish socialism from fascism, so some poor student in an exam won’t mix up the two and lose his grades since his ignorant teacher doesn’t see the ROOT of both. But I’m not teaching students. I’m teaching the FUNDAMENTALS of liberty to society. I’m teaching how to distinguish socialist views from those that promote liberty. That’s a more important message in a land where liberty has been muffled for a hundred years.

To help good friend Shiela out, I suggest she consider other people’s views apart form mine (and Hayek’s – who is obviously one more ignorant fool – according to her):

Consider Ayn Rand!


It is a matter of record that in the German election of 1933, the Communist Party was ordered by its leaders to vote for the Nazis—with the explanation that they could later fight the Nazis for power, but first they had to help destroy their common enemy: capitalism and its parliamentary form of government.

It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?” into “Which kind of dictatorship?”—thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).

That fraud collapsed in the 1940’s, in the aftermath of World War II. It is too obvious, too easily demonstrable that fascism and communism are not two opposites, but two rival gangs fighting over the same territory—that both are variants of statism, based on the collectivist principle that man is the rightless slave of the state—that both are socialistic, in theory, in practice, and in the explicit statements of their leaders—that under both systems, the poor are enslaved and the rich are expropriated in favor of a ruling clique—that fascism is not the product of the political “right,” but of the “left”—that the basic issue is not “rich versus poor,” but man versus the state, or: individual rights versus totalitarian government—which means: capitalism versus socialism.

“‘Extremism,’ or the Art of Smearing,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 180

Now consider Sheldon Richman:

As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer…  As with communism, under fascism, every citizen was regarded as an employee and tenant of the totalitarian, party-dominated state. Consequently, it was the state’s prerogative to use force, or the threat of it, to suppress even peaceful opposition.

“The state should retain supervision and each property owner should consider himself appointed by the state. It is his duty not to use his property against the interests of others among his own people. This is the crucial matter. The Third Reich will always retain its right to control the owners of property.” [Hitler himself]

“Fascist “property rights” were only nominal: A businessman (such as Oskar Schindler) would retain legal title to his goods, but he would not retain any control over them. Because he was not politically free, the government could order him to use his property as it desired (such as by using it to produce war implements) — even if it was his property that was being used.” [Source]

“It is thus necessary that the individual should finally come to realize that his own ego is of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the nation as a whole…that above all the unity of a nation’s spirit and will [Sanjeev: “general will”, Shiela, determined by the “great man”] are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an individual….This state of mind, which subordinates the interests of the ego to the conservation of the community, is really the first premise for every truly human culture….The basic attitude form which such activity arises, we call — to distinguish it from egoism and selfishness — idealism. By this we understand only the individual’s capacity to make sacrifices for the community, for his fellow men.” [Adolf Hitler speaking at Bueckeburg, Oct. 7, 1933; The Speeches of Adolf Hitler, 1922-39, ed. N.H. Baynes (2 vols., Oxford, 1942), I, 871-72; translation Professor George Reisman.] (ibid)

Now consider the Wikipedia entry on fascism.

A totally confused entry. No one there seems to know whether fascists are socialists or “capitalists”. But the following extracts give it all away:

Sorel promoted the legitimacy of political violence in his work Reflections on Violence (1908) and other works in which he advocated radical syndicalist action to achieve a revolution to overthrow capitalism and the bourgeoisie through a general strike.[77] In Reflections on Violence, Sorel emphasized need for a revolutionary political religion.[

Sorel’s emphasis on the need for overthrowing decadent liberal democracy and capitalism by the use of violence, direct action, the general strike, and the use of neo-Machiavellian appeals to emotion, impressed Mussolini deeply.

This National Socialism was a form of state socialism that rejected the “idea of boundless freedom” and promoted an economy that would serve the whole of Germany under the leadership of the state.

This National Socialism was opposed to capitalism because of the components that were against “the national interest” of Germany, but insisted that National Socialism would strive for greater efficiency in the economy. Plenge advocated an authoritarian rational ruling elite to develop National Socialism through a hierarchical technocratic state.

both Bolshevism and fascism hold ideological similarities: both advocate a revolutionary ideology, both believe in the necessity of a vanguard elite, both have disdain for bourgeois values, and both had totalitarian ambitions.[103] In practice, fascism and Bolshevism have commonly emphasized revolutionary action, proletarian nation theories, single-party states, and party-armies.

Fascism denounces capitalism not because of its competitive nature nor its support of private property that fascism supports; but due to its materialism, individualism, alleged bourgeois decadence, and alleged indifference to the nation.


A history lesson for those who would smear the moderate Right: the Nazis were socialists

Hitler’s Handouts – Inside the Nazis’ welfare state – MICHAEL MOYNIHAN | FROM THE AUGUST/SEPTEMBER 2007 ISSUE

“The Nazis themselves regarded the left-right convergence as integral to understanding fascism. Adolf Eichmann viewed National Socialism and communism as “quasi-siblings,” explaining in his memoirs that he “inclined towards the left and emphasized socialist aspects every bit as much as nationalist ones.” As late as 1944, Propaganda Minister Josef Goebbels publicly celebrated “our socialism,” reminding his war-weary subjects that Germany “alone [has] the best social welfare measures.” Contrast this, he advised, with the Jews, who were the very “incarnation of capitalism.””


Please follow and like us:
Pin Share

Sanjeev Sabhlok

View more posts from this author
24 thoughts on “Further proof that Hitler was socialist.
  1. sheila

    Thank you for taking the trouble to clarify your views for my benefit. I feel that the more time you, or any other author, takes to think through the foundations of their ideas, the more positive their contribution to the common weal.
    You take the example of geology. This would be a valid approach if ideas have a genealogy rather than being an example of convergent evolution.
    Conventionally, political ideologies are classed along multiple axes. Thus some ideologies and states would be score high on both Socialism and Liberty, others high on Liberty and low on Socialism, others low on both, etc. etc. You say you want a one dimensional taxonomy. Fine, iff you can establish a partial ordering principle upon ideologies. You may believe you have done so. I asked you what your criteria of demarcation was and how you avoided sorites type paradoxes- you may have edited that out of my comment but perhaps you recall the gist- this is equivalent to asking what your partial ordering principle is such that your one dimensional analysis has the properties of closure, connectivity and so on. Don’t rush into an answer. This is a complicated question- similar to the index number problem which, it has been suggested, requires some sort of gauge invariance underpinning based on discovering Noether symmetries. Discuss this by all means in your blog- even if the thing can’t be done, trying to do it will generate fresh insights.
    One further point, Carlyle’s ‘Great Man’ theory’ has nothing to do with the General Will- which is simply the general Laws governing things- it is the Will of All- which corresponds to specific exceptions. These terms arise from a theological context.
    Take your time identifying a partial ordering principle such that what you want to say makes sense. Time spent on thought, on tentative discussion is vastly more productive and constitutive of Public discourse than ex cathedra pronouncements. I can understand- most people can understand and sympathise- with the feeling that Academic philosophy or political theory is simply too arcane and self-involved to offer guidance to the urgent task of Reform the Indian polity now faces.
    But the way forward is by independent thought expressed in simple idiomatic language in which concrete examples take center stage. Academia is like a crutch which helps you to walk- after a time the crutch should be dispensed with.
    Majnun ne Shehr chorra hai, Sehra bhi chorr do
    Nazara ka havas ho, to Lailah bhi chorr do.

  2. sheila

    I wanted to send you a link to a paper on gauge invariance in Econ but my son tells me what I saw was a draft and it isn’t published yet.
    From my memory, the salient point in it had to do with counterfactuals.

    Briefly, in distinguishing between ideologies, the problem arises of distinguishing between tactics and strategy- for e.g. Churchill & Beaverbrook exerted more Govt. control over the Aircraft industry than Germany. The result was that though the German fighters were better and faster, they could not fly at their optimal speed because they had to go at the speed of the bombers which were produced by a different company. Such irrationality was forbidden in Churchill’s England. That’s why he won the Battle of Britain. Does this mean Churchill was more Socialistic and therefore (according to you) a bigger enemy of liberty than Hitler? No. Churchill’s decision was tactical, as was Stalin’s in 1933- according to Ayn Rand. Now, from what I understand of Lubos Motl article on the subject, since gauge invariance symmetries, unlike mere global symmetries, have time dependent parameters to describe their transformations, we can think of the Stallnacker-Lewis phase space of closest possible (counterfactual) worlds as the domain of the transformation functions which themselves become the data-set to be partially ordered. I am not persuaded this can be done- but to my knowledge, no current impossibility result forbids the attempt.
    Fascism, Communism, F.D.R’s war economy, Churchill’s war economy- all have superficial similarities. However, these similarities, in the case of the Liberal or Socialist Democracies (as Britiain became in 1945) were tactical not strategic.
    ‘Socialism’ and ‘Leftist’ are not identical with Stalinist Communism. However, Socialists and Leftists tend to view Stalinism as tactical or as an aberration whereas ‘Rightists’ and ‘Capitalists’ tend to view it as fundamentally evil and hold that the horrible means were themselves part of the horrible end towards which Stalin and his henchmen laboured. Similarly, ‘Capitalist’ and ‘Rightist’ is not identical with ‘Hitlerism’. Hayek said Pinochet gave the people more freedom than Allende. But Hayek was not saying Pinochet’s Chile was the ideal state.
    You may say- ‘what do I care about words. I just think everybody except me is wrong because I have a CORE idea.’- well, you are perfectly at liberty to do so. Indeed, it may be your best option if you find that it really is beyond your powers (perhaps by reason of microwave radiation) to use language in a manner that is not ignorant and bizarre, or to argue in a manner that is not stupid and typified by ignoratio elenchi, in other words continue on your present path if you really can’t do any better.
    But make the attempt. Think more, write less. Look things up before jotting them down. Avoid pretentious language and intellectual name-dropping. Use concrete examples. Above all, see with your heart. Ask Baba Ramdev- ‘kya Samajvadi log, bure hain? Kya woh hamen gulam bana na chahte hain? Kya un mein aur Naxal mein koi bhi farak nahin?’
    He will calm you fears and teach you some good Yogic asana to restore your peace of mind.

  3. Satish

    Hitler has more commonalities with Indira Gandhi than Nehru. Nazi party was a short for nationalist socialist party, and Indira Gandhi embedded the democratic socialist term in the constitution.

  4. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    “Conventionally, political ideologies are classed along multiple axes”.

    I told you that you are stuck in your “training” in conventional thinking. I think for myself. Big difference.

    My approach is to ask:

    a) Is your idea about how you can independently improve your own life/effort/contribution or are you basking in the work or achievement or glory of someone else?

    b) Is your idea about improving your own life independently or do you desire to impose it on others?

    c) Is your idea about being accountable for your independent action or is it about being held to account for actions of OTHERS?

    And questions like this.

    If you intend to hold me to account for actions of OTHERS, you are a socialist, since in your mind I’m not an independent different being but a “representative”, a “stereotype” of some class of people you’ve imagined in your mind.

    If you intend to impose your ideas on me by force even though I’ve not directly harmed you physically (including violating property rights/contracts), you are socialist since you are intending to use me as a tool of your idea about how the world should be – even though I’ve not harmed you physically.

    Around me is a mental space in which I live my life freely and in which none can dictate to me what I think or do. I may (and will) create GENERAL rules of interaction (like traffic rules) in which all of us filter our lives to avoid bumping into each other, or for building common facilities. If I bump into your life and harm you you can then hold me to account. That’s when society begins. But society is only you – the person I bump into, and not the “whole lot”. There is no society.

    This approach to liberty of thought and action – and INDIVIDUAL growth and learning – is known as the system of natural liberty, also called capitalism.

    All other approaches that conflate person A with persons B,C,D are SOCIALIST.

    Hitler mixed up good Jews (murderers in jail) with bad Jews. He had no concept of individual accountability. No concept of individual. In his childish dreams of grandeur (“great man”), others were mere pawns to be “organised” on HIS mental chessboard. There can be no greater characteristic of socialism than this: that you lose the sense of the individual and of individual accountability.

    So while Christ preached to the INDIVIDUAL, the Pope preaches to the SOCIETY (“let’s harvest souls”). Christ is a capitalist and Pope a socialist.

    I speak to the individual and care for India (or any nation) only to the extent I CREATE IT for my needs, jointly with others: a social contract, usually represented through the constitution and ALL regulations agreed in society under that constitution, plus social norms and traditions.

    I see you are struggling with the idea that someone can read 1000s of authors and form his OWN view, which clarifies ALL OTHER authors.

    Like I say about societies: show me the rules and I’ll predict the results, so also I say about ANY author: show me his writing and I’ll show you whether he values the individual or society.

    Read John Ruskin or Vivekananda. Then read Hitler. Can you not yourself distinguish their foundational worldview? Ruskin and Vivekananda are talking about EACH OF US as individuals, how we may become something with our own efforts, and how we need liberty to allow that to happen. To Hitler, everyone else is a mere childish extension of his ego. Others are not individuals in their own right.

    If you care to read DOF you’ll come out very clear at the end of the book about what I’m talking about.

    You’ll then stop babbling what you’ve been taught or what some academic interpreters or minions have said about someone, and form your OWN understanding about people. Such clerks need to make a living by writing books and articles and getting work to do at our expense – like teaching courses at universities. They don’t either create ideas nor understand them. Think for yourself, for once!


  5. Aditya Kadambi

    //I told you that you are stuck in your “training” in conventional thinking. I think for myself. Big difference//
    Well said !
    This statement actually defines the problem that a lot of individuals largely identifying with libertarianism, face. People tend to be bound by identities as left wing or rightist and the lefties bound by their ideology will not want to even attempt to see the similiarities b/w Hitler & Stalin. Or Nationalism & Socialism.
    The 2 are related. The 2 are collectivist. And there lies the problem.
    Unless you’re a Chomsky supporting deluded anarchist-socialist, you must accept that socialism is welfare statism. It is done to create more equality of living standard and outcome & hence goods/services are provided on the basis of ‘need’. Nationalism, again is for the ‘collective good fo the nation/society’. Again, the state decides what is in ‘national interest’. In both cases, Individual liberty is sacrificed.
    Both can work, if they exist at a bare minimum level. Statism, Socialism, Nationalism, Collectivism can all work only if minimised ensuring maximising of individual liberty.

  6. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Well said, Aditya.

    Your clarity of thought is commendable.

    Re: your last point, “Both can work, if they exist at a bare minimum level. Statism, Socialism, Nationalism, Collectivism can all work only if minimised ensuring maximising of individual liberty” I’d like to note that the liberal is NOT asocial, and indeed wants a government that performs certain requisite roles in provision of common goods that include social insurance. But these are VOLUNTARILY determined through discussion/debate and restriction on any unnecessary coercion.

    This allows for coercive taxation once a parliament has assessed that a particular public good (e.g. defence) can’t be produced without coercively collecting a tax. However, it requires an extremely minimalist role by government, since every additional government task usually involves increasing coercion/taxation, and that is a big problem for individual liberty.

    So, unlike socialists who aim to loot your talents (Rawls) and your property (Marx) or your dignity (Hitler), classical liberals do not touch your talent/property/dignity/freedom, but SEEK your considered opinion and voluntary agreement to a minimal role for government.


  7. Shailesh

    Sanjeev: I am very happy with a small govt but prefer no govt to a small govt.

    Yes or no question for you:

    Assume a society where majority are classical liberals who seek ‘voluntary’ agreement to a small govt. The others (minority) prefer no govt.

    In such a situation, will it be ok for the classical liberals to impose a small govt funded by coercive taxation of everyone?

  8. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    If the majority want NO government, I’d be quite happy with that.

    However, I’ve clearly shown in DOF that such a state is never going to happen. This is standard public choice/collective choice theory. Free rider/ moral hazard/ etc. etc.

    The fact that there NEVER was a stateless society in human history is clear empirical evidence that what you suggest will (a) never happen (b) if it does happen, is unstable and won’t last.

    I do not see human nature changing for the next many hundreds of thousands of years. If we become angels, then yes, libertarian utopia could arise.


  9. Shailesh

    Thanks Sanjeev but this does not answer my yes or no question:

    is it ok for MAJORITY classical liberals to impose a small govt funded by coercive taxation of everyone (including MINORITY anarchists)?

  10. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Shailesh, I don’t see the possibility of a majority of taxpaying people being willing to let non-taxpayers (anarchists) use roads/ defence, etc. Free riding is not an option.

    Therefore someone who doesn’t pay taxes for defence must do so. Paying taxes is mandatory in the society I’m talking about. An anarchist is free to persuade others and once he/she forms majority, overthrow government (in which case the next moment chaos will set in, and foreign invader will enter the country). But while he/she is a minority he MUST pay taxes.

    The alternative is to leave for a “nation” where there is no government. Such things are possible 12 nautical miles from existing nations. Some people are proposing to build such new government-less countries, but I doubt if these can succeed. In all other places, the possibility of a government-less society doesn’t exist. At the minimum a mafia will emerge.

    So the short answer to your question is “Yes”. It is not “OK”, it is merely an economic necessity. No free riding can be permitted.

  11. Democracy4India

    Thanks. Understood. I disagree with but don’t debate your reasonable position (small govt.)

    The reason I asked this question was: in your response to Aditya’s comment (above), you seem to insist on VOLUNTARY agreement for govt’s role in defence, etc.

    Hence, I was wondering if you will coerce the minority (anarchists) if it doesn’t voluntarily agree to any role for govt. It seems you will do so ‘to avoid invasion by foreign powers’.

    As a logical corollary, the majority in a tiny nation, say Greece, can force the minority to ‘merge’ with other nation(s) so that they are able to defend themselves from large foreign powers.

  12. Aditya Kadambi

    isn’t that a democracy vs republic problem?
    Ours is a republic, hence we have rule of elected state officials who claim to represent us. To use a pathetic american term – ‘Kinda’, represent us.
    All republics are democracies. However a direct or completely pure democracy will have citizens vote on every issue.
    IN any case, you are right, some amount of coercion is necessary.
    Traffic laws and stop signals, traffic lights & traffic signs in general are for the ‘collective good of the nation’ and force/coercion here is, you know, warranted!! So not only would I & I imagine Mr.Sabhlok, be in favour of coercion for the creation of a small state through a particular kind of democratic process, but also for the existence of taxes, tariffs, common civil & criminial laws again through a particular democratic process.
    Being a republic is actually not ideal. Utopia is anarchy!
    Or should I say, anarchy is Utopia?

  13. Shailesh

    Yes Aditya. I agree with you broadly.

    My point: the difference between a small minimal state and a big welfare state is just that small states have less coercion and big states have more coercion (Small states are NOT voluntary as claimed by Sanjeev).

    Believers in big state (statists) believe that state is more efficient / moral / necessary in most areas. Believers in small state (classical liberals) understand the inefficiency/immorality of state getting involved in, say, coal mining. But then, different folks draw a different line as to what constitutes legitimate areas of state intervention. Some lines are based on the concept of ‘public goods’ but many so called ‘public goods’ can be delivered by the free market.

    eg: you imply that traffic laws are a necessary ‘public good’. Yet, I am sure free markets can provide better traffic laws. If a private company owns a road, that company will ensure swift and safe movement of traffic for its own sake. It may or may not involve traffic signals (you can google for examples of busy junctions operating better WITHOUT signals) but there is no coercion since only guys who choose to use that private road have to follow its laws.

    I prefer anarchy but, perhaps, people need to experience a small state in action before they can imagine/understand a well-functioning anarchy. Hence, my blog is named democracy4india because I feel more democracy is one of the ways to achieve a gradually smaller state (i think india has too little democracy).

    The other way to reduce the size of state is to let it grow really big and people will see for themselves the hardships caused and/or the state will somehow crumble under its own weight. This route seems risky / painful and difficult to plan / work towards.

  14. Shailesh

    “The other way to reduce the size of state is to let it grow really big and people will see for themselves the hardships caused and/or the state will somehow crumble under its own weight. This route seems risky / painful and difficult to plan / work towards”

    Folks who are focussed on making money for themselves without worrying about the society (like u and I do) are, knowingly or unknowingly, following this approach and maybe more effective than ‘activists’ like us.

  15. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Shailesh, I think I must move on but I dispute your hypothesis that an anarchy will become a role model for others.

    No anarchy can ever come into existence through persuasion. To create an anarchy you’ll need considerable coercion (since people will refuse to believe in your ability to ensure order without your having significant coercive power).

    That means you’ll have to begin as a dictator. Once you let go your coercion after you’ve achieved your totalitarian small state – which would be the requirement for anarchy, you be surprised how quickly the anarchic state will either be gobbled up by its neighbours, or someone will take over the society as a mafia.

    You do have a very simplistic mindset that is, to me a sign of significant danger. Marx had a particularly nice view about humans in an absolute communist utopia. He was totally wrong about humans.

    You must try to understand real humans, real societies. Humans are a very difficult and DANGEROUS species. Do not assume that humans will live peacefully in anarchy. They’ll KILL with impunity.

    Afghanistan/ Ethiopia, even NE Assam are examples in many ways of what has happened/ will happen without a strong but minimal state.


  16. Aditya Kadambi

    Shailesh, I agree with everything you say before this line – ‘but many so called ‘public goods’ can be delivered by the free market.’
    From that line onwards, everything you say, I disagree with, strongly.

    There are 2 stages here, obvious to everyone –
    1)The creation of a large or small state, or getting rid of the state. Creating the environment that 1 thinks is the ideal for facilitating their philosophy
    2)What happens next.
    I hope I made myself clear there.
    1, happens through the democratic process. As minarchists both me & Mr.Sabhlok would support this. As anarchists you are doomed to use force OR keep arguing your point till there is some consensus. I saw Mr.Sabhlok’s comment & he makes the same point I am here.
    I will quote him to you – ”No anarchy can ever come into existence through persuasion. To create an anarchy you’ll need considerable coercion (since people will refuse to believe in your ability to ensure order without your having significant coercive power).”
    I would say, No anarchy can come into existence through persuasion within a timeframe like , an average human male’s life. And most definitely not, in a large population region or for a large population anyway. Maybe if a bunch of anarchists decided to move to a deserted pacific island it could work on a small level! Still not convinced if it could work for even more than a couple of years. If I’m not wrong, Milton Friedman’s grandson is working on something like this.
    So on both point 1 & 2, I can’t see anarchy working & pt 1 will need coercion.

  17. Shailesh

    sorry, my imprecise language caused both of you to misunderstand me. I said:

    “I prefer anarchy but, perhaps, people need to experience a small state in action before they can imagine/understand a well-functioning anarchy”

    by ‘small state’, i meant ‘limited’, ‘minimal’ govt in any country …i didn’t mean a tiny anarchist society.

    So, while I am an anarchist, I am very strongly for gradually (or not so gradually) reducing the size of govt. through the democratic process (my blog is titled: democracy4india!)

    However, I do disagree with the criticism of anarchy, particularly by ‘classical liberals’ or ‘minarchists’…see this short but sexy article from stephan kinsella…

  18. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sorry, Shailesh, but the guy is presumptuous enough to argue that his is an “ethical” position. That’s a load of rubbish.

    “It’s an ethical view, so no surprise it confuses utilitarians.”

    1. Liberalism is not utilitarian. This terms is misleading. It is also not “unethical”. That ground can’t be seceded to anarchists.

    2. Liberalism is founded on LAWS OF NATURE. In other words, it looks at BIOLOGICAL ORIGINS of man, not “spiritual”. It doesn’t consider ethics that is divorced from actual human behaviour.

    The writer of that article is a pompous fool who has ZERO understanding of human behaviour. After the first line I stopped reading.

    I’ve read plenty. I only hope one day these guys will try to understand the first political SCIENTIST: Hobbes. Indeed, I’d argue that Chanakya was perhaps the first such scientist, but even writers of Mahabaharata had far more scientific sense.

    Any analysis of the society comprising the human ANIMAL which is divorced from his ANIMAL HUMAN NATURE is stupid. Gets a zero in the study of political science. Such imaginary analysis which uses terms like “utilatianism” “deontological”, etc., will always mislead.

    If ANY of these guys had the intelligence to study humans AS THEY ARE, I’d read them, but they are simply unreadable, being pompous fools.

  19. Shailesh

    wow! i’ve nothing to add….except that you should read that article again with an open mind and perhaps not ‘stop reading after the first line’

  20. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Sorry, Shailesh. I’m getting old now. Have read tens of such patronising “holier than thou” articles that treat anarchy as a form of religion that ordinary “unethical” fools like me can’t understand.

    I treat human society as a group of animals living together (evolutionary/biological/scientific). That’s my starting point. If anyone starts with abstract theory, I switch off. 100 per cent empirical and incentive based is my analysis. I study the human ANIMAL as an ANIMAL, and don’t assume that any preaching about “ethics” will ever work on this animal.

    Please summarise in 3 dot points the argument and why it is worthy of any attention.


  21. vivek Iyer

    You worthless cunt- still taking the name of an Upper Class Lady in your worthless blog? Fuck you- we will find out if her biradari can tolerate such an insult from a worm like you. What? You think Australia is safe? Bastard, your throat will be slit if you do not heed my warning. Why make this a communal issue. You will get your comeuppance. People like you can’t conceal their nature even from their own children though the vigilance of the wife is difficult to defeat.
    You fucking cunt. As a Hindu- I understand why you say ‘I am not a Hindu’. You are a man with grey hair, so am I. In Ramrajya, I fucking kill perverts like you. I have the reports on your father. I don’t fucking care. You are responsible for your OWN actions. Don’t give me a fucking twinkie defence. Take responsibility.
    Your hatred and misogyny, esp. towards Minorities, is amply demonstrated in your blog. Your stupidity and manic protestation again is a feature all can see. What drives you to this reckless disregard for the Truth, for Civility, for Safety?
    Your belief that your Baba can protect you?
    He will be the first to sacrifice you.
    Incidentally, I’m not JUST from London. I’m from Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Gujerat.
    Fuck with me, you cunt, and I will fuck with you. I am smarter than you. More influential. I wanted you to go to the British police because that way I can get the material have onto the Public Record. Jiu jitsu, you cunt.
    You still have not removed the name of a high born lady, despite her request, from your comments and posts.
    Do so, you cunt.
    The next step is this passes out of my hand and goes to her biradari- very active I believe in Australia.
    You and your family will be killed to expunge the insult you have offered a High born lady who never did you any harm but, sadly, was mistaken in you- fucking paedophile scum that you are.

  22. Arvind

    @sanjeev: ignore this Vivek Iyer. by virtue of his words I understand that he doesn’t stand for anything he claims to. If anything he has grounded to dust any semblance of civility. these are worthless rants from a jobless moron. don’t waste your time on this guy.

  23. Sanjeev Sabhlok

    Arvind, I fully agree. He is wasting my time. The problem is that he is making death threats. People can say anything they like but not threaten violence. There is no freedom to do that. Then the matter becomes criminal This is clearly a matter for Police and I’ve alerted the Police appropriately.

  24. Borat

    Ironically this Vivek Iyer character proved your point that humans are animalistic creatures.

Social media & sharing icons powered by UltimatelySocial