Talk:Gustave de Molinari

message: The picture is not from Molinari, is from Thornstein Veblen.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joroba2k (talk • contribs) 16:42, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture? 

message: Okies Nat, I changed this: "In 1849, Molinari published several essays describing how a free market in justice and protection could advantageously replace the State. Many feel this work makes him effectively the first theorist of anarcho-capitalism."
to this: "Though much of his work predated the origin of anarcho-capitalism by a hundred years, many feel it is similar enough to effectively make him the first theorist of anarcho-capitalism."
Why?  Because you and I both know that Molinari never called himself an anarcho-capitalist, because at that time the word did not exist.  That means that, no matter how much we might believe that Molinari's views are similar (or disimilar) to what later became known as anarcho-capitalism, it is not proper to call him the first anarcho-capitalist.  What you are doing is putting an interpretation of the facts (one that literally could not have existed in Molinari's time) into wikipedia and allowing it to take precedent over the facts themselves.  I don't think there is necessarily anything wrong with this when there are no objections, but there are objections, and that means the fact (that many consider Molinari the first theorist of anarcho-capitalism, and that anarcho-capitalism by that name came into being 100 years after his major works) should take precedent over the interpretation (that the philosophy which later became known as anarcho-capitalism is identical to or so similar to what Molinari espoused (i.e. anti-state liberalism) that he ought to be considered the first anarcho-capitalist theorist).  The reasons for this are clear, they are the same reasons that it would be objectionable to claim that anarchism is 2500 years old and originated from Lao Tzu, despite the fact that many believe this interpretation to be valid.  Please let me know what you think so we can work this out, perhaps you can come up with a wording you like better.  Kev 09:45, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I don't agree.  Normally, when we use a word, we are referring to the underlying concept rather than the word itself.  I could say that Confucius was a philosopher, and I would be right, even though Confucius would never have called himself a philosopher any more than he would have called himself Confucius.  So, the fact that Molinari didn't call himself an anarcho-capitalist is irrelevant if his ideas were anarcho-capitalistic.  It seems to me that the purpose of "effectively" in this sentence is to indicate that we mean in pracice rather than by name.  As I said in my edit summary, if Molinari is effectively the first anarcho-capitalist thinker, then he can't predate it by 100 years. - Nat Krause 16:44, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

text: I find your analogy very lacking, while you seemed to skip over the one that I used and seems to be obviously more relevant.  "Philosopher" is a vague term generally used as a descriptive.  If it entailed a particular tradition (like say Western rhetorical art) than many people probably would object to refering to Confucius as a philosopher.  Anarcho-capitalism does suggest a tradition, indeed it refers to a relatively narrow political spectrum.  This makes it rather different than "philosophy" which arguably could be used to describe any instance of 2nd order thought.  I would think this difference would be clear to you given that you have yourself claimed a tradition of anarcho-capitalism extending back as far as Molinari's time.  Again, your claim, or the claim of anyone else, that Molinari was an anarcho-capitalist is an interpretation rather than a fact.  Its a pretty good interpretation, he was very close to anarcho-capitalism in a number of ways (though not all), but that doesn't change history.  Anyway, I understand your desire to represent those who believe that Molinari demonstrates a coherent ac tradition before the 1950s, so I will try an edit that merely balances this claim rather than demonstrating it to be false.  Kev 07:14, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I skipped over your analogy, because you and I use different definitions of the word "anarchist", so I thought the example would be less edifying.  But, yes, I think that one could certainly argue that Laozi was an anarchist, and this would not be wrong on the face of it, although, as far as I know, it is incorrect.  You're right that "anarcho-capitalist" and "philosopher" are different sorts of concepts, but my point was simply that one need not call onself something in order to be be that thing.  Anarcho-capitalism is indeed a tradition, but it is a tradition that has always had Molinari as one of its central figures.  Now, this doesn't prove that Molinari actually was one, but it leaves open the possibility that he might have been.  The rest is, as you say, a matter of judgment.  I think that my wording: "Many feel this work makes him effectively the first theorist of anarcho-capitalism" was sufficiently tentative.  Your changes are pretty fair, too, so I don't think I will make any substantial changes, although I might edit the phrasing. - Nat Krause 13:53, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Nat 

message: The article claims: "In his 1899 book, The Society of the Future, he moderated his position on defense slightly, calling for private regional monopolies rather than competing defense agencies." I don't believe it. Can someone find a citation from "The Society of Tomorrow" to back this up? Hogeye 01:47, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regional monopolies? 

message: *For the record.. ""And as happened on several occasions in the history of nineteenth century liberalism, extreme anti-statism and faith in the cooperative free market were pushed into a form of liberal anarchism along the lines developed later by Gustave de Molinari, Thomas Hodgskin and Herbert Spencer." ([from The Radical Liberalism of Charles Comte and Charles Dunoyer by David Hart)  Hart is a professor of history at University of Adelaide, South Australia in 1986. He earned an M.A. in history from Stanford University and a Ph.D. in history from the University of Cambridge. RJII 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One doesn't have to be a "neutral" source (whatever that is) to be a credible source. The guy is a respected scholar. He's a credible source. It's only natural that the historians who LIKE liberalism are the ones that are going to be researching it. You're not going to find communists researching Molinari, because they don't care about him. As far as Ferrero, I've found that the Italians often refer to anarcho-capitalism simply as individualist anarchism (and there is a suprisingly large number of anarcho-capitalist theorists in Italy). I don't think he's saying there that Tucker and Spooner were anarcho-capitalists, but just noting that anarcho-capitalism is a form of individualist anarchism. RJII 03:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would the Molinari Institute "know" anything? Calling him an anarchist can never be anything more than an opinion, and one that's obviously more popular among libertarians and anarcho-capitalists who define anarchism as purely anti-statism and want to establish historical claims to anarchism. Libertarian thinktanks are pretty clearly a biased source. And credentials are pretty pointless unless someone else has actually read over what you had to say and made some attempt to verify it. In Hart's case, he never even had his essay published. I would have thought you held higher standards for sources than that. Sarge Baldy 05:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Molinari Institute is run by someone with academic credentials:  David Hart's GUSTAVE DE MOLINARI AND THE ANTI-STATIST LIBERAL TRADITION is published in the Journal of Libertarian Studies. He calls Molinari an anarchist in that. And, of course they define anarchism as pure anti-statism. That's the definition of anarchism. Anarchism is any doctrine that opposes coercion, in favor of voluntary relations, which necessarily entails opposition to a State. RJII 05:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. Now you just need to go and convince the 98% of anarchists who disagree. And again, the Insitute of Libertarian Studies was edited by Murray Rothbard, and part of the Ludwig von Mises Institute thinktank. I'm finding your criticism of Infoshop as partisan pretty hypocritical considering your welcome attitude towards an organization explicitly designed to promote libertarian capitalist politics. Sarge Baldy 06:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia after encyclopedia, dictionary after dictionary, defines anarchism as I've stated it. Infoshop? So that's where you're getting your definition of anarchism --"hieararchy" and all that nonsense? The Anarchist FAQ there was written by communists who are trying to redefine anarchism. No credible reference sources are falling for it. I would respect the opinions of people from the FAQ that's at Infoshop if they had academic qualifications, but as far as I can tell it's just a bunch of internet-anarchists with no academic qualifications to comment. It's the worthless propaganda written by self-described "social anarchists." Whatever. The rest of the world knows what anarchism means. See any widely acknowledged published reference source. RJII 06:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. As I already stated on the anarchism talk page, I think Infoshop is a load of bunk. And you're certainly jumping the gun if you think "government" means the same thing as "state". It doesn't. If I gave one shit about dictionaries, I might note that the definition notes anarchism opposes "all forms of government" means that all definitions of government need also be included, and "Administration or management of an organization, business, or institution" is one definition of government, thereby proving anarcho-capitalism isn't anarchism. But I haven't bothered with that claim, because dictionaries are a worthless source. And maybe if you and Hogeye didn't keep assuming everyone who disagrees with you is a braindead retard who gets all their ideas about anarchism from Infoshop, conversation might actually take place on some relatable, human level. Sarge Baldy 06:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you're braindead at all. I've always considered you one of the more reasonable and open-minded people that works on the anarchism article. Anarchism, at its root, is opposition to being coerced. Anarchists want people to interact on a voluntary basis. That's how individualists approach anarchism. Opposition to the State comes as a result of opposing coercion --the result of being an anarchist. It's not opposition to the State just for the sake of getting rid of the State. RJII 06:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right. I think all anarchists would agree. But many also believe that anarcho-capitalism is a progression of minarchism, aimed more at removing barriers from capitalism than at removing exploitation. I know that was how I ended up in anarcho-capitalism myself. Rothbard seems to argue both, but people don't tend to buy into the latter point. That's probably because anarcho-capitalism abandons the state but actively promotes institutions with authority to govern (i.e. governments) and the notion that people should be governed. In short, they consider the ideal society one with all the functions of government, only privatized. That seems pretty out there, since anarchists have traditionally opposed the functions of states just as much as the states themselves. As for your bit on opposition to coercion, I tend to define that term pretty much as the dictionary does ("the act of compelling by force of authority"), so I can't well picture how a society with armed authority figures avoids coercion. Sarge Baldy 07:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can still oppose coercion, and support self-defense. Yes, self-defense is coercion, but I think coercion is usually taken to mean the initiation of coercion. Fighting back when someone is attacking you is "compelling by force," but it's defensive, not initiatory. If you ask someone else to defend you, so you don't have to get in a fight with the attacker, that's anarcho-capitalism. Saying you oppose all coercion, including defensive is easy to say, but isn't that a bit ridiculous? What you would be saying is you favor a change in human nature. RJII 21:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. I just don't accept the liberal conception of human nature as innately competitive. Nor do I accept Kropotkin's conception of human nature as innately cooperative. I see human nature as simply adapting to the system in whatever way makes the most sense. In competitive, meritocratic societies like in the United States, it's in most people's interest to "play the game". Even still, this is circumstantial. Women, for instance, have traditionally taken a more cooperative role because competition serves no purpose in the domestic sphere. In fact, competition for resources within a family would inevitably render the concept meaningless and destroy it. Similiarly, if competition were to exist in a hunting-gathering group, it would collapse almost immediately, because these groups work together towards a common aim, and if each were to serve their individual efforts, the group would disband and no one would be able to survive. I see human nature as malleable, and a response to environmental conditions. Government is only necessary where these conditions render it necessary. The point to social anarchists is an organization where it is unnecessary, since a forced anarchy is just as totalitarian and domineering as any other system. Communally organized systems such as those of hunter-gatherers and the Native Americans are thus popular models to look at, since they best fit these aims. Liberal anarchists, on the other hand, want to keep competition over resources, so sure, crime is inevitable. And of course that forces them to create methods to control for unwanted behavior. When that gets to the point of maintaining order from the barrel of a gun, I don't see how that's any less authoritarian than any other system. And even worse, it's utterly hypocritical to the idea of practicing non-coercion. Natural concessions to make, for sure, but I consider it better to critically examine the weaknesses of a system than treat them as innate and requiring of forceable "correction". Sarge Baldy 23:53, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you overlook the fact that competition is enjoyable. People compete because they enjoy it --it's thrilling. I see you bring up women as being less competitive. There is a simple reason for that --low testosterone. Give a blood test to the female competitors in the Olympics, and you'll see they have a higher testosterone level than the average woman. As long as testosterone exists, people will be competitive. There is nothing more thrilling for the competitor than acheiving dominance over everyone else. Human nature is never going to change, because it IS human nature. Speaking for myself, I enjoy competition. I wouldn't ever want to stop being competitive, because it's just so exhilarating --whether it's here on Wikipedia or in the business world. Without man's desire to rise above all other men, there are no men. Competitors are never going to go away, simply because it's enjoyable to compete. Accept the attributes of human nature, and design a system that embraces them. RJII 03:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Er, right. I see you're on the far other end of the nature vs nurture debate. It's unfortunate no one takes sociology classes. Even an intro class can be eye-opening. Not that I think that suggestion makes any sense, since it's pretty clear women have become much more competitive in recent years, due to economic necessity and evolving gender roles rather than magic or modified biology. And if you do really think that men are biologically competitive and women aren't, then it's interesting to see your candor in wanting to force a system utterly incompatible with the human nature of half the population. Sarge Baldy 04:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, non-competitive people are not the ones you have to fear. So, you don't have to worry about them. They aren't going to cause do as much harm, or as much good, as competitors. I'm not advocating forcing anything on the non-competitive people; but, I ask you, how are you going to protect the non-competitive from the competitive? The drive to compete is what drives crime, as much as it drives progress. As long as you're adocating a system that expects it to diminish, you're advocating a change in human nature that's never going to happen. I for one am not going to let it happen because I enjoy competing. It's part of my biology that I would never want to relenquish. You can only eliminate the competitive spirit through chemical castration of everyone in the world. The drive to compete is just as much as a natural force of nature as are the waves in the ocean. You need to recognize the natural forces in the world and devise systems that harness those forces. Anything else is just useless fantasy. RJII 04:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recognize people as naturally adapting to their circumstances. You yourself, a male American, represent that perfectly, seeing your own socialization towards competition and winning, and the basic pressure towards those attitudes as basic requirements of success. I obviously was socialized the same way. But then I rejected it, and I don't think it had anything to do with my testosterone levels dropping. Just looking around the world, it isn't hard to see that some areas are more fervent about competition than others. But if you want to take it as a hard fact, there isn't much I can say. You might also want to take that testosterone statistic with a grain of salt. It's worth considering the possibility that testosterone levels increase as a result of physical activity, rather than assuming the opposite. Sarge Baldy 05:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Think about what you're saying. If the drive to "competition and winning" is gone, there will be no more sports, not more Olympics, no more games of chess, no more Friday night poker games with friends trying to outcompete each other to take each other's money, etc.  Do you really take what you're saying seriously? I wouldn't want to live in a world without competition. How pathetically boring. (And, you're right that testosterone levels increase as a result of physical activity --I've seen studies. I go to the gym 4 times a week, so I probably don't have a shortage of the stuff.) RJII 05:24, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I enjoy a little friendly competition as much as anyone else. Although when I'm doing that sort of thing, the point isn't really so much about winning as just hanging out together and doing something. And I'd say there's a fair difference between having poker games with friends and using the poker game as a prototype for your overall economic model. Sarge Baldy 06:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know people like you then. They play a game just for the comradery. You're the best kind of person to play poker with. People like me take your money. Seriously, the same motivation applies beyond card games and into the business world. It's the same basic instinct that is woven throughout society in everything. Whether it's a card game, or trying to outcompete people in business, it's all the same underyling drive. I think that's crucial to recognize that. These people are never going to go away, and you have to take that into account when devising a political/economic system. If your system doesn't physically defend against them, they're going to come in and dominate you just for the thrill of it. RJII 07:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citations referring to Molinari as anarchist or anarcho-capitalist 

message: I've put de Molinari back in the cat anarcho-capitalists. One is categorizing by today's standards, not those of the 19th century. Plus, this would allow people browsing the category hierarchy find more people who share some (if not all) beliefs. Intangible 23:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Prévost writes: Auparavant l'apanage de quelques esprits originaux (le Belge Gustave de Molinari, le Britannique Auberon Herbert, l'Américain Lysander Spooner), l'anarcho-capitalisme est aujourd'hui défendu par de jeunes universitaires dont les travaux portent notamment sur la possibilité d'ordres monétaires et légaux non étatiques." (La theorie anarcho-capitaliste de l'Etat: une critique methodologique, 1992, ). Intangible 23:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't say Molinari was an anarcho-capitalist or that he would identify as one. It says that he had "the spirit" of anarcho-capitalism. Owen 23:27, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one says that Molinari did describe himself as anarcho-capitalist in the 19th century, but it is the most logically categorization. "Auparavant l'apanage" means that the label "anarcho-capitalism" would be the natural description for these three authors. Intangible 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs more citations than this. Academics often disagree with one another on these issues and we have to establish some form of academic consensus. One author might describe Benjamin Tucker as a capitalist, but it's still not an acceptable categorization due to his own statements to the contrary and widespread academic opinion. In a case like this it needs extensive citation. This author's claim to Lysander Spooner as an anarcho-capitalist seems even more controversial, and gives the impression of a minority position. While an acceptable opinion, it seems necessary to establish things as a majority position before using the terms to describe someone's beliefs. Owen 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I reverted before I read this. For one thing, there's a clear problem with labeling someone under a political philosophy that didn't exist for well past someone's lifetime. He couldn't be an anarcho-capitalist, because anarcho-capitalism didn't exist. Retroactively labeling people is a very sketchy area to begin with, and should be heavily sourced. And it does make sense in this case to categorize by the standards of the period. Otherwise we would be writing revisionist history. For instance, if someone in the 19th century explicitly said they were an socialist, it would be highly sketchy to say they weren't in the 21st century because of changes in the definition of "socialist". It's not our place to redefine people's political opinions. The definition might change, but the label does not. We are not seers, we are editors writing an encyclopedia. It's impossible to know just how people would react to new terms and modifications of existing ones. If you do want to make an exception, it needs to be heavily sourced. As I've already stated, even Murray Rothbard did not think he would accept the term for himself. Owen 23:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it makes a lot of sense to clarify that someone would probably not be considered "socialist" by today's standards.  Otherwise people will misunderstand.  And it's of course very common practice to label someone as something long after their death.  Did Socrates call himself a "philosopher"? (Note that this hasn't stopped you from labeling Goldman as an anarcha-feminist.) MrVoluntarist 14:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seeing as philosophos is an ancient Greek term, it doesn't seem entirely unlikely that he did. And I'm not saying that there's never a time where exceptions can be made. I suppose it's acceptable to list Godwin as an anarchist, because there is a general academic consensus that he was one. This article needs to show a similar consensus regarding Molinari's purported status as an anarcho-capitalist. I also never claimed Goldman was an anarcha-feminist, which would be false. She was an anarchist feminist, a term that later became synonymous with anarcha-feminism. Just as "anarcho-communism" came to become a synonym for "anarchist communism", "anarcha-feminism" came to be a synonym for "anarchist feminism". Since the two terms are synonymous and interchangeable it only makes sense to include both in one article, but when applied to individuals it is better to use contemporary terminology. Thus it would be inappropriate to describe Emma Goldman as an anarcha-feminist, since it was not her own choice of term, nor a choice of term that even existed during her lifetime. And so it's also inappropriate to describe Molinari as an anarcho-capitalist (without extensive citations), since again it was not his own chosen term. Owen 19:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cat