The last resort of the critics of the liberal ideal of society is to attempt to destroy it with the weapons it itself provides. They seek to prove that it serves and wants to serve only the interests of single classes; that the peace, for which it seeks, favours only a restricted circle and is harmful to all others. Even the social order, achieved in the constitutional modern state, is based on violence.
Try as I might I can't begin to find any patience for this sort of broken "argumentation" Mises engages here. So sense favours sense over nonsense, is the complaint ? Oh, the indignity! So the nonsensical are offered the choice of either adapting to sense or being trampled into nonexistence ? Oh, the scandalosity! The dogma!
What sort of completely broken, infantile and pedestrian equalitarianism must be howling among the tumbleweeds in one's empty head so they may imagine that's somehow worth the mention ? There isn't now, nor was there ever, nor will there ever be seriously contemplated any sort of arrangement where the stupid and the smart join hands in harmony. The meek are only here for the strong to have a meal, that's what it is, get used to it, learn to love it, forgeddaboutit.
The free contracts on which it pretends to rest are really, they say, only the conditions of a peace dictated by the victors to the vanquished, the terms being valid as long as the power from which they sprang continues, and no longer. All ownership is founded on violence and maintained by violence. The free workers of the liberal society are nothing but the unfree of feudal times. The entrepreneur exploits them as a feudal lord exploited his serfs, as a planter exploited his slaves. That such and similar objections can be made and believed will show how far the understanding of liberal theories has decayed. But these objections in no way atone for the absence of a systematic theory for the movement against Liberalism.
At around the age of six months (or later if they're retarded, apparently as late as their twenties if they're libertarded) children discover their feet. This is a discovery of great wonder and results in a lot of gazing in amazement, gleeful toe twerking and wet suckling. That's exactly what's going on here, recently alphabetized kids discover that anything may be represented in terms of anything else as if this is some sort of earth shattering revelation and not a banal property of the fundamental circularity of language. Then in complete confusion over the properties of namesi they proceed to magic all over reality with their newly discovered tools. Let's treat cancer by discussing it only in terms of various types of pies! Let's represent the acts of commerce in terms familiar to the practiced cosmetologist, because that does something! Let's change the world, by switching the letters around. WRODL! ROWLD!
He's a libertard, hear him rowld!
The liberal conception of social life has created the economic system based on the division of labour.
This is absolutely and completely false, more or less in the same fraudulent vein as all the nonsense about how christianity has "created" Europe. A fly moving up and down on the plow some oxen pull is not plowing, a bunch of dorks in costume ruffling their cuffs while Europe happens all around them are not "creating" Europe and some derpy dudes in late modern Germany are in no way creating the division of labour.
The division of labour has existed before speech, and has certainly existed before fire, which is before writing, which is before Rome, which is before any sort of german tribes, which is before any sort of german peoples which is before any sort of liberalism, conceptual or otherwise. A monkey throwing stones while another monkey carries stones are fully engaged in division of labour, whether they understand it or not, whether they speak about it or not, whether they write about it or not, whether they write in German about it or not, whether Mises reads about it all or not. The first woman with child is already practicing division of labour with the dude that put the bun in her oven. Get over it.
The most obvious expression of the exchange economy is the urban settlement, which is only possible in such an economy.
This is absolutely and completely nonsensical, and what's more it seems to have been written by Dorkdweeb von Pangloss. The city or Mirv existed before there were invented mongols, which existed before there were invented count palatines, which existed before there was invented a Calvin, which came before there was invented any sort of liberalism.
What's "the exchange economy" ? If it's the thing that the ancient Persians were practising before there was a Confucius, and the ancient Chinese after that, and the Arabs and everyone else long before Europe came up with the scientific method allowing it to transmute alchemy into industry and vague religious notions into pretense as to "liberalism" then this "exchange economy" concept can scarcely be used to prop up the notions of liberalism in preference of being used to prop up the harems and forbidden cities of the far east, filled with more or less willing women slaves, and castrated malesii. And if any sort of suit and tie is to be placed on "the exchange economy" then something quite large will imperatively be needed to somehow muffle all the laughter of countless generations.
In the towns the liberal doctrine has been developed into a dosed system and it is here that it has found most supporters.
As long as those towns weren't too busy making soviets to care. Guess what, the marxists also think their doctrine was born in towns and is most supported by the town dwellersiii. Can we take a breather with all this ridiculous truda expended in a vain attempt to link our ancestors with Charlemagne, Harold or City ? Supposedly intelligent people have better things to do.
But the more and the quicker wealth grew and the more numerous therefore were the immigrants from the country into the towns, the stronger became the attacks which Liberalism suffered from the principle of violence. Immigrants soon find their place in urban life, they soon adopt, externally, town manners and opinions, but for a long time they remain foreign to civic thought.
This "civic" thought would benefit from being actually defined. Even if attempts were made to define it, however, they're doomed from the start : there is no such particular sort of thought. There never is a particular sort of thought, there's just thought. "Proper" thought and "religious" thought and "chaste" thought are all flavourings of nonthought, which happen to be deemed convenient for a particular ideological slant. Appreciating the female nude is threatening to the coy female - which it is, as it contains naked the proposition that either she learns to overcome her coyness willingly or else learns to live with a very sore cunt in short order - but that doesn't mean the "chaste thought" of the castrato now qualifies as thought. It's not thought, nor can there ever be "types" of thought.
One cannot make a social philosophy one's own as easily as a new costume. It must be earned—earned with the effort of thought.
The effort at stake is not of thought, but of submission. Not that there's anything wrong with it, submission is a grand and wonderful thing. However, it is to be given to the worthy - the objectively worthy - not to they who perceive themselves as worthy. In this sense, a sitting and whining that these newcomers don't submit to our expectations instead of a nude and rude forcing of the newcomers to submit to our expectations is the sign of quite self-aware weakness, and the best indication one could possibly give to those newcomers that they are best advised not following the expectations of the plaintive.———
- The shaman imagines that what you call things has some influence on what things are, and the libertard imagines that if nobody ever says nigger ever again then the niggers will magically disappear into thin air. The net result of this nonsense being, of course, the creation of unprecedented piles of white niggers, just as unbearably subhuman as the black niggers of centuries past. Only... more numerous. [↩]
- Incidentally, is the eunuch the supreme liberal construction or some sort of liberal anathema ? [↩]
- Which caused no end of difficulty to early and naive Chinese revolutionaries, for instance. [↩]