There Is No Meaner Attitude toward Human Nature Than Is to be Found in the Moralists of the 18th Century: Men Needed a Superior Authority to Maintain Internal Balances; Today We Call That Authority “Social Planning”

If the lives of the great majority--before the nineteenth century--were brutish, nasty, and short (under the manorial system, under the cottage system, under American plantation slavery), it is exactly because, despite the alleged securities of status and custom, there was no interest in betterment. There is no meaner attitude toward human nature than is to be found in the moralists of the eighteenth century (I cite Defoe and Mandeville) who regarded men as incapable of achieving their own salvation. Men needed a superior authority--of custom, law, and punishment--in order to maintain that prescription which assured internal balances; today we call that authority “social planning.” Both attitudes essentially distrust the capacities of men, exercising their intelligence, to order their lives harmoniously.

--Louis M. Hacker, “The Anticapitalist Bias of American Historians,” in Capitalism and the Historians, ed. F.A. Hayek (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 64.

The Fundamental Thesis of Methodological Individualism Is Ideas Held by Individuals Determine Their Group Allegiance, and a Collective No Longer Appears as an Entity Acting of Its Own Accord and on Its Own Initiative

There is no need to add anything to what has already been said by praxeology and economics to justify methodological individualism and to reject the mythology of methodological collectivism. Even the most fanatical advocates of collectivism deal with the actions of individuals while they pretend to deal with the actions of collectives. Statistics does not register events that are happening in or to collectives. It records what happens with individuals forming definite groups. The criterion that determines the constitution of these groups is definite characteristics of the individuals. The first thing that has to be established in speaking of a social entity is the clear definition of what logically justifies counting or not counting an individual as a member of this group. . . .

The rejection of methodological individualism implies the assumption that the behavior of men is directed by some mysterious forces that defy any analysis and description. For if one realizes that what sets action in motion is ideas, one cannot help admitting that these ideas originate in the minds of some individuals and are transmitted to other individuals. But then one has accepted the fundamental thesis of methodological individualism, viz., that it is the ideas held by individuals that determine their group allegiance, and a collective no longer appears as an entity acting of its own accord and on its own initiative.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science: An Essay on Method, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006), 73-74.

Collectivism Is Political, Not Scientific; What It Teaches Are Judgments of Value; the Collective Will Cannot Originate as the Sum or Resultant of Individual Wills

How little Collectivism was able to surmount the difficulties in the way of amplifying its doctrine is best shown by the manner m which it has treated the problem of social will. To refer again and again to the Will of the State, to the Will of the People, and to the Convictions of the People is not in any way to explain how the collective will of the social associations comes into being. As it is not merely different from the will of separate individuals but, in decisive points, is quite opposed to the latter, the collective will cannot originate as the sum or resultant of individual wills. Every collectivist assumes a different source for the collective will, according to his own political, religious and national convictions. Fundamentally it is all the same whether one interprets it as the supernatural powers of a king or priest or whether one views it as the quality of a chosen class or people. Friedrich Wilhelm IV and Wilhelm II were quite convinced that God had invested them with special authority, and this faith doubtless served to stimulate their conscientious efforts and the development of their strength. Many contemporaries believed alike and were ready to spend their last drop of blood in the service of the king sent to them by God. But science is as little able to prove the truth of this belief as to prove the truth of a religion. Collectivism is political, not scientific. What it teaches are judgments of value.

--Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, trans. J. Kahane (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), 56.

Inflation Is the True Opium of the People and It Is Administered to Them by Anticapitalist Governments and Parties

The Marxian socialists once indulged in reveries concerning a fabulous increase in riches to be expected from the socialist mode of production. The truth is that every infringement of property rights and every restriction of free enterprise impairs the productivity of labor. One of the foremost concerns of all parties hostile to economic freedom is to withhold this knowledge from the voters. The various brands of socialism and interventionism could not retain their popularity if people were to discover that the measures whose adoption is hailed as social progress curtail production and tend to bring about capital decumulation. To conceal these facts from the public is one of the services inflation renders to the so-called progressive policies. Inflation is the true opium of the people and it is administered to them by anticapitalist governments and parties.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Theory of Money and Credit, trans. H. E. Batson (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), 484-485.

Private Property Is Not a Privilege of the Property Owner, but a Social Institution for the Good and Benefit of All

In order to determine whether an institutional arrangement is to be regarded as the special privilege of an individual or of a class, the question one should ask is not whether it benefits this or that individual or class, but only whether it is beneficial to the general public. If we reach the conclusion that only private ownership of the means of production makes possible the prosperous development of human society, it is clear that this is tantamount to saying that private property is not a privilege of the property owner, but a social institution for the good and benefit of all, even though it may at the same time be especially agreeable and advantageous to some.

It is not on behalf of property owners that liberalism favors the preservation of the institution of private property. It is not because the abolition of that institution would violate property rights that the liberals want to preserve it. If they considered the abolition of the institution of private property to be in the general interest, they would advocate that it be abolished, no matter how prejudicial such a policy might be to the interests of property owners. However, the preservation of that institution is in the interest of all strata of society. Even the poor man, who can call nothing his own, lives incomparably better in our society than he would in one that would prove incapable of producing even a fraction of what is produced in our own.

--Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 11-12.

What Is Always Criticized in the Capitalist System Is the Fact That the Owners of the Means of Production Occupy a Preferential Position; They Can Live without Working

What is always criticized in the capitalist system is the fact that the owners of the means of production occupy a preferential position. They can live without working. If one views the social order from an individualistic standpoint, one must see in this a serious shortcoming of capitalism. Why should one man be better off than another? But whoever considers things, not from the standpoint of individual persons, but from that of the whole social order, will find that the owners of property can preserve their agreeable position solely on condition that they perform a service indispensable for society. The capitalist can keep his favored position only by shifting the means of production to the application most important for society. If he does not do this—if he invests his wealth unwisely—he will suffer losses, and if he does not correct his mistake in time, he will soon be ruthlessly ousted from his preferential position. He will cease to be a capitalist, and others who are better qualified for it will take his place. In a capitalist society, the deployment of the means of production is always in the hands of those best fitted for it; and whether they want to or not, they must constantly take care to employ the means of production in such a way that they yield the greatest output.

--Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism: The Classical Tradition, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 43.

What Pushes a Man toward Social Behavior and Law Abidance Is His Own Rightly Understood Selfishness; What Speaks in Favor of International Peace Is Precisely the Consideration of a Nation’s Own Rightly Understood Selfish Interests

From the point of view of “natural law” the only just state of affairs is equality of income. The unfathomable decrees of Heaven have brought about inequality. It would be tantamount to a rebellion against divine and human law for the underprivileged to resort to violence in order to abolish this injustice. By such methods they could profit on earth, but they would imperil their spiritual salvation. On the other hand, the rich have only one means to atone for their questionable riches. They must make the proper use of their wealth, that is, they must be charitable and must subordinate their greed to justice and fairness.

The selfish earthly interests of individuals and of groups of individuals are antagonistic. If left alone, they would result in violent conflicts. Social cooperation and peace are possible only where men are motivated—either by voluntary obedience to the moral law or by compulsion on the part of the powers that be—to curb their egoism.

Utilitarianism and classical economics have entirely overthrown this philosophy.

Their reasoning runs this way: The means of subsistence are scarce, and their limited quantity puts a check upon the number of animals that may occupy the surface of the earth. But, while the beasts know no method of improving their own conditions other than to snatch food away from their rivals, man is in a much more propitious position. Reason taught him the advantages of social cooperation and its corollary, the division of labor. Labor performed under the system of the division of tasks is much more productive than the isolated efforts of self-sufficient individuals. Every step forward to a higher degree of the division of labor directly and immediately improves the material well-being of the individuals and groups concerned. The advantages of social cooperation are so manifest that nobody can ignore them. Their acknowledgment is the motive that pushes man toward social behavior.

It is, therefore, a mistake to assume that an individual in adjusting his conduct to the requirements of life within society and a nation in renouncing war to avoid endangering the international division of labor, sacrifice, for the sake of a heteronomous morality, their own selfish interests for reasons not open to rational explanation. What pushes a man toward social behavior and law abidance is his own rightly understood selfishness. What speaks in favor of international peace is precisely the consideration of a nation’s own rightly understood selfish interests. If a man abstains from robbing a fellow man or if a nation abstains from aggression against other nations, each forgoes a smaller immediate gain in order to reap a bigger indirect profit. Society is for every individual the foremost means for the attainment of all ends sought.

--Ludwig von Mises, "Economics as a Bridge for Interhuman Understanding," in Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1990), 254-255.

The Freedom of Man under Capitalism Is an Effect of Competition; the Exchange of Goods and Services Is Mutual; It Is Not a Favor to Sell or to Buy; It Is a Transaction Dictated by Selfishness on Either Side

The freedom of man under capitalism is an effect of competition. The worker does not depend on the good graces of an employer. If his employer discharges him, he finds another employer. The consumer is not at the mercy of the shopkeeper. He is free to patronize another shop if he likes. Nobody must kiss other people’s hands or fear their disfavor. Interpersonal relations are businesslike. The exchange of goods and services is mutual; it is not a favor to sell or to buy, it is a transaction dictated by selfishness on either side.

--Ludwig von Mises, "The Individual in Society," in Economic Freedom and Interventionism: An Anthology of Articles and Essays, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1990), 18.

All Those Rejecting Capitalism on Moral Grounds as an Unfair System Are Deluded by Their Failure to comprehend What Capital Is; Capital Is the Outcome of a Provident Restriction of Consumption

All those rejecting capitalism on moral grounds as an unfair system are deluded by their failure to comprehend what capital is, how it comes into existence and how it is maintained, and what the benefits are which are derived from its employment in production processes.

The only source of the generation of additional capital goods is saving. If all the goods produced are consumed, no new capital comes into being. But if consumption lags behind production and the surplus of goods newly produced over goods consumed is utilized in further production processes, these processes are henceforth carried out by the aid of more capital goods. All the capital goods are intermediary goods, stages on the road that leads from the first employment of the original factors of production, i.e., natural resources and human labor, to the final turning out of goods ready for consumption. They all are perishable. They are, sooner or later, worn out in the processes of production. If all the products are consumed without replacement of the capital goods which have been used up in their production, capital is consumed. If this happens, further production will be aided only by a smaller amount of capital goods and will therefore render a smaller output per unit of the natural resources and labor employed. To prevent this sort of dissaving and disinvestment, one must dedicate a part of the productive effort to capital maintenance, to the replacement of the capital goods absorbed in the production of usable goods.

Capital is not a free gift of God or of nature. It is the outcome of a provident restriction of consumption on the part of man. It is created and increased by saving and maintained by the abstention from dissaving.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Anti-capitalistic Mentality, ed. Bettina Bien Greaves (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006), 50-51.

We Are No Longer Living in a World of Laissez-Faire, Laissez-Passer; In the Utopia of the Old Liberals, the Government Concerns Itself with the Protection of Life, Health, and Private Property against Force or Fraud

But, unfortunately, we are no longer living in a world of laissez-faire, laissez-passer; in a world of free trade, private ownership, capitalism, and goodwill among the nations. Our world is very different, and in this world you cannot say that war is useless. It is not true that the individual citizen cannot derive any advantage from a victorious war.

In the utopia of the old liberals, the government concerns itself with the protection of life, health, and private property against force or fraud. The state ensures the smooth working of the market economy by the weight of its coercive power. It refrains, however, from any interference with the freedom of action of the people engaged in production and distribution so long as such actions do not involve the use of force or fraud against the life, health, or property of others. This very fact characterizes such a community as a market or capitalist economy. . . .

The optimism of Bentham, Cobden, and Bastiat was not justified. History went another way. Today we are living in a world of government interference with business and, in some countries, of socialism. There are everywhere trade barriers and migration barriers. In domestic policy, the governments are anxious to interfere in order to benefit some groups at the expense of other groups. “Nationalism” is the characteristic feature of modern foreign policy.

--Ludwig von Mises, The Political Economy of International Reform and Reconstruction, vol. 3 of Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2000), 4-5.

Carl Menger’s Slim Volume Grundsätze der Volkswirtshaftslehre (Principles of Economics) Completely Revolutionized Economic Science; Everything That Has Been Achieved Since Then Is Built upon Menger’s Works

Most exciting, however, is the grounding of the general theory of value on the basic idea of the subjective value of goods, as worked out by Menger. Menger’s slim volume Grundsätze der Volkswirtshaftslehre [Principles of Economics] completely revolutionized economic science. Everything that has been achieved since then is built upon Menger’s works. In Austria, marginal utility theory found its most important representatives, besides Menger, in the contributions of Friedrich von Wieser and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk (who departed from us at much too early an age). It is customary to unite these three under the designation “the Austrian School.” Under this name they gained a worldwide reputation. In Germany they were able to find some minimal recognition; their success was incomparably greater in England, Italy, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries. Modern American economics is based on the works of the “Austrian School.”

--Ludwig von Mises, Monetary and Economic Policy Problems Before, During, and After the Great War, vol. 1 of Selected Writings of Ludwig von Mises, ed. Richard M. Ebeling (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2012), 245-246.

Capital-Based Macroeconomics Rejects the Keynes-Inspired Distinction between Macroeconomics and the Economics of Growth; the Distinction Derives from Inadequate Attention to the Intertemporal Capital Structure

Capital-based macroeconomics rejects the Keynes-inspired distinction between macroeconomics and the economics of growth. This unfortunate distinction, in fact, derives from the inadequate attention to the intertemporal capital structure. Conventional macroeconomics deals with economy-wide disequilibria while abstracting from issues involving a changing stock of capital; modern growth theory deals with a growing capital stock while abstracting from issues involving economy-wide disequilibria. With this criterion for defining the subdisciplines within economics, the thorny issues of disequilibrium and the thorny issues of capital theory are addressed one at a time. Our contention is that economic reality mixes the two issues in ways that render the one-at-a-time treatments profoundly inadequate. Economy-wide disequilibria in the context of a changing capital structure escape the attention of both conventional macroeconomists and modern growth theorists. But the issues involving the market’s ability to allocate resources over time have a natural home in capital-based macroeconomics. Here, the short-run issues of cyclical variation and the long-run issues of secular expansion enjoy a blend that is simply ruled out by construction in mainstream theorizing.

--Roger W. Garrison, Time and Money: The Macroeconomics of Capital Structure, Foundations of the Market Economy (London: Routledge, 2002), 34.

Piketty's Thesis Rests on a False Theory of How Wealth Evolves in a Market Economy, a Flawed Interpretation of U.S. Income-Tax Data, and a Misunderstanding of the Current Nature of Household Wealth

Thomas Piketty has recently attracted widespread attention for his claim that capitalism will now lead inexorably to an increasing inequality of income and wealth unless there are radical changes in taxation. Although his book, Capital in the 21st Century (Piketty 2014), has been praised by those who advocate income redistribution, his thesis rests on a false theory of how wealth evolves in a market economy, a flawed interpretation of U.S. income-tax data, and a misunderstanding of the current nature of household wealth.

--Martin Feldstein, "Piketty's Numbers Don't Add Up," in Anti-Piketty: Capital for the 21st Century, ed. Jean-Philippe Delsol, Nicolas Lecaussin, and Emmanuel Martin (Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 2017), Kindle e-book.

People Believe That in the Absence of Government Intervention in the Form of Pro-Union, Minimum-Wage, Maximum-Hours, and Child-Labor Legislation, and Laws Regulating Working Conditions, the Greedy Capitalists Would Create a Nightmarish World

The resurgence of Marxist/Socialist ideas should not be surprising. Despite the fall of Communist regimes around the world, the essential ideas of Marxism/Socialism remained, and still remain, largely untouched and unchallenged. These ideas pertain to the relationship between capitalists and wage earners, and they are accepted by the great majority of people in the United States and throughout the world.

They are accepted not as being descriptive of the way conditions actually are in the United States or in any other advanced country of the present day, but as descriptive of the way conditions would be in the absence of major government intervention. And they are accepted as both descriptive and explanatory of the way conditions were in the nineteenth century.

Thus, people believe that in the absence of government intervention in the form of pro-union, minimum-wage, maximum-hours, and child-labor legislation, and laws regulating working conditions, the capitalists, in their greedy pursuit of profits, would drive wages down to, or even below, minimum physical subsistence, lengthen the hours of work to the maximum possible, force small children to work in factories and mines, and make working conditions unbearable for all. All that allegedly stands in the way of this nightmare-world ready to be unleashed by the unrestricted operation of capitalism and the profit motive is legislation inspired by Marxism/Socialism. This view of things appears to be held¸ and to have been held for more than a century, by virtually all Democrats and perhaps half or more of the Republicans.

--George Reisman, introduction to Marxism/Socialism, A Sociopathic Philosophy Conceived in Gross Error and Ignorance, Culminating in Economic Chaos, Enslavement, Terror, and Mass Murder: A Contribution to Its Death (Laguna Hills, CA: TJS Books, 2018), Kindle e-book.

Purges Are the Necessary Consequences of the Philosophical Foundation of Marxian Socialism; the Only Method to “Settle” Disagreements Was to use Force and Liquidation

There were two groups of Russians, both of whom considered themselves proletarians—the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks. The only method to “settle” disagreements between them was to use force and liquidation. The Bolsheviks won. Then within the ranks of the Communist Bolsheviks there arose other differences of opinion—between Trotsky and Stalin—and the only way to resolve their conflicts was a purge. Trotsky was forced into exile, trailed to Mexico, and there in 1940 he was hacked to death. Stalin originated nothing; he went back to the revolutionary Marx of 1859—not to the interventionist Marx of 1848.

Unfortunately, purges are not something which happen just because men are imperfect. Purges are the necessary consequences of the philosophical foundation of Marxian socialism. If you cannot discuss philosophical differences of opinion in the same way you discuss other problems, you must find another solution—through violence and power. This refers not only to dissent concerning policies, economic problems, sociology, law, and so on. It refers also to problems of the natural sciences. The Webbs, Lord and Lady Passfield, were shocked to learn that Russian magazines and papers dealt even with problems of the natural sciences from the point of view of the philosophy of Marxism-Leninism-Stalinism. For instance, if there is a difference of opinion with regard to science or genetics, it must be decided by the “leader.” This is the necessary unavoidable consequence of the fact that, according to Marxist doctrine, you do not consider the possibility of dissent among honest people; either you think as I do, or you are a traitor and must be liquidated.

--Ludwig von Mises, Marxism Unmasked: From Delusion to Destruction (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: Foundation for Economic Education, 2006), lecture 2.

Zum Abschluß des Marxschen Systems Concluded That It “Bear[s] Evident Traces of Having Been a Subtle and Artificial Afterthought Contrived to make a Preconceived Opinion seem the Natural Outcome of a Prolonged Investigation”

Disputes with socialism soon went beyond the labor theory of value and brought the “socialist state” into question in many respects. Böhm-Bawerk, for example, regarded interest as an economic category wholly independent of the social system; interest would exist even in the “socialist state.” Wieser criticized socialist writers for their inadequate teaching of value’s role in the socialist state. He came to the conclusion that “not for one day could the [socialist] economic state of the future be administered according to any such reading of value.” For Wieser, “in the socialist theory of value pretty nearly everything is wrong.” . . .

In one perceptive essay, Komorzynski tried to prove that Marxist theories were “at the greatest possible odds with the real economic processes.” The contradiction stemmed “from the basic principle, not from the utopian thinking.” In his famous Zum Abschluß des Marxschen Systems (1896) (Karl Marx and the Close of His System, 1949), Böhm-Bawerk summarized his previous critique and came to the conclusion—based on the well-known contradictions between the first two and the third volumes of Das Kapital —that the final Marxist theory “contains as many cardinal errors as there are points in the arguments.” They “bear evident traces of having been a subtle and artificial afterthought contrived to make a preconceived opinion seem the natural outcome of a prolonged investigation.”

--Eugen Maria Schulak and Herbert Unterköfler, The Austrian School of Economics: A History of Its Ideas, Ambassadors, and Institutions, trans. Arlene Oost-Zinner (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2011), 91-92.

The Warnings of Professor von Mises Carried No Weight in the European Central Bank (ECB) Council: "There Is Not, and There Cannot Be, such a Thing as Quantitative Economics!"

The Deutsche Bundesbank, now under the presidency of a renowned econometrics professor (Axel Weber), seemed to be putting more emphasis than ever before on the output of the models. Otmar Issing, the eminence grise in the ECB at the start, and to a moderate degree sceptical of econometrics according to his autobiographic account (see Issing, 2008), had retired in autumn 2006.

The warnings of Professor von Mises (1971) carried no weight in the ECB Council:

There is not, and there cannot be, such a thing as quantitative economics. The usual method employed in business forecasts is statistical and thereby retrospective. They depict trends that prevailed in the past and are familiar to everybody. They in no way answer the questions that all people, and especially businessmen, are asking. People know that trends can change; they are afraid they will change; and they would like to know when the change will occur. But the statistician knows only what everybody knows, namely, that they have not changed!

The data which was being fed into the econometrics model on which the ECB prided itself, supplemented by the ECB’s analysis of the ‘second pillar’ of its monetary framework, did not produce any hint of serious recession risk ahead. Instead it was the amber or even red inflation light which was blinking! 

--Brendan Brown, Euro Crash: The Implications of Monetary Failure in Europe (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010), 95-96.

Greenspan Largely Followed the So-Called “Blinder Doctrine”; the Bank of Japan under Governor Sumita also Followed the Advice of Friedman and Schwarz and Ignored the Bubbles

In the late 1990s, the Federal Reserve under Chairman Greenspan largely followed the advice of Friedman and Schwarz, reformulated in the so-called ‘Blinder doctrine’ (ignore the bubble; but when it bursts follow a policy of aggressive ease as needed to avoid financial crisis). Some critics argue, indeed, that the Greenspan Federal Reserve made the opposite error to the Federal Reserve of the late 1920s. Whilst Alan Greenspan warned of irrational exuberance at the beginning of the boom, by the end he and his colleagues had become cheer-leaders for the new economy. In the late 1980s, the Bank of Japan under Governor Sumita also followed the advice of Friedman and Schwarz and ignored the bubbles in the land and equity markets (tolerance stemmed in part from concern at the huge rise of the yen since the Plaza Accord and the damage that this might inflict on the Japanese economy). Unlike Alan Greenspan, Governor Sumita did not engage in any substantial commentary to either restrain or justify the exuberance at large. Some window guidance was given to banks with respect to reining back their lending to the property sector, but this was largely circumvented by routing loans via financial subsidiaries. The Bank (operating in conjunction with the Ministry of Finance, which at that time still had a voice in monetary policy-making) only started to tighten monetary policy in 1989 out of anxiety about incipient inflation pressures.

--Brendan Brown, The Yo-Yo Yen and the Future of the Japanese Economy (Houndmills, UK: Palgrave, 2002), 123.

Union Leaders Always Talk about Getting Higher Wages at the Expense of Profits but That Is Impossible because Corporate Profits Are Around 6% of National Income after Taxes

Union leaders always talk about getting higher wages at the expense of profits. That is impossible: profits simply aren't big enough. About 80 percent of the total national income of the United States currently goes to pay the wages, salaries, and fringe benefits of workers. More than half of the rest goes to pay rent and interest on loans. Corporate profits--which is what union leaders always point to--total less than 10 percent of national income. And that is before taxes. After taxes, corporate profits are something like 6 percent of the national income. That hardly provides much leeway to finance higher wages, even if all profits were absorbed. And that would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. The small margin of profit provides the incentive for investment in factories and machines, and for developing new products and methods. This investment, these innovations, have, over the years, raised the productivity of the worker and provided the wherewithal for higher and higher wages.

--Milton Friedman and Rose Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement (San Diego: Harcourt Brace and Company, 1990), 234.

The Source of Coercion Is for Max Stirner Not Only the State and Its Institutions but also Morality, Religion, Natural Law and Even Freedom Itself If It Is Understood as an “Idée Fixe”

Thus, Stirner doesn’t limit his conception of coercion to the objective, common-sense character of it, present i.e. in the formal authority of the State’s power. He finds sources of coercion much deeper, in a subjective plane of individual’s existence. The coercion is for Stirner everything, what limits an individual and subjects her or him to an external will, even if it is simply an objective vision of a proper conduct, which is inherent in social conventions, contracts or other social institutions. What’s more, according to Stirner the source of coercion can be even your own idea or opinion, if it is strong enough, that you can’t emancipate yourself from it when needed. Therefore, the source of coercion is for him not only the State and its institutions but also morality, religion, natural law - paradoxically – the freedom itself can become it, if it is understood as an “idée fixe”, the idea at implementation of which one should necessarily aim. In other words, all what gives you no possibility of change can be the source coercion.

--Maciej Chmieliński, "Self-ownership and Spontaneously-Evolved Order: The Core of Max Stirner's Individualist Anarchism," Res Publica: Revista de Historia de las Ideas Políticas 19, no. 2 (2016): 462.