All the authors employed by the Mises Institute are "hardcore" libertarians. It's the Austrian economists at George Mason University (e.g. Peter Boetkke) who might not be.
hashem:I'm hesitant to read anyone else before I internalize Rothbard, for fear of damaging my fragile, pure-so-far, newly hardcore libertarian brain...
You should recognize that Rothbard may have his own "impurities" when it comes to libertarianism and there are significant disagreements even among Rothbardians.
From a radical libertarian perspective, there have been criticisms of his position on:
I'm sure someone better read than I could point out things I missed, but my point is that Rothbard, while indisputably one of the greatest libertarians in history, may have shortcomings when it comes to applying his own principles. He mentions that such things are common - the leaders of movements are often less radical and consistent than their followers (e.g., Jefferson was less radical than the Jeffersonians).
Although you already mentioned him in your post, I would have to say Lysander Spooner. He's as hard-core as it can possibly get.
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/Revolution.htm
http://www.lysanderspooner.org/LetterToGroverCleveland.htm
Sukrit Sabhlok: All the authors employed by the Mises Institute are "hardcore" libertarians. It's the Austrian economists at George Mason University (e.g. Peter Boetkke) who might not be.
I don't know what you're talking about, to be honest. See this for why you're wrong, of course, if you have any other evidence, go ahead and present it. I think the GMU bashing is silly (likewise, I think it's silly when people from GMU bash LvMI), Boettke has done a good job over at GMU producing good Austrians.
He's also written a paper on anarchism, now, let's not forget Ed Stringham and Peter Leeson, two more Austrians who got their PhDs from GMU and happen to be anarchists.
E. R. Olovetto: Giles' Rothbard slander seems bizarre to me, but hey, I am willing to admit that I am not so well-read myself.. I don't understand the philosophical standpoint by which Giles wants to write off Rothbard's work TBH. I agree with him and like what he has to say many times, but I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Read whatever the fuck you want and don't be afraid of engaging criticism because your knowledge of theory is useless without movement. (thinly veiled Rothbard quote)
Giles' Rothbard slander seems bizarre to me, but hey, I am willing to admit that I am not so well-read myself.. I don't understand the philosophical standpoint by which Giles wants to write off Rothbard's work TBH. I agree with him and like what he has to say many times, but I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Read whatever the fuck you want and don't be afraid of engaging criticism because your knowledge of theory is useless without movement. (thinly veiled Rothbard quote)
And what "Rothbard slander" would this be? All I've said is that I don't believe him to be too great an economist, if you wish to disagree, go ahead. Milton Friedman is somebody with whom I have many disagreements, nonetheless, I think he's a better economist than Rothbard. The same applies for Hayek, whilst he's a thinker I agree with on a great deal (and need to study in more detail), he's a better thinker in economics and political philosophy. I could keep on naming other economists that I think are better than Rothbard, but I don't think I need to. I've never wished to write off Rothbard's work, MES is a great restatement of Human Action, but it's not entirely original and the places in which it is original aren't too important. That is not to say that I don't think every libertarian should read Rothbard, especially MES, they should, but they should also read Kirzner, Hayek, Mises, Garrison, Huerta de Soto, White, Selgin, Horwitz, Yeager, Salerno, Hoppe etc. to get a more nuanced understanding of economics, since almost all of those disagree with Rothbard on some points.
Brainpolice: Tucker probably isn't worth looking at (although, some of the leftists here may disagree). The leader of individualist anarchism in America in the late 19th century (as well as the 1st person to translate Frederich Neitzsche and Max Stirner in America), who promoted propertarian anarchism a century before Rothbard and without which there would not have been an easily accesible and archived publication of individualist anarchist material in America for decades, isn't worth looking at? Who are you to lecture people about dogmatic bias?
Tucker probably isn't worth looking at (although, some of the leftists here may disagree).
The leader of individualist anarchism in America in the late 19th century (as well as the 1st person to translate Frederich Neitzsche and Max Stirner in America), who promoted propertarian anarchism a century before Rothbard and without which there would not have been an easily accesible and archived publication of individualist anarchist material in America for decades, isn't worth looking at? Who are you to lecture people about dogmatic bias?
I don't think very highly of his economics, no. As I said, no doubt people will disagree with me, and they're free to do so. I guess I don't think very highly of individualist anarchism anyway, so your comments with regards to the material are sort of lost on me. If you want to call me dogmatic for disagreeing with Tucker, and not thinking him to be of much worth, go ahead. But notice, I put Carson's book on the reading list I suggested to the OP.
hashem:Giles: I am intensely interested in economics. I am studying MES+PM with its study guide and I can't imagine how I can possibly not know economics by studying Rothbard's magnum opus, which built upon and improved Mises' magnum opus, who both built upon and improved the entire lineup of previous austrian economists. Personal dislikes aside, is Rothbard wrong at all? He says that he starts with an axiom (i.e. "humans act"), and proceeds with proper logic to derive implications from that axiom. If the implications are derived logically, they must necessarily hold as much truth as the original axiom.
One can't get a thorough understanding of Austrianism (let alone the entirety of economic science) by reading a single book, even if it is well over 1000 pages. You may well think Rothbard built on Human Action and I can assure you that others disagree, the only way to decide is to read both with a critical eye and decide on the relative merits of the arguments of both Rothbard and Mises. Likewise, how can you be sure that the ABCT is correct when you've not read the criticisms made by Cowen and Yeager, for example? You won't know anything about monetary disequilibrium theory until you've read the works of those who have written on it (see Yeager's The Fluttering Veil). On a similar note, how can you be sure that Mises' arguments concerning the socialist calculation debate are superior to those of Hayek, as Rothbard would have it? You can't be, at least, not until you've read the work others have done on it (Yeager, Salerno, Hoppe, Kinsella, Huelsmann, Herbener, Lavoie, Boettke, Hayek, Reisman). Keep in mind that both Kirzner and Reisman were graduate students of Mises and neither are Rothbardians, I'd also venture to say that each of them is a better economist than Rothbard, and both have made more substantial contributions to economic science.
I don't dislike Rothbard in the slightest, in fact, he's had a huge impact on the development of my thought, I entirely agree with him on most issues, as do most Austrians. Do I think he's wrong? I think he could well be wrong on whether FRB should be legal, I don't agree with his views on IP, I don't like his views on causation, I think he has some pretty poor "proofs" of the NAP in The Ethics of Liberty, others have disagreed with his views on strategy, his views as regards the evolution of the state have been demonstrated to be false (Hoppe), others have launched criticisms against his epistemology (Mr Plauche) and I'm sure when I read his works in more detail than I have previously done, I'll find more I disagree with. I've not stated that I believe him to be wrong in many places, just that I don't think he's right on everything, nor is he the most original thinker.
hashem:Or, if you admit his correctness, what makes other less consistent writers (hayek, nozick) MORE correct/important than Rothbard? I don't pledge blind alleigance to him; I am convinced he is an absolute brainiac genius, who cites a wider variety of sources, and has a more comprehensive knowledge of a wider variety of fields than almost any intellectual of the last century or any time around it. Further, he doesn't claim anything not backed by a trail of proprositions, themselves backed by the original axiom, or much without considering all manner of challenges to his point and crushing them before expanding on said point. What do you think Giles?
Because Hayek and Nozick were more original thinkers, each of whom also made important contributions. Many would say that Nozick's arguments are more compelling than Rothbard's, even if they're not as consistent. For example, Danny posted some very nice quotations by Nozick challenged the Rothbardian view of homesteading, I think they're entirely valid criticisms.
Hayek made a number of very important contributions to the calculation debate, whether they're correct is another question entirely. Likewise, Hayek made the Austrian theory of the business cycle what it is today, and made important contributions to Austrian capital theory.
"You don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows"
Bob Dylan
GilesStratton:You may well think Rothbard built on Human Action and I can assure you that others disagree, the only way to decide is to read both with a critical eye and decide on the relative merits of the arguments of both Rothbard and Mises....I've never wished to write off Rothbard's work, MES is a great restatement of Human Action, but it's not entirely original and the places in which it is original aren't too important.
LOL? Mises himself agreed with me and disproves you. A MASSIVE portion of MES was completely original Theory of Production, though generally he claims more often to be UNoriginal. He always talks about how most of the knowledge in the world has already been discovered, and only needs to be rediscovered. He talks about how most of his work was finding that knowledge, fixing a few errors, and compiling it. Still:
"Mises himself immediately recognized the profound originality and significance of Rothbard’s contribution. In his review of Man, Economy, and State, Mises wrote that Rothbard "joins the ranks of eminent economists by publishing a voluminous work, a systematic treatise on economics. . . . In every chapter of his treatise, Rothbard . . . adopt the best teachings of his predecessors . . . and add to them highly important observations. . . ."Mises went on to characterize Rothbard’s work as . . . "an epochal contribution to the general science of human action, praxeology, and its practically most important and up-to-now best elaborated part, economics. Henceforth, all essential studies in these branches of knowledge will have to take full account of the theories and criticisms expounded by Dr. Rothbard."
"Rothbard himself was not reluctant to indicate the respects in which he considered his treatise to have been a departure from or an advance upon Mises’s work. Foremost, among Rothbard’s theoretical innovations was his formulation of a complete and integrated theory of production. Previously, production theory in causal-realist analysis was in disarray and had consisted of a number of independent and conflicting strands of thought that treated capital and interest, marginal productivity theory, rent theory, entrepreneurship and so on in isolation. Somewhat surprised by this yawning gap in production theory, Rothbard commented: "Mises has very little detail on production theory, and as a consequence it took me many false starts, and lots of what turned out to be wasted effort, before I arrived at what satisfied me as a good Production Theory. (It’s involved emancipation from 90 percent of current textbook material.)" In Man, Economy, and State, Rothbard elaborates a unified and systematic treatment of the structure of production, the theory of capital and interest, factor pricing, rent theory, and the role of entrepreneurship in production. Furthermore, production theory is presented as part of the core of economic analysis and covers five of the book’s twelve chapters and approximately 30 percent of its text."
GilesStratton:I think he could well be wrong on whether FRB should be legal, I don't agree with his views on IP, I don't like his views on causation, I think he has some pretty poor "proofs" of the NAP in The Ethics of Liberty, others have disagreed with his views on strategy, his views as regards the evolution of the state have been demonstrated to be false (Hoppe), others have launched criticisms against his epistemology (Mr Plauche) and I'm sure when I read his works in more detail than I have previously done, I'll find more I disagree with. I've not stated that I believe him to be wrong in many places, just that I don't think he's right on everything, nor is he the most original thinker.
Again, he doesn't claim to be original. He claims the exact opposite, that most knowledge already exists, and that he finds, fixes, and compiles it. Concerning your views on his views, Rothbard was incredibly systematic and comprehensive. He rarely claimed to be right about anything without both proving it based on axioms and their implications, and disproving its challenges. I don't recall him claiming someone else was wrong without THOROUGHLY disproving them. Whether you "think he could well be wrong", "don't agree with his views", or "don't like his views" does little to prove him wrong. I'm on my 4th time through TEoL, so I'd be interested in anyone who can successfully disprove it. Regarding the state, he only claims that it is always conceived violently, because it is conceived at the expense of, and exists in contradiction to, the natural rights of its citizens.
GilesStratton:Because Hayek and Nozick were more original thinkers, each of whom also made important contributions. Many would say that Nozick's arguments are more compelling than Rothbard's, even if they're not as consistent.
Being original and "compelling" are hardly grounds for being proved. "even if they're not as consistent." If you're not consistent, you're wrong. Period. Inconsistency means you're not following the logical pattern strictly. At least Rothbard was consistent. In TEoL, NOTHING is claimed that isn't supported by the previous chapters, themselves supported by previous chapters. To disprove anything he claims as fact, one would have to disprove everything before it in sequence, or else disprove the original claims on which the rest stand.
Challenge the premise.
"If you want good political philosophy, I'm probably not the person to ask but I'll recommend Nozick."
Respect for being honest. But with a recommendation like that, I don't think you'd be the right person to ask either.
And in general, a few people here have completely mistaken Rothbard's "purity" or radicalness... so when you criticize "statist's" like Ron Paul, (/ the reason why I am here) you really need to stfu, because you are barking up the wrong tree. (/ your ignorance is showing)
Do you hate the State? by Murray N. Rothbard
"Let us take, for example, two of the leading anarcho-capitalist works of the last few years: my own For a New Liberty and David Friedman’s Machinery of Freedom. Superficially, the major differences between them are my own stand for natural rights and for a rational libertarian law code, in contrast to Friedman’s amoralist utilitarianism and call for logrolling and trade-offs between non-libertarian private police agencies. But the difference really cuts far deeper. There runs through For a New Liberty (and most of the rest of my work as well) a deep and pervasive hatred of the State and all of its works, based on the conviction that the State is the enemy of mankind. In contrast, it is evident that David does not hate the State at all; that he has merely arrived at the conviction that anarchism and competing private police forces are a better social and economic system than any other alternative. Or, more fully, that anarchism would be better than laissez-faire which in turn is better than the current system. Amidst the entire spectrum of political alternatives, David Friedman has decided that anarcho-capitalism is superior. But superior to an existing political structure which is pretty good too. In short, there is no sign that David Friedman in any sense hates the existing American State or the State per se, hates it deep in his belly as a predatory gang of robbers, enslavers, and murderers. No, there is simply the cool conviction that anarchism would be the best of all possible worlds, but that our current set-up is pretty far up with it in desirability. For there is no sense in Friedman that the State – any State – is a predatory gang of criminals.
The same impression shines through the writing, say, of political philosopher Eric Mack. Mack is an anarcho-capitalist who believes in individual rights; but there is no sense in his writings of any passionate hatred of the State, or, a fortiori, of any sense that the State is a plundering and bestial enemy.
Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is "radical." Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul."
Ron Paul is FAR more radical than a Mack, or David Friedman + a lot of others. Have you forgotten his positions so easily? Abolish the Fed, CIA, IRS, Department of Argiculture, Education, Energy, blah frikkin blah... you name it, he proclaimed he wanted to abolish it.
"End the Fed" and Austrian Economics was cheered for at the Rally of the Republic. The folks who attack Ron Paul sicken me. /rant
Anyone who contextualizes debate in terms of natural law is usually radical. When Ron Paul speaks against the warfare/welfare state, he says that it's theft - you have no right to steal from your neighbour.
Whereas a person who wasn't radical would just say that it's inefficient.
Conza88: Ron Paul is FAR more radical than a Mack, or David Friedman + a lot of others. Have you forgotten his positions so easily? Abolish the Fed, CIA, IRS, Department of Argiculture, Education, Energy, blah frikkin blah... you name it, he proclaimed he wanted to abolish it. "End the Fed" and Austrian Economics was cheered for at the Rally of the Republic. The folks who attack Ron Paul sicken me. /rant
Ron P. is tremendously radical. Agreed.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
GilesStratton:Mr Plauche
That's Doctor Plauche now, biznatch!
Hashem: The first rule of scholarship is "Don't hold strong opinions if you haven't read the literature." Maybe you should read Nozick and Hayek before you pass judgment on them. Remember, we're still students here. Open-mindedness is a virtue.
wilderness:Ron P. is tremendously radical.
Yes, if you're defining "radical" as "marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional; extreme." But if we define radical as "going to the root; fundamental," then RP is not exactly a radical. As Hoppe points out in his excellent lecture "What Must Be Done," the root of statism is the compulsory monopoly on law and order and the production of security. Hence, the ultimate goal must be the demonopolization of these services. Attacking other monopolies, e.g. education, money, health care, etc. is worthwhile, but does not get at the root problem: the State's territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. To make any genuine progress, we need to stop hacking at branches (symptoms) and strike at the root.
This is why minarchism and anarchism are strategically incompatible. For anarchists, the root problem is the State's TMUJ, whereas for minarchists the root problem is that government is too big. A radical (going to the root) anarchist strategy will conflict with a radical minarchist strategy.
LibertarianAnarchy.com - Government is immoral, unnecessary, and doesn't work!
Sage: wilderness:Ron P. is tremendously radical. Yes, if you're defining "radical" as "marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional; extreme." But if we define radical as "going to the root; fundamental," then RP is not exactly a radical. As Hoppe points out in his excellent lecture "What Must Be Done," the root of statism is the compulsory monopoly on law and order and the production of security. Hence, the ultimate goal must be the demonopolization of these services. Attacking other monopolies, e.g. education, money, health care, etc. is worthwhile, but does not get at the root problem: the State's territorial monopoly on ultimate jurisdiction. To make any genuine progress, we need to stop hacking at branches (symptoms) and strike at the root. This is why minarchism and anarchism are strategically incompatible. For anarchists, the root problem is the State's TMUJ, whereas for minarchists the root problem is that government is too big. A radical (going to the root) anarchist strategy will conflict with a radical minarchist strategy.
And yet Ron P. advocates Lysander Spooner. So what's Ron P. really about? I think there's more to him than meets the eye.
This is the root of anarcho-capitalist property rights, and where they differ from collectivist forms of anarchism such as anarcho-communism where the product of labor is collectivized in a pool of goods and distributed "according to need." Anarcho-capitalists advocate individual ownership of the product of labor regardless of what the individual "needs" or does not need. As Rothbard says, "if every man has the right to own his own body and if he must use and transform material natural objects in order to survive, then he has the right to own the product that he has made." After property is created through labor it may then only exchange hands legitimately by trade or gift; forced transfers are considered illegitimate.
Make Money At Home
@Conza88, How completely ironic that a Ron Paul supporter would quote that article. Ron Paul is a STRONG supporter of the state. He's a strong supporter of the social contract and of government. He advocates government with every moment of his time. He is only useful to the cause of liberty only to the extent that he advocates eliminating certain aspects of our current state. Otherwise he is a paradox hiding in an enigma lost in a landfill of riddles somewhere beyond conundrum. He is confusing an entire generation of potential libertarians into thinking that government is liberty, and so he makes me sick. He is literally the embodiment of the opportunist that Rothbard always warns about. Conza, perhaps you missed the entire 3rd paragraph that you quoted from that article?
@Sage, I plan on reading other authors. Currently, I'm interested in pure/strict justice-loving-individualist-anarchist-natural-rights-state-hating-libertarians. I have only passed judgement on Nozick and Hayek to the extent that Rothbard obliterates them in The Ethics of Liberty -- and rightfully so.
wilderness:And yet Ron P. advocates Lysander Spooner. So what's Ron P. really about? I think there's more to him than meets the eye.
I think he is more like I was, a realist, that the government is here and he is working towards a less statist government, the reason I think is it will in turn make the jump to anarchism less radical....
It sounds like the ocean, smells like fresh mountain air, and tastes like the union of peanut butter and chocolate. ~Liberty Student
Harry Felker: wilderness:And yet Ron P. advocates Lysander Spooner. So what's Ron P. really about? I think there's more to him than meets the eye. I think he is more like I was, a realist, that the government is here and he is working towards a less statist government, the reason I think is it will in turn make the jump to anarchism less radical....
So he's for anarchy? Is that why he advocates Lysander Spooner?
I think what gets missed is somebody can go for abolition piece by piece and make the transition slow, cause less friction, and therefore allow people to adjust without them going crazy and being scared. That leads to revolutionary jumps if too much too fast - real revolution can only make it happen overnight. Since I'm about the NAP I don't see how anything can happen quickly without violence occurring. On a small scale it can happen quickly with individual(s) succession, but too much too fast will be violent. Civil direct action can avoid the pains of blood and revolution.
So it's not about who's radical in this case. It's more about civil disobedience and direct action. Tearing it down non-violently piece by piece. That is the very definition about radical. Radical doesn't mean violence. I adhere to the NAP.
Now if I found out Ron P. would allow it to end at some point and be a minianarchist, then he hasn't gone far enough for me. But then why would he bring up Lysander Spooner?
People think civil disobedience means gradualism - no. Anarchy civil disobedience is non-violent radicalism and in my opinion, that adheres to natural law.
wilderness:Now if I found out Ron P. would allow it to end at some point and be a minianarchist, then he hasn't gone far enough for me.
Ron Paul is the founder of Campaign for Liberty (I call them Campaign for Government). Part of there mission statement reads "Our mission is to promote...constitutional government..." Ron Paul is a professed minarchist -- though he prefers to call it "limited/constitutional government". You can always find him to advocating statism in this form. I have never heard him mention or advocate anarchy or the only existing rights: natural rights. He only talks about limited constitutional government and civil rights. He is a statist to the core.
Anyone who has watched every interview by him for the last few years KNOWS beyond any shadow of a doubt he is a minarchist. Ron Paul:
"The purpose of government is..."
"I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is...limited government..."
hashem:Ron Paul is the founder of Campaign for Liberty (I call them Campaign for Government). Part of there mission statement reads "Our mission is to promote...constitutional government..." Ron Paul is a professed minarchist -- though he prefers to call it "limited/constitutional government". You can always find him to advocating statism in this form. I have never heard him mention or advocate anarchy or the only existing rights: natural rights. He only talks about limited constitutional government and civil rights. He is a statist to the core. Anyone who has watched every interview by him for the last few years KNOWS beyond any shadow of a doubt he is a minarchist. Ron Paul: "The purpose of government is..." "I am just absolutely convinced that the best formula for giving us peace and preserving the American way of life is...limited government..."
Whether or not Ron Paul is an anarchist or a minarchist, he is the closest to anarchy as anyone in government. So, what is your problem?
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
That he is a statist, that statists are inherently anti libertarian, and that he is confusing the best possible generation of fresh potential libertarians into becoming statists in the name of liberty. That his goal is not liberty, but rather it is precisely government, and yet he claims the banner of liberty. Yes, he does intend to limit government. Great. But his STATED GOAL IS GOVERNMENT. Not great. Not liberty either.
The list has been made, I've got a load of books to read now. Is there a way to close this topic?
Juan:Except that he advocates a flawed, contradictory, failed and absurd system, there is no problem
How so?
hashem:That he is a statist, that statists are inherently anti libertarian, and that he is confusing the best possible generation of fresh potential libertarians into becoming statists in the name of liberty. That his goal is not liberty, but rather it is precisely government, and yet he claims the banner of liberty. Yes, he does intend to limit government. Great. But his STATED GOAL IS GOVERNMENT. Not great. Not liberty either. The list has been made, I've got a load of books to read now. Is there a way to close this topic?
Do you feel the same away about every minarchist?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap