The Mises Community
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Rothbard vs. Friedman

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 0 verified answers | 20 Replies | 7 Followers

Top 200 Contributor
Male
143 Posts
Points 3,030
shazam posted on Tue, Jul 7 2009 6:48 PM

Besides law, what were the differences in the theories between Murray N. Rothbard and David D. Friedman? I know that the latter came to his conclusions through utilitarian means, but were there any major differences in the conclusions themselves besides whether law would be agreed to or purchased on the market?

Anarcho-capitalism boogeyman

All Replies

Top 10 Contributor
4,120 Posts
Points 66,185
Moderator

how do non-utilitarian consequentialists decide between possible future worlds? what are alternative criteria for 'superior consequences?'

 

Im pretty confident that Rothbard advocated uniform application of NAP as a principle, but would leave lawmakers to discover correct rules of process, and to tackle boundary problems and the like

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 150 Contributor
Male
256 Posts
Points 4,525

To clarify, I don't think that Rothbard was way too dogmatic about his own predictions of what anarchy will be like (except regarding law imho), it's just that he doesn't go out of his way to emphasize the fact that it's difficult to know exactly what solutions the market will find nearly as much.

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 200 Contributor
Male
142 Posts
Points 2,120

Hmm.. so Rothbard favored privatizing everything save for the law itself, while Friedman (ironically enough, since he's considered the more moderate of the two) wanted to make that one final step to anarchy?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
4,247 Posts
Points 65,050
ForumsAdministrator
Moderator
SystemAdministrator

Hrm? No, Rothbard favoured privatising the law too. I think people are misinterpreting his "constitution". Does he ever state it's anything but an agreement, a code that libertarian law providers will agree too?

To darkness I condemn you...

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
4,120 Posts
Points 66,185
Moderator

@majevska

nd about the consequentialists that arent utilitarian?

Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid

Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Male
256 Posts
Points 4,525

nirgrahamUK:

@majevska

nd about the consequentialists that arent utilitarian?

Forms of nihilism or ethical egoism can be consequentialist in that they promote good consequences for a specific individual rather than a general increase in utility for all; then there's evolutionary type stuff, teleological, lots more. I'm not sure what exactly Friedman is, but he has denied being a utilitarian.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (21 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS

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