I think I read somewhere that Murray Rothbard moderated his opposition to support for abortion in his later years. Is this true? I can't find a link.
Moderated in what way?
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
What opposition?
Yes, Individualist,"What opposition?" comes to mind here, too. I've read only snippets of Rothbard's vast output, but he's crystal clear in Chapter 14, "Children and Rights", of The Ethics of Liberty. There he wrote, "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.... Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."
Now Rothbard wrote about 2 or 3 gajillion books and articles, and I'm not familiar with most of them. But I'm fairly certain that he never backed off of this position after the publication of The Ethics of Liberty. TEOL has appeared in different editions, but mine has an intro by Hoppe, who is plenty more familiar with Rothbard and his writings than I am. In that intro he writes, "Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
If anyone knows different, I'd appreciate a pointer to the passage or passages where Rothbard backed off.
Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion. I'm very sorry for that typo. Where's the "dunce hat" icon when you need it?
Individualist: Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion.
Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion.
Ah, that makes more sense.
I'm very sorry for that typo. Where's the "dunce hat" icon when you need it?
If you need to borrow a real dunce cap, I'll gladly send you mine, so long as you don't mind one that's been worn to tatters from overuse.
As for your question, the short answer is: No he didn't back off from his support of a right to abortion.
That said, Rothbard lived his last years under the Clinton regime, and was looking for a tactical alliance with cultural conservatives, roughly Buchananite Republicans, at that time. He wrote columns analyzing the political prospects of candidates, sometimes pointing out that a pro-abortion stance might hurt a given Republican hopeful. I think some careless readers came away with the idea that Rothbard was uncritically embracing the views of those Elephant Party voters for whom a pro-abortion stance would cause trouble. Perhaps you've encountered loose talk or writing of the kind, and that's what prompted your question?
twelveguage: Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
One of his most monstrous opinions.
Semper Fidelis
do you have the right to force mothers to look after their children in the way you wish them to at the barrel of your gun? why not look after the kids yourself.....
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
nirgrahamUK: do you have the right to force mothers to look after their children in the way you wish them to at the barrel of your gun? why not look after the kids yourself.....
More and more, I am convinced that many libertarians just want an excuse to avoid all responsibility. Frankly, if your vision of an 'ancap' world means mothers can allow their children to starve, then I would rather deal with the state.
Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
Protip: people notice such dishonesty. And I'm going to call it as I see it by noting that you have to be an idiot to believe that no one will notice, and that you can arbitrarily re-define words to suit your beliefs.
Don't like it? Stop being dishonest, then.
what do the children want? do they want you to threaten their parents into caring for them? or do they want to live with people that just do care for them?
My emotionless view on abortion is this: as soon as you consider the fetus a person, abortion becomes murder(emotionally, I place that line pretty early). On neglect, a parent often controls his child's ability to eat; I'd say you have to argue pretty damn hard to argue a child too young to feed himself is not the responsibility of the caretaker to get fed.
Keynes must've been a fan of Brave New World; why else would he write a book about its economics?
It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction. Such a vulgar position is the inevitable result of trying to create an ethical universal principle; it always leads to spurious conclusions. Kant claimed that lying is always wrong, even if it meant saving someone's life; how absurd.
Esuric:It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
Rrrright. You mean the definition that has been used since, well, the start of humankind? If a parent's responsibility to feed their children isnt a basic and obvious obligation (yes, I used the O word), then I do not know what is.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
sicsempertyrannis:Rrrright. You mean the definition that has been used since, well, the start of humankind?
Now I don't care about your position on abortion, really; I care about your gross misuse of the word "responsibility".
Knight_of_BAAWA: Esuric:It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.Proof, please.
How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion? His work claims that people have absolute control over their bodies, no matter what, it's their right, and yet they wouldn't be allowed to terminate unwanted pregnancies. It would have been a blatant contradiction which would have negated his main point regarding property rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA: The one that is in dictionaries. The one that you're deliberately trying to forget exists. The one that you're trying to erase and supplant with your own warped version. Now I don't care about your position on abortion, really; I care about your gross misuse of the word "responsibility".
The one that is in dictionaries. The one that you're deliberately trying to forget exists. The one that you're trying to erase and supplant with your own warped version.
Where in the hell did I bring up abortion? I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death. Hate to break it to you, but you're the one with the warped definition of responsibility - yours is catered to your ism, not reality.
Esuric:How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Esuric:How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion?Ok, and you were talking about a contradiction. I'm wondering about that. Still.
I said he had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.
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