1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar

The Ludwig von Mises Institute

Advancing Austrian Economics, Liberty, and Peace

Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian School

Search Mises.org

 Introduction to Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, Part:  a  |  b  |  c
 Table of Contents

     Herb Cornuelle, who had left the Volker Fund to work in private business, wrote to Rothbard in July, saying,

I was flattered by the preface to your new books and by your inscription. Thank you very much. I know you must feel a terrific sense of accomplishment in having completed these volumes. I congratulate you on what you have done.[71]

     The dedication at the front of the two-volume work read, ?To Ludwig von Mises.?

3. Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market: An Assessment


     Before turning to the reception of Rothbard?s treatise by the scholarly community, it may be useful to say something about the content and breadth of the work (including Power and Market).

     Man, Economy, and State was grounded on a thorough grasp of Austrian-Misesian theory, as well as a wide reading in all schools of economic theory. Murray Rothbard knew and understood the ideas he was rejecting. From an early date, he already had a substantial understanding of the history of economic doctrines which prefigures his History of Economic Thought.[72]  

     Rothbard subscribed to an ?anti-Whig? view of history, especially in the history of thought. He did not believe that ideas followed a single path upward and onward, or that more modern doctrines were necessarily better than older ones. Instead, he thought that modern, mainstream economics was founded on error that could only produce further errors. Hence, his use of obscure and forgotten sources?Gustave de Molinari, Benjamin Tucker, Amasa Walker, Francis A. Walker, L?on Wolowski, ?mile Levasseur, Arthur Latham Perry, Wordsworth Donisthorpe, Auberon Herbert, (his contemporary) Spencer Heath, and many others?in his search for insights not found in the standard literature. Rothbard culled important insights from these writers and brought them into his Austrian synthesis. 

     Man, Economy, and State presents economics as an integrated whole. Thus, in a discussion of interest rates, Rothbard writes: ?Money moves from consumers? goods back through the various stages of production, while goods flow from the higher through the lower stages of production, finally to be sold as consumers? goods? (MES p. 390). The ?remorseless, step-by-step, logical development? foreseen in Rothbard?s letters and memos was indeed carried out.

     As promised, the treatise unpacked and expounded the ideas presented in Mises?s Human Action systematically?and in thoroughly readable prose. But there are a number of important original insights and theoretical advances which are Rothbard?s. These include at least the following: (1) his production theory (as Rothbard put it, ?Mises doesn?t have much on that?) and, along with that, his deconstruction of ?cost curves?;[73] (2) his radical analysis of taxation and tax incidence which showed the impossibility of ?neutrality? and how taxes are shifted back to land and labor (backward imputation); (3) his demolition and reconstruction of monopoly theory (MES pp. 629?754),[74] in which he refuted the notion of monopoly price, thereby making it possible to overturn a great many mistaken ideas in economic history (MES p. 663); (4) his integration of the socialist calculation problem with stages of production (MES pp. 613?15), ?monopoly? (One Big Cartel, ?islands of calculational chaos?), and the problems posed by partial socialism (extent of state ownership); (5) his change in the ?philosophical position,? which corresponded with the change in epistemological outlook (Rothbard?s adoption of an Aristotelian-Thomist viewpoint as against Mises?s Humean-Weberian outlook); (6) his discussion of the rich and ?luck? (PM pp. 1381?82);[75] (7) his integration of Fetter?s rent theory with capital (?even Mises doesn?t see its contribution?);7[76](8) his definition of inflation as ?any increase in the supply of money not matched by an increase in the gold or silver stock available? (MES, p. 991); and (9) his new theory of patents and copyrights (MES, pp. 745?54; PM, pp. 1181?86).[77]

     In addition to these points, there are (10) Rothbard?s original graphs and tables, deliberately designed to illustrate lack of ?infinitely small steps? in the sciences of human action. Finally, (11) there was the whole attempt to systematize and state the pure theory of invasive action (violent intervention by criminals or states) in Chapter 12 of Man, Economy, and State as well as in Power and Market.


     In the preface, as in his memos, Rothbard deplored the passing of the general treatise, saying, ?formerly economics was regarded as a logical structure . . . a deductive science using verbal logic? (MES, p. lxxxvii). But now, ?prevailing epistemology has thrown over praxeology for methods at once too empirical and too ?theoretical?? (MES, p. lxxxviii), even though ?mathematics cannot contribute to economic knowledge? (MES, p. lxxxviii).[78]

     The purpose of his treatise was to ?isolate the economic, fill in the interstices, and spell out the detailed implications, as I see them, of the Misesian structure? (MES, p. lxxxix?xc). He would, he wrote, combine Frank Fetter?s ?brilliant and completely neglected theory of rent, i.e., the concept of rent as the hire price of a unit service? and would join the resulting ?Fetter-Mises pure time preference theory of interest? to the ?Austrian theory of the structure of production? (MES, p. xci).

     Chapter 1, ?Fundamentals of Human Action,? introduces the praxeological method grounded on the fact of purposeful individual human action, which operates by relating means to ends. Fundamental axioms are stated, and real-world postulates introduced, e.g., that leisure is a good. The role of time, scarcity of means, and ?the uncertainty of the future? are treated. Rothbard notes that actions ?are of necessity speculations based on his judgment? about future outcomes (MES, p. 7).

     Rothbard develops the concept of ?good? and its subcategories, factors, and stages of production, and the role of time in economic activity. He remarks that a technological ?recipe? is ?an unlimited factor of production? (MES, p. 11).

     Goods and services are consumed to satisfy wants, but ??[e]conomic? is by no means equivalent to ?material.?? Incomes are imputed to factors of production (labor, land, capital) on the basis of their ?anticipated usefulness? (MES, p. 12). The ?period of production,? durability of goods, utility scales, and ranking of wants are discussed. Ranking is ordinal not cardinal since there is no unit by which utilities could be ?measured? (MES, p. 19). This chapter establishes the role of marginal analysis. An important appendix discusses praxeology in relation to other fields in social science.

     Chapter 2, ?Direct Exchange,? contrasts violence, ?hegemonic bonds,? slavery, and war with society, defined as a ?continuing pattern of [voluntary] interpersonal exchanges? (MES, p. 84). Rothbard abstracts from historically given societies to make possible a pure economic analysis of the workings and outcomes of a pure, unhampered market economy and society. A ?genuinely co-operative society? (MES, p. 99) arises on the basis of reverse valuations of goods leading to exchange and a complex division of labor and specialization springs up to exploit comparative advantages in resources and differences in human talents. The peaceful society based on property and contract makes possible wider ?social sympathy? (MES, p. 101).

     In Chapter 3, ?The Pattern of Indirect Exchange,? Rothbard lays out the formation of prices and markets in the absence of money. In Chapter 4, ?Prices and Consumption,? he spells out how the introduction of money?the only good retaining its barter character (MES, pp. 236?37)?alters the market and makes greater complexity and productivity possible. He refutes the notion of monetary ?circulation,? as well as notions that money somehow ?measures? or ?compares? the values of goods and services. Next, Rothbard accounts for the emergence of money out of the market on the basis of Mises?s ?regression theorem.? He disposes of the supposed problem of ?indifference? along the way (MES, p. 307).

     Chapter 5, ?Production: The Structure,? introduces the mental construction of the ?evenly rotating economy? (MES, pp. 320 ff.), a heuristic device Mises employed as a model to which to contrast the real economy. Here, Rothbard shows how incomes flow to factor owners, noting that final inputs are always to land and labor. Capitalists ?advance? money to owners of land and labor, making projects involving several stages of production possible. He introduces the important concept of the pure rate of interest, or ?social rate of time preference? reflecting real savings.

     Chapter 6, ?The Rate of Interest and Its Determination,? equates the rate of interest with the ?rate of price spread? between different stages of production. To focus on the ?producers? loan market? is to miss the much more fundamental phenomenon. The chapter thus clarifies the nature of profits and loss (cf. MES, p. 372). In Chapter 7, ?Production: General Pricing of the Factors,? Rothbard sorts out such concepts as economic land vs. geographic land and the whole notion of ?rents.? He underscores that on the market, as a set of ongoing exchanges, there is no separate problem of ?distribution? requiring special analysis (MES, p. 477).

     In Chapter 8, ?Production: Entrepreneurship and Change,? Rothbard observes that there is no such thing as the ?rate of profit? per se and stresses that the market economy is a ??profit and loss economy?? (MES, p. 512). Greater savings will bring about a lengthened capital structure and general rise of real incomes in society. Higher productivity and increased prosperity thus rest on productive processes involving more stages of production. It follows that savings, which make more capital investment possible, set the limits of economic production, rather than technical knowledge (MES, pp. 540?41). In a real sense, laborers, whose incomes are raised by capital investment, are ?free riders? on the saving and investment process. Rothbard also argues here that the lengthening of the capital structure over time tends toward a long-term fall of interest rates, i.e., the profits owed to price spreads (as opposed to secondary loan-market rates, which may vary).

     Chapter 9, ?Production: Particular Factor Prices and Productive Incomes,? presents a powerful integration of fundamental economic issues. In particular, Rothbard writes here that a large, vertically integrated firm would require at least one external market for each internalized stage of production. Absent such external markets, partial ?calculational chaos? would be introduced (MES, pp. 599, 608?09, 658).

     Chapter 10, ?Monopoly and Competition,? proceeds via a spirited demolition of all existing theories of monopoly and monopoly prices. Even Mises is not spared in what may be the most brilliant section of the book.[79] The treatment of One Big Cartel ties the analysis back into the previous chapter?s discussion of internal calculation in vertically integrated firms and anticipates Rothbard?s discussion of the impossibility of economic calculation under socialism (MES, pp. 659?61).

     In the course of the chapter, Rothbard disposes of ?perfect competition? theory, trade union fallacies, and ?locational? monopoly. He defines monopoly as an exclusive grant by the state, excluding competitors from a market, an innovation with great potential for addressing an endless series of historical misinterpretations of these matters (MES, pp. 667?69). He attributes many of the mistakes in this area to writers? tendency to theorize on the basis of ?an isolated firm,? while losing track of the larger teachings of economics (MES, p. 731).

     Chapter 11, ?Money and Its Purchasing Power,? quickly disposes of the notion of a ?circulation? of money, since money is always in someone?s possession. It emerges that no social benefit can result from an increase in the nominal supply of money. Rothbard subjects the monetary views of John Maynard Keynes to a thorough critique marked by insight and withering satire (MES, pp. 776?92). He thus continued Mises?s project of integrating the theory of money into general economics as opposed to leaving it as a separate field. 

     Before the decision was made to truncate Part III of the book (partly corresponding to Power and Market [1970]),[80] Rothbard had written an original Chapter 12, ?Government and the Free Market.? This was a short transitional piece meant to introduce Part III. Much of its argument appears in Appendix B, ??Collective Goods? and ?External Benefits?? (MES, pp. 1029?1041), at the end of the new Chapter 12 (MES, pp. 875?1041) that Rothbard wrote as a substitute for Part III.

     The present Chapter 12, ?The Economics of Violent Intervention in the Market,? begins by sharply contrasting ?hegemonic relations? based on force with relations based on voluntary exchange.[81] State intervention into the latter peaceful process leads to gains in utility for some and losses for others, thus creating social conflict (MES, pp. 877?79). Rothbard concludes that ?no state action can increase social utility? (MES, p. 882).

     Rothbard introduces a typology of intervention (more fully developed in Power and Market). He notes that the whole discussion regarding ?distribution? in economic theory is an effect of government action (MES, p. 912). Rothbard?s critique of existing theories of ?justice? in tax policy left little standing and gave him room to produce a highly original treatment of tax ?incidence? and ?shifting? (again more fully presented in Power and Market).

     We have here also the broad outline of an economically-based political theory dealing with conflict, economic calculation, and introducing the important concept of ?command posts? (MES, pp. 938?57).[82]Here also is an important insight into the differing economic incentives bearing on the behavior of monarchs and democratically elected rulers.[83] As suggested by Frank Meyer, there is a critique of the then-fashionable doctrines of John Kenneth Galbraith.

     Comparison of the ?new? Chapter 12 (125 pages) with the outlines in Rothbard?s Progress Reports and with Power and Market (196 pages) reveals that Rothbard was able to salvage much material from the original Part III. The whole monetary intervention section, with the critique of Keynes, was carried over into the new concluding chapter.


     As for Power and Market, finally published in 1970, I shall be brief. A comparison of various typescript versions of the work from the early to the later 1960s reveals little substantive change from one draft to another. Rather than repeat himself, Rothbard seems to have produced the earliest draft of Power and Market as a work incorporating mainly those sections of the old Part III not used in Man, Economy, and State. This is why the angle of vision is different and why there is fairly little repetition between Chapter 12 (1962) and Power and Market.

     Under the friendlier ideological auspices of Kenneth S. Templeton and the Institute for Humane Studies (the institutional successor to the Volker Fund), the remnant of Part III was published in 1970 as Power and Market.[84]Rothbard writes in his preface that the work presents ?an extensive, revised, and updated analysis of violent intervention in the market.?[85] Against 15 pages in Chapter 12 of Man, Economy, and State on ?triangular intervention??that is, the case wherein an ?invader? either prohibits or requires an exchange between two other people?Power and Market pursues the analysis over the course of 41 pages. On ?binary intervention,? in which the ?invader? forces an exchange between himself and some individual, we find 41 pages in Chapter 12 as against 86 in Power and Market.

     Thus, these two forms of intervention receive expanded treatment in Power and Market relative to the discussion in Man, Economy, and State. Especially noteworthy here is Rothbard?s merciless deconstruction of existing theories of taxation, incidence, and shifting. The important section on state ?command posts? is missing from the later work, since Rothbard could refer readers to the earlier book, but his discussion of a stateless market society, which had been too ?controversial? in 1959, is found in Chapters 1 and 7 of Power and Market.[86] Finally, the hard-hitting and very important ?Praxeological Critique of Ethics? appears as Chapter 6.


     In early July 1962, Arthur Shenfield, economic director of the Federation of British Industries, wrote to Rothbard. He noted that they had met briefly at the Mont Pelerin Society meeting in Princeton in 1958. He found the reading of Rothbard?s treatise ?one of the most exh[i]larating and exciting experiences of my life. . . . It is Keats and Chapman?s Homer all over again for me.? Of the chapter on monopoly and competition, he said, ?I do not know anything that has ever been written before to match it; and I say this although I have for years been a convinced believer in the right and need for the State to police the market by means of, inter alia, anti-monopoly and anti-cartel legislation, thinking that this was the truly liberal line.? Rothbard answered, ?I am absolutely overwhelmed by your letter of the 5th.?[87] 

     Shenfield wrote again at the end of July, thanking Rothbard for his letter, adding,

If I were writing my letter of July 5th now I would make my tribute to you even fuller and richer. Most of my spare time during the past weeks has been spent in reading your book, and almost all of the rest of it comes up to the expectations which were pitched so high for me by your section on monopoly and competition. It is a veritable magnum opus, and I wonder now how the established academics are going to contrive to ignore it.[88]

     At the end of July, former Congressman Howard Buffett (R-Nebraska) wrote to Rothbard, saying that ?I have been enjoying my reading of the second half of Volume II which gets into an area with which I have had at least some experience.? To this, Rothbard replied, ?Thanks for your kind words about my book. I?m glad you like it. The book was designed for the intelligent layman or for college students. . . .? He added, ?I understand that Henry Hazlitt will publish a review of my book in National Review which will be considerably more perceptive than the one in the Wall Street Journal.?[89]

     From Argentina, Alberto Benegas Lynch, writing to Rothbard in August, said, ?I imagine this is the most important work of the economic science after Professor Mises?s Human Action. I am sure we will need this book in Spanish. May I project something concerning its translation into Spanish??[90]

     In a letter of November 19 to Kenneth S. Templeton, Jr., a former Volker Fund associate working at the Lilly Endowment, Rothbard expressed great enthusiasm for getting on with his proposed project in American history. He wrote:

I am also happy to have the opportunity to leave the realm of economic theory, for, with the books published and especially with Man, Economy and State, I believe I have said whatever I have to say about economics, and am now eager to move on. I have a constitutional aversion to repeating myself and milking my previous stuff ad infinitum?which seems to be a way of life for so many scholars.[91]

     As to the reception of Rothbard?s treatise, mainstream reviews tended to be unfavorable, naturally enough.[92] Favorable reviews came from the pens of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Manuel Klausner, and Robert LeFevre.[93]

     We may leave the assessment of Man, Economy, and State in the hands of two writers who reviewed the book when it first came out. These reviewers were doubtless the most qualified in the world to review such a book: Henry Hazlitt and Ludwig von Mises.

     While Hazlitt drew back from some of Rothbard?s legal and political conclusions, attributing them to the latter?s ?extreme apriorism,? for the most part he had high praise for the book. He knew of no other book, he wrote,

that gives so full a recognition to the inherent and omnipresent (but neglected) role of time, not merely in the explanation of interest, but in all economic activity. Rothbard constantly emphasizes time as an indispensable factor in all production, and as a necessary but ?scarce? means to all our ends.


On a score of other major points, also, he contributes lucidity and light: his excellent description of the enormous benefits of a money economy over one of direct exchange; his explanation of why a separate theory of ?international? trade is unnecessary and why the ?balance of payments problem? for a nation is no different from that for an individual; his rigorous exposition of a pure time-preference theory of interest; his mordant exposure of labor union fallacies; his beautiful explanation of why the free market, far from being ?anarchic? or ?planless,? is the only organization under which true economic balance and order are possible.

     Hazlitt thought that Rothbard?s book differed from Mises?s treatise in that Rothbard, ?treating at much less length some of the basic problems that Mises has explored more thoroughly, devotes a much larger part of his work to the refutation of opposing doctrines. . . . With the statistical and mathematical economists he is unsparing.? Of the work as a whole, Hazlitt wrote: ?It is in fact the most important general treatise on economic principles since Ludwig von Mises?s Human Action in 1949.?

     For Mises, Rothbard?s Man, Economy, and State meant that ?[n]ow he joins the ranks of the eminent economists by publishing, as the result of many years of sagacious and discerning meditation, a voluminous work, a systematic treatise on economics.? 

     For his part, Mises, like Hazlitt, disagreed with some of Rothbard?s ideas on legal matters.

But disagreement with his opinions concerning these matters cannot prevent me from qualifying 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.

     When the remnant of Part III was published separately as Power and Market in 1970, it seems to have gone largely unheeded by scholarly journals. It was reviewed mainly in libertarian publications. Peter Witonski?s review in National Review took what Rothbard had termed ?the ?National Review? line? that Rothbard was a gifted economist but ?an eccentric dolt? when it came to political matters.[94] For whatever reasons, Rothbard?s explicitly political ?libertarian manifesto,? For A New Liberty, actually made more of a splash, and was more widely reviewed, when it came out in 1973.[95]


     One hallmark of Rothbard?s work is his clarity and precision of definition, expression, and exposition. In contrast with such thinkers as James Madison and Karl Marx, few dissertations, journal articles, or weighty tomes will need to be written on the question of ?What Rothbard really meant.? Work can proceed more along the lines of whether Rothbard was right or wrong about a particular matter.

     The treatise conveys a sense of the systematic, dynamic, interrelated, and orderly changes in market activity?something Rothbard approvingly noted could be found in Bastiat?s work (MES, p. 84, n. 7). In addition, as with Mises, there is a whole social theory present?implicit and explicit?waiting to be taken further. Among its features are the notion of individual self-ownership, voluntary exchange vs. hegemonic bonds (or ?relations of state?), free-market welfare analysis, and the incentive structure presented to invasive actors under different forms of government (MES, pp. 956?57). A key insight arising from Rothbard?s line of attack is that most (possibly all) alleged ?problems? of economic life are created by state policies or by the very existence of states. For example, he writes that

the free market does not distribute incomes; income there arises naturally and smoothly out of the market processes of production and exchange. Thus, the very concept of ?distribution? as something separate from production and exchange can arise only from the government?s binary intervention. (MES, p. 912)

     Elsewhere, Rothbard makes a point which may have application beyond economics:

Those writers who have vainly attempted to measure psychic gains from exchange have concentrated on ?consumer surpluses.? Most recent attempts try to base their measurements on the price a man would have paid for the good if confronted with the possibility of being deprived of it. These methods are completely fallacious

because ?individual value scales are here separated from concrete action.? This scheme ?is strictly an academic question with no relation to human action? (MES, p. 259). It is tempting to think this critique applies with equal force to analogous hypothetical constructions in other fields dealing with human action.[96]

     Rothbard?s break with Mises?s Kantian and utilitarian liberalism freed him to question the state as such, hence his turn from Mises?s defense of democracy and toward free-market anarchism. His ?changed philosophical position? related also to his belief in the feasibility of a rational science of ethics. In his treatise, Rothbard alluded to this subject more than once, but left it to one side in his Wertfrei (?value-free?) exposition of pure economics. Where other scholars ?smuggled? unwarranted unstated ethical assumptions into their economic analyses, Rothbard kept the distinction in sight at all times. For purposes of clearer analysis and exposition, he postulated a market unhampered by interpersonal and political invasions, and his ?praxeological critique of ethics? hammered those writers who, in Rothbard?s view, had failed to separate the two realms.

     He turned to a grounding of his ethical position in The Ethics of Liberty. Hans-Hermann Hoppe insightfully writes that the concept of property provides the bridge between Rothbard?s economics and his ethical theory.[97] In this fashion, Rothbard spelled out the relationship between economics and ethics as parts of his overall goal of creating, in effect, a science of liberty.

     I could not conclude a discussion of a work of Murray Rothbard?s without saying something about his manner of writing. There is humor?the ?cracks? that so alarmed Frank Meyer. There are reductiones ad absurdum and great Rothbardian ?So Whats?? Noting that some writers condemn alleged monopolists for restricting production, he writes: ?the production of any product is necessarily always ?restricted.?? Those who think there isn?t enough coffee, for example, are free to go into that business (MES, p. 638).

     Or there is Rothbard mocking the abuses of mathematical economics by writing Fisherite ?equations? and ?ratios? such as ?(7 hats and 1000 pounds of sugar) cents? over ?(hats) (pounds of sugar)? (MES, p. 839); or asking abruptly, in a discussion of the Keynesian multiplier, ?What does the year have to do with it?? (MES, p. 871); or proving, via Keynesian concepts and a little back-of-the-envelope math, that one individual?s?the reader?s??spending will prime the pump of a 100,000-fold increase in the national income? (MES, p. 868).

     A word must be said about Rothbard?s footnotes. They repay serious reading with a wealth of information, develop interesting arguments beyond what is in the main text, and lead the reader on to hitherto unknown sources. In addition, they are often very funny.

     In assessing the restored, three-part Man, Economy, and State, now conforming to Rothbard?s original vision, I shall leave the last word to Rothbard himself. Of Mises?s Human Action, he wrote in 1988:

It is economics made whole, based on the methodology of praxeology . . . and grounded in the ineluctable and fundamental axiom that human beings exist, and that they act in the world, using means to try to achieve their most valued goals.[98]

Surely, the same may be said of Rothbard?s own general treatise. 

JoAnn B. Rothbard Chair in History
Ludwig von Mises Institute
Auburn, Alabama

[71]H. Cornuelle to Rothbard, July 2, 1961; Rothbard Papers.

[72]Murray N. Rothbard, An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. I:   Economic Thought before Adam Smith (Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997) and An Austrian Perspective on the History of Economic Thought, vol. II: Classical Economics (Cheltenham, U.K.: Edward Elgar, 1997).

[73]See Rothbard?s comments in Rothbard to R. Cornuelle, memo: ?Textbook or Treatise?? excerpted above, p. xlii.

[74]Rothbard had undertaken a number of studies for the Volker Fund on the question of monopoly, including ?Monopoly and Competition? [critical bibliographical essay], 69 pgs., March 31, 1957, ?Government as a Promoter of Monopoly,? 13 pgs., October 1959, and ?The Monopoly Problem,? 68 pgs., August 1959; Rothbard Papers, material which he clearly utilized in Man, Economy, and State.

[75]I thank David Gordon for this point.

[76]See Rothbard to Ludwig Lachmann, February 14, 1957, 8 pgs., Rothbard Papers, where Rothbard writes:

One thing which I try to do in my book  . . . is a resurrection of Frank Fetter, not only his superb pure time-preference theory of interest (which Mises has already resurrected and strengthened) but also his superb theory of rent, which lies a-mouldering-in-the-grave?even Mises doesn?t see its contribution. Fetter treats rent as the unit hire-price (rental price) of any service of a good, so that rent is really its service price, while its price-as-a-whole (such as a machine) becomes the capitalized sum of its expected future rents. Rents then are not the price of land-service only, or some sort of surplus, or differential.

(Cf. Man, Economy, and State, pp. 288?308.)

[77]This line of thought has been extended and improved by N. Stephan Kinsella, ?Against Intellectual Property,? Journal of Libertarian Studies 15, no. 2, Spring 2001, pp. 1?53.

[78]Rothbard clearly appreciated C. Wright Mills?s parallel critique of ?abstracted empiricism? and unrealistic ?grand theory? in sociology; as shown by the underlining and marginal comments in Rothbard?s copy of Mills?s The Sociological Imagination (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959).

[79]Alberto Benegas Lynch published Chapter 10 separately, as Monopolio y Competencia (Buenos Aires: Centro de Estudios Sobre la Libertad, 1965).

[80]?Chapter XII: Government and the Free Market?; Rothbard Papers.

[81]Mises had developed this idea in Human Action (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, [1949] 1998), pp. 196?99.

[82]Cf. Rothbard?s ?The Anatomy of the State? and ?War, Peace, and the State? in Murray N. Rothbard, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000), pp. 55?88 and  115?32.

[83]This line of thought has been taken much further by Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Democracy?The God That Failed: The Economics and Politics of Monarchy, Democracy, and Natural Order (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 2001).

[84]Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market: Government and the Economy (Menlo Park, Calif.: Institute for Humane Studies, 1970).

[85]Ibid., p. vii. Comparison of earlier draft versions in the Rothbard Papers with the published book reveals some revision and the use of new sources from the 1960s, but no substantive change in the interpretive position.

[86]The typological chart on p. 194, alone, is worth the price of entry.

[87]Arthur Shenfield to Rothbard, July 5, 1962; Rothbard to Shenfield, July 26, 1962; Rothbard Papers.

[88]Shenfield to Rothbard, July 30, 1962; Rothbard Papers.

[89]Howard Buffett to Rothbard, July 31, 1962, and Rothbard to Buffett, August 13, 1962; Rothbard Papers.

[90]Alberto Benegas Lynch to Rothbard, August 9, 1962; Rothbard Papers. As noted above, Benegas Lynch published Chapter 10 as Monopolio y Competencia in 1965.

[91]Rothbard to Templeton, November 19, 1962; Rothbard Papers. The history project grew into the four-volume Conceived in Liberty, published between 1975 and 1979.

[92]Cf. Victor C. Heck, ?Review of Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State,? American Economic Review 53, no. 5 (June 1963): 460?61, and Lewis E. Hill, ?Review of Murray N. Rothbard, Man, Economy, and State,? Southern Economic Journal 29, no. 3 (January 1963): 252?54.

[93]Ludwig von Mises, ?A New Treatise on Economics,? New Individualist Review 2, no. 3 (Autumn 1962): 39?42; Henry Hazlitt, ?The Economics of Freedom,? National Review 13 (September 25, 1962): 231?32. Another favorable review came from Manuel S. Klausner: ?Book Note: Man, Economy, and State,? New York Law Review 38, no. 4 (June 1963): 802?07.

[94]Cf. R.A. Childs, ?Review of Murray N. Rothbard, Power and Market,? Libertarian Forum 2, nos. 22?23, November 15?December 1, 1971, pp.  4?7; Peter Witonski, ?Rothbardian Utopia,? National Review 23, January 26, 1971, pp.  93?94.

[95]Murray N. Rothbard, For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (New York: Collier Books, 1973).

[96]E.g., against the system of John Rawls with his elaborate social contracts adopted behind a ?veil of ignorance.?

[97]Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ?Introduction,? in Murray N. Rothbard, The Ethics of Liberty (New York: New York University Press, 1998), p. xii.

[98]Murray N. Rothbard, Ludwig von Mises: Scholar, Creator, Hero (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1988), p. 64.

Previous SectionNext Section
Table of Contents