[This is the introduction to Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, first published in 1988.]
Murray N. Rothbard is a scholar of unique, indeed monumental achievements: the founder of the first fully-integrated science of liberty.
“Crude oil benchmarks rose more than $4 on Tuesday, soaring for a third session as the U.S.-Israeli conflict with Iran widens...”
“Mr Rubio said President Donald Trump was forced into a preemptive response after learning of an imminent Israeli attack.”
Unfortunately, President Trump listened to the neocons and Benjamin Netanyahu instead of his MAGA base and other voices of caution as he launched a surprise attack on Iran over the weekend. For the second time in nine months, the US Administration used negotiations with Iran as a cover to launch a pre-planned attack.
The Iranians are sending their cheapest and oldest missiles first, to deplete the US’ stock of interceptor missiles. Then Iran will send its newer, better missiles.
Meanwhile, the administration has stopped claiming regime change is a reason for the war. But instead claims Iranian missiles, which can’t reach the USA, are the “threat.”
The governance of modern societies is in permanent tension between the immediate appeal of emotion and the need for enduring principles. Emotion—when converted into the driving force of state policy—frequently transforms into a mechanism of institutional erosion.
History is a potentially powerful weapon in political debate. It can be used by powerbrokers to justify all types of interventions designed to “correct” historical injustices. Court historians often treat history as a repository of reasons to dismantle institutions, redistribute wealth, and transfer power to those deemed to be historically vulnerable or historically marginalized.
Murray Rothbard’s insights over the years:
Economics, and more specifically, praxeology, is a value-free science. In Rothbard’s words, praxeology deals with the values, goals, and actions of the actor, but not with “how they should have acted or how they ought to act.” The ethical character of desires is not part of praxeology, although this does not preclude the two bodies of knowledge from complementing each other.
