NATIONALISM

Nationalism is not a unitary, monolithic phenomenon. If it is aggressive, we should oppose it; if liberatory, we should favor it.

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, p. 197

… one of the basic doctrines and tactics of the rulers of each State has been to identify itself with the territory it governs. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its population with the State is a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage.

For a New Liberty, p. 71

… there is no national “self” …

Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 234

While the State is a pernicious and coercive collectivist concept, the “nation” may be and generally is voluntary. The nation properly refers, not to the State, but to the entire web of culture, values, traditions, religion, and language in which the individuals of a society are raised … one may be a true patriot of one’s nation or country while—and even for that very reason—opposing the State that rules over it.

… national self-determination is a vitally important matter in which libertarians should properly take sides.

Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 234

Many libertarians have tended to oppose any form of nationalism on the grounds that they cannot support any nation-State. But it is critically important to realize that “nationalism” cannot be lumped together in one mass. There are two contrasting types of nationalism: a desire to liberate an oppressed nation from the chains imposed by another nation (a movement for “national liberation”); as against a desire to aggress against other nations and impose one’s own national domination upon them (a movement for “imperialism”).

Left and Right, p. 308

Nationalism is not a unitary, monolithic phenomenon. If it is aggressive, we should oppose it, if liberatory we should favor it.

Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 45

“Nations” may be important politically and culturally, but economically they appear only as a consequence of government intervention …

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 1101

NATURAL LAW

… it is rooted in the nature of man that each person is endowed with reason and with free will—and that he is able to use free will to employ his reason in order to discover the natural law of what is good or bad for man’s happiness. Furthermore, he is then able to use that free will to choose the good. And since each individual’s choices rest on the convictions of his mind, each man has the right and duty of private judgment over his own life. Thus each individual is morally capable and therefore responsible for his own actions.

Conceived in Liberty v. 2, pp. 171–72; pp. 669–70

Since the nature of man is such that each individual must use his mind to learn about himself and the world, to select values, and to choose ends and means in order to survive and flourish, the right to self-ownership gives each man the right to perform these vital activities without being hampered and restricted by coercive molestation.

Economic Controversies, p. 353

Natural law rests on the crucial insight that to be necessarily means to be something, that is, some particular thing or entity. There is no Being in the abstract. Everything that is, is some particular thing, whether it be a stone, a cat, or a tree. By empirical fact there is more than one kind of thing in the universe; in fact there are thousands, if not millions of kinds of things. Each thing has its own particular set of properties or attributes, its own nature, which distinguishes it from other kinds of things. A stone, a cat, an elm tree; each has its own particular nature, which man can discover, study and identify.

Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, p. 3

… if every entity in the universe—if hydrogen, oxygen, stone, or cats can be identified, classified, and its nature examined, then so too can man. Human beings must also have a specific nature with specific properties that can be studied, and from which we can obtain knowledge. Human beings are unique in the universe because they can and do study themselves, as well as the world around them, and try to figure out what goals they should pursue and what means they can employ to achieve them.

Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, p. 4

Man, in the famous Aristotelian phrase, is uniquely the rational animal—the species that uses reason to adopt values and ethical principles, and that acts to attain these ends. Man acts; that is, he adopts values and purposes, and chooses the ways to achieve them.

Man, therefore, in seeking goals and ways to attain them, must discover and work within the framework of the natural law: the properties of himself and of other entities and the ways in which they may interact.

Economic Thought Before Adam Smith, p. 5

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, p. 25

Man is born naked into the world, and needing to use his mind to learn how to take the resources given him by nature, and to transform them (for example, by investment in “capital”) into shapes and forms and places where the resources can be used for the satisfaction of his wants and the advancement of his standard of living. The only way by which man can do this is by the use of his mind and energy to transform resources (“production”) and to exchange these products for products created by others. Man has found that, through the process of voluntary, mutual exchange, the productivity and hence the living standards of all participants in exchange may increase enormously. The only “natural” course for man to survive and to attain wealth, therefore, is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production-and-exchange process. He does this, first, by finding natural resources, and then by transforming them (by “mixing his labor” with them, as Locke puts it), to make them his individual property, and then by exchanging this property for the similarly obtained property of others. The social path dictated by the requirements of man’s nature, therefore, is the path of “property rights” and the “free market” of gift or exchange of such rights. Through this path, men have learned how to avoid the “jungle” methods of fighting over scarce resources.

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, pp. 57–58

The assertion of an order of natural laws discoverable by reason is, by itself, neither pro- nor anti-religious.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 4

… natural law is ethical as well as physical law; and the instrument by which man apprehends such law is his reason—not faith, or intuition, or grace, revelation, or anything else.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 6

In natural-law philosophy, then, reason is not bound … to be a mere slave to the passions, confined to cranking out the discovery of the means to arbitrarily chosen ends. For the ends themselves are selected by the use of reason; and “right reason” dictates to man his proper ends as well as the means for their attainment.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 7

The world, in fact, consists of a myriad number of observable things, or entities. This is surely an observable fact. Since the world does not consist of one homogenous thing or entity alone, it follows that each one of these different things possesses differing attributes, otherwise they would all be the same thing. But if A, B, C, etc., have different attributes, it follows immediately that they have different natures. It also follows that when these various things meet and interact, a specifically delimitable and definable result will occur. In short, specific, delimitable causes will have specific, delimitable effects. The observable behavior of each of these entities is the law of their natures, and this law includes what happens as a result of the interactions. The complex that we may build up of these laws may be termed the structure of natural law.

Ethics of Liberty, pp. 9–10

… if apples and stones and roses each have their specific natures, is man the only entity, the only being, that cannot have one? And if man does have a nature, why cannot it too be open to rational observation and reflection? If all things have natures, then surely man’s nature is open to inspection …

Ethics of Liberty, p. 10

The natural law ethic decrees that for all living things, “goodness” is the fulfillment of what is best for that type of creature; “goodness” is therefore relative to the nature of the creature concerned. …

In the case of man, the natural-law ethic states that goodness or badness can be determined by what fulfills or thwarts what is best for man’s nature.

The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man—what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a “science of happiness,” with the paths which will lead to his real happiness.

Ethics of Liberty, pp. 11–12

… in natural-law ethics, ends are demonstrated to be good or bad for man in varying degrees; value here is objective—determined by the natural law of man’s being, and here “happiness” for man is considered in the commonsensical, contentual sense.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 12

… the natural law is discovered by reason … the natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place. The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State … the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 17

The very idea of natural law is essentially “radical” and deeply critical of existing political institutions … because its principles are universal, fixed, and immutable, and hence are “absolute” principles of justice.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 19

… the fact that natural-law theorists derive from the very nature of man a fixed structure of law independent of time and place, or of habit or authority or group norms, makes that law a mighty force for radical change.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 20

… natural law is essentially a revolutionary theory …

Ethics of Liberty, p. 23

The critical and unique facts about man and the ways in which he must live to survive—his consciousness, his free will and free choice, his faculty of reason, his necessity for learning the natural laws of the external world and of himself, his self-ownership, his need to “produce” by transforming nature-given matter into consumable forms—all these are wrapped up in what man’s nature is …

Ethics of Liberty, p. 32

… the man who seizes another’s property is living in basic contradiction to his own nature as a man.… man can only live and prosper by his own production and exchange of products. The aggressor, on the other hand, is not a producer at all but a predator; he lives parasitically off the labor and product of others.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 50

The State is in no sense required by the nature of man; quite the contrary.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 188

Natural law theory rests on the insight that we live in a world of more than one—in fact, a vast number—of entities, and that each entity has distinct and specific properties, a distinct “nature,” which can be investigated by man’s reason, by his sense perception and mental faculties. Copper has a distinct nature and behaves in a certain way, and so do iron, salt, etc. The species man, therefore, has a specifiable nature, as does the world around him and the ways of interaction between them. To put it with undue brevity, the activity of each inorganic and organic entity is determined by its own nature and by the nature of the other entities with which it comes in contact. Specifically, while the behavior of plants and at least the lower animals is determined by their biological nature or perhaps by their “instincts,” the nature of man is such that each individual person must, in order to act, choose his own ends and employ his own means in order to attain them. Possessing no automatic instincts, each man must learn about himself and the world, use his mind to select values, learn about cause and effect, and act purposively to maintain himself and advance his life. Since men can think, feel, evaluate, and act only as individuals, it becomes vitally necessary for each man’s survival and prosperity that he be free to learn, choose, develop his faculties, and act upon his knowledge and values. This is the necessary path of human nature; to interfere with and cripple this process by using violence goes profoundly against what is necessary by man’s nature for his life and prosperity. Violent interference with a man’s learning and choices is therefore profoundly “antihuman”; it violates the natural law of man’s needs.

For a New Liberty, p. 33

… the natural law provides the only sure ground for a continuing critique of governmental laws and decrees.

For a New Liberty, p. 36

… human nature often triumphs over the law.

Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 28

… only forms of natural or higher law theory can provide a radical base outside the existing system from which to challenge the status quo; and only such theory furnishes a sense of necessary immediacy to the libertarian struggle, by focusing on the necessity of bringing existing criminal rulers to the bar of justice. Utilitarians, on the other hand, in abandoning justice for expediency, also abandon immediacy for quiet stagnation and inevitably end up as objective apologists for the existing order.

Left and Right, p. 10

… the natural law of what is best for man may be violated but never avoided. The natural law of cause and effect works its inexorable way, and what this means is that bad premises, bad goals and ineffective means, are dysfunctional for man and inevitably wreak their toll. On the other hand, rational premises, values and techniques, lead with equal inexorability to benign results. This means, that over the long run, the dysfunctional must come to a bad end, must cleanse itself and wipe itself out, while only the truly functional and proper can remain and prosper. Any artificial interference in these beneficent natural processes can only delay and distort the results; hence, we have a powerful argument for non-interference in these natural workings.

Libertarian Forum v. 1, pp. 174–75

Natural law is once again winning the fight against the schemes of economic dictators.

Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 445

… grave ethical errors are bound to set in when people divorce themselves from natural law ethics and natural rights political philosophy. Natural law ethics is an integrated system which combines attention to the essence of an act, to its grounding in the nature of man and the universe, and therefore to its natural law consequences.

Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 626

In contrast to other specific sciences or to history, there can be little genuine innovation in philosophy from one decade, or even century, to the next. Philosophy deals with eternal problems through rational discourse … Moreover, genuine philosophy is only refined common sense, which is in no greater supply now than in ancient Greece. So there is nothing much new that philosophers can legitimately say …

Libertarian Forum v. 2, p. 723

The true rationalist theory was, and is, that reason can discover the natural law of man, and from this can discover the natural rights of liberty.

Rothbard vs. the Philosophers, p. 63

NATURAL SCIENCES

The laws of physics are not themselves evident to our consciousness nor are they directly apparent; their truth rests on the fact that they account for natural phenomena.

Classical Economics, p. 290

… the physical sciences are in a position to isolate causal factors in experiments. The physical sciences, then, have to arrive at their axioms by hypothesis and by experimental testing of conclusions deduced from these hypothecated axioms.

Economic Controversies, p. 114

… the disciplines of human action are not like the physical sciences. In human affairs, there are no laboratories where variables can be controlled and theories tested, while (unlike the physical sciences) there are no quantitative constants in a world where there is consciousness, freedom of will, and freedom to adopt values and goals and then to change them.

Economic Controversies, p. 132

In the physical sciences, the premises are only hypothetical, and logical deductions are made from them. In these cases, there is no purpose in having meaningful propositions at each step of the way, and therefore symbolic and mathematical language is more useful.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 75

… physics deals with inanimate objects that move but do not act. The movements of these objects can be investigated as being governed by precise, quantitatively determinate laws, well expressed in terms of mathematical functions. Since these laws precisely describe definite paths of movement, there is no harm at all in introducing simplified assumptions of continuity and infinitely small steps.

Human beings, however, do not move in such fashion, but act purposefully, applying means to the attainment of ends. Investigating causes of human action, then, is radically different from investigating the laws of motion of physical objects. In particular, human beings act on the basis of things that are relevant to their action. The human being cannot see the infinitely small step; it therefore has no meaning to him and no relevance to his action.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 306

… it is precisely through this description of constant, quantitative relations in the motion of elements that mathematics renders its great service in natural science. How different is economics, where mathematics, at best, can only inadequately describe a timeless end result!

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 326

The analogy of a fixed standard of measurement, which had become familiar to the natural sciences (weight, length, etc.), was unthinkingly applied to human action.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 843

The use of mathematical functions, which are reversible at will, is appropriate in physics, where we do not know the causes of the observed movements. Since we do not know the causes, any mathematical law explaining or describing movements will be reversible, and, as far as we are concerned, any of the variables in the function is just as much “cause” as another.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, pp. 785–86

NATURE

… the federal government should get out of the disaster aid business, and FEMA should be abolished forthwith.

Making Economic Sense, p. 93

Not only is Labor present at every stage of production, but so also is Nature.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 10

In a free society, any piece of nature that has never been used is unowned and is subject to a man’s ownership through his first use or mixing of his labor with this resource.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 169

A man cannot produce anything without the cooperation of original nature-given factors, if only as standing room. In order to produce and possess any capital good or consumers’ good, therefore, he must appropriate and use an original nature-given factor. He cannot form products purely out of his labor alone; he must mix his labor with original nature-given factors.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 171

… “air” is inappropriable, a condition of human welfare rather than a scarce good that can be owned.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 173

Whether or not man lives at the level of poverty or abundance depends upon the success that he and his ancestors have had in grappling with nature and in transforming naturally given resources into capital goods and consumers’ goods.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 340

If Nature had originally provided a material Utopia, then all exchangeable goods would be free for the taking, and there would be no need for any labor to earn a money return. This Utopia would also be “preferred,” but it too is a purely imaginary condition. Man must necessarily work within a given real environment of inherited land and durable capital.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 635

In a state of raw nature, there is no abundance; in fact, there are few, if any, goods at all.… Of course, it would be pleasanter for everyone if the nature-given conditions had been far more abundant, but these are vain fantasies. For vis-à-vis nature, this is the best of all possible worlds, because it is the only possible one. Man’s condition on earth is that he must work with the given natural conditions and improve them by human action.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 654

… if we look at the basic condition of man as he enters the world, it is obvious that the only way to preserve his life and advance himself is to conquer nature—to transform the face of the earth to satisfy his wants. From the point of view of all the members of the human race, it is obvious that only such a conquest is productive and life-sustaining.

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, pp. 1330–31

NON-AGGRESSION AXIOM

… the basic axiom of libertarian political theory holds that every man is a self-owner, having absolute jurisdiction over his own body. In effect, this means that no one else may justly invade, or aggress against, another’s person. It follows then that each person justly owns whatever previously unowned resources he appropriates or “mixes his labor with.” From these twin axioms—self-ownership and “homesteading”—stems the justification for the entire system of property rights titles in a free-market society.

Economic Controversies, p. 373

Libertarian legal theory holds that A may not use force against B except in self-defense, that is, unless B is initiating force against A.

Economic Controversies, p. 377

… all actions are permissible except overt acts of aggression …

Economic Controversies, p. 382

The basic libertarian principle is that everyone should be allowed to do whatever he or she is doing unless committing an overt act of aggression against someone else.

Economic Controversies, p. 384

… everyone may do as he wishes provided he does not initiate an overt act of aggression against the person or property of anyone else. Anyone who initiates such aggression must be strictly liable for damages against the victim, even if the action is “reasonable” or accidental.

Economic Controversies, pp. 404–05

In libertarian theory, it is only permissible to proceed coercively against someone if he is a proven aggressor, and that aggression must be proven in court (or in arbitration) beyond a reasonable doubt.

Economic Controversies, p. 406

… everyone should be able to do what he likes, except if he commits an overt act of aggression against the person and property of another. Only this act should be illegal, and it should be prosecutable only in the courts under tort law …

Economic Controversies, p. 417

The fundamental axiom of libertarian theory is that no one may threaten or commit violence (“aggress”) against another man’s person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a non-aggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory.

Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, p. 116

… no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 52

… the basic rule of the libertarian society [says] that no one has the right to aggress against the legitimate or just property of another.

Ethics of Liberty, p. 52

The libertarian creed rests upon one central axiom: that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else. This may be called the “non-aggression axiom.” “Aggression” is defined as the initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against the person or property of anyone else.

For a New Liberty, p. 27

All of libertarian political thought follows from the non-aggression principle: that no one, including the government, can aggress against someone else’s person or property.

Irrepressible Rothbard, p. 374

Reason dictates the basic legal code of non-aggression against person and property … the code is simply non-aggression …

Libertarian Forum v. 1, p. 320

As long as one sticks to the non-aggression axiom, one can continue to be a good libertarian.

Libertarian Forum v. 2, p. 1135

… people must be free to do whatever they want, and the only illegal action can be the initiation of an act of physical violence against another.

Libertarian Forum v. 2, pp. 1181–82

The Law Code of the purely free society would simply enshrine the libertarian axiom: prohibition of any violence against the person or property of another (except in defense of someone’s person or property) …

Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market, p. 1053n4

Rothbard A to Z

NATIONALISM

NATURAL LAW

NATURAL SCIENCES

NATURE

NON-AGGRESSION AXIOM