Rothbard
Matt
Most of the people here, even those who agree with natural law, seem to
use arguments closest to David Friedman's conception of
anarcho-capitalism. I know Count Lithium is a Rothbard fan, but otherwise
I see no mention of him. Since I am sympathetic to natural law arguments
I was wondering if Rothbard's stuff is any good.
--
"Power feeds on its spoils, and dies when its victims refuse
to be despoiled." -- Benjamin Tucker
Matt (djar...@usa.net)
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>Is there anything this guy wrote that is worth reading?
Everything he wrote is well worth reading. But you should read his
_The Ethics of Liberty_ by far first and foremost. In economics, you
should read his _Power and Market_ first--specifically the 6th chapter
of the book entitled "Antimarket Ethics: A Praxeological Critique,"
which is priceless and will give you a good idea of Rothbard's
rigorous argumentation style.
There is simply no better basis for liberty than that set forth by
Prof. Murray N. Rothbard in _The Ethics of Liberty_--which derives
libertarian rights on an unassailable axiomatic/logical basis and
elaborates the logical implications thereof. To find out more about
it, do an author search for "rothbard" at:
http://www.amazon.com (which has many excellent customer reviews of
the book)
and:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com (which has the best price for the book)
Also look in the Catalog section at: http://www.mises.com
For a very informative scholarly-academic review of _The Ethics of
Liberty_, see: "Murray Rothbard's Ethics of Liberty: What It Is and
What It Is Not" by Candice Jackson, found at:
http://www.mises.org/scholar_interests.asp
For an excellent periodical review of _The Ethics of Liberty_, see:
http://www.mises.com/journals/tmr/spring99.asp
For a biography of Murray N. Rothbard, see:
http://www.mises.com/mnr.asp
And for a very interesting interview with Walter Block wherein he
speaks a lot about Rothbard, see:
http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/blockaen.asp
>Most of the people here, even those who agree with natural law, seem to
>use arguments closest to David Friedman's conception of
>anarcho-capitalism. I know Count Lithium is a Rothbard fan, but otherwise
>I see no mention of him.
I have seen many people quote him on these newsgroups and others. But
Rothbard's biggest influence seems to be academic. There are many
Rothbardian scholars and Professors, especially in the field of
economics.
>Since I am sympathetic to natural law arguments
>I was wondering if Rothbard's stuff is any good.
Rothbard's stuff is the best. As the originator of anarcho-capitalism
and the foremost figure in the modern libertarian movement, you should
familiarize yourself with his work. One cannot be said to understand
libertarian rights theory without being familiar with Rothbard's work.
To view his truly massive (MASSIVE!!!) bibliography of all his
published works, see: http://www.mises.org/mnrbib.asp The sheer
enormity of this thing is staggering. One must view it to believe such
is possible from one man.
As well, there are very many articles by Rothbard that are on-line of
which you should take advantage. The Ludwig von Mises Institute has
quite a few academic articles by him--do a Periodicals Search for
"rothbard" at: http://www.mises.org/search.asp Look for the _Review
of Austrian Economics_ entries to find his articles for this journal
(of which journal he founded and edited).
A very important new site that has many academic articles by Rothbard,
The Center for Libertarian Studies, is dedicated to the legacy of
Rothbard and of continuing scholarly libertarianism, is now on-line
at:
http://www.libertarianstudies.org
This website has already republished the complete issues to two of
Rothbard's scholarly journals on-line and is in the process of
republishing two other of Rothbard's journals. This is an intellectual
event not to be missed, as these journals represent some of the best
minds and well-recognized names today in the feild of sholarly
libertarian and Objectivist theory: such as Tibor R. Machan, Douglas
B. Rasmussen, Douglas J. Den Uyl, Eric Mack, Wendy McElroy, Thomas S.
Szasz, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Walter Block, Loren E. Lomasky, George H.
Smith, Bruce L. Benson, etc., etc. . . .
Happy Rothbard reading! Of all the choices you will not regret this
one. And upon reading Murray N. Rothbard's _The Ethics of Liberty_,
you will understand just how wisely you have chosen.
泣┊？㈡
--Count Lithium von Chloride, ushering in the new era
E-mail: vonch...@yahoo.com
"To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed,
law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at,
controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by
creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to
do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every
transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured,
numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented
forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under the pretext of
public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed
under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted
from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then at the slightest resistance, the
first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed,
hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned,
judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to
crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is
government; that is its justice; that is its morality."
--Pierre Joseph Proudhon
James A. Donald
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:16:29 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> Rothbard's stuff is the best. As the originator of anarcho-capitalism
I do not think any one person was the originator of anarcho
capitalism, and if any one person was the originator, that person was
not Rothbard.
Rothbard's "The ethics of liberty" appeared in 1981, but "the market
for liberty" by the Tannehills, appeared in 1970. The Tannehills
vigorously pushed the idea of abolishing the state and seeking a
genuinely free non monopoly market in everything, including, indeed
especially, defence and enforcement services.
One of the reviews Rothbard of you cite
http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/blockaen.asp, by the anarchist
Block, seems to give the honor to Spooner, one hundred years earlier.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
BIqVFw7TnObBGjgAxBdaWqtXd5xTzScokYa6TeEL
41Sk7xtGAFCH2JwH3b5oi3L5zxuVRzXcB3OOEkpzE
------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
Brian Cantin
My favorite Rothbard book is "Power and the Market".
Highly recommended if you have a taste for economics.
What Rothbard does in the book is to turn Austrian
economic analyis on the state. The effect is devastating.
Brian Cantin
To reply via email, be less negative.
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:16:29 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
>Chloride) wrote:
>> Rothbard's stuff is the best. As the originator of anarcho-capitalism
>I do not think any one person was the originator of anarcho
>capitalism, and if any one person was the originator, that person was
>not Rothbard.
Well Donald, I can tell you that he indeed was, and below I will tell
you why.
>Rothbard's "The ethics of liberty" appeared in 1981, but "the market
>for liberty" by the Tannehills, appeared in 1970. The Tannehills
>vigorously pushed the idea of abolishing the state and seeking a
>genuinely free non monopoly market in everything, including, indeed
>especially, defence and enforcement services.
Donald, Donald, Donald--tisk, tisk, tisk! Are you loosing your mind?!
I fear that an episode of senility may have just stricken you. Do get
help old man!
_Power and Market_ was also published in 1970, and contains the first
explicit discription of and anarcho-capitalist society. One must bear
in mind that _Power and Market_ was completely written before 1962 as
a chapter to Rothbard's _Man, Economy, and State_ but was cut-out by
the publisher because it was too radical. Indeed, moreover,
free-market anarchism is clearly implied in unmistakeable terms in
_Man, Economy, and State_ which was published in 1962--the complete
workings of the anarcho-capitalist, stateless society are laid out
there, private defense and all, as well as outright rejection of
government provision of any service whatsoever: the only thing is he
never put the lable "anarchist" on any of it--but once remove the
government from everything and anything, and pray tell, what is left?
Rothbard had the entire corpus of his system worked-out by the late
1950's.
Shame on you that you could be so ignorant of this!
As well, by citing Linda & Morris Tannehill's _The Market for Liberty_
you merely help to prove my point, as judging from the footnotes in
the book, Rothbard seems to have been their greatest
infuence--Rothbard's books seem to be cited more than anyone's,
including Rand's.
In addition, you're ignoring Rothbard's personal infuence in spreading
free-market anarchism within the libertarian and Objectivist movent.
Rothbard's anarchism was well-known even in the early 1960's. Rand was
responding to Rothbard and his followers when she wrote the classic
attack against supporters of "competing governments" (her term for
free-market anarchism), as Rothbard had formerly been part of her
inner circle--and that was written in February of 1964!
Shame on you again that you could be so ignorant of this!!
>One of the reviews Rothbard of you cite
>http://www.mises.org/journals/aen/blockaen.asp, by the anarchist
>Block, seems to give the honor to Spooner, one hundred years earlier.
Spooner's economics were more socialist than classical (or Austrian).
It was Rothbard who first combined the ideal of a stateless society
with modern marginalist-subjectivist economics in the late
1950's--i.e., to create what is now called "anarcho-capitalism."
Constantinople
-23109912...@beac610-0b01-046.bu.edu>:
>Is there anything this guy wrote that is worth reading?
>
>Most of the people here, even those who agree with natural law,
>seem to use arguments closest to David Friedman's conception of
>anarcho-capitalism. I know Count Lithium is a Rothbard fan, but
>otherwise I see no mention of him. Since I am sympathetic to
>natural law arguments I was wondering if Rothbard's stuff is any
>good.
Many years ago I tried to read through von Mises's Human Action,
which seems to be something of a bible of Austrian economics, but
perhaps I was not ready for it. Some years later I read
Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, which was compared with that
first book. I found it easy to understand and worthwhile, though
at the time in its later pages I found what I thought were errors
in reasoning and probable misunderstandings of other economists.
I'm not familiar with the rest of Rothbard's work.
--
"The most important function of economics as a discipline is its
didactic role in explaining the principle of spontaneous order."
-- Buchanan
Count Lithium von Chloride
(Constantinople) wrote:
>djar...@usa.net.invalid (Matt) wrote in <djarum98
>-23109912...@beac610-0b01-046.bu.edu>:
>>Is there anything this guy wrote that is worth reading?
>>Most of the people here, even those who agree with natural law,
>>seem to use arguments closest to David Friedman's conception of
>>anarcho-capitalism. I know Count Lithium is a Rothbard fan, but
>>otherwise I see no mention of him. Since I am sympathetic to
>>natural law arguments I was wondering if Rothbard's stuff is any
>>good.
>Many years ago I tried to read through von Mises's Human Action,
>which seems to be something of a bible of Austrian economics, but
>perhaps I was not ready for it. Some years later I read
>Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State, which was compared with that
>first book. I found it easy to understand and worthwhile, though
>at the time in its later pages I found what I thought were errors
>in reasoning and probable misunderstandings of other economists.
>I'm not familiar with the rest of Rothbard's work.
Do you realize how irresponsible what you just wrote is? In other
words, you're not even sure if you found errors or not--you just felt
the need to inform us so that we would know that you thought at one
point that Rothbard may or may not have commited errors. Well thank
you, as I am uncertain I could have gone about my life normally
without first knowing what Constantinople didn't know about Rothbard.
Care to grace us with any more of your profound insights? Lest we be
kept up all night wondering.
Constantinople
<38125279...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>:
You might want to read this.
http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
"As plausible as Rothbard sounds on this issue, he simply does
not understand the position he is attacking." - Caplan
Count Lithium von Chloride
>http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm
Unlike you, I take my philosophy seriously--which is to say that I go
out of my way to familiarize myself with the positions of others who
hold contrary views to my own. You are about a year or so too late
with that link. Brian Caplan engages in silly cavils arguing
erroneously, appearently for the mere sake of arguing. I say this,
because some of his arguments against Rothbard are outright _stupid_
(for lack of a more appropriate word). The man cannot even think
strait. One of the most glaringly imbecilic of his arguments is his
cavil with Rothbard as to the nonsense of the use of "indifference
curves" in economics, which he tries to defend and fails horribly. As
Rothbard correctly points out, economics is not concerned with
indifference, as indifference cannot be demonstrated in action. All
concious human action demonstrates preference. Concious human action
can never demonstrate "indifference." Rothbard never claimed that
indifference doesn't exist, simply that if one truly were indifferent
as to something that it could never manifest itself in action. Thus,
Rothbard considered the study of indifference to be the proper role of
psychology, but not economics. Now Caplan--being that (I assume) he
feels compelled to argue as an end onto itself, even to the extent of
making an ass out of himself--trots out some truly silly examples in
an attempt to show the contrary: namely, that action can demonstrate
indifference. But these examples he profferes, far from demonstrating
his claim, simply demontrate Rothbard's contention. For example, if a
person grabs a shirt to wear out of his closset without looking to see
what shirt he grabed first, then this "demonstrates" that he had no
preference as to which shirt he wears (i.e., is indifferent on the
matter). But in fact, the very opposite is true--for preference of
which shirt to wear is very much demonstrated: namely, this person
prefers to wear the shirt that he grabbed first without looking from
his closset! It may be objected that this "demonstrates" that the
person is "indifferent" as to the color of which shirt he wears. But
the point is, nothing by his _actions_ demonstrates this, for after
all, he is wearing the shirt. All that can be said by his actions is
that he prefered doing what he did as opposed to doing something else.
It cannot be said that his actions demonstrated that he was
indifferent as to what color shirt he wore, for here is the grave
fallacy in this line of reasoning: one is assuming _ex post_ (after
the fact) that had he grabbed a different shirt that he would have
then worn it. But we do not know that this is the case at all! Nothing
about his actions could have demonstrated this! This is assuming what
the outcome will be, i.e., that the person will wear whichever shirt
that he grabs from the closset without looking. But actions can only
demonstrate what happend, not what could have been. The person might
have grabbed an ugly color shirt and put it back--we will never know
based on his actions.
That Caplan is unable to reason out this simple enough position for
himself tells me that Caplan couldn't reason himself out of a wet
papper bag if his life depended upon it. I could go on as to Caplan's
ineptness, but why waste time on such a feeble mind.
James A. Donald
On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 23:12:47 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> Donald, Donald, Donald--tisk, tisk, tisk! Are you loosing your
> mind?! I fear that an episode of senility may have just stricken
> you. Do get help old man!
>
> _Power and Market_ was also published in 1970, and contains the
> first explicit discription of and anarcho-capitalist society.
How explicit is "explicit"? Spooner's description in "Natural Law"
seems quite adequately explicit to me. Depending on how close you
require the ideas to be to current ideas, you can set the date of the
"first" anarcho capitalist to any period you please. Locke's state of
nature satisfies the your criteria of being both overtly anarchic and
overtly pro capitalist.
Or we could be really strict about "explicit" and say that Rothbard
was not explicit enough to qualify, and David Friedman was the first.
There is no "first" anarcho capitalist. There is a stream of ideas
that has been undergoing change and clarification and acquiring added
concrete detail over time, and making Rothbard the "first" is entirely
arbitrary. David Friedman's ideas are closer to current ideas, because
Friedman is current, because his economics is more concrete. By
having a sufficiently strict standard for "explicit" you can
reasonably define Friedman as the "first" anarcho capitalist. You
could exclude Rothbard because he did not do the economic analysis of
law generation in an anarchic system that Friedman did. Lacking this
analysis of law creation, Rothbard was not "explicit". And then in
another twenty years, you will be able by the same method to define
someone else as the "first", because in twenty years we will have some
more detailed and concrete analysis than is provided by Friedman.
> It was Rothbard who first combined the ideal of a stateless society
> with modern marginalist-subjectivist economics in the late
> 1950's--i.e., to create what is now called "anarcho-capitalism."
And was not called anarcho capitalism then.
If you define anarcho capitalism by the use of the word "anarcho
capitalist" Rothbard is too early. If you define anarcho-capitalism
by the combination of support for anarchy and support for private
enterprise and support for the right to create and accumulate
unlimited wealth, Rothbard is far too late. If you define it by
something else, you are using an arbitrary definition to make your
point true by definition.
As I said, this idea was developed in a continuous stream, and to
point to one step in the stream as "the beginning" is unreasonable and
arbitrary.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
sK8FNs5XdVQNAInaQ1Szb2dTpCjnrqihvXJHzZaI
4FFnx/OZsExZWRYDkGSWE5LPj4NDVPp5H1sXKi4Ps
James A. Donald
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:48:35 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> Do you realize how irresponsible what you just wrote is? In other
> felt the need to inform us so that we would know that you thought at
> one point that Rothbard may or may not have commited errors.
I recommend Bryan Caplan's "Why I am not an Austrian economist".
<http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm>
I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently criticized
many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to the truth
than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often encounters.
In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly wrong.
He was very good, but he was not Newton. The idea that we were in
darkness before Rothbard is false, and the idea that after Rothbard
all was light, and we are just adding footnotes to his work is equally
false. As I said, Rothbard is just one more step in a long journey.
We should not fall into the error of the Marxists, and erect
infallible holy prophets, whose work we then unavoidably need to
endless reinterpret until it bares no resemblence to their original
intention.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
bZM50V5GnRhFUvoXWZYaxFaJVytXIsLIDATRehTU
4y6MZV84pl+P7NH114VOOC9tcwKn/SJf92ZSjqqvl
David Friedman
Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
> There are many
> Rothbardian scholars and Professors, especially in the field of
> economics.
Walter Block is the only one I can think of.
What other current economics professors would you describe as Rothbardian?
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 00:48:35 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
>Chloride) wrote:
>> Do you realize how irresponsible what you just wrote is? In other
>> words, you're not even sure if you found errors or not--you just
>> felt the need to inform us so that we would know that you thought at
>> one point that Rothbard may or may not have commited errors.
>I recommend Bryan Caplan's "Why I am not an Austrian economist".
><http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/whyaust.htm>
It will take a stronger mind than Caplan to dent Austrian school
economics. Caplan is not the first to make bold and fallacious claims
against Austrian school economics, and he won't be the last. This
school has faired just fine against much stronger minds than Capland.
Indeed, the history of progress in mainstream economic thought during
the last 150 years may be sumerized as movement toward Austrianism.
Austrian economics stands as a becon of which other schools move
toward--with much kicking and screaming along the way, but relent they
do, or fall by the wayside.
>I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently criticized
>many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to the truth
>than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often encounters.
Please direct me as to where I might encounter this, as I have so far
not encountered this.
>In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly wrong.
You people are truly shiftless. Appearently it is not clear enough not
to require an elaboration. In fact, it is quite _unclear_ to me
exactly what it is that Rothbard got badly wrong.
Perhaps you would care to detail what it is exactly that Rothbard got
badly wrong. Or would it be silliness on my part to expect this from
people with such low standards?
>He was very good, but he was not Newton.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but he was Newton. "Newton" is his
middle name.
>The idea that we were in
>darkness before Rothbard is false, and the idea that after Rothbard
>all was light, and we are just adding footnotes to his work is equally
>false. As I said, Rothbard is just one more step in a long journey.
Do you like errecting straw-men so that you can tear them down?
>We should not fall into the error of the Marxists, and erect
>infallible holy prophets, whose work we then unavoidably need to
>endless reinterpret until it bares no resemblence to their original
>intention.
No, what we should do is evaluate major philosophers based on their
contribution to, elaboration of, and systematization of, correct
theory. On this basis, Rothbard has no equal in the realm of political
economy.
Nor could you, of all people, credibly deny this. Your position is
free-market anarchism based on natural rights and modern
marginalist-subjectivist economics. No major libertarian figure comes
closer to your position than Rothbard. So, You are pressented with a
dilemma, James A. Donald: either (1) Rothbard did _not_ contribute
more than anyone else to systematically correct theory in the realm of
political economy, or (2) Rothbard _did_ contribute more than anyone
else to systematically correct theory in the realm of political
economy.
If you choose #1, then that means that your own position is not the
most sytematically correct one, because as far as major libertarian
thinkers go, Rothbard comes closest to your own position. If you
choose #2, then you have no business caviling about Rothbard's
importance or greatness.
You people have no idea just how clever I can be when I want to. Jesus
Christ, I sometimes scare myself.
You fell into an axiomatic trap of your own making. Checkmate!
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>In article <3811e7bf...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>, n...@homex.com (Count
>Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>> There are many
>> Rothbardian scholars and Professors, especially in the field of
>> economics.
>Walter Block is the only one I can think of.
>What other current economics professors would you describe as Rothbardian?
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jörg Guido Hülsmann, Joseph T. Salerno, and many
more that aren't filed in my head. In reality, most of the professors
associated with the Ludwig von Mises Institute. In fact, a more
accurate title for this institute would be the Murray N. Rothbard
Institute, as most of the arguments presented by it are Rothbard's,
not Mises's (on issues where they disagreed). But since Murray N.
Rothbard co-founded it, it probably wouldn't have looked good to name
it after himself--not that I think he would have wanted to.
Of course, then you have the non-Rothbardians who were heavily
influenced by him, such as Nozick (to name a famous example).
Æü©®£¿¢æ
James A. Donald
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 08:36:07 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> Nor could you, of all people, credibly deny this. Your position is
> free-market anarchism based on natural rights and modern
> marginalist-subjectivist economics. No major libertarian figure
> comes closer to your position than Rothbard. So, You are pressented
> with a dilemma, James A. Donald: either (1) Rothbard did _not_
> contribute more than anyone else to systematically correct theory in
> the realm of political economy, or (2) Rothbard _did_ contribute
> more than anyone else to systematically correct theory in the realm
> of political economy.
You seem to have rather casually dismissed the contributions that
Locke and Adam Smith made to political philosophy.
Rothbard came closer to the truth than they did, but he certainly did
not contribute more than they did. He stood upon the shoulders of
giants.
If we grant unreasonable credit to any one individual, we will find
ourselves involved in holy wars as we torture their text for hidden
meanings to adapt it to present knowledge and present circumstances.
I agree with Rothbard on economics a lot more than I agree with Bryan
Caplan, but Rothbard did not make nearly as much difference as you
claim.
When we fabricate heroic authorities, fountains of knowledge, we turn
our eyes away from the world, and isolate ourselves from reality. We
turn to the interpretive community, and away from empirical fact.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
JaVRYvdC4TuQvlbX5cpSsid8vHsJ1roiY8lW1/Y4
4chPxm6Q+ewnv8S6NU93Sx+KlPPTtM+nnx+BogUAt
Constantinople
Actually you do not, as is clear from your discussion of
indifference curves.
>You are about a year or so too late with that link. Brian Caplan
>engages in silly cavils arguing erroneously, appearently for the
>mere sake of arguing. I say this, because some of his arguments
>against Rothbard are outright _stupid_ (for lack of a more
>appropriate word). The man cannot even think strait. One of the
>most glaringly imbecilic of his arguments is his cavil with
>Rothbard as to the nonsense of the use of "indifference curves"
>in economics, which he tries to defend and fails horribly. As
>Rothbard correctly points out, economics is not concerned with
>indifference, as indifference cannot be demonstrated in action.
>All concious human action demonstrates preference.
Your objection to indifference is like an objection to equality
in any measure. We can demonstrate that one thing is longer than
another, or heavier than another, but we can never demonstrate
that two things have exactly the same weight or length. This is
true - we cannot do that. That is because our instruments are
never infinitely precise. And yet for practical purposes we can
treat two things as being equally long or equally heavy, and we
can even base physical theories on such equalities (e.g. for
every action there is an equal and opposite reaction). We have
such laws even though we cannot ever entirely verify them with
infinite precision.
Indifference and preference are closely related because from
preference one can derive indifference (just as from difference
in length one can derive sameness in length). Indifference curves
tell us that everything on one side is preferred to everything on
the other side.
Here is a use of indifference curves: if I start with X apples,
then the number of apples I will trade for oranges depends on the
price P of apples in oranges, and on my indifference curves. I
will trade until I reach the highest indifference curve touching
the line determined by X and P, because I PREFER the bundles on
or along that indifference curve to the bundles on or along lower
indifference curves.
David Friedman
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> As I said, this idea was developed in a continuous stream, and to
> point to one step in the stream as "the beginning" is unreasonable and
> arbitrary.
At some point I came across a quote from a Chinese writer from 100 B.C. or
so, in someone's odd article about property rights in a society where
ownership of property included ownership of the ghosts of the people who
had died on it (to serve your ghost in the afterlife). The quote went very
roughly as follows (from memory):
"In order to have food we must have peasants farming the land. In order to
have tools and clothing we must have smiths and weavers. In order to
provide food to the smiths and weavers, and tools and clothing to the
peasants, we must have merchants. And once we have peasants and smiths and
weavers and merchants, what need have we for emperors and officials?"
The first anarcho-capitalist?
Another candidate, incidentally, is de Molinari.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
James A. Donald
On Sun, 24 Oct 1999 22:50:57 -0500, dd...@best.com (David Friedman)
wrote:
> At some point I came across a quote from a Chinese writer from 100 B.C. or
> The first anarcho-capitalist?
>
> Another candidate, incidentally, is de Molinari.
Who wrote in 1849:
<http://arts.adelaide.edu.au/person/DHart/ETexts/Liberalism/GustaveDeMolinari/EleventhSoiree.html>
I demand free governments in the name of the principle of
property and in the name of the right that I possess to
provide security myself or to buy it from whomever I please.
[...] governments whose services I can accept or refuse
according to my free will .
[...]
[...] The monopoly of government is no better than any other.
One does not govern well and, especially not cheaply, when one
has no competition to fear, when the ruled are deprived of the
right of freely choosing their rulers. Grant a grocer the
exclusive right to supply a neighborhood, prevent the
inhabitants of this neighborhood from buying any goods from
other grocers in the vicinity, or even from supplying their
own groceries, and you will see what detestable rubbish the
privileged grocer will end up selling and at what prices! You
will see how he will grow rich at the expense of the
unfortunate consumers, what royal pomp tle will display for
the greater glory of the neighborhood. Well! What is true for
the lowliest services is no less true for the loftiest. The
monopoly of government is worth no more than that of a
grocer's shop. The production of security inevitably becomes
costly and bad when it is organized as a monopoly. It is in
the monopoly of security that lies the principal cause of wars
which have laid waste humanity.
[...]
[...] If, like a master sovereign, man has the right to
dispose of his person and goods, he also naturally has the
right to defend them. He possesses the right to free defense.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
GBN2okuY4B2+WcGSNrp4StJyBxaMVSZnK1Xkfde
4cpn1w5VgcMltttNvo3HlnRBFChnEwc+//ZZqf47R
Drlibe...@aol.com
>
> If we grant unreasonable credit to any one individual, we will find
> ourselves involved in holy wars as we torture their text for hidden
> meanings to adapt it to present knowledge and present circumstances.
>
> I agree with Rothbard on economics a lot more than I agree with Bryan
> Caplan, but Rothbard did not make nearly as much difference as you
> claim.
>
> When we fabricate heroic authorities, fountains of knowledge, we turn
> our eyes away from the world, and isolate ourselves from reality. We
> turn to the interpretive community, and away from empirical fact.
>
> --digsig
> James A. Donald
> 6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
> JaVRYvdC4TuQvlbX5cpSsid8vHsJ1roiY8lW1/Y4
> 4chPxm6Q+ewnv8S6NU93Sx+KlPPTtM+nnx+BogUAt
>
> ------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
>
> http://www.jim.com/jamesd/ James A. Donald
>
I, too admire Rothbard for reaching out to the anarchist
movement and helping me, for one, to see that the Left_Right Congame
was a deliberate distraction from the truth about the nature of human
society. Bur I agree with James that he must not be made a cult figure.
Perhaps no one intended that but it is a caveat that we cannot ignore.
I still recommend The Center for Libertarian Studies Site at
http://www.libertarianstudies.org
DrL
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Adrian
*G*
Adrian
Tim Starr
>On Sat, 23 Oct 1999 18:16:29 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
>Chloride) wrote:
>>Rothbard's stuff is the best. As the originator of anarcho-
>>capitalism
>
>capitalism, and if any one person was the originator, that person was
>not Rothbard.
Correct.
>Rothbard's "The ethics of liberty" appeared in 1981, but "the market
>for liberty" by the Tannehills, appeared in 1970.
Rothbard first sketched out his idea of how anarcho-capitalism would
work in "Power & Market", which preceded the Tannehills' book. Rothbard
was the one who persuaded the Tannehills of anarcho-capitalism, as I
understand it. He definitely had a very early, seminal influence, but I
seem to recall him giving Gustave de Molinari credit for being the first
to propose replacing the State with competing security agencies.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
[snip]
>>I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently
>>criticized many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to
>>the truth than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often
>>encounters.
>
>Please direct me as to where I might encounter this, as I have so far
>not encountered this.
Look in a mirror. You're the best example of it that I know of.
>>In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly wrong.
>
>You people are truly shiftless. Appearently it is not clear enough not
>to require an elaboration. In fact, it is quite _unclear_ to me
>exactly what it is that Rothbard got badly wrong.
OK, I'll tell you something he got wrong. That interview with him about
war that was up on the web site for the JLS (but has now apparently gone
missing) is full of things that are wrong, such as Rothbard's attempt to
construct a hypothetical analogy in which one State's aggression against
another is morally neutral, because both States are just as bad as each
other. This analogy is entirely inapplicable to the war he was talking
about at the time, the Vietnam War, because North Vietnam was far worse
than South Vietnam. His analogy would be better if he were talking
about the aggression of a State with a 100% tax rate against a State
with a 75% tax rate. Clearly, victory for the former would be a net
loss for liberty.
>>We should not fall into the error of the Marxists, and erect
>>infallible holy prophets, whose work we then unavoidably need to
>>endless reinterpret until it bares no resemblence to their original
>>intention.
>
>No, what we should do is evaluate major philosophers based on their
>contribution to, elaboration of, and systematization of, correct
>theory. On this basis, Rothbard has no equal in the realm of political
>economy.
OK: what contribution did Rothbard ever make to correct theory? As far
as I can tell, none. His original contributions are all in the area of
history, not theory. He did systematize a lot, for which he deserves
credit, but little of what he systematized was original to himself.
>Nor could you, of all people, credibly deny this. Your position is
>free-market anarchism based on natural rights and modern
>marginalist-subjectivist economics. No major libertarian figure comes
>closer to your position than Rothbard. So, You are pressented with a
>dilemma, James A. Donald: either (1) Rothbard did _not_ contribute
>more than anyone else to systematically correct theory in the realm of
>political economy, or (2) Rothbard _did_ contribute more than anyone
>else to systematically correct theory in the realm of political
>economy.
>
>If you choose #1, then that means that your own position is not the
>most sytematically correct one, because as far as major libertarian
>thinkers go, Rothbard comes closest to your own position.
Non-sequitur. To hold the same position as Rothbard is not to imply
that Rothbard originated more of that position than anyone else.
[snip]
>You people have no idea just how clever I can be when I want to.
We still don't.
>Jesus Christ, I sometimes scare myself.
You scare me, too, but not in a way that does credit to yourself.
Tim Starr
djar...@usa.net.invalid (Matt) wrote:
>Is there anything this guy wrote that is worth reading?
Yes, definitely. "For A New Liberty" is an excellent introduction to
libertarianism, synthesizing research on all sorts of topics. I'd also
reccomend "Man, Economy, & State", as well as "America's Great
Depression".
>Most of the people here, even those who agree with natural law, seem
>to use arguments closest to David Friedman's conception of anarcho-
>capitalism. I know Count Lithium is a Rothbard fan, but otherwise
>I see no mention of him. Since I am sympathetic to natural law
>arguments I was wondering if Rothbard's stuff is any good.
Rothbard was more of a synthesizer, systematizer, & historian than
anything else. As a theorist, he wasn't terribly original. He was good
at explaining Misesian economic theory in English - something which
neither Mises nor Hayek were good at. He broke new ground in history
with "America's Great Depression", too.
Unfortunately, he was a lousy political tactician & strategist. Some of
his political commentary looks simply awful, in retrospect, like some of
the stuff he wrote about the Viet Cong & the Khmer Rouge.
David Friedman
wrote (about Rothbard):
> His original contributions are all in the area of
> history, not theory.
This seems like a good opportunity to try to revive a thread that died an
untimely death on hpo a fair while back. Vincent Cook had posted some
assertions about Adam Smith and his French contemporaries which turned out
to be based on Rothbard's book on the history of economic thought. I
offered evidence that Rothbard was deliberately misrepresenting the
situation. At that point, Vincent dropped out of the argument, I thinnk on
the grounds that he thought I was being rude to him. But since Lithium is
an ardent supporter of Rothbard, perhaps he will take up Vincent's side.
Or perhaps Tim, as an admirer of Rothbard's historical work, will.
Rothbard's basic thesis in this part of the book was that Smith was both a
worse economist and less of a defender of liberty than French writers such
as Cantillon and Turgot. My thesis is that, in the process of defending
that claim, Rothbard deliberately misrepresented the evidence.
Specifically:
[Most of the following is based on my summary post in the old thread]
1. Smith, Turgot, and public education
Rothbard refers to Smithąs łcall for government-run education.˛ He claims
that it was Smithąs desire to see government foster a martial spirit, and
inculcate obedience to government among the populace, that motivated that
call.
This is in part false and in part misleading. To begin with, Smith did not
call for government-run education. He offered arguments both for and
against government education, and his conclusion, which Rothbard does not
mention, was that subsidizing the education of the masses would be a
legitimate government activity, but that it would be equally legitimate,
and might be better, to leave education entirely private.
Furthermore, Rothbardąs reference to łmartial spirit˛ is highly
misleading. Smith writes: łBut the security of every society must always
depend, more or less, upon the marital spirit of the great body of the
people. In the present times, indeed, that martial spirit alone, and
unsupported by a well disciplined standing army, would not, perhaps, be
sufficient for the defence and security of any society. But where every
citizen had the spirit of a soldier, a smaller standing army would surely
be requisite. That spirit, besides, would necessarily diminish very much
the dangers to liberty, whether real or imaginary, which are commonly
apprehended from a standing army. As it would very much facilitate the
operations of that army against a foreign invader, so it would obstruct
them as much if unfortunately they should ever be directed against the
constitution of the state.˛
Or in other words, Smithąs argument on the virtues of a martial spirit is
the same as the argument often offered for the right to bear arms. It
makes a standing army less necessary, and it means that if a standing army
ever tries to take over, the people will be able to stop it. That is very
far from what Rothbard implies.
Smith goes on, concerning the virtues of a martial spirit, to write:
łBut a coward, a man incapable either of defending or of revenging
himself, evidently wants one of the most essential parts of the character
of a man. ... Even though the martial spirit of the people were of no
use towards the defence of the society, yet to prevent that sort of mental
mutilation, .... would still deserve the most serious attention of
government ... .˛ (Bk V Ch1 part III art III) This may or may not be
correct, but it is at the opposite pole from the position Rothbard is
attributing to Smith. If Smith's objective were obedience to government,
men incapable of defending or revenging themselves would be just what he
wanted.
So far, Rothbardąs account is consistent with either of two
explanations--that he was deliberately dishonest or that he had never
really read the book he was criticizing, merely skimmed it for quotes
suited to his purposes.
What makes Rothbardąs bias particularly striking is the contrast of Smith
with Turgot. I have already posted [earlier in the hpo thread] Turgotąs
argument, directed to the King of France (when Turgot was finance minister
of France), in favor of establishing centralized government control over
the whole educational system--in part to make sure students are taught the
right things. Rothbard discusses Turgot at length, and favorably--but
somehow fails to mention that particular argument.
2. Smith, free trade, and wool:
Rothbard objects that Smith was not really a free trader, and offers as
one example his support for export taxes on wool. There are two things
wrong with this:
A. Smith--like Cantillon and Turgot, whom Rothbard praises--was not an
anarchist; all of them believed in a government providing (at least)
national defense and paying for it with taxes. That leaves them with the
problem of picking the least bad form of taxation. Smith offers a rather
sophisticated argument (involving the theory of joint products) for why an
export tax on wool would have relatively little effect on quantity or
quality of wool produced, and hence why it is a relatively innocuous tax.
What makes Smith a free trader is that he regards the effect on the
economy of import and export taxes--including that one--as bad, a cost of
raising needed money, not a policy objective. The difference between him
and Turgot was not that one believed more in the virtues of free trade
than the other, but that Turgot (along with other physiocrats) thought the
ideal system of taxation would collect all of its revenue from one tax, on
the net produce of land, while Smith discusses the advantages and
disadvantages of a wide range of alternative taxes--including revenue
tariffs.
B. Rothbard does not mention that at the time Smith was writing the export
of wool was a criminal offense, which the government tried to prevent by
extensive regulations over the wool trade enforced with ferocious
penalties--not merely for smuggling, but for transporting wool near the
cost without the proper documentation. What Smith is actually advocating
is thus a sharp reduction in government interference with trade, although
not a total elimination of it. Rothbard has to have known that, since
Smith describes the situation at great length, and I do not see any way of
interpreting his failure to mention it as due to anything but deliberate
dishonesty--the attempt to mislead his reader by omission.
3. The general tone of Rothbardąs comments on Smith.
I will not try to convey this, but it seems to me that anyone reading the
chapter has to conclude that Rothbardąs purpose is to diminish both
Smithąs importance as an economist--in part by correctly pointing out that
many of his ideas appear in earlier works, in part by correctly, in part
by incorrectly, criticizing his ideas--and his claim to be a libertarian.
Having such a purpose is not necessarily a bad thing--although I think the
tone is enough to make a prudent reader suspect that the author may be
letting the conclusions he wants to reach bias his arguments. But the
combination of that purpose with extensive misrepresentation of Smith, at
least some of it clearly deliberate, seems to me to justify my description
of that part of Rothbardąs book as a hatchet job.
My conclusion is that Rothbard's historical work, while it may be
interesting, simply cannot be trusted--he deliberately misrepresents the
evidence in order to persuade the reader. Would anyone like to rebut that
claim--to explain why, in the case both of Turgot's views on education and
Smith's proposal for taxing wool exports, Rothbard omitted facts that he
had to know, that his reader could not be expected to know, and that
provided evidence against the thesis he was arguing? Tim? Lithium?
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>In article <3812b4d4...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>,
>n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>[snip]
>>>I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently
>>>criticized many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to
>>>the truth than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often
>>>encounters.
>>Please direct me as to where I might encounter this, as I have so far
>>not encountered this.
>Look in a mirror. You're the best example of it that I know of.
But Donald said that he so often encounters it. I take that to mean
that he was not refering to me alone.
>>>In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly wrong.
>>You people are truly shiftless. Appearently it is not clear enough not
>>to require an elaboration. In fact, it is quite _unclear_ to me
>>exactly what it is that Rothbard got badly wrong.
>OK, I'll tell you something he got wrong. That interview with him about
>war that was up on the web site for the JLS (but has now apparently gone
>missing)
Your attept to imply something sinister is fallacious. The interview
that you speak of has not "gone missing" in the least bit. It can be
found right along with the rest of this site's past articles at
http://www.libertarianstudies.org/miscellany.asp under "Rothbard on
War."
But by far the best site to read it at is the Antiwar.com site, at:
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/rothbard_on_war.html
>is full of things that are wrong, such as Rothbard's attempt to
>construct a hypothetical analogy in which one State's aggression against
>another is morally neutral, because both States are just as bad as each
>other. This analogy is entirely inapplicable to the war he was talking
>about at the time, the Vietnam War, because North Vietnam was far worse
>than South Vietnam. His analogy would be better if he were talking
>about the aggression of a State with a 100% tax rate against a State
>with a 75% tax rate. Clearly, victory for the former would be a net
>loss for liberty.
Considering that you are incapable of figuring out a simple enough
website, it does not suprise me that you are incapable of figuring out
a simple enough argument. Rothbard was simply arguing that one state
trying to take over another state was not justification for a third
state to intervene--not that such is morally neutral, or that
individuals shouldn't fight a just war.
>>>We should not fall into the error of the Marxists, and erect
>>>infallible holy prophets, whose work we then unavoidably need to
>>>endless reinterpret until it bares no resemblence to their original
>>>intention.
>>No, what we should do is evaluate major philosophers based on their
>>contribution to, elaboration of, and systematization of, correct
>>theory. On this basis, Rothbard has no equal in the realm of political
>>economy.
>OK: what contribution did Rothbard ever make to correct theory?
Many. On monopoly theory, on welfare economics, on banking, on "public
goods" theory, on derivation of self-ownership and libertarian
homesteading, on libertarian stratagy, on conract theory--to name but
a few.
>As far
>as I can tell, none. His original contributions are all in the area of
>history, not theory.
Your ignorance of Rothbard's achievements in no way relfects badly on
Rothbard, of course. 'Tis a shame that you think the causal
relationship follows in reverse.
>He did systematize a lot, for which he deserves
>credit, but little of what he systematized was original to himself.
OK, fine--granted. But this is a far cry from saying that he did not
contribute anything original to correct theory. But in the world of
ideas (particularly in political philosophy), little under the sun is
new. Rothbard didn't invent the wheel, he simply constructed a better
wheel than anyone else.
This is a common mistake people make. They assume Aristotle, Locke,
Hume, Smith, Marx, etc., were great contributors to orginal
theory--not realizing that almost all of what was either correct or
fallacious about their theories were not new or original to them. What
they did--what their achievement was--was to collect previously
seperate knowledge into a (more or less) coherent and systematic
whole. In the world of political and economic theory, the greatest
achievement any philosopher can obtian is to systematize and integrate
correct theory as a logical whole. No one comes close to Rothbard in
this. As well, Rothbard contributed more to correct theory that was
original than most could ever hope to.
>>Nor could you, of all people, credibly deny this. Your position is
>>free-market anarchism based on natural rights and modern
>>marginalist-subjectivist economics. No major libertarian figure comes
>>closer to your position than Rothbard. So, You are pressented with a
>>dilemma, James A. Donald: either (1) Rothbard did _not_ contribute
>>more than anyone else to systematically correct theory in the realm of
>>political economy, or (2) Rothbard _did_ contribute more than anyone
>>else to systematically correct theory in the realm of political
>>economy.
>>If you choose #1, then that means that your own position is not the
>>most sytematically correct one, because as far as major libertarian
>>thinkers go, Rothbard comes closest to your own position.
>Non-sequitur. To hold the same position as Rothbard is not to imply
>that Rothbard originated more of that position than anyone else.
Your objection is irrelevent to my argument, as out of the well-known
libertartarian philosophers, Rothbard comes closest to that of
Danald's position by far. This indicates that Rothbard contributed
more to what Donald would consider systematically correct theory than
any other major libertarian figure. Thus, Doland shoots himself in the
foot every time he downplays Rothbard's achievements.
>[snip]
>>You people have no idea just how clever I can be when I want to.
>We still don't.
I still maintain that my argument is quite clever, as it cuts to the
heart of the illogic of Donald's marginalization of Rothbard. I
maintain that it is clever because I doubt that very many others would
have been able to explicate the illogic behind it, even if they had
been intuitively bright enough to sense something queer about it.
>>Jesus Christ, I sometimes scare myself.
>You scare me, too, but not in a way that does credit to yourself.
Well I'm glad that I could scare you.
Adrian
question. (Well, not completely unrelated -- on the topic of
allegiance to political philosophies.) Someone was telling me that
Robert Nozick had been "converted to anarchism". I was wondering if
you or anyone knew if he has gone back on his idea of a justified
minimal state in _Anarchy, State, and Utopia_.
Tim Starr
n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:13:33 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3812b4d4...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>,
>>n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>>>I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently
>>>>criticized many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to
>>>>the truth than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often
>>>>encounters.
>
>>>Please direct me as to where I might encounter this, as I have so
>>>far not encountered this.
>
>>Look in a mirror. You're the best example of it that I know of.
>
>But Donald said that he so often encounters it. I take that to mean
>that he was not refering to me alone.
The rest of the Mises Institute crowd that you like so much is also
frequently guilty of uncritical admiration of Rothbard. If you want me
to name more names, I will: Justin Raimondo, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, & Bert
Blumenthal are some of them. All of them have made valuable
contributions to the struggle for liberty, but all of them have
occasionally placed too high priority on their loyalty to Rothbard.
(BTW, I've met all three of them, as well as others who knew Rothbard
personally.)
>>>>In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly
>>>>wrong.
>
>>>You people are truly shiftless. Appearently it is not clear enough
>>>not to require an elaboration. In fact, it is quite _unclear_ to me
>>>exactly what it is that Rothbard got badly wrong.
>
>>OK, I'll tell you something he got wrong. That interview with him
>>about war that was up on the web site for the JLS (but has now
>>apparently gone missing)
>
>Your attept to imply something sinister is fallacious. The interview
>that you speak of has not "gone missing" in the least bit.
Yes, it had. They moved it. It used to be accessible from a link
directly from their home page. Now you have to go elsewhere first
before you can find it.
>It can be found right along with the rest of this site's past articles
>at http://www.libertarianstudies.org/miscellany.asp under "Rothbard on
>War."
Thanks. Here's the exact quote I had in mind:
"Well I think the concept of collective security is (1) a disaster and
(2) anti-libertarian. Viet Nam again brings this thing to the fore, in
the sense of masking imperial interventionist policy on the part of the
American government in the rhetoric of the cloak of righteousness and
moralistic pieties. Let痴 take two hypothetical states覧this is the
technique von Mises used to use, I think, with good effect覧take the
hypothetical states of Ruritania and Waldavia, somewhere off in the
Balkans or whatever. The Ruritanian State invades the Waldavian State.
The collective-security view is that this constitutes aggression, it痴
evil per se 末 an evil State attacking a victim State, the Ruritanian
State being the aggressor in this case, and then it becomes the duty of
every other State in the whole wide world 末 the United States being
somehow the divinely appointed chief and almost sole pourer out of
resources in this effort 末 to step in to defend the so-called victim,
and crush the aggressor."
What's wrong this is:
1) US policy in Vietnam wasn't imperial. The U.S. didn't seek to rule
over Vietnam as a colony, it sought to help an ally defend itself
against Communist aggression.
2) The conflict between South & North Vietnam wasn't between morally
equivalent regimes, as Rothbard's hypothetical examples are. North
Vietnam was a mass-murdering totalitarian Communist regime, while South
Vietnam was non-totalitarian & anti-Communist.
3) The U.S. wasn't divinely appointed to help South Vietnam, it was
requested by the South Vietnamese government to help fight off the
Commies. The U.S. did contribute more resources to this than any other,
but that was because the U.S. had more resources to begin with.
I would argue that the US ought not to have been allied with South
Vietnam in the first place, because there was nothing in it for American
security. But it was certainly a net loss for liberty in the world when
North Vietnam succeeded in conquering South Vietnam. The U.S. wasn't
engaging in imperial conquest by trying to help defend South Vietnam
from the Commies. If it had been done properly, it wouldn't have cost
as much in money or American lives, either.
>Considering that you are incapable of figuring out a simple enough
>website, it does not suprise me that you are incapable of figuring out
>a simple enough argument.
Ad hominem.
>Rothbard was simply arguing that one state trying to take over another
>state was not justification for a third state to intervene--not that
>such is morally neutral, or that individuals shouldn't fight a just
>war.
No, he was explicitly making an analogy to the Vietnam War. He was
arguing that it would be morally neutral for North Vietnam to conquer
South Vietnam. This was wrong.
Rothbard's enthusiasm for the evacuation of Phnom Penh was also wrong.
[snip]
>>OK: what contribution did Rothbard ever make to correct theory?
>
>Many. On monopoly theory, on welfare economics, on banking, on "public
>goods" theory, on derivation of self-ownership and libertarian
>homesteading, on libertarian stratagy, on conract theory--to name but
>a few.
Void for vagueness. He was wrong about fractional reserve banking, &
his ideas about libertarian strategy were neither original nor correct.
They were just the adaptation of Leninist sectarianism, as described in
"What Must Be Done", to the libertarian cause. Sectarianism is a
fallacy, not a valid strategy. The party-line orthodoxy of Rothbardians
like yourself is wrong, just as it was wrong when it was done by the
Stalinists in the 1930s. The democratic-centralism of the Radical
Caucus, which Rothbard was one of the first to join, was also part of
this mistake.
>>As far as I can tell, none. His original contributions are all in
>>the area of history, not theory.
>
>Your ignorance of Rothbard's achievements in no way relfects badly on
>Rothbard, of course. 'Tis a shame that you think the causal
>relationship follows in reverse.
Ad hominem.
>>He did systematize a lot, for which he deserves credit, but little of
>>what he systematized was original to himself.
>
>OK, fine--granted. But this is a far cry from saying that he did not
>contribute anything original to correct theory.
No, it's not. If he didn't systematize anything original, then he
didn't contribute anything original. Describe one thing, in detail,
that was both original (not found in Mises, Hayek, etc.), & correct.
[snip]
>>Non-sequitur. To hold the same position as Rothbard is not to imply
>>that Rothbard originated more of that position than anyone else.
>
>Your objection is irrelevent to my argument...
It's a directly relevant refutation of your argument, which consists of
a non-sequitur.
>as out of the well-known libertartarian philosophers, Rothbard comes
>closest to that of Danald's position by far.
Stipulated, for the sake of argument.
>This indicates that Rothbard contributed more to what Donald would
>consider systematically correct theory than any other major libertarian
>figure.
Non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that Rothbard came
closer to Donald's position than any other single "well-known
libertarian philosopher", that Rothbard ORIGINATED more of that position
than anyone else.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 21:13:33 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In article <3812b4d4...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>,
>>n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>
>>[snip]
>
>>>>I do not agree with everything in it, and I have vehemently
>>>>criticized many of Bryan Caplan's points, but it is a lot closer to
>>>>the truth than the uncomplicate Rothbard worship that one so often
>>>>encounters.
>
>>>Please direct me as to where I might encounter this, as I have so
>>>far not encountered this.
>
>>Look in a mirror. You're the best example of it that I know of.
>
>But Donald said that he so often encounters it. I take that to mean
>that he was not refering to me alone.
The rest of the Mises Institute crowd that you like so much is also
frequently guilty of uncritical admiration of Rothbard. If you want me
to name more names, I will: Justin Raimondo, Hans Hermann-Hoppe, & Bert
Blumenthal are some of them. All of them have made valuable
contributions to the struggle for liberty, but all of them have
occasionally placed too high priority on their loyalty to Rothbard.
(BTW, I've met all three of them, as well as others who knew Rothbard
personally.)
>>>>In retrospect, it is clear that Rothbard got many things badly
>>>>wrong.
>
>>>You people are truly shiftless. Appearently it is not clear enough
>>>not to require an elaboration. In fact, it is quite _unclear_ to me
>>>exactly what it is that Rothbard got badly wrong.
>
>>OK, I'll tell you something he got wrong. That interview with him
>>about war that was up on the web site for the JLS (but has now
>>apparently gone missing)
>
>Your attept to imply something sinister is fallacious. The interview
>that you speak of has not "gone missing" in the least bit.
Yes, it had. They moved it. It used to be accessible from a link
directly from their home page. Now you have to go elsewhere first
before you can find it.
>It can be found right along with the rest of this site's past articles
>at http://www.libertarianstudies.org/miscellany.asp under "Rothbard on
>War."
Thanks. Here's the exact quote I had in mind:
>Considering that you are incapable of figuring out a simple enough
>website, it does not suprise me that you are incapable of figuring out
>a simple enough argument.
Ad hominem.
>Rothbard was simply arguing that one state trying to take over another
>state was not justification for a third state to intervene--not that
>such is morally neutral, or that individuals shouldn't fight a just
>war.
No, he was explicitly making an analogy to the Vietnam War. He was
arguing that it would be morally neutral for North Vietnam to conquer
South Vietnam. This was wrong.
Rothbard's enthusiasm for the evacuation of Phnom Penh was also wrong.
[snip]
>>OK: what contribution did Rothbard ever make to correct theory?
>
>Many. On monopoly theory, on welfare economics, on banking, on "public
>goods" theory, on derivation of self-ownership and libertarian
>homesteading, on libertarian stratagy, on conract theory--to name but
>a few.
Void for vagueness. He was wrong about fractional reserve banking, &
his ideas about libertarian strategy were neither original nor correct.
They were just the adaptation of Leninist sectarianism, as described in
"What Must Be Done", to the libertarian cause. Sectarianism is a
fallacy, not a valid strategy. The party-line orthodoxy of Rothbardians
like yourself is wrong, just as it was wrong when it was done by the
Stalinists in the 1930s. The democratic-centralism of the Radical
Caucus, which Rothbard was one of the first to join, was also part of
this mistake.
>>As far as I can tell, none. His original contributions are all in
>>the area of history, not theory.
>
>Your ignorance of Rothbard's achievements in no way relfects badly on
>Rothbard, of course. 'Tis a shame that you think the causal
>relationship follows in reverse.
Ad hominem.
>>He did systematize a lot, for which he deserves credit, but little of
>>what he systematized was original to himself.
>
>OK, fine--granted. But this is a far cry from saying that he did not
>contribute anything original to correct theory.
No, it's not. If he didn't systematize anything original, then he
didn't contribute anything original. Describe one thing, in detail,
that was both original (not found in Mises, Hayek, etc.), & correct.
[snip]
>>Non-sequitur. To hold the same position as Rothbard is not to imply
>>that Rothbard originated more of that position than anyone else.
>
>Your objection is irrelevent to my argument...
It's a directly relevant refutation of your argument, which consists of
a non-sequitur.
>as out of the well-known libertartarian philosophers, Rothbard comes
>closest to that of Danald's position by far.
Stipulated, for the sake of argument.
>This indicates that Rothbard contributed more to what Donald would
>consider systematically correct theory than any other major libertarian
>figure.
Non-sequitur. It simply doesn't follow from the fact that Rothbard came
closer to Donald's position than any other single "well-known
libertarian philosopher", that Rothbard ORIGINATED more of that position
than anyone else.
Tim Starr
Tim Starr
dd...@best.com (David Friedman) wrote:
>In article <7v55ho$lgv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr
><tims...@my-deja.com> wrote (about Rothbard):
>
>>His original contributions are all in the area of history, not theory.
>
>This seems like a good opportunity to try to revive a thread that died
>an untimely death on hpo a fair while back. Vincent Cook had posted
>some assertions about Adam Smith and his French contemporaries which
>turned out to be based on Rothbard's book on the history of economic
>thought. I offered evidence that Rothbard was deliberately
>misrepresenting the situation. At that point, Vincent dropped out of
>to him.
He told me that he was offended that you attacked his sources rather
than the arguments that he made.
>But since Lithium is an ardent supporter of Rothbard, perhaps he will
>take up Vincent's side. Or perhaps Tim, as an admirer of Rothbard's
>historical work, will.
I'm a critical admirer of some of Rothbard's historical work. I don't
think he was right about everything. On the points you mention, I think
you're right. Rothbard set out to do a hatchet-job on Smith, & got some
things wrong. I don't know why he had such an animus towards Smith,
except perhaps just to be contrarian. George Smith also agrees that
Rothbard was unfair to Adam Smith.
The "martial spirit" stuff could be explained by Rothbard's
anti-militarism, which was exagerrated by his uncritical association
with the New Left. But I'm not confident that was the case. Rothbard
seems to have been quite capable of appreciating the right to keep &
bear arms elsewhere, such as in his histories of America during the
colonial period.
[snip]
>My conclusion is that Rothbard's historical work, while it may be
>interesting, simply cannot be trusted--he deliberately misrepresents
>the evidence in order to persuade the reader. Would anyone like to
>rebut that claim--to explain why, in the case both of Turgot's views
>on education and Smith's proposal for taxing wool exports, Rothbard
>omitted facts that he had to know, that his reader could not be
>expected to know, and that provided evidence against the thesis he was
>arguing? Tim? Lithium?
No. I'm reminded of a joke about how a historian says Rothbard's a
great economist, but a lousy historian, while the economist he's talking
to replies that he's a lousy economist, but a great historian. :-)
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>In article <7v55ho$lgv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
And I will tell you now as I told you some time back under a different
moniker when you tried to engage me in this debate: I do not own
Rothbard's two volumes on economic thought as of yet, as they are
quite expensive--being published as they are by a company that cators
to academia. As such, I am not in a position to adequately debate this
matter.
Athough, from what I gather from your objections (then and now), your
problem with Rothbard is his evaluative interpretation of various
historical figures' merits vis-a-vis libertarianism, and not
misreporting of facts. One must bear in mind that for the most part
all of Rothbard's histories are revisionist, i.e., they tell the
untold or forgoten stories of history. Thus, it is not suprising that
he should concentrate for the most part on the negative aspects of
Smith (for example), as there is not much point in him rewriting the
classical interpretation.
But as I also told you then: If you are serious about debating this
matter, then I am sure the professors associated with the Ludwig von
Mises Institute would be more than happy to conduct a journal debate
with you on this issue. What I suggest you do is write a paper about
your objections with Rothbard's history of economic thought and send
it to them. What better way to test your metal? Why waste your time
debating usenet patzers when you could be doing real work that has the
potential to set the record strait?
BTW, when I suggested this to you last time I heard not a peep from
you about it. We will hopefully see if you have the courage of your
convictions.
Ćü©®Łż˘ć
David Friedman
wrote:
>
> No. I'm reminded of a joke about how a historian says Rothbard's a
> great economist, but a lousy historian, while the economist he's talking
> to replies that he's a lousy economist, but a great historian. :-)
You've truncated it. There were three of us; the occasion was, I think, an
SIL conference in NY a very long time ago. I was interested in economics,
someone else (Sharon Presley?) in psychology, someone else in history. I
said that I didn't think much of Rothbard's economics, but he seemed to
have interesting things to say about psychology and history. Sharon(?)
said ... . You can fill in for yourself.
I should add that this by memory from a very long time ago, so has
probably become more elegantly symmetrical than in the original.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
> And I will tell you now as I told you some time back under a different
> moniker when you tried to engage me in this debate: I do not own
> Rothbard's two volumes on economic thought as of yet, as they are
> quite expensive--being published as they are by a company that cators
> to academia. As such, I am not in a position to adequately debate this
> matter.
I don't own them either; I found them in a library.
> Athough, from what I gather from your objections (then and now), your
> problem with Rothbard is his evaluative interpretation of various
> historical figures' merits vis-a-vis libertarianism, and not
> misreporting of facts.
Deliberate selective reporting, designed to mislead his readers, is what I
am objecting to. Saying "X routinely beats his wife," and not explaining
that X beats his wife at chess, is deliberate dishonesty, even though the
statement is literally true. "Smith proposed taxing the export of wool,"
and not explaining that what Smith proposed was that the absolute ban on
the export of wool be lifted and replaced by an export tax," is delibeate
dishonesty, even though the statement is literally true.
Where Rothbard makes statements that are actually false (Smith's views on
education), it may be an honest mistake. When he omits facts that he has
to have known in order to give his reader a drastically inaccurate
opinion, it is dishonesty.
> One must bear in mind that for the most part
> all of Rothbard's histories are revisionist, i.e., they tell the
> untold or forgoten stories of history. Thus, it is not suprising that
> he should concentrate for the most part on the negative aspects of
> Smith (for example), as there is not much point in him rewriting the
> classical interpretation.
As I think my examples make clear, he isn't just concentrating on negative
aspects--he is misstating Smith's position.
> But as I also told you then: If you are serious about debating this
> matter, then I am sure the professors associated with the Ludwig von
> Mises Institute would be more than happy to conduct a journal debate
> with you on this issue.
Possible--but I can't say their journal is very high up on my list of
places worth spending my time and effort publishing articles.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
wrote:
(quoting me)
> >This seems like a good opportunity to try to revive a thread that died
> >an untimely death on hpo a fair while back. Vincent Cook had posted
> >some assertions about Adam Smith and his French contemporaries which
> >turned out to be based on Rothbard's book on the history of economic
> >thought. I offered evidence that Rothbard was deliberately
> >misrepresenting the situation. At that point, Vincent dropped out of
> >the argument, I think on the grounds that he thought I was being rude
> >to him.
>
> He told me that he was offended that you attacked his sources rather
> than the arguments that he made.
His arguments were from Rothbard, as Vincent made clear in his response to
my first counterargument, written when I assumed they were his own--it
became fairly clear that Victor had not himself read the writers
(Cantillon, Turgot, and Smith) that he was talking about.
From a post by Vincent on 5/12/98
> David Friedman wrote:
>
> >All of which I gather, if I understand Vincent correctly, is based not on
> >his own reading of Smith, Cantillon, etc., but on his reading of a book by
> >Rothbard, whose conclusions he is here summarizing.
>
> That is correct.
and later in the post:
> >1. Am I correct in believing that you have read neither Smith nor
> >Cantillon, and are simply relying on Rothbard's
> hatchet job?
>
> This is a loaded question. I am indeed relying on
> Rothbard's work, but so far
> you have given me little reason to doubt anything he
> wrote except possibly for
> the bit about the specie-flow.
...
(quoting me)
> >2. In light of the quotes I have just offered, are you prepared to either
> >revise your position or go read Cantillon for
> >yourself (and Smith) and
> >then revise it accordingly?
>
> I am willing to read Cantillon and reach my own
> conclusions, but I am not sure if I
> really want to continue this sort of discussion with
> you. What you are suggesting
> by posing such questions is the insinuation that I am
> impervious to whatever
> evidence you present and that my reliance on Rothbard
> as a secondary source
> somehow calls my motives into question. Frankly, I
> find that pretty insulting.
Here is the end of what I think was Vincent's final post in the thread, on
5/14/98:
(quoting me)
> >A query for you--don't bother to answer it if you don't want to. If, after
> >reading Smith and Cantillon (and, hopefully, Turgot),
> you conclude that
> >the Rothbard book was a hatchet job, will you
> >
> >A. Revise your opinions of this exchange and ...
> >B. Revise your opinion of Rothbard?
>
> There are two things I can tell you about the revision
> of my
> opinions. First, they will indeed be revised in light
> of whatever evidence I come
> across. Second, the evidence of the thread itself has
> already prompted me to
> revise my opinions about you, and now I am quite
> certain that I do not want to
> continue this sort of discussion with you. Life is
> too short and too wonderful to
> be wasted on
> malicious people who are just looking for a chance to
> gratuitously abuse the honor of others.
I interpret that as saying that he withdrew because I was being rude to
him (and Rothbard), but you may want to make your own interpretation. The
result of his withdrawal was that he never answered the arguments--you can
ask him, if you wish, whether he ever actually read Smith et. al. in order
to check whether my description of Rothbard's work as a hatchet job was
accurate.
Here is the beginning of my final summary post, on 5/15/98 to h.p.o.
> Vincent has, I gather, withdrawn from the argument on
> the grounds that my
> attack on Rothbard's attack on Smith is obviously due
> to malice and bias on my
> part; how he can know that is true without first
> finding out whether what I am
> saying is true I have not yet figured out.
>
> I thought that before ending my side of the argument,
> it would be worth summing
> up my reasons for believing that the relevant part of
> Rothbard's book (the
> discussion of Smith, with associated references to
> Cantillon and Turgot) is
> biased, containing a mixture of error and deliberate
> misrepresentation--my reasons, in other words, for
> regarding it as a hatchet job.
>
> For any who missed the earlier posts, I believe the
> sequence (some steps
> contained more than one post) was:
>
> Victor Cook posts some assertions about Smith,
> Cantillon and Turgot.
>
> I responded, arguing that Victor's comments on
> Cantillon and Smith were
> mistaken (I had not yet looked at Turgot)
>
> Victor, in his response, mentioned Rothbard's book in
> a fashion that led me to
> suspect (correctly, as it turned out) that Victor's
> opinions were based entirely on
> Rothbard, not on Smith, Cantillon and Turgot, whom
> Victor does not seem to
> have read.
>
> In my response I referred to Rothbard's discussion of
> Smith as a "hatchet job,"
> on the basis of Victor's summary of it (and my
> previous knowledge of Rothbard);
> at that point I had not yet located a copy of
> Rothbard's book. I also took Victor
> to task for making confident statements about authors
> he had not read, based
> solely on a biased account by someone else.
>
> Victor, in his response, accused me of being
> unreasonable in condemning
> Rothbard's book without reading it; I responded that
> Victor had condemned
> Smith without reading him, and on the basis of a
> hostile, not a friendly, summary. I
> also provided a lengthy quote from Turgot,
> demonstrating that Turgot's views
> on public schooling, which neither Victor nor Rothbard
> mentioned, were very much
> worse than Smith's views, which Victor (and his
> source, Rothbard) condemned. I
> also provided more examples of misleading statements
> in Rothbard about Smith.
> By that point I had located copies of Rothbard's book
> and two books containing
> translations of Turgot.
>
> Victor decided that arguing with me was a mistake, and
> announced his decision
> not to do any more of it. Whether he has taken any
> steps to determine whether
> his previous assertions about Smith et. al. were true
> I do not know.
The rest of my post appeared (in an edited form, to eliminate most of the
parts relevant to the thread but not the central issue) as the first post
in this thread. (I note, incidentally, that I carelessly wrote "Victor"
for "Vincent" in part of the above.)
One further point. Lithium declines to respond to my arguments on the
grounds that he doesn't have a copy of Rothbard's book. He can, however,
easily enough get a copy of _The Wealth of Nations_, and Deja News will
provide him at least with Vincent's summary of what Rothbard says, as well
as my part of the argument. That should probably be enough for him to
determine what Smith's views were on wool exports, on martial spirit and
on education, and whether they are consistent with the opinions expressed
by a pro-Rothbard reader of the book, based on the book.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>In article <3818f28...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>, n...@homex.com (Count
>Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
>> But as I also told you then: If you are serious about debating this
>> matter, then I am sure the professors associated with the Ludwig von
>> Mises Institute would be more than happy to conduct a journal debate
>> with you on this issue.
>Possible--but I can't say their journal is very high up on my list of
>places worth spending my time and effort publishing articles.
I never said it had to be published in the Quarterly Journal of
Austrian Economics. Austrian economists are rutinely published in
journals other than their own, and I'm sure if you can't find a
non-Austrian economics journal which would publish your paper that
they would be more than happy to pull a few strings for you in order
to conduct the debate.
泣┊？㈡
James A. Donald
On Tue, 26 Oct 1999 23:47:51 -0500, dd...@best.com (David Friedman)
wrote:
> My conclusion is that Rothbard's historical work, while it may be
> interesting, simply cannot be trusted--he deliberately misrepresents
> the evidence in order to persuade the reader.
My conclusion is a little stronger than yours: That Austrian
economists, like Randian philosophers, tend to be in the
holy-prophet-of-god business.
In the same way that I think a "libertarian" government is unlikely to
be a very great improvement over a non libertarian government, I think
a libertarian holy prophet is unlikely to be a very great improvement
over a non libertarian holy prophet.
Ultimately we must learn from the world, not from the teacher.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
WlSvNgioL8vPHhJDPc2KD3ZarmupOM/PrxIB+3DA
4u6rgi6MvNyAFQASDyshTuNkv/529knztVVQizxH1
James A. Donald
On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:05:55 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> But as I also told you then: If you are serious about debating this
> matter, then I am sure the professors associated with the Ludwig von
> Mises Institute would be more than happy to conduct a journal debate
> with you on this issue.
This is reminicent of the offer that the Chomskyites routinely make to
their opponents: "Let us have this discussion in a forum that WE
control, and in THAT forum your misperceptions will be corrected".
I expect that Friedman's reply will be the same as I make to the
Chomskyites.
Earlier I said that worship of heroic authorities, fountains of
knowledge, led to pathological thinking, led to placing the truth of
the community above empirical truth. The preference for a controlled
discussion environment is characteristic of that pathological
thinking.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
cV8R3OCl0uPEU/OPVsfbOqAWsUH+mxO7+jLK5gYg
4Ve9mptRfFgw2sTw3IchtzoeqlrnXKsaOR1iysLbK
David Friedman
(James A. Donald) wrote:
> My conclusion is a little stronger than yours: That Austrian
> economists, like Randian philosophers, tend to be in the
> holy-prophet-of-god business.
You are painting with too broad a brush. There have been a fair number of
good economists in the Austrian tradition, such as Menger and Mises. Your
comment is more relevant to the Rothbardians--and part of the problem
there, in my judgement, is the policy of being big frogs in their own
little pool, instead of competing seriously out in the academic
marketplace. And it wouldn't even apply to all of them--I don't think it
is true of Walter Block, who does try to engage with conventional
scholars, although I don't always find his arguments convincing.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>On Fri, 29 Oct 1999 02:05:55 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
>Chloride) wrote:
>> But as I also told you then: If you are serious about debating this
>> matter, then I am sure the professors associated with the Ludwig von
>> Mises Institute would be more than happy to conduct a journal debate
>> with you on this issue.
>This is reminicent of the offer that the Chomskyites routinely make to
>their opponents: "Let us have this discussion in a forum that WE
>control, and in THAT forum your misperceptions will be corrected".
You shiftless lollygager. When I wrote that I naturally assumed that
Friedman would publish in the journal of his choice. It never even
occured to me that he would publish his paper in the Quarterly Journal
of Austrian Economics--although I'm sure its editors would be more
than happy to. When I wrote that Friedman should send his paper to
them, I meant a courtesy copy of it so that they could respond to it
in the journal of their choosing (which would probably be their own
journal).
So much for that deluded analogy of yours.
>I expect that Friedman's reply will be the same as I make to the
>Chomskyites.
>Earlier I said that worship of heroic authorities, fountains of
>knowledge, led to pathological thinking, led to placing the truth of
>the community above empirical truth. The preference for a controlled
>discussion environment is characteristic of that pathological
>thinking.
Now I really do think that you are loosing your mind. Do get help for
that.
泣┊？㈡
James A. Donald
wrote:
> I'm reminded of a joke about how a historian says Rothbard's a
> great economist, but a lousy historian, while the economist he's talking
> to replies that he's a lousy economist, but a great historian. :-)
Rothbard is a polemicist. A polemicist may be a great educator, but
to be a great intellectual innovator, he must lay polemics aside.
When one is reviving ideas that have been unjustly neglected, and
wrongfully ridiculed, a polemical approach is often a good idea, but
in any polemical tract, one should always claim to be reviving
unjustly neglected ideas, rather than originating them, even if in
reality one is making a significant novel contribution, by updating
those ideas to meet present circumstances.
If one wishes to stress one's own novel contribution, the newness of
ones contributions rather than the ancient material on which they are
based, one must drop polemics.
If one presents novel or purportedly novel ideas polemically, one is
seeking guru status, intentionally and unintentionally, and all gurus
are full of shit, and if there is any good in them, their followers
lose sight of that good, and it is corrupted and forgotten.
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>On Thu, 28 Oct 1999 22:23:17 GMT, Tim Starr <tims...@my-deja.com>
>wrote:
>> I'm reminded of a joke about how a historian says Rothbard's a
>> great economist, but a lousy historian, while the economist he's talking
>> to replies that he's a lousy economist, but a great historian. :-)
>Rothbard is a polemicist. A polemicist may be a great educator, but
>to be a great intellectual innovator, he must lay polemics aside.
>When one is reviving ideas that have been unjustly neglected, and
>wrongfully ridiculed, a polemical approach is often a good idea, but
>in any polemical tract, one should always claim to be reviving
>unjustly neglected ideas, rather than originating them, even if in
>reality one is making a significant novel contribution, by updating
>those ideas to meet present circumstances.
This is rich. You must make this stuff up as you go along, as it is
clear that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
Rothbard himself was very modest about his own contribution, and took
pains to emphisize the historical developement of ideas by others.
And your blather about polemics is insanely nonsensical. All
libertarians who argue for their philosophy are polemicists by defult.
You are a polemicist, David Friedman is a polemicist, and I am a
polemicist. Indeed, all philosophical positions are necessarily
polemical in nature.
>If one wishes to stress one's own novel contribution, the newness of
>ones contributions rather than the ancient material on which they are
>based, one must drop polemics.
Nonsensical. Self-refuting, contradictory garble.
>If one presents novel or purportedly novel ideas polemically, one is
>seeking guru status, intentionally and unintentionally, and all gurus
>are full of shit, and if there is any good in them, their followers
>lose sight of that good, and it is corrupted and forgotten.
I am sensing some deep-seated hostility toward gurus comming from you
that cannot be rationally explained. At least it explains your issue
with Rothbard.
But your thinking is all screwed-up. Witness thusly and behold:
>If one presents novel or purportedly novel ideas polemically, one is
>seeking guru status, intentionally and unintentionally, and all gurus
>are full of shit
Whether you know it or not, you have a very unfortunate problem of
often logically shooting yourself in the foot. This could be avoided
by taking more time to think about what each word that you write
means, and thinking about what they mean when combined.
The above statement of yours, besides being nonsensical, is
self-refuting. Let me ask you: is the idea of this statement novel to
you? You are faced with either of two options: either (1) this idea is
novel to you, or (2) this idea is novel to someone else.
If #1, then you are full of shit. If #2, then whoever originated this
idea is full of shit. Either way, this statement is full of shit.
This simply elucidates the nonsensical nature of the statement, as all
ideas have to be originated by someone--and all ideas, if argued for,
are necessarily polemical.
>all gurus
>are full of shit
This is a truly particular and queer statement. It would mean that the
causal relationship of the correctness or incorrectness of a person's
ideas flows in reverse depending on whether that person attracts
followers: i.e., if that person has a following that regards him
highly, then we may conclude that this person's ideas are wrong.
Obviously this statement is absurd. You have a peculiar fondness for
uttering absurd statements.
guru, n., 2 any leader highly regarded by a group of followers:
sometimes used derisivley
Webster's New World Dictionary, Third Collage Edition
James A. Donald
> > Rothbard is a polemicist. A polemicist may be a great educator,
> > but to be a great intellectual innovator, he must lay polemics
> > aside.
> >
> > When one is reviving ideas that have been unjustly neglected, and
> > wrongfully ridiculed, a polemical approach is often a good idea,
> > but in any polemical tract, one should always claim to be reviving
> > unjustly neglected ideas, rather than originating them, even if in
> > reality one is making a significant novel contribution, by
> > updating those ideas to meet present circumstances.
On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:26:18 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
Chloride) wrote:
> This is rich. You must make this stuff up as you go along, as it is
> clear that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
>
> Rothbard himself was very modest about his own contribution, and
> took pains to emphisize the historical developement of ideas by
> others.
>
> And your blather about polemics is insanely nonsensical. All
> libertarians who argue for their philosophy are polemicists by
> defult. You are a polemicist, David Friedman is a polemicist, and I
> am a polemicist. Indeed, all philosophical positions are necessarily
> polemical in nature.
You might try reading what I wrote before criticizing it. Your
criticism has no apparent connection with my words. It looks to me as
if you saw the words "Rothbard is a polemicist", and stopped reading
right away.
> > If one presents novel or purportedly novel ideas polemically, one
> > is seeking guru status, intentionally and unintentionally, and all
> > gurus are full of shit, and if there is any good in them, their
> > followers lose sight of that good, and it is corrupted and
> > forgotten.
> I am sensing some deep-seated hostility toward gurus comming from
> you that cannot be rationally explained. At least it explains your
> issue with Rothbard.
This implies that you acknowledge that Rothbard is a guru, something
that you denied a few lines ago.
I have throughout this thread repeatedly given a rational explanation
why no honest person should seek to be a guru, and why one should
never thrust gurudom upon those one admires, but rather clearly you
have not been reading my words.
Therefore I will return the favor, and refrain from reading your
words.
--digsig
James A. Donald
6YeGpsZR+nOTh/cGwvITnSR3TdzclVpR0+pr3YYQdkG
OXDiT2RPdXfbmBW51cz8idnBAeMG7oxSeH3W6Ehh
4HVS0svoqjOHmirytG2d9G4vuCGTEdyC3u3IdOP4k
David Friedman
Lithium von Chloride) wrote:
> When I wrote that I naturally assumed that
> Friedman would publish in the journal of his choice. It never even
> occured to me that he would publish his paper in the Quarterly Journal
> of Austrian Economics--although I'm sure its editors would be more
> than happy to.
That assumes that a more conventional journal would be interested in an
article pointing out that Rothbard misrepresented Smith, Turgot, etc. My
own opinion, as someone who publishes in such journals, is that it
wouldn't be--at least not in any reasonably good conventional journal.
Rothbard is a nonentity from the standpoint of 98%+ of the economics
profession, and an article correcting misstatements in a book by him that
almost nobody has read simply wouldn't be considered worth publishing.
Which is why I also assumed that it would have to be an Austrian journal.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
David Friedman
Lithium von Chloride) wrote (responding to James Donald):
> And your blather about polemics is insanely nonsensical. All
> libertarians who argue for their philosophy are polemicists by defult.
> You are a polemicist, David Friedman is a polemicist, and I am a
> polemicist. Indeed, all philosophical positions are necessarily
> polemical in nature.
I think you are using "polemical" in a broader sense than James is,
although I could be wrong. I took it that in his usage a polemicist is not
merely someone who is trying to persuade people of something, but someone
for whom the objective of persuasion has priority over such sometimes
conflicting objectives as telling the truth, presenting relevant evidence
even when it cuts the wrong way, and the like.
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>In article <381b76e...@news.mco.bellsouth.net>, n...@homex.com (Count
>Lithium von Chloride) wrote (responding to James Donald):
>> And your blather about polemics is insanely nonsensical. All
>> libertarians who argue for their philosophy are polemicists by defult.
>> You are a polemicist, David Friedman is a polemicist, and I am a
>> polemicist. Indeed, all philosophical positions are necessarily
>> polemical in nature.
>I think you are using "polemical" in a broader sense than James is,
>although I could be wrong.
I am using the word in the only senses that I'm aware exist for it.
polemic, adj., 1 of or involving dispute; controversial. 2
argumentative; disputatious.
polemical, n., 1 an argument or controversial discussion. 2 a person
inclined to engage in argument or disputation.
polemicist, n., a person skilled, or inclined to engage, in polemics.
--Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition
>I took it that in his usage a polemicist is not
>merely someone who is trying to persuade people of something, but someone
>for whom the objective of persuasion has priority over such sometimes
>conflicting objectives as telling the truth, presenting relevant evidence
>even when it cuts the wrong way, and the like.
Then he should have stated such, or proffered his own unique
definition of "polemic." But he did niether, so I assumed he meant
what he wrote.
And if indeed that was his meaning, then he should at least have
offered an argument for applying it to Rothbard. Otherwise I might
have to conclude that he was being shiftless again. Whereas the
standard definition of polemicist obviously applies to Rothbard as
well as all libertarians who argue for their position.
Upon these considerations, it is more favorable for Donald's
standpoint to conclude that he was using "polemicist" in the normal
sense of the word.
Count Lithium von Chloride
wrote:
>> > Rothbard is a polemicist. A polemicist may be a great educator,
>> > but to be a great intellectual innovator, he must lay polemics
>> > aside.
>> > When one is reviving ideas that have been unjustly neglected, and
>> > wrongfully ridiculed, a polemical approach is often a good idea,
>> > but in any polemical tract, one should always claim to be reviving
>> > unjustly neglected ideas, rather than originating them, even if in
>> > reality one is making a significant novel contribution, by
>> > updating those ideas to meet present circumstances.
>On Sun, 31 Oct 1999 00:26:18 GMT, n...@homex.com (Count Lithium von
>Chloride) wrote:
>> This is rich. You must make this stuff up as you go along, as it is
>> clear that you have no clue as to what you're talking about.
>> Rothbard himself was very modest about his own contribution, and
>> took pains to emphisize the historical developement of ideas by
>> others.
>> And your blather about polemics is insanely nonsensical. All
>> libertarians who argue for their philosophy are polemicists by
>> defult. You are a polemicist, David Friedman is a polemicist, and I
>> am a polemicist. Indeed, all philosophical positions are necessarily
>> polemical in nature.
>You might try reading what I wrote before criticizing it. Your
>criticism has no apparent connection with my words. It looks to me as
>if you saw the words "Rothbard is a polemicist", and stopped reading
>right away.
No. Rather, it is precisely because I did read what you wrote that I
was able to offer the insightful critique of it that I did. Your anger
stems, not from my not having read what you wrote, but from my calling
you on it.
Nor is your criticism even credible, as I practically gave a
line-by-line critique of what you wrote--of which you do not dispute.
>> > If one presents novel or purportedly novel ideas polemically, one
>> > is seeking guru status, intentionally and unintentionally, and all
>> > gurus are full of shit, and if there is any good in them, their
>> > followers lose sight of that good, and it is corrupted and
>> > forgotten.
>> I am sensing some deep-seated hostility toward gurus comming from
>> you that cannot be rationally explained. At least it explains your
>> issue with Rothbard.
>This implies that you acknowledge that Rothbard is a guru, something
>that you denied a few lines ago.
Of course Rothbard is a guru in the dictionary sense that I gave. Nor
have I ever "denied" that. But to even bother to state this is to
indulge in the obvious, and to deny it would be akin to cavilling over
the blueness of the sky.
But what of it? As I alreadly demonstrated, one's status as a guru has
no bearing on the correctness or incorrectness of their philosophy, or
anything else that they did in their life for that matter. To assume
that it does is to reverse the causal relationship. Quite simply put,
your hostility toward gurus is illogical.
>I have throughout this thread repeatedly given a rational explanation
>why no honest person should seek to be a guru, and why one should
>never thrust gurudom upon those one admires, but rather clearly you
>have not been reading my words.
One need not seek gurudom in order to become a guru. One's status as a
guru depends not on one's own actions, but on the actions of others.
Once again you have managed to confuse the order of the causal
relationship.
guru, n., 2 any leader highly regarded by a group of followers:
sometimes used derisivley
--Webster's New World Dictionary, Third College Edition
>Therefore I will return the favor, and refrain from reading your
>words.
Tisk, tisk. Like I said, I read your words, so you wouldn't thereby be
returning any favor. Maybe what you should do, instead of getting
upset over your imagined chimera, is actually respond to my critique
of the absurdity of what you wrote--of which you have conspicuously
failed to do, despite your boisterous protestations. You just might
learn something.
David Friedman
<nob...@replay.com> wrote:
> Instead, Friedman put most of his energy into mounting a shrill attack on
> Rothbard. Specifically, some of the more offensive things he did was to
> attack a straw-man (falsely attributing to me and Rothbard the view that
> Richard Cantillon was a free-trader), to poison the well against Rothbard
> (declaring Rothbard's book to be a "hatchet job" before he even read it),
> to overtly quote Cantillon out of context (presumably to mock Rothbard for
> his treatment of Smith), and to engage in a character assassination against
> me (repeatedly insinuating that I was not going to deviate from Rothbard's
> interpretation in spite of whatever evidence he presented).
>
> The last of these, the character assassination campaign, drove me to
> conclude that David was too obsessed with his grudge against Rothbard to
> make any further exchanges with him worthwhile:
I suggest that anyone who finds this convincing go back and check the
thread for himself--and offer the same suggestion to Vincent. I attributed
the view that Cantillon was a free trader to Vincent and to Rothbard on
the basis of Vincent's posting, then corrected the error after I had read
Rothbard and found that he did not make that claim--Vincent never
responded to the post in which I pointed out which of his posts was the
basis for my belief that he was claiming that Cantillon was a free trader.
I concluded that Rothbard's discussion of Smith was a hatchet job on the
basis of Vincent's posts, which Vincent said were based on Rothbard's
book--and I found adequate confirmation for that conclusion when I was
able to locate a copy of the book and see for myself.
So far as I can tell, Vincent is simply unwilling to either defend the
historical assertions that he made and I disputed, or to concede that they
are false and draw the obvious conclusion that Rothbard, the source
Vincent was relying on, is not to be trusted. He prefers instead to
complain that I engaged in character assassination by proposing that he
should actually read the people he was posting assertions about himself,
and reconsider his opinion of Rothbard on that basis.
So far as I know Vincent's only grounds for thinking I quoted Cantillon
out of context was my warning that I was giving a biased selection of
quotes--Vincent doesn't seem, on the evidence of the thread, to have
actually read any of the people he was posting assertions about, aside
from Rothbard. I don't think any of my quotes of Cantillon were out of
context, although I could have made him look better by including other
quotes that showed his views in a more attractive light. Rothbard's
assertions about Smith, on the other hand ... .
--
David Friedman
www.best.com/~ddfr/