What would you all recommend as 3-5 of the best books by Rothbard or Mises?
Here’s an excellent essay by Rothbard that I recently happened across. “Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty”
It’s found in Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays.
In it, Rothbard discusses the big picture of history, and where liberty is to be properly located, as well as the prospect of liberty going forward. He also discusses modern history, and where on the political spectrum Libertartianism is to be placed. In his discussion on modern history, Rothbard discusses the Fascism—literally—which has overtaken the American economy, beginning in the WWI era, and expanding with the New Deal, culminating in the military-industrial complex. It’s a penetrating essay on several levels, and in my view, very important to a proper understanding of history, freedom, and the state of the modern world.
Rothbard:
For a New Liberty
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature
The Ethics of Liberty
*Man, Economy & State (*with Power and Market)
Mises:
Liberalism
Human Action
Socialism
Bureaucracy
Theory and History
Liberalism is the English language translation of the German language original. Ralph Raico did the translation.
Mises’ Profit and Loss deserves to be shoehorned into any list.
Liberalism is probably Mises his worst book, tbh.
Obviously; for Mises; you want to read Human Action, Socialism and Theory and History. If you are interested in methodology; I would also advise the ultimate foundation of economic science.
Rothbard is a bit more difficult. His MES Is in general good economics. His Ethics of Liberty, however, is to philosophy what economics in one lesson is to economics; so if you like a general overview, than this might do. For a New Liberty is more like the workings of an anarchist society; which is interesting. The essays in egalitarianism aren’t that scholarly; but sort of funny and/or interesting nonetheless.
I wouldn’t recommend Rothbard his history of economic thought, because he’s in general a bit sloppy.
I am always interested in history of thought-type stuff. I’ve read brief parts of Rothbard. When you say it’s “a bit sloppy”, do you mean sloppy as in “difficult to read/follow” or sloppy as in “likely/undoubtedly innacurate” ?
thanks.
I think you forgot to include your reply.
Actually, I didn’t. But there is something seriously fucked up with this forum that just deletes comments and all. Why do we have two places to write in, anyway?
Anyway; what I wanted to say: Rothbard isn’t that reliable as a historian; you can’t know for sure of the person he attributes a certain position too, really holds that position.
Thanks. This has been my (anecdotal) impression as well. He seems to be of an intellectual type (i.e. Rothbard’s not the first) who foregoes carefulness in research and analysis, in trade for breadth. It’s frustrating, as a (potential) reader because, clearly, there is value in the material—yet burdensome to extract that value.
With all respect to Rothbard. I respect much of his work (i.e. of that which I’ve read), but with some caveats applied periodically, unfortunately. Not that I’m some expert intellectual.
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
Concerning my book choices:
Mises: Theory and History, Socialism
Rothbard: Ethics of Liberty, For A New Liberty, History of Economic Thought
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
<= So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held?
Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; I tend to agree. If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian. However; this, obviously, doesn’t prove in itself that he made mistakes pertaining the ideas he discussed; but some mistakes he made are already documented.
If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all!
He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).
Now again; these aren’t very convincing points taken individually; but they do, imo, raise some serious doubts wether or not we can trust his book on historical accuracy. I have no idea which book would be better; but I did heard some good things on Schumpeter his economic thought. I’m not saying I’m endorsing that either, cause I haven’t read it. But it does get mentioned a wee bit more.
I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
<= So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held?
Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; I tend to agree. If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian. However; this, obviously, doesn’t prove in itself that he made mistakes pertaining the ideas he discussed; but some mistakes he made are already documented.
If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all!
He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).
Now again; these aren’t very convincing points taken individually; but they do, imo, raise some serious doubts wether or not we can trust his book on historical accuracy. I have no idea which book would be better; but I did heard some good things on Schumpeter his economic thought. I’m not saying I’m endorsing that either, cause I haven’t read it. But it does get mentioned a wee bit more.
I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
<= So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held?
Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; I tend to agree. If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian. However; this, obviously, doesn’t prove in itself that he made mistakes pertaining the ideas he discussed; but some mistakes he made are already documented.
If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all!
He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).
Now again; these aren’t very convincing points taken individually; but they do, imo, raise some serious doubts wether or not we can trust his book on historical accuracy. I have no idea which book would be better; but I did heard some good things on Schumpeter his economic thought. I’m not saying I’m endorsing that either, cause I haven’t read it. But it does get mentioned a wee bit more.
I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
<= So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held?
Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; I tend to agree. If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian. However; this, obviously, doesn’t prove in itself that he made mistakes pertaining the ideas he discussed; but some mistakes he made are already documented.
If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all!
He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).
Now again; these aren’t very convincing points taken individually; but they do, imo, raise some serious doubts wether or not we can trust his book on historical accuracy. I have no idea which book would be better; but I did heard some good things on Schumpeter his economic thought. I’m not saying I’m endorsing that either, cause I haven’t read it. But it does get mentioned a wee bit more.
I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?
Yes, you can. It’s in the work cited section. Also know as a bibliography. If that is not allowed then you can at least research the individual he refers to and read his work. That is actually what historians generally do. It’s called ‘cross referencing.’ What other complaints do you have? Perhaps I can retort to those too so you no longer sully Rothbard’s image as historian.
<= So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held?
Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; I tend to agree. If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian. However; this, obviously, doesn’t prove in itself that he made mistakes pertaining the ideas he discussed; but some mistakes he made are already documented.
If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all!
He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).
Now again; these aren’t very convincing points taken individually; but they do, imo, raise some serious doubts wether or not we can trust his book on historical accuracy. I have no idea which book would be better; but I did heard some good things on Schumpeter his economic thought. I’m not saying I’m endorsing that either, cause I haven’t read it. But it does get mentioned a wee bit more.
I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?
'So, whenever Rothbard attributes a certain position to an author, it’s my job as the reader to check wether or not the position was actually held by the person as such? I thought the job of an historian is to make sure that, at least in general, he gives a good picture of the position the author under discussion held? ’
Yes. Welcome to the world of being a proficient scholar. Again, historians do this. It is called ‘peer-review.’
'Gene Callahan has documented - imo convincing - that Rothbard just isn’t reliable as a historian of economic thought. Someone else has called him a ‘ideological motivated historian’; ’
This is a tired argument of total objectivity in the social sciences. One cannot be unmotivated by preference values in terms of the analysis of history. One requires a theoritical framework in order to understand the transpiring of human action. Thymology is neccessary in the analysis of history.
’ If you read, for example, his slander on J.S. Mill, or the personal cheap shots at Marx, or some bibliographical notes who go undocumented; it’s hard to take him serious as a historian.’
And where are such examples of undocumented notes? Disliking a figure in history does not make you a bad historian.
'If you look at, for example, the discussion on Hegel, he doesn’t refer to Hegel only once in his bibliography; to a so called anthology! And in the footnotes in the chapter, there is no reference to an original work of Hegel at all! ’
Actually if you read his notes carefully you can realize that he got primary source quotes from a secondary source, specifically Raymond Plant. That constitutes a primary source document.
‘He quotes Popper extensively; but Popper isn’t really been taken serious on Hegel, for breaking the rules of intellectual honesty (quoting wrong and such).’
What does this mean? Rothbard doesn’t take Popper seriously on Hegel therefore he is dishonest? What quotes is he using incorrectly? I am certain someone on this forum has a copy of Popper’s Open Society book. You can tell them the quote and they can get their books an cross reference it.
‘I’ll ask you the same question: did you cross-reference and all and came to the conclusion that Rothbard is a trustworthy writer? Do you have enough knowledge on the history of economic ideas to determine wether or not he’s trustworthy? Did you do the research?’
I wouldn’t be much of a historian if I accepted every word from an individual. Did I come to all the same conclusions as Rothbard in every regard, obviously not. However, there is a difference between interpretation and calling someone sloppy in their citations and use of quotations.
I’m saying that Popper his analysis of Hegel isn’t really been taken seriously by anyone. Popper quoted Hegel incorrectly.
And yes; he uses secondary sources for quotes and assessments… You find that a good way of doing historical research?
Interesting that you mention peer-review; has Rothbard’s book/opinions been peer reviewed? Or is it the work of a ‘lone’ scholar who published something without his peers in the history of economic thought having a look at it?
By the way; again; what you are saying is an argument against Rothbard’s book. Because if we have to check it every time, it means that he isn’t trustworthy as a historian. When I advise a book to someone, I want to make sure that I endorse (at least) the bulk of it. But that’s just not possible with Rothbard’s history of economic thought. To much sloppiness on the parts I do know some stuff about; how can I trust the parts where I didn’t know that much about? Why not advise a book then that has credentials and was reviewed by it’s peers?
http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2010/09/say-what-murray.html (Ignore the fact that Gene doesn’t like Rothbard at all and has no problem in letting people know that. The point he makes is, sees to me, valid.)
Why are you defending on Rothbard so hard? Would you consider his books on economic history an accurate piece of work?
‘And yes; he uses secondary sources for quotes and assessments… You find that a good way of doing historical research?’
It’s considered a primary source document in that regard. That is the way of doing historical research. Accumulating and disseminating primary sources while providing reinforcement with secondary sources.
'Interesting that you mention peer-review; has Rothbard’s book/opinions been peer reviewed? Or is it the work of a ‘lone’ scholar who published something without his peers in the history of economic thought having a look at it? ’
Yes, monographs are sent out by publishers to individuals who are knowledgeable in the specific field before the book is published.
‘By the way; again; what you are saying is an argument against Rothbard’s book. Because if we have to check it every time, it means that he isn’t trustworthy as a historian’
It’s not an argument against it. If you are a serious scholar then you should be checking source material.
‘When I advise a book to someone, I want to make sure that I endorse (at least) the bulk of it’
How you feel about a book is pointless compared to the information, specifically source material, within the book. Have you not heard the tale of H.L. Mencken’s publication of ‘A Neglected Anniversary’? The history of the bath tub hoax perhaps?
‘To much sloppiness on the parts I do know some stuff about’
Which you have no specified and that which you have, I have retorted to without answer.
‘http://gene-callahan.blogspot.com/2010/09/say-what-murray.html’
The Political Economy by Sismondi on the marxist.org website. If you look at the quote. Rothbard said he had ‘socialistic views’
'Why are you defending on Rothbard so hard? Would you consider his books on economic history an accurate piece of work? ’
Why are you slandering him so hard? You say he is sloppy because he does not cite a witty tale of Sismondi in a combined work of over 1000 pages.
I don’t want to play this game, so I’ll leave it at that.
How droll. When pressed on the subject, it suddenly starts to become a game.
The game that is al to common on internet discussions: going back and forth, both accusing the other of talking past one another, etc. I’ve given my (small) problems with Rothbard, you have defended your case. The reader can assess what he thinks of it. If you feel you’ve adequately defended him, then there won’t be a problem, right?