I’m hesitant to read anyone else before I internalize Rothbard, for fear of damaging my fragile, pure-so-far, newly hardcore libertarian brain… So I’m turning specifically you guys for advice because I’ve read a lot of your posts, and I like how uncompromising you are with the pure ideology of liberty.
Can you – Sage, Stranger, or liberty student – recommend any authors as ultra-pure and hardcore as Rothbard? It seems like he recommends Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, who both seem pretty consistent and hardcore so far. If the aim is purity and consistency of the libertarian ideology, is there anyone else even worth reading after I’ve read TEoL 3 times, FaNL twice, The Case Against the Fed, What has Government Done to Our Money, The Case for a 100% Gold Dollar, much of Concieved in Liberty Volume one, and am trying to power through MES+PM with the study guide?
Mises was a great guy, no doubt, but Rothbard himself constantly talks about how Mises was a non-libertarian utilitarian. I appreciate the suggestion, I might check out Roderick Long and Hoppe. But I’d prefer to wait until Sage, Stranger, and liberty student can place their stamp of approval on their status as pure, strict, hardcore libertarians. Maybe authors can be ranked on a scale from 1-------Rothbard. Rothbard being pure and strict just property rights. 1 being Bernanke or Nozick.
They’d recommend the authors I did… they’re not the only ones here capable of voicing an opinion as to who is an ideological epigone of Rothbard… and if you wish to comprehend Rothbard’s own work better I suggest you read Mises.
Irenicus is very qualified to offer his opinion, as are many others. It’s nice that you think so much of Stranger, Sage and I, but many other people here are as well, if not better read, if they aren’t as vocal in the discussions.
I will second Jon and say Hoppe and Long should be on your list if you are compelled to get into Mises. Hoppe is considered somewhat of a right libertarian and Long a left libertarian. Both of them have interesting and powerful ideas about human liberty. They won’t agree on everything however, so you will be looking at having to choose your own definition of pure and strict.
To me, being radical is about keeping it simple and being able to look at things through my lense. There are good ideas from all of these folks, synthesizing those ideas into something you can understand and live with can only be done at an individual level however.
First, I would suggest going through the articles listed here.
Then there’s the “Big Three”: For A New Liberty - Murray Rothbard, The Machinery of Freedom - David Friedman, The Market For Liberty - Morris and Linda Tannehill.
Next is “The Motherlode”: Anarchy and the Law - Edward Stringham (Ed.)
There’s a bunch of books on hardcore libertarianism. To list a few:
The Myth of National Defense - Hans-Hermann Hoppe (Ed.)
Democracy: The God That Failed - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
The Enterprise of Law - Bruce Benson
Uncle Sam the Monopoly Man - William C. Wooldridge
The State - Anthony de Jasay
A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism - Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Anarchism/Minarchism: Is a Government Part of a Free Country? - Roderick Long/Tibor Machan (Eds.)
But don’t limit your reading to political economy. As Long writes:
For Rothbard, as for his mentor Ludwig von Mises, one could not hope to understand current political problems without a grasp of history, one could not understand history without knowing economic theory, one could not understand economic theory without investigating such philosophical matters as epistemological apriorism and the nature of agency, and so on.
Also, I wouldn’t be too concerned about purity and consistency. If someone is inconsistent, then their arguments are wrong, and you learn from that. But they probably also have important things to say that you should learn from. For instance, Mises was a utilitarian, but libertarians don’t believe that consequences have no weight whatsoever; so he should still be very high on your reading list (Hell, he’s considered the greatest economist of the 20th century).
I guess when I say pure and strict I mean uncompromising of the beliefs in the natural law rights of person and just property. I mean authors who hate the state because they love justice, and just property rights. My goal is to cite other authors, without watering down a strict natural law stance – seeing as I’m still forming it – in the process.
Sage, your topic From Minarchism to Anarchism in Ten Easy Steps is where I gained respect for you and liberty student and Stranger. I understand that I can learn from all authors, whether they are right or wrong, but in my new and fragile state (no pun intended), I want to build a strict foundation from which to determine “right” and “wrong”. I desire varied arguments against all types of non-liberty, from a variety of strict authors.
Thanks for all your input. After reading your replies, my list looks like this:
Murray Rothbard; Benjamin Tucker; Lysander Spooner; Hans Hoppe; Roderick Long; Lew Rockwell
As for Tom Woods, he’s smart and funny, and definitely knows his history, but he seems like the compromising “libertarian” Rothbard warns of: The person who worships Ron Paul’s stupid idea of minarchism, who sees the failures of the state from a free-market perspective, but doesn’t necessarily hate it by principle and with a fiery passion.
Because he always talks about how awesome Ron Paul is and the C4L, both anti-libertarian failures in my eyes. Every time I think of how RP is wrecking the liberty movement I want to throw up. Every time I think of how the C4L is wrecking the liberty movement, i DO throw up!
An updated list:
Murray Rothbard; Benjamin Tucker; Lysander Spooner; Hans Hoppe; Roderick Long; Lew Rockwell; Albert J. Nock; H.L. Mencken, Frank Chodorov
Questionables: Thomas Paine; Patrick Henry; Richard Cobden.
Well Ron Paul did shed light on the Austrian school of economics on a national scale and being a politician that is something. Sure Ron Paul can work on his social policies, but at least he is sound on economics. Thomas Woods is by all means an honorable writer and theorist and I recommend him. Take it or leave it.
o.O my aunt gave me a book by him about the Catholic Church for my confirmation recently, but I never really read it because I’m not really into religion and that sort of thing. Maybe I’ll check it out now though.
Now might be a good time to point out that libertarianism is not a religion (interesting name, by the way.) A person can be an anarchist and appreciate Ron Paul’s work to stop the growth of the state. Only in religion is disagreement on the means absolutely prohibited. You’re speaking, if I may say so, with the earnestness of a new convert. There’s a lot to learn from a lot of people, and there’s a lot more to libertarianism than a set of political positions. Rothbard would not be happy, I’m pretty sure, to see Mises denigrated - if Rothbard saw further, it was because he stood on the shoulders of a giant.