Dogmatism is an attitude.
Like the Rolex ad.
Thanks Giles I’ll check them out as time allows. My final strict natural law just property rights author list is as follows:
Murray Rothbard; Benjamin Tucker; Lysander Spooner; Hans Hoppe; Roderick Long; Lew Rockwell; Albert J. Nock; H.L. Mencken
Are Hans Hoppe, Roderick Long, Albert Nock, or H.L. Mencken at all minarchists or anything else besides strict libertarians? Have I missed any strict libertarians?
Tucker probably isn’t worth looking at (although, some of the leftists here may disagree). Rockwell, Nock, Mencken haven’t written much on natural law to my knowledge (that doesn’t mean they’re not worth reading). Hoppe isn’t a natural law philosopher, but has done work on libertarian ethics (here), Kinsella has also done work in the same line as Hoppe ( here).
With regards to natural law, as Jon suggested, check out Roderick Long (here), Douglas Rasmussen and Den Uyl (here, here, here, here and here), Henry Veatch (here, here, here and here). Also look at Aristotle and Aquinas.
Well said.
Nock and Mencken (and Chodorv) were big influences on Rothbard.
You must add Robert LeFevre.
Most people don’t. Not the way that you want to. The OP is spelling out what he has an interest in. People must learn to recognize a customer demand, and put aside their own dogmatic beliefs to serve that individual. Either that, or folks need to develop a lot more sophistication socially, so that they can lead people where they want them to go.
Telling someone their interests are too narrow or dogmatic misses the entire point IMO. Being pushy is a turnoff no matter who is doing it. But amongst libertarians, who cannot agree on anything, it is collaborative suicide.
Good thing, I’m no libertarian. I don’t really care what his intentions are, if he wants to understand Rothbard, reading more than Rothbard is a must (and, I suppose, as any good Austrian would, something Rothbard would advocate)
“Advancing the scholarship of liberty in the tradition of the Austrian school”
Heard that before?
As I said, it’s fine if he wants to learn Rothbard, that’s fine, he can learn Rothbard. But there are two ways going about it, the first is that he reads Rothbard, the authors that agree with Rothbard, whilst dismissing any deviations from him (and as you know, in the case of Rothbard, that can get messy) and agreeing with Rothbard, irrespective of whether he is correct.
On the other hand, he can read Rothbard, he can read authors within the Austrian tradition alongside those outside it and find out with whom is in agreement. This means reading Austrians such as Hoppe as well as Austrians such as Garrison and Horwitz, even if he entirely disagrees with them. It also means he might have to invest in a neoclassical textbook and educate himself wrt neoclassicism (which is key if you want to understand Rothbard anyway).
Now, if he wants to go the first route, that’s fine, just don’t be suprised when he finds out he really doesn’t know much economics at all, and is missing out on a load of really interesting stuff.
You didn’t put this on your list. It’s a strict interpretation of natural rights. It’s an essay dedicated to that.
I have to agree with Giles here, regardless if ROTHBARD is all the OP wants, it is going to leave him handicapped, if only in the respect that he will never be prepared for contrary argument that he is faced with, it is one of the reasons I am uncomfortable with specialization, I feel the general knowledge base should be presented to him to at least consider as a good idea to know…
That’s paternalism which is a bad habit libertarians fall in to.
The OP can do substantially worse than spending the rest of his life being focused exclusively on Rothbard, but we’re supposed to be a bit wiser than the average statist and be able to acknowledge that it’s unlikely the OP will feel the same way 2 years from now that he feels today.
He’s already here, asking to broaden his horizons beyond Rothbard, but still within a particular focus.
We can’t serve people if we don’t learn how to listen.
If Rothbardian “purity,” is what you’re looking for, scratch Nock, Mencken, and Tucker’s later writings off the list for sure-- probably some of the others should go as well depending on how much similarity to Rothbard you’re looking for. It’s funny to me though since Nock and Mencken are possibly my two favourite authors.
It is not paternalism to suggest that he read beyond strict Rothbard…
I do understand the point, despite the fact that I think it is good to at least suggest, not misrepresent the material mind you, but suggest some things a little outside what he is specifically looking for, if he chooses not to, then it is his choice…
Ron Paul is THE reason I am a Rothbardian Libertarian now. If it were not for his campaign, and his suggested reading material, I probably would not have discovered Mises, Rothbard, or any of the great Libertarians and Austrian economists.
Squabbles among Libertarians should not dissolve into anger and hatred. All Libertarians strive to move in the correct direction towards Liberty, but effort to travel in that direction is incessantly distracted by petty squabbles over how far in the agreed direction we should travel. In practicality, such decisions are irrelevant until we have reached our first stop. We can discuss such matters as we travel, so long as it does not distract us.
It is good to be a purist and stand firmly by your beliefs. But it is not good to refuse to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with you on the slightest ideological aspect. Work together to achieve your similar goals, and come to your dissimilar goals when there is nothing left to cooperate on.
If you care, Rothbard agreed with this, as you can see from the conclusion of For a New Liberty. And he has specifically shown his support for Ron Paul on several occasions. If you dismiss Thomas Woods as a Ron Paul supporter, go ahead and dismiss Rothbard as well.
So…if the list must be only strict natural law libertarians, must Nock, Mencken, and Tucker go? This is not to say that they talk about natural rights constantly, but that they adhere strictly to the implications of natural rights law i.e. Rockwell. If Douglas Rasmussen and Robert LeFevre are added the list looks like this:
Murray Rothbard; Benjamin Tucker; Lysander Spooner; Hans Hoppe; Roderick Long; Lew Rockwell; Albert J. Nock; H.L. Mencken; Douglas Rasmussen; Robert LeFevre
@Giles: I am intensely interested in economics. I am studying MES+PM with its study guide and I can’t imagine how I can possibly not know economics by studying Rothbard’s magnum opus, which built upon and improved Mises’ magnum opus, who both built upon and improved the entire lineup of previous austrian economists. Personal dislikes aside, is Rothbard wrong at all? He says that he starts with an axiom (i.e. “humans act”), and proceeds with proper logic to derive implications from that axiom. If the implications are derived logically, they must necessarily hold as much truth as the original axiom.
I’m not only interested in Rothbard. Obviously, that’s why I started this topic. I’m interested in pure libertarians. With a pure foundation, I can build an unshakable castle. Question in point: Has Rothbard been proved wrong? What makes you think he’s so overrated? It seems like he starts with axioms, and derives facts from them. He takes the knowledge of countless geniuses, and improves upon that. How is he wrong?
The leader of individualist anarchism in America in the late 19th century (as well as the 1st person to translate Frederich Neitzsche and Max Stirner in America), who promoted propertarian anarchism a century before Rothbard and without which there would not have been an easily accesible and archived publication of individualist anarchist material in America for decades, isn’t worth looking at? [:O] Who are you to lecture people about dogmatic bias?
Giles’ Rothbard slander seems bizarre to me, but hey, I am willing to admit that I am not so well-read myself.. I don’t understand the philosophical standpoint by which Giles wants to write off Rothbard’s work TBH. I agree with him and like what he has to say many times, but I would take what he says with a grain of salt. Read whatever the fuck you want and don’t be afraid of engaging criticism because your knowledge of theory is useless without movement. (thinly veiled Rothbard quote)
He is a very good scholar.
Giles, you there? Or, if you admit his correctness, what makes other less consistent writers (hayek, nozick) MORE correct/important than Rothbard? I don’t pledge blind alleigance to him; I am convinced he is an absolute brainiac genius, who cites a wider variety of sources, and has a more comprehensive knowledge of a wider variety of fields than almost any intellectual of the last century or any time around it. Further, he doesn’t claim anything not backed by a trail of proprositions, themselves backed by the original axiom, or much without considering all manner of challenges to his point and crushing them before expanding on said point. What do you think Giles?
I highly recommend it. If I were an educational statist, I would want it to be required reading to counter the pervasive myths about the Medieval Catholic Church.
Other good revisionist histories of the middle ages are the Medieval Machine by Jean Gimpel and Aristotle’s Children by Richard Rubenstein. The first chapter of Rothbard’s Conceived in Liberty is also enlightening, as well as his chapters on the Medieval Scholastic economists in his history of economic thought.
I’ve come to the conclusion that everything good about the modern world has been an extension of movements characteristic of the middle ages. And everything bad about the modern world has come from a rejection or reversal of movements characteristic of the middle ages.
How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization can be found in the religion section at Borders, and read for free over a coffee in their cafe. I doubt they have Borders in Australia, though, so I guess that’s not much help to you personally.