David Friedman on Rothbard

Miscellaneous General
41

I honestly don’t understand the logic behind Friedman’s rebuttal. It is plainly factual that government grew tremendously under Ronald Reagan, even if not adjusted for the rate of inflation. Everybody knows this. Rothbard is not pointing out some startling new fact. What government programs did Reagan abolish? None. What regulations did he remove? Very few (as most of the industries Reagan is credited with deregulating were actually deregulated under Carter).

The truth is that Reagan failed to accomplish his nearly all his election pledges – balanced budgets, real cuts in spending (not reductions in the rate of increased spending), an end to the federal welfare state (which expanded under Reagan), tax cuts (though Reagan did cut the highest tax rates, he raised taxes on everyone else), abolition of the Department of Education, a return to the gold standard, and a battle with inflation (both of Reagan’s Fed chairmen inflated the money supply – especially in 82-84 to help Reagan’s re-election chances). Let’s not forget that Reagan also saved Social Security, ramped up the drug war, and engaged in multiple imperial adventures.

In defending Reagan, Friedman sounds like the typical Reaganite – rationalizing the Gipper’s profligate spending by veiling it in nonsense about government spending rising less than the rate of inflation or as a smaller percentage of GDP. In fact, I recently read an article by Lawrence Kudlow, certainly no friend to libertarianism, spewing nearly the same arguments as Friedman.

The truth is that Friedman cannot be trusted, and he has always hated Rothbard because of Rothbard’s criticisms of his father. Friedman finds tiny, insignificant points in Rothbard’s work and incorrectly nitpicks them – especially concerning Adam Smith – while ignoring Rothbard’s overall argument. Rothbard’s overall argument about Reagan is that Reagan employed libertarian rhetoric to win elections but rarely pursued libertarian policies because Reagan’s true passion, as well as his religious followers’ passion, was not freedom but a holy crusade against sin and a swaggering confrontation with the Soviet Union. A cursory study of Reagan’s political career will reveal the validity of this argument. But Friedman ignores this cogent argument and nitpicks – inaccurately – one of Rothbard’s minor points.

It is a sad day when a libertarian defends socialist, theocrat, and warmonger Ronald Reagan, dismissing those who criticize him of being fooled by Rothbard in hating someone we’re supposed to hate.

42

Another point – I am tired of people on this board who obviously know very little about history criticizing Rothbard’s vast knowledge of history. Rothbard knew more about history than most historians. Anyone who possesses some knowledge of American history will realize the incredible breadth of Rothbard’s knowledge in this area. I would encourage those who doubt me to read Rothbard’s review of an American history textbook in Strictly Confidential.

43

Where does Friedman defend Reagan? Where does Friedman say that government did not grow under Reagan?

It’s very simple. Rothbard used nominal budget figures to argue that the government has grown under Reagan. Friedman objected that this figure exaggerates the increase in the budget, possibly even misrepresenting the actual growth or decline in the federal budget. Friedman is right: Rothbard wasn’t being completely honest in presenting his case. Maybe you agree with Rothbard that the ends justify the means in this case and it wins over more people to libertarianism, which is most definitely good. I agree with Friedman that honesty and straightforwardness is the best policy.

Rothbard could be loose with facts and just what he reveals to his readers. That shouldn’t be controversial, nor should it detract from his solid work.

44

“Friedman objected that this figure exaggerates the increase in the budget, possibly even misrepresenting the actual growth or decline in the federal budget.”

The point is that the budget didn’t decline. The argument Friedman presents is a red herring. He is pointing out an obscurity that could possibly exist, but doesn’t in reality, that is why he said that Rothbard “possibly correct” before he brought forth the evidence. Think if he said it in reverse. Rhetorically it is ineffective. Who is using their linguistic prowess…?

45

Whether the budget grew or fell in real terms does not matter. Friedman says exactly that. That is not his concern.

I threw that second clause in because it is also a valid point. The objection is that the nominal increase in the federal budget does not say as much as what Rothbard made it seem to say.

EDITed above

46

A correspondent points me at an old piece by Murray Rothbard criticizing me for my failure to hate the state, and asks for comment.
Rothbard’s basic point is correct.

End commentary on his arguments, commence commentary on him as a person.

I do not regard support for government as an act of willful evil but as an intellectual mistake; my arguments (and his) could be wrong, and some sort of government might be the least bad alternative among available human institutions.

Yeah, that’s great and neither did Rothbard.

"George writes as if citizen voting is constitutive, that is, that everytime we vote in an election this creates and constitutes the State. It is almost as if the State would not exist if we didn’t go out and vote. Nonsense! The State is there, and it gives us this area of partial choice with which to work. Even is everyone (except those running for office to work and their retainers) failed to vote, the State would keep rolling on.

There is one case, I believe, where a vote was constitutive in the United States: the vote for or against the Constitution. (Unfortunately, of course, the vote was not on the Constitution itself–it would have been beaten–but on delegates to state ratifying conventions.) Even though we did not have anarchism before, we had a much milder State, and anyone voting for the Constitution participated in the criminal act of setting up, instituting, a stronger government. Those who voted against the Constitution, on the other hand, were great." - Rothbard on morality of voting

Apart from that, I maintain that there have been no constitutive votes by citizens which should be considered criminal or illicit.

His response was that that was all right; because Reagan was responsible for the inflation, it was appropriate to use it to make his performance look worse.

“Since the beginning of the Reagan administration, the much heralded “cuts” in the officially dubbed “income-tax” segment of our payroll taxes have been more than offset by the rise in the “Social-Security” portion. But since the public has been conditioned into thinking that the Social Security tax is somehow not a tax, the Reagan-Bush administrations have been able to get away with their pose as heroic champions of tax cuts and resisters against the tax-raising inclinations of the evil Democrats.”

Think that through and he was saying that it was all right to misrepresent the evidence to his fellow libertarians as long as the result was to make them think badly of someone they should think badly of, to lead them to the correct conclusion for the wrong reason. I don’t regard that as a desirable approach to political (or other discussion). Or, for that matter, a libertarian one—we are generally opposed to fraud as well as force.

Well it doesn’t really come as a suprise you don’t know what fraud is / define it differently that Rothbard does - considering he actually has a theory of property, no?

“Under our proposed theory would fraud be actionable at law? Yes, because fraud is failure to fulfill a voluntarily agreed upon transfer of property, and is therefore implicit theft. If, for example, A sells to B a package which A says contains a radio, and it contains only a pile of scrap metal, then A has taken B’s money and not fulfilled the agreed upon conditions for such a transfer-the delivery of a radio. A has therefore stolen B’s property. The same applies to a failure to fulfill any product warranty. If, for example, the seller asserts that the contents of a certain package include 5 ounces of product X, and they do not do so, then the seller has taken money without fulfilling the terms of the contract; he has in effect stolen the buyer’s money. Once again, warranties of products would be legally enforceable, not because they are “promises,” but because they describe one of the entities of the agreed-upon contract. If the entity is not as the seller describes, then fraud and hence implicit theft have taken place.” - TEOL, Chapter 19 (Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts)

If you don’t subscribe to the property title transfer theory of property, I’d be interested in what theory of contracts you do hold to. And as a result, what you constitute / how you define fraud.

Your claim about "Or, for that matter, a libertarian one—we are generally opposed to fraud as well as force" imo, simply highlights your confusion about what libertarianism actually is. If you meant “intellectual fraud”, well rightio - well whoop di do - that has nothing directly to do with libertarianism, so why make the claim?

Really what I think it comes down, in terms of your approach - like father like son? - I think the below is fitting?

And states Hoppe (1997, 23):

To maintain that no such thing as a rational ethic exists does not imply “tolerance” and “pluralism,” as champions of positivism such as Milton Friedman falsely claim, and moral absolutism does not imply “intolerance” and “dictatorship.” To the contrary, without absolute values “tolerance” and “pluralism” are just other arbitrary ideologies, and there is no reason to accept them rather than any others such as cannibalism and slavery. Only if absolute values, such as a human right of self-ownership exist, that is, only if “pluralism” or “tolerance” are not merely among a multitude of tolerable values, can pluralism and tolerance in fact be safeguarded.

  1. “The Western State as a Paradigm: Learning from History.” in Paul Gottfried, ed., Politics and Regimes: Religion & Public Life, Vol. 30, Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

And: "I came across an exchange between Mr. Halliday, Walter Block and an editors note by Murray. The Libertarian Forum pdf from 1973_06. I agree with Blocks rebuttal, and Murray’s note:

“How about Professor Block’s second premise, that evil is only the initiation of violence? Here I think it is possible to partially reconcile the Block and Halliday positions. It is a question of what context we are dealing with. I would agree with Block that within the context of libertarian theory, evil must be confined to the initiation of violence. On the other hand, when we proceed from libertarianism to the question of wider social and personal ethics, then I would agree with Halliday that there are many other actions which should be considered as evil: lying, for example or deliberately failing to fulfill one’s best potential. But these are not matters about which liberty - the problem of the proper scope of violence - has anything to say. In short, qua libertarian there is nothing wrong or evil about breaking dates, being gratuitously nasty to one’s associates, or generally behaving like a cad: here not only do I join Professor Block, but I would expect Mr. Halliday and all other libertarians to do the same. On the other hand, qua general ethicist, I would join Mr. Halliday in denouncing such behavior, while Professor Block would not.”

Recently; “Block: I’m shocked that I ever wrote it. I don’t think I meant it. I agree, fully, with Murray.”

47

This may be way off topic, but what is your opinion on those Ron Paul newsletters? Did Rothbard really try to co-opt populist racists into the libertarian movement once upon a time?

48

Michael J Green:
Is it “obfuscating a principle” or trying to remain honest and precise in one’s arguments? His point is that Rothbard’s “principles” led Rothbard to be less than truthful and manipulate his audience, because the ends justify the means (a principle Rothbard nominally rejected).

His point is errorenous and so is yours.

Toward a Theory for Liberty

Hence, a strategy for liberty must not include any means which undercut or contradict the end itself-as gradualism-in-theory clearly does. Are we then saying that “the end justifies the means”? This is a common, but totally fallacious, charge often directed toward any group that advocates fundamental or radical social change. For what else but an end could possibly justify any means? The very concept of “means” implies that this action is merely an instrument toward arriving at an end. If someone is hungry, and eats a sandwich to alleviate his hunger, the act of eating a sandwich is merely a means to an end; its sole justification arises from its use as an end by the consumer. Why else eat the sandwich, or, further down the line, purchase it or its ingredients? Far from being a sinister doctrine, that the end justifies the means is a simple philosophic truth, implicit in the very relationship of “means” and “ends.”

What then, do the critics of the “end justifies the means” truly mean when they say that “bad means” can or will lead to “bad ends”? What they are really saying is that the means in question will violate other ends which the critics deem to be more important or more valuable than the goal of the group being criticized. Thus, suppose that Communists hold that murder is justified if it leads to a dictatorship by the vanguard party of the proletariat. The critics of such murder (or of such advocacy of murder) are really asserting, not that the “ends do not justify the means,” but rather that murder violates a more valuable end (to say the least), namely, the end of “not committing murder,” or nonaggression against persons. And, of course, from the libertarian point of view, the critics would be correct.

Coase:
Some might say that lying is unethical.

Indeed. Rothbard said it was evil. Except it has nothing to do with libertarianism, unless it involves interpersonal conflicts etc, breaking contract etc.

“Libertarianism is logically consistent with almost any attitude toward culture, society, religion, or moral principle. In strict logic, libertarian political doctrine can be severed from all other considerations; logically one can be - and indeed most libertarians in fact are: hedonists, libertines, immoralists, militant enemies of religion in general and Christianity in particular - and still be consistent adherents of libertarian politics. In fact, in strict logic, one can be a consistent devotee of property rights politically and be a moocher, a scamster, and a petty crook and racketeer in practice, as all too many libertarians turn out to be. Strictly logically, one can do these things, but psychologically, sociologically, and in practice, it simply doesn’t work that way.” ~ Big Government Libertarians, Rothbard

It is in the realm of personal ethics, not political philosophy.

49

“But these are not matters about which liberty - the problem of the proper scope of violence - has anything to say. In short, qua libertarian there is nothing wrong or evil about breaking dates, being gratuitously nasty to one’s associates, or generally behaving like a cad”

That is hilarious.

EDIT: It’s a good thing everyone has left this out, "Finally, I acknowledge full well that political anarchism is definitively breaking with the glorious anarchist tradition, especially the individualist-anarchist one. Well, so be it. As a rationalist, while I think tradition is important, I can’t let it be my guiding star"- Rothbard

http://wendymcelroy.com/print.php?news.2524

50

One thing that is a sad sad tradition among the social sciences is bitter bitter character assasination attempts, it really is digusting…be it Rothbard, Krugman or whoever. It is a silly feature to have, and I would bet the end resultt has made it much much harder to accomplish anything of merit

What is even more confounding is why in the hell would a libertarian put in such venom towards the like of Lachmann, Friedman, or Hayek. Honestly there are more productive ways to spend ones time than actually going for character assasinations on these guys, who agree or disagree with their science, should be looked at as character models when aproaching the social sciences.

51

Absolutely not. Sometimes your options suck, and you must choose one that is relatively preferable. For example: I can let my cancer eat away at my brain and surely die, or I can take this poison (chemo therapy) and maybe survive.

That reminds me of a good piece of psychology by Dostoyevsky.

A passage from The Idiot, chapter 2:::::- (

Yes–I saw an execution in France–at Lyons. Schneider took me over with him to see it."

“What, did they hang the fellow?”

“No, they cut off people’s heads in France.”

“What did the fellow do?–yell?”

“Oh no–it’s the work of an instant. They put a man inside a frame and a sort of broad knife falls by machinery -they call the thing a guillotine-it falls with fearful force and weight-the head springs off so quickly that you can’t wink your eye in between. But all the preparations are so dreadful. When they announce the sentence, you know, and prepare the criminal and tie his hands, and cart him off to the scaffold–that’s the fearful part of the business. The people all crowd round–even women- though they don’t at all approve of women looking on.”

“No, it’s not a thing for women.”

“Of course not–of course not!–bah! The criminal was a fine intelligent fearless man; Le Gros was his name; and I may tell you–believe it or not, as you like–that when that man stepped upon the scaffold he CRIED, he did indeed,–he was as white as a bit of paper. Isn’t it a dreadful idea that he should have cried --cried! Whoever heard of a grown man crying from fear–not a child, but a man who never had cried before–a grown man of forty-five years. Imagine what must have been going on in that man’s mind at such a moment; what dreadful convulsions his whole spirit must have endured; it is an outrage on the soul that’s what it is. Because it is said ‘thou shalt not kill,’ is he to be killed because he murdered some one else? No, it is not right, it’s an impossible theory. I assure you, I saw the sight a month ago and it’s dancing before my eyes to this moment. I dream of it, often.”

The prince had grown animated as he spoke, and a tinge of colour suffused his pale face, though his way of talking was as quiet as ever. The servant followed his words with sympathetic interest. Clearly he was not at all anxious to bring the conversation to an end. Who knows? Perhaps he too was a man of imagination and with some capacity for thought.

“Well, at all events it is a good thing that there’s no pain when the poor fellow’s head flies off,” he remarked.

“Do you know, though,” cried the prince warmly, "you made that remark now, and everyone says the same thing, and the machine is designed with the purpose of avoiding pain, this guillotine I mean; but a thought came into my head then: what if it be a bad plan after all? You may laugh at my idea, perhaps–but I could not help its occurring to me all the same. Now with the rack and tortures and so on–you suffer terrible pain of course; but then your torture is bodily pain only (although no doubt you have plenty of that) until you die. But HERE I should imagine the most terrible part of the whole punishment is, not the bodily pain at all–but the certain knowledge that in an hour,–then in ten minutes, then in half a minute, then now–this very INSTANT–your soul must quit your body and that you will no longer be a man-- and that this is certain, CERTAIN! That’s the point–the certainty of it. Just that instant when you place your head on the block and hear the iron grate over your head–then–that quarter of a second is the most awful of all.

“This is not my own fantastical opinion–many people have thought the same; but I feel it so deeply that I’ll tell you what I think. I believe that to execute a man for murder is to punish him immeasurably more dreadfully than is equivalent to his crime. A murder by sentence is far more dreadful than a murder committed by a criminal. The man who is attacked by robbers at night, in a dark wood, or anywhere, undoubtedly hopes and hopes that he may yet escape until the very moment of his death. There are plenty of instances of a man running away, or imploring for mercy–at all events hoping on in some degree–even after his throat was cut. But in the case of an execution, that last hope–having which it is so immeasurably less dreadful to die,–is taken away from the wretch and CERTAINTY substituted in its place! There is his sentence, and with it that terrible certainty that he cannot possibly escape death–which, I consider, must be the most dreadful anguish in the world. You may place a soldier before a cannon’s mouth in battle, and fire upon him–and he will still hope. But read to that same soldier his death-sentence, and he will either go mad or burst into tears. Who dares to say that any man can suffer this without going mad? No, no! it is an abuse, a shame, it is unnecessary–why should such a thing exist? Doubtless there may be men who have been sentenced, who have suffered this mental anguish for a while and then have been reprieved; perhaps such men may have been able to relate their feelings afterwards. Our Lord Christ spoke of this anguish and dread. No! no! no! No man should be treated so, no man, no man!”

Anyway, last post for real now, peace out.

52

I always found Rothbard’s propensity to attack any libertarian who disagreed with him annoying. I read him tough on Hayek, Kirzner (and even Konkin!), not to mention the Chicagoites. Regardless of whether he is right or wrong in his approach (I strongly disagree with him) it is foolish to create such a fracas in a young movement simply because he wanted to assert some orthodoxy. Wouldn’t it be better if some people read him, others Mises (for whom I’m sure he would have had no finer words hadn’t it been Mises who made a libertarian of Rothbard) others Hayek, others Friedman, and each came to libertarianism following his own road?

And last, about ‘hating the state’, the fact is simple: the state is, and we have only our conviction that it can be done away with to offer as an alternative. It’s tough to hate something that might very well be the best we can do, not unlike the commies hating ‘capitalist exploitation’, which is in fact the closest workers will ever get to their wishes. So, I’m with Friedman on this one, the Rothbardian approach in this sense must be done away with.

53

Well Merlin,

hating the state does not automatically mean you are anarchist… Rothbard’s article that Friedman is refering to also talks about the ‘radical’ limited government types (Which by radical he meant ‘state haters’), which Rothbard praises more than the anarchist that does not hate the state

54

[quote=“Isaac “Izzy” Marmolejo”]

Well Merlin,

hating the state does not automatically mean you are anarchist… Rothbard’s article that Friedman is refering to also talks about the ‘radical’ limited government types (Which by radical he meant ‘state haters’), which Rothbard praises more than the anarchist that does not hate the state

[/quote]

Which leads one to ask: Didn’t Rothbard see anything strange about someone hating what cannot be changed? Didn’t he realize that asking for state-hating (‘radical’) minarchists would be like asking for people who hate gravity, by their own worldview? Was Rothbard really surprised at the demise of ‘radical’ minarchism, if indeed it ever existed, or was he just trying to somehow make Friedman look even ‘worse’ than minarchists?

I suspect Rothbard would have fumed even more at a ‘radical’ minarchist if he ever encountered one, although in that case he’d be right, for you cannot hate what cannot be changed. I find his answer for the anarchist-minarchist divide (which he greatly contributed in creating) unsatisfactory, to say the least.

55

Which leads one to ask: Didn’t Rothbard see anything strange about someone hating what cannot be changed? Didn’t he realize that asking for state-hating (‘radical’) minarchists would be like asking for people who hate gravity, by their own worldview? Was Rothbard really surprised at the demise of ‘radical’ minarchism, if indeed it ever existed, or was he just trying to somehow make Friedman look even ‘worse’ than minarchists?

Cannot be changed? Hate murderers and criminals? Well by golly, you can’t change crime. Hate chattel slavery? Well that cannot be changed!!! Ohh wait..

Sorry but your second question is laughable. Are you blind to history? I mean really..

"Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo."

The demise of radical minarchism? Well Ron Paul ‘supporters’ fit into that camp (although Ron Paul is a voluntarist/self-government). All those who hate the state these days make the progression towards anarcho-capitalism, predominately anyway. You honestly think Rothbard would be fumed at the Ron Paul supporters? Yeah?! Like I said, laughable.

I find your response to his answer, absolutely comedic. Please tell me more!

“The pattern repeats itself so often that it almost seems to be a law of history: the radicals who change history must do so over the resistance of the moderates, who claim to be friendly to the same cause, but somehow always end up on the side of established interests.” (Moderates and Radicals) - Lew Rockwell

What you’re all completely missing is the flipside… the essence of Rothbard’s whole point. Hate is meaningless without the concept of love. Hate the state? LOVE LIBERTY & A PASSION FOR JUSTICE.

Why Be Libertarian? Murray N. Rothbard

It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty can only be grounded on a passion for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive, the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead, not the search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games or the cool calculation of general economic gains. And, to have a passion for justice, one must have a theory of what justice and injustice are — in short, a set of ethical principles of justice and injustice, which cannot be provided by utilitarian economics.

It is because we see the world reeking with injustices piled one on another to the very heavens that we are impelled to do all that we can to seek a world in which these and other injustices will be eradicated. Other traditional radical goals — such as the “abolition of poverty” — are, in contrast to this one, truly utopian, for man, simply by exerting his will, cannot abolish poverty. Poverty can only be abolished through the operation of certain economic factors — notably the investment of savings in capital — which can only operate by transforming nature over a long period of time. In short, man’s will is here severely limited by the workings of — to use an old-fashioned but still valid term — natural law. But injustices are deeds that are inflicted by one set of men on another; they are precisely the actions of men, and, hence, they and their elimination are subject to man’s instantaneous will.

56

He doesnt’ say that there was a 50% increase in one year, but that is the way the statistics are presented in the Historical tables. My guess, as laid out later in my thread, was that there wasn’t really a 50% increase, but that the banks reported their numbers to the government alot in 1872/1873 because of the panic. I remember reading in a footnote at the beginning of the section in the book that this particular data piece was from banks voluntarily giving out their money totals. Which means the base amount was larger, and there really wasn’t a 17% increase in the money per year, let alone in total. Think about it, 17% per year is an enormous number, and the fact that it isn’t referenced in any other history textbook or was during a period marked by considerable price increases should lead to suspicion about the number. Either way, Rothbard in no way mentions this, nor does he try and find other statistics that more accurately depict the money supply. Rothbard wasn’t dumb, and he clearly knew of Friedman’s aggregates since he references his book. He chose to use money supply statistics that were dubious at best.

57

Conza, please drop the mocking “laughter”.

58

Conza, if you’re a minarchist you either 1) think some minimal level of institutional coercion is the best deal we can get or, 2) don’t think that the state can ever be done away with and that anarchy would lead to e recreation of the state. I really don’t see any other way.

In case one hating the state would be hypocritical, for you hate what you advocate! In case two, hating the state would be like hating mortality or gravity. Only anarchists can say they hate the state with a straight face, and you’ll excuse me if I cannot see a way around that, Paine and friends notwithstanding.

59

“Conza, if you’re a minarchist you either 1) think some minimal level of institutional coercion is the best deal we can get or, 2) don’t think that the state can ever be done away with and that anarchy would lead to e recreation of the state. I really don’t see any other way.”

That’s probably because you don’t understand that underpinning their support for ‘government’ is their conception of the social contract. One e.g the immaculate conception of the Nozickian State. And to the degree they believe that government should only protect private property… anything else it does more than that they consider as to be a violation of it’s intended purpose / contract and is thus evil because it is the initation of force etc.

The value of those who are radical is to make it clear the state is a gang of thieves writ large, they highlight the proper class analysis - rulers versus ruled, A exploits B. A is a parasite, a non contributer - they initiate the threat of physical aggression against the innoceant B.

“… In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.” - Rothbard’s 1961 Confidential Memo to Volker Fund

So - as long as the minarchist is attacking the legitimacy of the state, calling for the abolition of the IRS, the CIA, Bring the Troops Home, End the Empire, End the Fed, abolition the Dept of Labor, Dept of Education etc all the way down the line, they are common allies absolutely - because they are radical, they are abolitionists.

When / if we reach the point where the size of government is that which the minarchists consider just - well then the discussion will become more relevent then, they become defenders of the statist quo - that which is institutioning oppression.. but until then, lol, by all means - I’ll point out their logical contradictions and the hypocrisy as you say - for supporting the concept of the state & the benefits of arguing anarcho-capitalism (The Minarchist Case for Anarchism).. but until that person is defending the status quo, why is it an issue?

They do far more for the cause of liberty. They have clear principles up to a degree, they call out the state for what it is - an evil monstrosity.

“All we need do now is to point to the black and unprecedented record of the state through history: no combination of private marauders can possibly begin to match the state’s unremitting record of theft, confiscation, oppression, and mass murder. No collection of Mafia or private bank robbers can begin to compare with all the Hiroshimas, Dresdens, and Lidices and their analogues through the history of mankind. ~ Society Without A State, Murray N. Rothbard

“Right is a principle; utility is only a result,” Constant said.

“Say to a man: you have the right not to be put to death or arbitrarily plundered. You will give him quite another feeling of security and protection than you will by telling him: it is not useful for you to be put to death or arbitrarily plundered.” – Principles of politic

In case one hating the state would be hypocritical, for you hate what you advocate!

Lmao! Umm.. except they don’t advocate the current state (status quo), which is why they get a pass. But yes, sure they maintain a contradiction, they are in error. Those who do not get a pass, are those who support the state - but also support the status quo. Which is what is implied by their actions (if you want the relevent Rothbard quote - go read The Strategy For Liberty Chp. 30 TEOL *@anyone).

In case two, hating the state would be like hating mortality or gravity.

No. Again, they consider the current state unjust. Do you not understand that? Come on now…

Only anarchists can say they hate the state with a straight face, and you’ll excuse me if I cannot see a way around that, Paine and friends notwithstanding.

And no… Why Be Libertarian? Did you not read this? Why is it necessary I reference it again? Do I need to spell it out? Ok.
Hating the state - presumes loving liberty / passion for justice - since that is it’s antithesis. Not everyone becomes a libertarian / anarcho-capitalist because they have a passion for justice / love of liberty / hatred of the state.

“Incredibly, we have found among the increasing number of libertarians in this country many people who come to a libertarian commitment from one or another extremely narrow and personal point of view. Many are irresistibly attracted to liberty as an intellectual system or as an aesthetic goal, but liberty remains for them a purely intellectual parlor game, totally divorced from what they consider the “real” activities of their daily lives. Others are motivated to remain libertarians solely from their anticipation of their own personal financial profit. Realizing that a free market would provide far greater opportunities for able, independent men to reap entrepreneurial profits, they become and remain libertarians solely to find larger opportunities for business profit.”

So in summation:

“We believe in allying ourselves with whoever has a libertarian position on issues important to us. We hail a Nat Hentoff on civil liberties and a Henry Hazlitt on economics. This is not inconsistency; on the contrary, it means that we consistently welcome people for the libertarian positions they hold on particular issues, a welcome that in no sense means that we endorse their stand on every conceivable question. But to libertarians, this is nothing new. Most of us have known for a long time that our position cuts across the conventional left-right spectrum, that we agree with liberals on some issues and with conservatives on others. That is because we are consistent upholders of liberty, and they of course are not.” ~ Rothbard

60

So anybody who seeks to make the State more efficient, but not to destroy it, is an abolitionist now according to your definition of abolitionist.

So supporters of Slavery, or even owners of slaves, who wish to reduce hours of forced labor are abolitionists now also.

And hardcore socialists who wish to still leave some choices up to the individual are voluntarists.

So basically, everybody is everything! Words have no meanings. Definitions are subjective, There is no logic, no nothing. Anybody is anything.