Remember, going into a debate, if you have Rothbard on your side, you are a priori correct. However, to ensure your victory in a debate, you can follow the lead of your masters Rothbard and Hoppe have set the standard for debate. If you want to “knock down” your opponent, take the following steps:
- Post your argument, be somewhat kind, if condescending. If the person disagrees with you, they’re wrong, so it’s warranted. Don’t bother with sources, you can just make claims and if the person disagrees with your claims, they’re wrong. Make sure you litter your post with Rothbard quotes, he was never wrong, so it stands to reason that quoting him mean you are never wrong. Don’t bother with any other writers, you can invoke the God that Rothbard is. All other economists/ philosophers/ historians are nothing compared to that intellectual giant.
- Usually the statists won’t be swayed by Rothbard’s infallible arguments, if so then move on to the next step. If they do come to agreement, you’ve won, GJ.
- If the person disagrees, don’t bother reading their argument in depth or charitably, it’s just not worth it. The returns are too low, you’d be better off reading The Ethics of Liberty for the fifth time. Simply take the following steps: repeat your arguments, be even more condescending, on those issues where they disagree use italics and exclamation marks!!! Make sure you underline the fact that everything you say is a priori. IF YOU REALLY NEED TO ADD CAPS FOR EFFECT, TO LET THEM KNOW THAT YOU ARE CORRECT, AND YOU KNOW IT. Meanwhile add yet more Rothbard quotations.
- If they agree with you following this, good job, if not move to the next step.
- If they still disagree keep asking how it is they they can’t understand your perfect logic, it came from Rothbard after all. Questions such as “HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE THIS!?” and statements such as “it’s so OBVIOUS!!” will make sure they’re persuaded. Remember: you are correct, they are wrong. That is all there is too it. Don’t give a charitable reading to their argument, if they look like they’re saying something that makes sense, twist it. Purposefully if need be, you can’t let third parties by persuaded by their moral blackness. Next they’ll be denying that “A = A”. We can’t let it get there. if it looks like they’re not making any sense, don’t bother trying to make any sense out of it, they’re wrong. AND YOU KNOW IT!
- By this stage, we’re probably working with a lost cause. Be sure to let them and any third parties know it. Don’t hesitate to point out that they’re statists!!! Even if they call themselves anarchists, anybody who disagrees with you (about a uniform code of law, for example) is a statist. They’re trying to destroy the movement. DO NOT LET THEM.
- Remember, a statist is the worst insult you can call somebody. Statists are always a priori wrong and evil. If they say things that contradict you, use any of the following insults (they’re all synonomous at the end of the day): statist, Keynesian, monetarist, commie, socialist, positivist, empiricist, marxist, minarchist (and any more you can think of).
- Challenge them personally, remember, if they disagree with you, it’s because it’s already personal. Your logic is perfect, don’t let anybody challenge that. If they disagree with you, don’t hesitate to imply that they’re on the pay roll of the state, and as a result, they would support it! Tell them that they’re a priori evil. Next take their character into account: they’re weak, they’re compromisers, they’re blind, they’re arrogant, they’re ignorant, they’re stupid, they’re misguided, they lack integrity, they’re parasites (that’s a really good one). They’re all of these a priori, and perhaps some more. Tell them that you wouldn’t let them near your children, they’re socialists, so they’d kill your children at any chance they have. They’ll also steal your furniture.
- Once we’re at this stage, they’re not going to be convinced. It’s time for damage control. This part is difficult, so it’s difficult to get this down to a science. However, if they advocate something, they’re caught in a performative contradiction, they’re denying that “A = A”, they’re denying that they’re men qua men, they’re denying that man’s life is the standard of value, they’re denying your right to life, they’re saying that smoking is immoral, they’re pro FRB, they’re in favour of fraud, they’re a conservative, they’re a commie, they’re murderers, they’re denying REASON, they want to destroy civilization, they’re government hacks, they’re state lackeys etc.
A few more, general, pointers:
- There are no “fellow travelers”, you’re a lone wolf. You can’t be compromised, you’re a scholar advancing liberty. Forget monetarists, free bankers, public choice theorists, institutional economists.
- You are the true heir to Menger, there is only one line of thought faithful to his vision. Forget other “strands” of Austrian economics, they’re heretics. They plan on bringing down the Austrian church school.
- Anybody who doesn’t entirely agree, must come into line, lest they be purged.
- Anybody who disagrees with your intepretation of Mises is wrong. Rothbard knew him better than anybody, better than his PhD students such as Kirzner even.
- EVERY CRITICISM IS A STRAWMAN.
- If you don’t know something or can’t find some facts, make it up, if it agrees with Rothbardian theory, it’s true anyway.
- Don’t allow any criticisms or Rothbard, he was the One, he should be appreciated.
Allowed Authors:
- Rothbard, all works.
- Rand, all works (read carefully though)
- Hoppe, all works (read carefully though)
- Block, all works
Authors who should be avoided:
- Mises (he can be ambiguous)
- Hayek (he’s a commie)
- Boettke (heretic)
- Selgin (he’s in the employment of the FRS)
- White (see above)
- Yeager (he denied that Rothbard supported argumentation ethics, thus catching himself in a PERFORMATIVE CONTRADICTION!)
- James Buchanan (he said the state was voluntary)
- Gordon Tullock (see above)
- Don Lavoie (I didn’t want to name him, the fewer people that read this black sheep the better)
- Steven Horwitz (see above)
- Dave Prychitko (see above)
- Israel Kirzner (he’s OK, but he disagrees with Rothbard)
- All other economics (they’re evil, state apologists and just not as good as Rothbard).
Now for some quotes:
What he really meant