Are there any differences wrt philosophy, economic viewpoints etc?
The Kochtopus vs Murray Rothbard, by David Gordon.
Cato is generally libertarian minarchist and LvMI is more libertarian anarchist.
As KoB points out, Cato’s establishment and funding sources are statist. Same thing with REASON.
But I don’t think the battles of Rothbard after he and Koch parted ways have a lot of relevance to latter day Austrians 30 years later.
I’m not sure if one could go as far as to claim that Cato, as a libertarian think-tank, holds a single philosophy or perspective. Cato is made up of a wide array of different people. Many are minarchists (e.g. Tibor Machan), some are anarchists (e.g. Tom Palmer) and others are Statists (e.g. the Republicans who attend Cato conferences because they dislike Obama). How many are Misesians? Probably very few; Tom Palmer has already stated his distate with Austrian economics (although his argument is rather silly and not grounded on actual economic theory, rather based on the notion that since Austrians do not deviate from the Austrian Business Cycle, Austrianism is a “religion”).
The Ludwig von Mises Institute is an explicitely Austrian organization. Cato is a general libertarian organization, and therefore its membership includes many different types of libertarians.
^Kinda ironic considering that Ludwig Mises was a minarchist himself. Although this institute seems to be also based heavily in Rothbard’s idea of Anarchy.
CATO is like Metallica and Mises is like Metallica before they sold out. That is the gist of it.
Rothbard built on Mises’ tradition in many respects.
In your opinion did Kirzner and the “Kirznerian” tradition diverge from this, and how so?
I ask since I’m unfamiliar with Kirzner’s work but what I listened to an interview he gave when I was first getting into Austrian Econ, as well as other video lectures of his and was very impressed.
Cato is Constitutional Minarchy whereas Mises is more Austrian Anarcho-Capitalism. Both great, imo.
I am not familiar with the grand scheme of Kirzner’s work.
Not really. There really wasn’t a notion of voluntarism in AE during Mises time. That’s why appeals to Mises being a minarchist are somewhat disingenuous. It’s not that he rejected voluntarism, it’s that he didn’t consider it the way we do.
It will probably outgrow that over time.
What does it mean if the Institute “outgrows” Rothbard’s idea of Anarchy? Does it grow (expand, divert, etc.) into something else? A different philosophy? If so, what? I’m genuinely interested to understand what you meant by this.
I would assume that people will either build on Rothbard’s ideas, or develop alternatives or perhaps both. Certainly anarchist thought did not begin with, nor will it end with MNR.
Absolutely. Like Mises, he will be remember for his great contributions. His arguments will/have been analyzed. They will be bettered or new ideas will formulate. I’m optimistic about future ‘Rothbardian’ thought and I think the three schools that Mr. Tucker talked about in his recent article are those that will remain.
After Rothbard, I seriously doubt that minarchism has a future in libertarian thought. The anarchism in Austrian ranks is nearly 100% - but the anarchism can exist within a Hayekian, Misesian, Lachmannian, Kirznerian, or even Chicagoite theoretical structure. To be a libertarian anarchist does not necessary mean you are a Rothbardian in all respects, and to be a Rothbardian does not imply unwillingness to learn from others.
I’d say yeah.
After Cato kicked out Rothbard (he was one of the founders), allowed Koch to more or less take over, and moved to Washington, it dropped both its ‘radical’ elements and its support of Austrian School economics. They seem to more support Chicago school instead of Austrian school. LRC decrises them as “beltway libertarians”, or, if you will, the 'rino" version of libertarians. I see a lot of true in it. Yes, some good stuff comes from Cato, but not as much as in the old days, and too much support, or at least lack of condemnation, of the bad policies coming from Washington that a true libetarian group would do.
Praise be to Lew Rockwell and everyone behind the LvMI.
Rothbard was pro-Koch before he was anti-Koch. Koch didn’t come out of nowhere and push Rothbard out of the way. That is why we should always be skeptical of deals with the devil. It’s somewhat odd that LRC derides people for being associated with Koch, when Rothbard was happily associated with Koch at one time.
The best part of the Rothbard - Koch breakup was the formation of LvMI. And the lesson that I think we can take away from that, is that we should always be willing to strike out on our own than become beholden to someone else, even if they appear to share our vision.
Related,
Here is Rothbard critiquing agorism
Here is SEK 3’s reply with reference to the Kochtopus
David Friedman is an ancap, correct?
Yes, he is.
Whether he falls into the Chicago School or Austrian School (or neither), I have no idea.