Rothbard and Race

Miscellaneous Current Events
1

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html

Some quotes from the article:

Those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and “discriminatory” and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

I mean the almost self-evident fact that individuals, ethnic groups, and races differ among themselves in intelligence and in many other traits, and that intelligence, as well as less controversial traits of temperament, are in large part hereditary.

As a nonwhite libertarian I have no response to these kind of things. It puts me off that a man so admirably vehemant in defending 'individual ’ liberty believes or writes this kind of hogwash. Opposers say that such tendencies are inherant in libertarianism. I know better but their broad brush seems justified. And for a person like me being a libertarian becomes a baggage instead of an honor.

I can’t get these things together. How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support ‘racialism’ which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.

I don’t think Rothbard’s shortcomings invalidate libertarianism nor does it invalidate his other works but it raises an important point. I don’t believe Rothbard was a proponent of any sociopolitical arrangements based on race. But for many libertarians,the movement for liberty and individual rights was for everybody thus discrediting its central argument and losing many new believers.

I have no intention of bad mouthing anyone and the only reason I wrote this post is becuase I am a libertarian but not because of the article cited above. I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.

I really wonder what libertarians and paleos were trying to achive by appealing to such sentiments. People who believe in race and arrangements based on race automatically invalidate the concept of individual libery and free will.

The article above is not libertarian. But I want to know why for a long time ideas such as those in that article were passed as acceptable in the libertarian sphere. I am a huge huge Ron Paul supporter but I do remain disappointed that he doesn’t confront these issues head on. Even if he didn’t write those letters. Obama for whatever we have to say about him did this wonderfully in his ‘Better union’ speech. Why can’t Ron Paul who is clearly not racist confront the ugly past of racism and acknowledge that libertrians in the past probably strayed but its not representative of the libertarianism at large.

Its pathetic that libertarianism was once justified on ‘racialist’ grounds.

2

What isn’t libertarian about this article?

Rothbard is just commenting on what everyone already knows about race (that there’s differences); he isn’t advocating different legal rights for any particular race and isn’t advocating forced integration/segregation. Instead, Rothbard is praising science and truth winning out (as opposed to this marxist egalitarian political correctness that infects even the way the natural sciences are conducted). Of course, non-whites finds biological truths to be disheartening; it so happens that blacks and hispanics, on average, have a full standard deviation of difference in IQ then that of whites and asians. This is a biological fact. Political correctness should never stand in the way of facts. Rothbard is celebrating this concept.

Ron Paul (like Mises; like Rothbard; like Hoppe) is not a left-wing libetarian; he’s not going to speak on behalf of a certain race because that’s just a collectivist concept. Blacks, hispanics, and other non-whites are already privileged in the public sector with affirmative action laws, work-place mandates, educational quotas, etc. Non-whites don’t need any more political pandering.

3

If intelligence varies from person to person, then it possible that the average intelligence of one group of people varies from another group of people.

4

Were you trying to be PC here? Some Hispanics are black and some are white.

5

Heh, +1.

See how Cultural Marxism infects us all?

6

I simply wonder when “intelligence” became defined as “scores on this one kind of test.”

7

There’s nothing unlibertarian about the article just as there isn’t anything essentially pro-libertarian. The difference with racist and racialism is that the racist, or racism, is making the claims that one race is proved superior to another, while the racialist merely acknowledges and points out social and cultural differences (if not biological also). Someone being a racist can be a libertarian and vice versa, as long as their political philosophy is in line with libertarianism; culturally/socially/whatever they can really think what they want.

8

As a nonwhite libertarian I have no response to these kind of things.

Your color of skin shouldn’t matter at all when assessing this topic. The fact is that some ethnic groups fare worse than others when it comes to average income, education or professional achievement. This is regularly blamed on white privilege inherent in the capitalist mode of production, and the proposed solution is to have governments forcibly institute affirmative action and redistribution policies.

Any libertarian should find that abhorrent, and any libertarian should rejoice when scientific research provides us with the means to combat such fallacies.

How can you be against the state, for individual liberty but support ‘racialism’ which is just a PC word for a flagrant racist.

And there we go. Acknowledging aggregate differences between ethnic groups is “racism”.

I want to know how did our movement entertain and allow these kind of thoughts that were contradictory, selfdefeating and wrong.

None of this is contradictory, self-defeating or wrong. These views are pretty mainstream among evolutionary biologists, but they’re usually keeping quiet about it because someone is bound to cry “Racism!” once the genetic reasons beind aggregate outcome differences are being addressed.

Outcome inequality between ethnic groups is used as a political bludgeon by egalitarians to justify the welfare state, government involvement in employment relations and certain aspects of the nanny state. If it turns out that this inequality is not the result of “racism” or “discrimination”, but different ability levels caused by a different genetic makeup of a particular ethnic group, their entire righteous indignation falls flat and the justification for such policies disappears.

There is absolutely nothing offensive about this article. Rothbard points out useful scientific information that libertarians can employ against professional “anti-racists” and their collectivist policies. Unless you believe that evolution stopped at the neck and genetic differences in cognitive ability are a “racist” concept, there’s no reason to demand apologies or explanations.

9

intelligence is very hard to measure. I actually think it is very useful concept for opressors, I don’t believe in IQ tests (even if they have some truth in it..some). So in the end, the only measurement we have is simple human action. Humans shows their intelligence so to speak through their action, not “abstract thinking”.

10

Rothbard, when discussing race, always seemed brutally frank on the issue, almost angrily so, for reasons that have always escaped me. On several occasions he seemed outright paranoid, but inconsistently so. With this being said, no one can deny that race and intelligence is linked, but the exact link and the extent of this is very open to debate.

Racism can be abused, but at the same time egalitarianism (in the racial sphere) can also be greatly abused, to shirk the idea that races are different and that this might have a reflection on IQ and social behavior (or from IQ then by extension social behavior and attitude) is to be as close-minded as any racist ever was.

Libertarianism, at the end of the day, is only as racist as the people within society in question are racist.

Finally, just to assuage any fears that you might have I’ll do the stereotypical thing and pull some anecdotes out of my hat. I am, in the broad and all-encompassing meaning of the term in modern America, a racist. That is that I believe that there is a significant genetic IQ difference between the races, although I believe that these may well be slightly exaggerated from what many of a similar state of mind believe the true differences to be. Nonetheless I don’t look down on other races and I don’t look up to races that probably have a higher IQ than my own. Two of my best friends are black, and I have two other fairly close black friends and I’m on friendly terms with several other “minorities”. I celebrate the idea of interracial marriage because I find it disgusting that so many people are so attached to the idea of “racial pride” and that interracial relationships are even an issue in today’s society. I also think that Japan has the coolest pop-culture and food ever, Chinese history is amazingly cool, African-Americans have created one of the best genres of music (jazz), my favorite economists are Jewish, and African-American civil rights activists were some of the greatest figures in history. I have nothing especially to say about Native-Americans besides that I like their names. Sorry.

So that’s my super cool life story, I hope it makes you feel better about the whole business

11

Sounds like you want us to take on some blemish upon ourselves, because you read something that made you feel bad. Sorry, no can do.

So what? People have the right to be wrong. Here, I’m sorry Rothbard wasn’t perfect enough for you. As long as he didn’t argue for the police to come for this or that group he didn’t need to be. What is your gripe? He expressed some views you find ugly? Yea, and what is the relevance?

You should make up your mind. Do you know better or ar they justified? Sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways, you can’t but admitt they are wrong, but would still like for their complaint to be valid.

Your statement is about as valid as saying ‘how can you be for liberty but not be a racist’.

People have the right to be jerks, this is the founding principle of libertarianism. You would deny this principle to Rothbard, who unlike the rest of us he must be perfect, never be insensitive and never wrong? And you would link this to liberty?? I’m all ears, where in the doctrine of freedom does it say being a jerk is incompatible with being for freedom?

Oh, thats a very weak statement. How about saying like it is, that Rothbard was throughout his life absolutely unwavering in his opposing any sociopolitical arrangement founded on race.

Lol, what is this? You’re insinuating Rothbard differred from these “many libertarians” in believing some groups weren’t entitled to rights as individuals? How sneaky of you.

Sounds like you’re trying to saddle someone with guilt. “Our movement” didn’t entertain crap. We don’t get to allow what Rothbard writes on race, no more than you get to allow what I write on stamp collecting.

Though Ron Paul doesn’t owe you anything, particularly not to dance to your tune or to set himelf up as the spokesman for libertarianism only to castigate it for phantom racism for your satisfaction.

It’s pathetic you should make baseless assertions. Libertarianism was never jusfified with racialism. How about offering some proof? Libertarianism is justified based on natural rights and utilitarianism and the like. Racialism is not about ethics and is therefore not capable of “justifying” anything. The word you’re looking for is “promoted”.

Really, stop with the touchiness. Rothbard particularly in his Rockwell-Rothbard Report years wrote flamboyant, outrageous stuff on a number of issues. In his opinion pieces dealing with the wars on former Yugoslavia he offered some of the most stereotypical and caricaturish portrayal of the Balkans of all times full of insanely outrageous sweeping statements and while subsequentially getting most of the history catastrophically wrong. At one point he wrote “As readers of Triple R know by now, no one, even the most fanatical Croat or Bosnian Muslim, surpasses Triple R in hatred of the Serbs;” How insane is that? He claimed to in no uncertain terms hate a whole ethnic group, the Serbs (though he was really just saying it for effect, later he would similarly flamboyantly claim they made the best fighters in the Yugoslav wars (sweeping statement) and that if ever caught in an ambush he would love to have a few at his side). But so what? I should be upset he had a totally butchered understanding of the region, and basically saw all of us in terms that invoke some vengeful, half-naked Indians? (No offence to Indians.) No! His Balkanisms were never ground for him argue for any ethnic group there be bombed, so it was nothing to worry about. Whether despite or because of his excited (and warped) understanding of the region he always argued against intervention, so there was no harm, only possibly good. If only more people saw us as unreformable savages and consequentially left us the hell alone!

So Obama said some nice things and Rothbard said some ugly ones, but if it came down to it Obama would deport you if it meant the difference between winning and loosing an election, but Rothbard would stand at your side and raise a ruckus on your behalf, absolutely no doubt about it. So who is a good guy, and who is the enemy?

12

Rothbard on Race - Mises Forums.

13

Sounds like you want us to take on some blemish upon ourselves, because you read something that made you feel bad. Sorry, no can do.

No I just want to know what can one get by promoting liberty on racialist grounds.

So what? People have the right to be wrong. Here, I’m sorry Rothbard wasn’t perfect enough for you. As long as he didn’t argue for the police to come for this or that group he didn’t need to be. What is your gripe? He expressed some views you find ugly? Yea, and what is the relevance?

That those views are ugly.

You should make up your mind. Do you know better or ar they justified? Sounds like you’re trying to have it both ways, you can’t but admitt they are wrong, but would still like for their complaint to be valid.

There justification is that they have some sort of documents to portray libertarianism as racist. I know better that is I know that is not the case.

Your statement is about as valid as saying ‘how can you be for liberty but not be a racist’.

People have the right to be jerks, this is the founding principle of libertarianism. You would deny this principle to Rothbard, who unlike the rest of us he must be perfect, never be insensitive and never wrong? And you would link this to liberty?? I’m all ears, where in the doctrine of freedom does it say being a jerk is incompatible with being for freedom?

Its one thing being a jerkbut another entirely to argue using racialism which is about preserving racial differences. Racialism opposes immigration and interracial relations to preserve differences. How is that compatible with freedom of association. And racism says that only certain ill defined groups have power and rights but others don’t. Very libertarian I guess.

Oh, thats a very weak statement. How about saying like it is, that Rothbard was throughout his life absolutely unwavering in his opposing any sociopolitical arrangement founded on race.

Yet he said that race was useful in promoting liberty.

Lol, what is this? You’re insinuating Rothbard differred from these “many libertarians” in believing some groups weren’t entitled to rights as individuals? How sneaky of you.

Sounds like you’re trying to saddle someone with guilt. “Our movement” didn’t entertain crap. We don’t get to allow what Rothbard writes on race, no more than you get to allow what I write on stamp collecting.

I don’t care that he wrote it. But why he did. He can write whatever he wants and the researchers can research or publish whatever they like. But I do have to ask question when something doesn’t seem right.

Though Ron Paul doesn’t owe you anything, particularly not to dance to your tune or to set himelf up as the spokesman for libertarianism only to castigate it for phantom racism for your satisfaction.

When did I say thatlibertarianism or Rothbard were racist? I just don’t like the way they structured their arguments for liberty.

It’s pathetic you should make baseless assertions. Libertarianism was never jusfified with racialism. How about offering some proof? Libertarianism is justified based on natural rights and utilitarianism and the like. Racialism is not about ethics and is therefore not capable of “justifying” anything. The word you’re looking for is “promoted”.

Promoted. Exactly. Does anyone here really believe that aggregates of behaviour are useful for anything? There may or may not be differences in race but what exactly do they prove when it comes ot determining individual behaviour. Exactly zilt.

Really, stop with the touchiness. Rothbard particularly in his Rockwell-Rothbard Report years wrote flamboyant, outrageous stuff on a number of issues. In his opinion pieces dealing with the wars on former Yugoslavia he offered some of the most stereotypical and caricaturish portrayal of the Balkans of all times full of insanely outrageous sweeping statements and while subsequentially getting most of the history catastrophically wrong. At one point he wrote “As readers of Triple R know by now, no one, even the most fanatical Croat or Bosnian Muslim, surpasses Triple R in hatred of the Serbs;” How insane is that? He claimed to in no uncertain terms hate a whole ethnic group, the Serbs (though he was really just saying it for effect, later he would similarly flamboyantly claim they made the best fighters in the Yugoslav wars (sweeping statement) and that if ever caught in an ambush he would love to have a few at his side). But so what? I should be upset he had a totally butchered understanding of the region, and basically saw all of us in terms that invoke some vengeful, half-naked Indians? (No offence to Indians.) No! His Balkanisms were never ground for him argue for any ethnic group there be bombed, so it was nothing to worry about. Whether despite or because of his excited (and warped) understanding of the region he always argued against intervention, so there was no harm, only possibly good. If only more people saw us as unreformable savages and consequentially left us the hell alone!

So Obama said some nice things and Rothbard said some ugly ones, but if it came down to it Obama would deport you if it meant the difference between winning and loosing an election, but Rothbard would stand at your side and raise a ruckus on your behalf, absolutely no doubt about it. So who is a good guy, and who is the enemy?

Quote

I don’t doubt Rothbard’s commitment to liberty, never have. He is not the enemy. And I oppose the entire pond in which people like Obama swim. Not just him. But don’t you agree that libertarianism can be promoted on better grounds than racialism.

14

I don’t see how it’s racist to say that there are differences between races. For example, am I racist if I say that asians tend to be even better (on average) at mathematics than whites? (I’m white myself). Also, as an individual, I myself am skilled in the calculus. Does that make me furious that asians tend to be better on average at math? No, it doesn’t. http://nomorequo.blogspot.com/2007/04/why-asians-are-better-at-math.html

I’m not saying I completely agree with Rothbard on race - as I haven’t even read his writings on race - but pointing out differences between races as your Rothbard quote does is not racist. As the OED defines racialism: “Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural and racial integrity or economic well-being.” Contrary to the mainstream view, I would contend that to be racist there must be two things: 1) belief in superiority of X race and 2) prejudice caused by the belief in this superiority. You can have either 1 or 2, but for it to truly be racialism, there has to be both. I’d say Rothbard, even if he hypothetically has component 1, doesn’t have component 2. Also, he was jewish.

15

First of all, its incorrect to take statistical analyzes of tests taken by certain populations of people and pretend that your findings apply to people ho didnt take the tests simply because they share some genetic material with your sample.

secondly, if racism is “Belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races” and you a) believe that “asians tend to be even better (on average) at mathematics than whites” and b) you use that information to help profile applicants for a given job, that would be racist by definition. Any time you use that information (asians are better at math than whites) without confirming that it applies to a specific case, you can be said to have “prejudged” the objects and therefore prejudice occurred and therefore racism.

third, your article basically says that asians are better because of cultural factors. In that case, in order for the assertion to be meaningful you need to control for either genes or culture, so that you can examine culture or genes (respectively).

16

“race” is a collectivist notion and therefore incompatible with libertarian tenets. The fact that this doesnt answer the OP clearly, utterly, and definitively just shows how conditioned we all are to the idea of “race.”

17

you12,

The two quotes you gave need to be put a little bit more in context. The second one (which actually occurred at the beginning of the article, actually reads as such:

Rothbard is clearly addressing existing folk knowledge here, not putting forth his own theory. If I said “For most of human history, individuals all shared a common belief. It seemed a self evident fact that spirits and mysitcal beings were the cause of natural phenomena.” - You wouldn’t just quote my second sentence, but that’s what you did with Rothbard.

The first quote you gave occured at the very end of the article, and was essentially a side note to the entire thesis. The majority of the article was historical in nature, discussing the politics behind egalitarianism and the shunning of “racialist” ideas. Rothbard gives two reasons for concerning himself with racialism: “to celebrate the victory of freedom of inquiry and of truth for its own sake; and a bullet through the heart of the egalitarian-socialist project.” He then gives a third reason, which you quoted.

I agree with you that he’s flat out wrong with this point. If poor black communities demand collectivism and blame markets for their woes, telling them that they just aren’t as smart as the people in favor of markets is probably THE WORST argument one can make.

18

I can’t exactly argue with you on this when you define terms for me. Sure being in favor of use of force (curtailing freedom of association & immigration) is not libertarian, but who says that must be a component of racism? Being a racist means you feel that in some metaphysical sense people of one racially defined group are worth more than people of another, but you can still favor equality before the law regardless.

19

Sure I do, same as I think non-intervention in the Balkans could have been argued for in better style than the one emplyed. At the end of the day the guy wrote a huge number of articles in the process of writing of which he was clearly enjoying himself and going for being fun, flashy and outrageous — so some of his output was almost necessarily going to end up cringeworthy and less than fully tastefull. It is dissapoiting and irresponsible coming from the big man himself, but there isn’t anything in there that conflicts with libertarianism.

20

It would not be racism if you argue that races should be treated equally. Racism is the clearest opposition to that idea.

Being a racist is to deny equal rights to others, racist people may be a lot of things but libertarian is not one of them.