Rothbard libertarian

Economics Political Theory
1

According to LibertyStudent you cannot be pro govt in any instance and a libertarian at the same time (correct me if I misunderstood you), and he said prove him wrong, or that Rothbard was not a libertarian (according to his position).

I am not trying to say Rothbard was not a libertarian, just that extremist position of LS helps noone.

This two-pronged strategy is (a) to build up a cadre of our own libertarians, minimal-government opinion-moulders…

  1. Take Back the Streets: Crush Criminals. And by this I mean, of course, not “white collar criminals” or “inside traders” but violent street criminals – robbers, muggers, rapists, murderers. Cops must be unleashed, and allowed to administer instant punishment…

Again: unleash the cops to clear the streets of bums and vagrants. Where will they go? Who cares? Hopefully, they will disappear…

We must reject once and for all the left-libertarian view that all government-operated resources must be cesspools. We must try, short of ultimate privatization, to operate government facilities in a manner most conducive to a business…

But all real-world politics is coalition politics, and there are other areas where libertarians might well compromise with their paleo or traditionalist or other partners in a populist coalition

These quotes are from “Right WIng Populism, Murray Rothbard, 1992” They clearly show Rothbard willing to use the tools of the (current, this is not about some future private entity) state for his own ideals.

Matt Welch of Reason.com (libertarian site) says of this article;

Empowering police to mete out street justice on dark-skinned youth does not square with any notion of limited government I’m familiar with

George Donnely Compares Rothbard to Murphy here, calling Rothbard “a little more statist” than Murphy

What if someone won’t abide by an arbitrator’s decision? Rothbard argues that there would be a system of appeals. When that was exhausted, the convict’s insurance company could reasonably use force against him, presumably in order to jail him. However, this doesn’t compare in elegance and philosophical consistency to Murphy’s solution. Under his market anarchy, the convict’s insurance provider could simply raise his rates or offer conditions under which it felt comfortable continuing to insure him, such as residence in a secure facility. No force needed

He goes through other “shortcomings” of Rothbardian liberty. The article is found here.

Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now?.. The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement

The above is from Rothbard’s “Do you Hate the State?”

Clearly you’re stance is emotionally charged Liberty Student. We would all be better served not to seperate people into seperate camps of 100% agreement, or enemy.

Which Political Philosophy Annoys You Most and Why?
2

This ^^^ is not the same as this VVVV

First, you have to know my position, which you have not been able to capture and dissect. Then, you have to explain what an extremist is. Define your terms.

You may feel you are better off, but you can’t make that claim, unless you can prove that my doing so (assuming I am) is counter to my ends. Can you do that?

I don’t agree with Rothbard on many things, so the appeal to authority isn’t helping you make an argument.

I feel a lot of these discussions with you would be so much more fruitful if you understood praxeology.

3

I don’t agree with Rothbard on many things, so the appeal to authority isn’t helping you make an argument

Actually, the whole argument was framed within an appeal to authority when you said

If you accept Rothbardianism as libertarianism, then you have to accept non-aggression as libertarianism. If you reject Rothbardianism as libertarianism, well then let’s have that debate

Can you do that?

Not really conclusively. But I can offer the argument that no movement will go anywhere with only a small portion of the populace backing it. And that calling everyone your enemy is a bad way to get backing (assuming you were).

This ^^^ is not the same as this VVVV

I am attempting to frame the debate as; your definition of Rothbardian libertarianism disqualifies even Rothbard from being a libertarian. In that sense, it is the same thing.

First, you have to know my position, which you have not been able to capture and dissect.

I feel I have. I said to prove me wrong. It seems to be common amongst some debaters to never allow themselves to be pinned down, I find that a dishonest position.

Define your terms.

Extremism; taking the position that your views are the only correct ones, and all others are either enemies, or intellectually dishonest. To put it in lamen’s terms; you’re either with me, or against me.

4

Not everything Rothbard ever wrote is part of Rothbardianism.

5

This.

Any one can look through a graveyard of quotes and find something they said thats contradictory. Especially a historical figure who spent his entire career writing things. People expect these guys to act like gods, then try and pin down their followers when they find out instances where they acted

human. Many cases these quotes are based on some context, and it has to do with the type of audience the author is trying to communicate. But we always seem to discount that in these types of arguments. But thats why it becomes apparent that our goal is not to do anything constructive, but to nit pick, bicker. It’s a petty attempt at making someone feel bad, and entirely irrelevent to the views and positions they hold.

Whats ironic in this argument is that it was Epicurus who said.

As if collaborating on finding some truth was his actual intent, and that he is holding the best interest of everyone by following pursuing this attempted attack on LS or Rothbard.

6

Its the skeptic’s job.

7

Any one can look through a graveyard of quotes and find something they said thats contradictory. Especially a historical figure who spent his entire career writing things. People expect these guys to act like gods, then try and pin down their followers when they find out instances where they acted

Fortunately, I am not putting any expectations on Rothbard. I am merely pointing out to LS that his extremist position only alienates potential allies.

It’s a petty attempt at making someone feel bad, and entirely irrelevent to the views and positions they hold
See above, the argument isnt about rothbard

As if collaborating on finding some truth was his actual intent, and that he is holding the best interest of everyone by following pursuing this attempted attack on LS or Rothbard

Actually, I was trying to get at a truth that extremism is counter-productive, and holding the best interest of everyone with the same point. You may disagree, but that is my intent.

8

I thought Epicurus made excellent remarks.

liberty student disqualifies Ron Paul as a libertarian. Is that a legitimate ostracization? Of course not.

Furthermore, not all anarcho-capitalists are even Rothbardian; I was always much more influenced by David Friedman.

9

Thats true, many libertarian’s discount the beneficial functionality of the market in certain sectors. I happen to side with LS on this, as much as I respect RP, he is a statesmen, and supports the employment of coercion over certain market sectors.

This isn’t really a debate topic, that in your opinion you find LS extreme. Do you have an actual critique of his position? Or is it simply that you don’t like it?

What were excellent about them? That in his opinion he doesn’t like LS’s extremely consistent principled position? Some of us feel that those who compromise in their beliefs compromise only in their integrity, and the integrity of those things that they allegedly represent.

10

Thats true, many libertarian’s discount the beneficial functionality of the market in certain sectors

That’s my point tho. The stance LS has taken would be that RP is not a libertarian at all, but a squishy statist who only supports markets “some of the time.”

Do you have an actual critique of his position?

Yes, see my first post. I critiqued his position that true libertarians can never support state action disqualifies even Rothbard from being a libertarian.

Some of us feel that those who compromise in their beliefs compromise only in their integrity

Why does it have to be a compromise, and not just their raw beliefs? Why are you so quick to categorize people?

11

If that is your position then I at least can gladly agree to disagree. The idea of what is extreme changes from person to person. To some people it was an extreme view to think we could end slavery, and that such extremism is counter-productive.

So again your entire argument revolves around an opinion, but is not really a critique of any of LS’s positions. Your critique perhaps is that he is too consistent.

12

Ron Paul is a politician and as a politician we cannot know for sure where he stands. To my knowledge, he has never rejected anarcho-capitalism anywhere among his many books, essays, and public speech, and even though he was directly confronted on this issue at least once already (somebody can link that video again).

13

Right, and your point is that you don’t like it. Well I am sorry.

Yes, your first posts “Critique” is that you don’t like it. Which isn’t a critique at all but a simple difference of opinion, you still haven’t engaged LS in why his reasoning is incorrect, whether it is extreme or not is entirely frivolous.

It sounds like to me, what you should be doing, is arguing with LS over what the definition of Libertarianism actually is.

Your raw beliefs may be that you can eat your cake and have it to, but in reality your beliefs are in direct conflict with each other. I didn’t make the rules of logic, and of life. I’m sorry this bothers you so much.

As for categorizing people, what are you talking about? You can chose to believe someone who argues that the sky is both pink, and blue, thats on you. I just simply choose not to, and I attempt to correct those who think otherwise. If you are one of those who believe the impossible, I may point it out.

14

I think what Liberty Student argues is that if you accept that society can advance without the rule of government (but, with the rule of law — law developed privately, from the concept of property rights), or if you take the implications of “libertarian” (I include the quotes as recognition that not all libertarians belong to the same school) economic theory to its most logical conclusion then — anarchism —, then you are being dishonest if you advocate anything less than anarchism.

I agree with Liberty Student, although I myself don’t believe that being dishonest is always bad (and, I’m not sure Liberty Student would say otherwise — I don’t know his position on this part of the topic). For example, I myself am dishonest, as I recognize the validity of anarchy, but I wouldn’t refuse a government job, and I don’t always advocate for an anarchic society. I might call this pragmatism, but it would only be pragmatic within my own means-end framework (my own personal valuations of life and the actions I take).

Am I therefore not a libertarian? The word libertarian is an umbrella term, which meaning changes upon person to person, based on their beliefs on the true definition of libertarianism. I consider myself a libertarian, despite the ideological compromises I might make, but I understand where Liberty Student is coming from if he believes otherwise.

15

it’s very honest of you to tell us that you are dishonest.

16

I think what Liberty Student argues is that if you accept that society can advance without the rule of government (but, with the rule of law — law developed privately, from the concept of property rights), or if you take the implications of “libertarian” (I include the quotes as recognition that not all libertarians belong to the same school) economic theory to its most logical conclusion then — anarchism —, then you are being dishonest if you advocate anything less than anarchism.

That is my point. It would seem LS took the position that you are either Rothbardian, not a libertarian, or Rothbardian is not libertarianism (which is a valid argument, many call it propertarianism). So…

I recognize the validity of anarchy, but I wouldn’t refuse a government job, and I don’t always advocate for an anarchic society. I might call this pragmatism, but it would only be pragmatic within my own means-end framework (my own personal valuations of life and the actions I take).

Am I therefore not a libertarian?

No, according to LS.

17

Jonathan’s stance is not similar to the one you took with LS so don’t pretend it is. Jonathan is philosophically embracing anarchism and rejecting statism. He just finds it impractical to avoid the State under the current circumstances. That was not your position.

18

Right, and your point is that you don’t like it. Well I am sorry

Incorrect, my point is that he is lumping people into groups rather than treating them as individuals. His position is that you either 100% agree with him about aggression, or you are not a libertarian. FIrst, I doubt anyone at any time, ever has 100% agreed with someone else about any issue. Second,

It sounds like to me, what you should be doing, is arguing with LS over what the definition of Libertarianism actually is

I am. My position is that it is not the narrow definition he is using, that invalidates even Rothbard as a libertarian.

And this…

I didn’t make the rules of logic, and of life. I’m sorry this bothers you so much

Is ad hominem

(You can chose to believe someone who argues that the sky is both pink, and blue, thats on you

What makes you so sure what you see as pink is not what I see as blue, or something entirely different?

you can eat your cake and have it to

unless I invent self-replicating cake )

19

Jonathan’s stance is not similar to the one you took with LS so don’t pretend it is. Jonathan is philosophically embracing anarchism and rejecting statism. He just finds it impractical to avoid the State under the current circumstances. That was not your position

What I really dislike are these middle way quasi-libertarians who are as “squishy” (in the words of Gary North) as Hayek. The ones who tell you they are for markets, but we need government. The ones who tell you they are real libertarian, but that a free society is a pipe dream because it either (1) cannot work, (2) has never worked or (3) is actually undesireable since their libertarianism is shallow or a fashion statement. The latter reason is quite honest, and thus the hardest one to get people to own up to.

I am ok with people being pro-state. I don’t agree with it, but they are entitled to that opinion. What they are not entitled to, is to be pro-state, then turn around and claim to be pro-market. ~Liberty Student

20

I agree with the OP and John. Libertarianism isn’t a rigid term and has many definitions. I don’t think one should use it in a black and white sense to basically guilt people into choosing a side. It’s dishonest, especially saying(paraphrase): if you’re going to be a libertarian you should be the best one you can be and vice versa. I find that style of debating to be really, divisive, it presents a false dillema, and it’s a real turn off to those who don’t already partially agree with him.