Rothbard

Economics Political Theory
1

Hello there!

First of all, sorry if I have posted this in the wrong senction, and secondly - first post here, so hey everyone :slight_smile:

I recently bought two books by Rothbard; For a New Liberty and Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature because I wanted to learn more about Libertarianism. As I live across the pond it took a while to ship here, and so before they arrived here I decided to look up about those books (which I of course should of done before!)

I found out that Rothbard was an Anarcho-Capitalist - and I heard in For a New Liberty he sort of tries to promote the Anarcho-Capitalist ideas, which I’m not completely interested in reading about.

I just have a few questions if you wouldn’t mind taking a few minutes to answer:

  1. Is Rothbard’s book worth reading for someone wanting to learn about Libertarianism, or should I look elsewhere for Libertarian reading?

  2. Does Rothbard try to promote Anarcho-Capitalism in any way in this book?

  3. Do you have any better reccommended reading? :slight_smile:

Thanks a lot for taking the time to read this.

2

I haven’t read those books, but yes, they will be promoting anarcho-capitalism.

If you want a book about limited government libertarianism (usually referred to here as minarchism, although I personally prefer the term classical liberalism), then I recommend Ludwig von Mises’ “Liberalism: The Classical Tradition”. Friedrich von Hayek’s “The Road to Serfdom” is another good one. “Liberalism” is the best introduction to classical liberalism in my opinion.

3

Liberalism is great. But even if you don’t want to go all the way with anarchism, you can still learn from MNR. Liberalism does contain some elements of naivete concerning democracy

4

Rothbard was known as Mr.Libertarian. There is no better source to learn Libertarianism from.

5

Heck, just read Rothbard and skip the stuff on market courts and police. Voila - now you have small government.

6

Rothbard did more than any other Austrian to put the immense ideas of the Austrian school, add to them, and put them all into fairly common language. He was absolutly briliant. and as he was absolutly essential to founding the libertarian party so I would assume his reading would be great in that respect.

7

Thanks a lot for all your responses!

I read that Rothbard was known as Mr Libertarian - but I wasn’t completely sure whether the whole book was just sorta promoting Anarcho-Capitalism, which is not something that I want to learn about right now :slight_smile: But if it is a great book for Libertarianism then that’s fine with me!

With regards to Liberalism by Mises - is that necessarily a Libertarian book? Because on the Libertarian Reading List it’s not listed on there?

Thanks

8

Dear Tobe,

You seem to me to make a distinction between ‘anarcho-capitalism’ and ‘libertarianism’; you do realize that anarcho-capitalism is a part of the bigger libertarian thought?

For a New Liberty is a good introduction (imo) in libertarianism; just realize that it’s not the alpha and omega of libertarian thought. There are a lot of libertarians who disagree with Rothbard and there are a lot who agree with it. Read it and think about it and try to find your own way within the broader libertarian movement.
Egalitarianism as a revolt against nature is more of a funny/Witty book. Not everything in it is as accurate - Rothbard sometimes attacks a strawman, amongst other things - but is a way of helping you think about things.

I was wondering: why are you interested in learning about ‘libertarianism’ and not in ‘anarcho-capitalism’?

Rothbard promotes anarcho-capitalism, because he believes (and rightly so, imo) that liberty is incompatible with the state. He has a chapter in which he tries to make the argument why it is feasible that a market in ‘justice’ and ‘security’ is plausible and won’t run in to the often propaganded claims. If you don’t feel convinced by the arguments he sets for, that’s fine. Everyone has to find his own way in the movement that wants liberty called libertarianism.

You must also realize that Rothbard defens a particular line of libertarian thought, i.e. a natural law perspective. There are people who are anarcho-capitalists from a more utilitarian perspective. If you are willing to learn, you’ll probably encouter all of these lines of thinking.

Other good introductions in libertarianism are: ‘Libertarianism: a primer’ from David Boaz and ‘A Liberty Primer’ from Alan Burris (http://www.amazon.com/Liberty-Primer-W-Alan-Burris/dp/0960849017).

Of course: if you have any question concerning libertarianism, feel free to ask (or to ask for reading suggestions).

9

Like the previous poster, I am unsure of the point of your distinction between anarcho-capitalism and libertarianism.

Both are part of the larger tradition of liberalism, and anarcho-capitalism, rather than a competitor to libertarianism, is a strand of it! Its competitor would be minarchism, aka “small government libertarianism”, “the minimal state”, or “classical liberalism” (although I personally think classical liberalism does not necessarily presume the existence of the state).

In any case, it is wrong to contrast libertarianism with anarcho-capitalism – indeed many people take them to be synonymous.

If you wish to learn only about minarchism, you can learn from Murray Rothbard, but I think you would enjoy Mises (Liberalism), Bastiat (The Law) and Hayek (The Road to Serfdom) more.

10

Hello Adrian and Thedesolateone - thanks for both your responses!

As you can probably see by now I am not that knowledgable person of this :smiley: But I did think that Anarcho-Capitalism was a sort of spin-off creation of Libertarianism. I’m not completely sure of this either, but I thought the Austrian School was better associated with Classical Liberalism as well? Or is that true for say, the base of Austrian Economists but many members sway towards Anarcho-Capitalists?

I am slightly more interested in learning about Classical Liberalism at this current time, as it also seems to have a bigger following then Anarcho-Capitalism.

I will probably read the Rothbard books I’ve got though, seeing as I did just pay for them!

Please do correct me if I’m wrong on anything I’ve said. Trying to get my facts straight :slight_smile:

Thanks

11

I recommend reading on the history of libertarianism before getting into theory,

Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement

It will be much easier to figure out where to go from there after you understand the background of the movement’s major figures. I wish I had read this book first and cannot recommend it enough.

Effectively the movements biggest players were Ludwig von Mises, Friedrick Hayek, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard. Anarcho-Capitalism is effectively a Rothbard creation. The other four were limited government libertarians.

Regarding Rothbard, he has some excellent works for the non anarcho-capitalist,

America’s Great Depression (PDF) (368 pgs)

What Has Government Done to Our Money? (PDF) (112 pgs)

(neither even bring it up)

12

Yes, the principled and logical conclusion of the NAP.

To help in your mind, grasp the differences… The Austrian School of Economics is value free, and deals with causal laws - if you do this, then this will happen.

Libertarianism on the other hand is a political philosophy and deals with what ought to be law.

For example, you could be a Nazi who, having studied Austrian Economics realises that rent control is very destructive… so he supports the establishment of Rent / Price controls in Israel.

But yeah, most Austrians follow Libertarianism. Austro-Libertarians.

Check out Ralph Raico.

Sticking to principles is rare for most people.

13

Yes Ralph Raico’s lectures on the history of classical liberalism are fantastic. Conza is correct to recommend them.

14

No problem, I’m (mainly) here so serf.

As explained, anarcho-capitalism is a part of the libertarian movement, with ‘minarchy’ as it’s counterpart. There is some debat on this but s with all words - and especially ideologies - it all depends on how you define it.

I prefer to have a view like this:

You have Classical Liberalism. Classical Liberalism can be devided in Libertarianism and something I would call ‘minimal welfarestatism’. Libertarianism can be devided in ‘minarchism’ (a minimal government) and ‘anarchism’ (or anarcho-capitalism) (no government).

Someone like Adam Smith and Hayek would fall under the minimal welfarestatism. Someone like Mises (leaving room for public schools and the draft) and Bastiat (advocating public works in ‘the seen and the unseen’) are minarchists. People like Rothbard are then anarchists.

But it’s just a way to define things. It’s not the absolute truth. (And people here will attack me on this distincion, as you will probably see.) By definition, it’s logical that more people are classical liberals than anarchists. I could call myself a classical liberal and an anarchist - most ‘plain’ classical liberals, won’t call themself an anarchist. :wink:

Obviously; the more ‘extreme’ you go, the less people who are willing to adhere to this view. ‘Ideology’ has a certain curve to it. The more ‘extreme’ (away from the status quo), the less number of people adhere to it. (Funny enough: at the point of the status quo: there is no one. Nobody ever advocates the status quo. :p)

What do you want to study, to be clear? The history of classical liberalism? The classical liberal ideas? Rothbard is part of the bigger classical liberal movement, just as Smith, Hume, Mises and Hayek were.

I follow the previous comment explaining the difference between the Austrian School and Classical liberalism. Austrian school is a scientific approach, classical liberalism is a normative position on what should happen in the world.

Any questions?

15

A lot of what you say is spot on but I think that classical liberalism, as a philosophy, is coming to the realization that the state is not the neutral agent which is capable of good for mankind like the 19th century theorists thought it could be.

16

Can you point me to where exactly Mises talks about public schools?

17

His best statement is in Nation, State, Economy, where he seems to come out against them completely. Later he softens. I think in Human Action he is weak on this point.

18

For those of you trying to explain to Tobe the relationship between Ancap and Libertarianism I would say hold off and save your breath(typing fingers?). Let Tobe start with broad ‘libertarianism’ subject matter. He’s looking in all the right places. If he follows the conclusions logically he will come to the right decision on his own. For now it’s just about making the best recomendation for him to get started.

Like many of us here know one book leads to another, so all he needs is a little nudge down the rabbit hole.

19

Better that he know I think. I didn’t know Mises was a utilitarian until I read For A New Liberty

20

Before you read “For a New Liberty”, what books of Mises did you read? I ask this because his “utilitarianism” is not cryptic, it is completely explicit.