There seems to be some controversy as to whether Rothbard was actually an anarchist.
I will quote from his work Betrayal of the American Right which according to the words of Thomas Woods is ‘the closest thing to an autobiography that Rothbard had written’
Some controversy–where? On such tosswad places as infoshop?
I don’t see the controversy to which you refer.
Perhaps you should read through the whole topic. Rothbard wrote an article in the mid 50’s in which he declared he wasn’t an anarchist. I state that it was an article produced before the quote I just gave. Conza thinks that Rothbard hadn’t changed his position from 1950 to 1970’s.
If you are going to refer to our exchange, how about you do it from the top.
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t against abolishing the state / rulers.
I state it was an article produced before the quote you gave. I stated Rothbard hadn’t changed his underlining principles from the 1950’s to the 1970’s, only the association with labels. I’d be correct.
Conventional Critiques
"He wasn’t consistent. Raimondo produces letters and articles from his earliest writings showing that he had mapped out most of his life’s work. That goes for his attachment to Austro-free-market theory, his anarcho-capitalism, his devotion to natural rights, his love of the Old Right political paradigm, his optimistic outlook for liberty, his hatred of war, his essential Americanism, and even his reactionary cultural outlook. The ideas were all developed throughout the course of his life, but the seeds seemed to be there from the beginning. The attacks were too. Ralph Lord Roy’s 1953 book Apostles of Discord blasted some early Rothbard articles as dangerously supporting “unregulated laissez-faire capitalism.” Exactly. He learned, he developed, he elaborated, but he never made a fundamental shift."
So you think that Rothbard became an ‘anarchist’ but wasn’t really an ‘anarchist’?
Rothbard was for no rulers. As he wrote in the 1950’s article:
“We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom.”
And at the same time of the article again:
And at the same time whilst you were referring to the 1970’s article, Rothbard was getting interviewed and makes the distinction clear.
His nonarchy article was before he moved to the label of anarcho-capitalism - but the same insights were still there and didn’t change. After that it became expedient to just refer to anarchism (no rulers), but of a different type. Instead of having to explain what nonarchy is. He had spent 20 years expounding on the system he had earlier mapped out and had a unifying label for all of it.
Before he became an anarchist he was a minarchist. Are you sure you read Betrayal of the American Right? He clearly says that before he became an anarchist he believed that government should be used to protect person and property. That is why there was no inconsistency between him and the Old Right because people like Meckhen and Flynn were minimal government advocates, not anarchists. You cannot ‘convert’ to anarchism if you already consider yourself an advocate of no rulers. You can discover you are an anarchist but that is not converting.
Obviously. But that isn’t what we are discussing, nor why we are engaged in this conversation. Don’t shift the goal posts. The issue is whether he was for no state or not when he wrote the 1950’s article, Are Libertarians ‘Anarchists’?. The issue is whether he had a fundamental shift from when he was rejecting the label of ‘anarchism’ in that 50’s article, preferring nonarchy, to when he was using the anarchy label in the 70’s - in association with anarcho-capitalism. It’s crystal clear he was for a pure libertarian society, as he so states in the exact same article that sparked this discussion, and I have quoted previously.
Positive. Have you read Enemy of the State by Justin Raimondo? It’s an entire biography of Rothbard’s life. It deals in chapters of his childhood, not sentences.
As he so states in the 1950’s article:
"The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. “Well, then are you an anarchist?” The libertarian is reduced to sputtering “No, no, of course I’m not an anarchist.” “Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?” The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case.
Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: “Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud.” I have tried to show in my article, “The Real Aggressor” in the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative helpless before the argument “necessary for defense,” when it is used for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter further: “If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service — “defense” — why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services — such as post offices, “welfare,” steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?” I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own “protection” to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom."
Again, further adding to my contention that he only altered his association and use of labels, not his fundamental underlining position (from the 1950’s article). The New Banner Interview - 1972:
NEW BANNER: In the No. 7 issue of the Ayn Rand Letter, Miss Rand admonishes her readers, “Do not join… libertarian hippies who subordinate reason to whims and substitute anarchism for capitalism.” Do you think that this remark was directed at you and other advocates of free market alternatives to government institutions, and do you think this remark is in keeping with Miss Rand’s oft-stated principle of “defining your terms?”
ROTHBARD: Well, it’s hard to say, because you notice there are very few specific facts in her discussion. There is one sentence covering “libertarian hippies.” Who are they? Where are they?
The movement that I’m in favor of is a movement of libertarians who do not substitute whim for reason. Now some of them do, obviously, and I’m against that. I’m in favor of reason over whim. As far as I’m concerned, and I think the rest of the movement, too, we are anarcho-capitalists. In other words, we believe that capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism. Not only are they compatible, but you can’t really have one without the other. True anarchism will be capitalism, and true capitalism will be anarchism.
As for her remark being in keeping with the principle of defining one’s terms – well, obviously not. I don’t think she has ever defined the term “anarchism,” as a matter of fact.
Well if you read what Rothbard actually wrote he says he was against government taxation but it was necessary for the government to defend the person and property. Do we agree that this is a position of minarchism? Or at perhaps that it means there needs to be a ruler though it should be controlled? If the answer to yes is either of these and we take from Rothbard OWN WRITINGS, not the writings of some other biographer [ in the historical community we call this a primary source which has much more power behind it then a secondary source such as a biographer ] it can be said with reasonable definity that before and during Rothbard’s graduate studies which lasted until the mid 50’s therefore your early 50’s article really supports what I am saying, he was a minarchist or what he would call classical liberal. Now his own writings say he was presented with a paradox concerning his ‘lassiez-faire’ government mentality which upon hearing caused him to see the contradiction of his position and either become a ‘liberal’ in the sense of progressivism or become an anarchist. He became an anarchist near the end of his graduate days. Rothbard in his earlier years can be likened to Mises in the sense that their political philosophical ideals were not fully self-realized. Mises talked about secession down to the individual level yet never was an anarchist. Individual secession is anarchism per say. Rothbard grew up [ politically speaking ] with the Old Right who were Leonard Reed [ that bastard who betrayed his brethren ], John T Flynn, Murray was mentored by Chodrov [ who become an anarchist AFTER Murray, Murray actually converted him ], Albert J Nock who was Chodrov’s mentor, Isabel Patterson. Nock was the one of the extremist who went so far as to be semi-anarchist, the rest were for minimal government of various sizes.
Here’s a question: what does it matter.
If neither of you can give a sufficient answer, I’ll lock the thread and you two can do this in private.
Because keeping a sense of history is vital towards an ideological movement. If we build on top of myth or false statements, what does that say about the foundation. If you don’t want to engage in this topic, that is fine, however this topic does nothing to transgress the rules of the forum so you taking action against it would be unlawful.
He describes a confused libertarians conversation, I don’t see anything where Rothbard says the state is necessary for defense.
‘I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision of police and judicial protection and for that only’
What article are you quoting? As its not the one I was referring to.
Betrayal of the American Right
So? Rothbard was a confused libertarian, by his own admission, then he understood what it took to be a pure libertarian or “nonarchist” sometime in the 50’s. I don’t think this was in dispute.
He was a classical liberal, a minarchist, a minimal government libertarian, call it what you will. However, he did have a conversion to anarchism when he discovered that the social contract is fictitious and that lassiez-faire government or minimal state government is utopian. Government either expands and conquers or it is buried.