I Unearth Another Rothbard Hater!

By -
Roderick Long shows that Rothbard employed a cartoon version of Plotinus -- kind of like his cartoon Rousseau, or his cartoon Smith, or his cartoon English Revolution.

Comments

  1. GilesS6:10 PM

    I was going to say like his cartoonish version of the Friedmans, but then I realised that didn't capture it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bob Murphy11:00 PM

    Except that Roderick didn't cast Rothbard into hell as an ignorant hack, as some other critics do whenever they find a mistake.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian N.11:01 AM

    I remember a bit from the translator's introduction to The Compendium of Theology...

    "scholars should be reading these pages in Latin"

    It reminds me of Rothbard's mishandling of Rousseau(1), and a very wise thing once said by Robert Heinlein:

    "The three-legged stool of understanding is held up by history, languages, and mathematics. Equipped with these three you can learn anything you want to learn. But if you lack any one of them you are just another ignorant peasant with dung on your boots."

    (1) - He apparently learned to read French at some point, but he when he stated what he did about Rousseau, he was dependent upon the likes of Irving Babbitt. Granted that Babbitt was apparently a specialist in the field but he had an axe to grind.

    ReplyDelete
  4. master_of_americans1:13 PM

    Really? Heinlein didn't claim to know anything about anything that he couldn't read about in the original language?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Samson Corwell1:30 PM

    Cartoon English Revolution? I'm not familiar with his views on that one. In what way did Rothbard skewer it? Was it another case of him trying to proclaim X as libertarians (i.e., Edmund Burke) or Y as an example of his system in action (i.e., the Wild West)?

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more