Rothbard vs Ayn Randhttp://cordeliaforlear.blogspot.com/2009/05/murray-rothbard-traditionalist-vs-ayn.html
The Rockwell-Rothbard Race Warhttp://fusionistlibertarian.blogspot.com/2008/01/rockwell-rothbard-race-war.html
Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter
Southern Poverty and Law Center http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#11
This is pretty disappointing, from such an intellectual who I was coming to admire.
During the period when the most incendiary items appeared—roughly 1989 to 1994—Rockwell and the prominent libertarian theorist Murray Rothbard championed an open strategy of exploiting racial and class resentment to build a coalition with populist "paleoconservatives," producing a flurry of articles and manifestos whose racially charged talking points and vocabulary mirrored the controversial Paul newsletters recently unearthed by The New Republic
The Ludwig von Mises Institute, founded in 1982 by Llewellyn Rockwell Jr. and still headed by him, is a major center promoting libertarian political theory and the Austrian School of free market economics, pioneered by the late economist Ludwig von Mises. It publishes seven journals, has printed more than 100 books, and offers scholarships, prizes, conferences and a major library at its Auburn, Ala., offices. It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families." But the rule of these natural elites and intellectuals, writes institute scholar Hans-Hermann Hoppe, is being ruined by statist meddling such as "affirmative action and forced integration," which he said is "responsible for the almost complete destruction of private property rights, and the erosion of freedom of contract, association, and disassociation." A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." "The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.
Looks like Rothbard nailed it.
And that text is from an unbalanced hit piece - just cause statist TNR says something is true, doesn't mean it is.
"Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust."
...and so TNR tries to paint Rothbard, himself a Jew, as an anti-semite.
Shows you how trustworthy as interpreters of meaning they are, DFB.
It doesn't just come from that, I quoted the second part from the "About" section on Mises.
Add source links or don't quote.
liberty student: Add source links or don't quote.
I second that.
"I cannot prove, but am prepared to affirm, that if you take care of clarity in reasoning, most good causes will take care of themselves, while some bad ones are taken care of as a matter of course." -Anthony de Jasay
Democracy for Breakfast: It doesn't just come from that, I quoted the second part from the "About" section on Mises.
Provide quotation and sources for every claim.
That is what, someone who is intellectually honest, would do. Are you?
I would love to see the articles that are apparently 'racist'.
Conza88: Democracy for Breakfast: It doesn't just come from that, I quoted the second part from the "About" section on Mises. Provide quotation and sources for every claim. That is what, someone who is intellectually honest, would do. Are you? I would love to see the articles that are apparently 'racist'.
Southern Poverty and Law Centerhttp://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106#11
The SPLC is a far left smear organisation with an axe to grind against Christians, conservatives and anyone who doesn't toe the PC party line on racial matters, all of which describe Rothbard and Rockwell. And you might want to look into Reason's little feud with LRC over their differing positions on cultural conservatism, and the smear campaign run against Ron Paul and Rockwell for those newsletters in the 80's.
Praetyre: The SPLC is a far left smear organisation with an axe to grind against Christians, conservatives and anyone who doesn't toe the PC party line on racial matters, all of which describe Rothbard and Rockwell.
The SPLC is a far left smear organisation with an axe to grind against Christians, conservatives and anyone who doesn't toe the PC party line on racial matters, all of which describe Rothbard and Rockwell.
To be fair, an organization like this is an example of a "free society" an organization that stands against Racists. This is what you would see in a free society if you didn't want the state to be pursuing the Klu Klux Klan.
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Rockwell or Rothbard on race, and I don't long for the days of the 50's. But the SPLC is well known for being an organisation which unfairly attacks many people who make politically incorrect remarks and paints them in the same light as Klansmen and Neo Nazi groups.
They also dislike anybody questioning the "Lincoln went to war to end the evil South's illegal slave motivated secession" view of the US Civil War.
Democracy for Breakfast:Rothbard vs Ayn Rand
Page not found.
Democracy for Breakfast:The Rockwell-Rothbard Race War Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?
Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?
Democracy for Breakfast:Southern Poverty and Law Center
I am yet to see any primary sources. Point me to the articles where Rothbard or Rockwell said something racist.
Old news. Why bother bringing this up?
The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."
Hahaha so true.
As far as I understand, this was an attempt to create a new libertarian populism which aggressively challenged sacred cows of the PC crowd and which was supposed to create a class consciousness based on one's net productivity, i.e., whether one chooses to employ the economic or the political means in pursuing one's goals.It didn't turn out that well, and so today the gatekeepers of the nomenclature can still point their fingers at Rothbard for his allegedly "racist" remarks, even though his primary goal was, as far as I understand, to show how absurd the inherently racist and sexist culture of "victim classes" really is.This, refined with some classic out-of-context Hoppe quotes, will make excellent material for many smear campaigns to come I'm afraid.
There's obviously a lot of creative editing in there, so if it bothers you then go find the primary sources and see what was actually written.
Moreover, and I know most here will disagree, but I find the obsession with iconic figures downright disturbing. I know everyone does it, but I'd like to move past caring about who said what, whether good or bad.
I don't care if a great libertarian idea came from Hitler himself. If it's good, use it. By the same token, I don't care if X libertarian thinker was a racist or the devil himself. I advocate a free market of ideas, where the best ideas win out regardless of origin. I personally think even quote attribution should be an optional - but gentlemanly - gesture, but that's another matter.
The source of an idea does not determine its validity. If we understand and live according to this fact, we needn't fear of smear campaigns against individual "opinion leaders" (see how clearly this whole way of thinking is stuck in the old archist paradigm?).
Why anarchy fails
AJ:I find the obsession with iconic figures downright disturbing.
Agreed.
I think the quotes are old news to most of us, and nothing paticularly shocking.
I cleaned up and added links to the first post and unhyperlinked many of the sources, since they are just further smear garbage. Folks are entitled to their opinion of LvMI folks, but they aren't necessarily welcome to get their stuff promoted at LvMI.
I did unlink the content because much of it is poor. One is a blog post commenting on another link. The Reason piece iirc is based on the TNR piece. This is viral linking, but doesn't actually present a consensus of source material. The original newsletters may be offensive to some. They aren't to me. That said, the strategy being pursued was not a very good one. The entire paleo thing backfired in the end. Instead of the thoughtful appeal to ideas and morality, trying to engage radical elements and make radical statements isn't in the vein of what has worked so far.
That's something self-styled "movement" libertarians would be wise to pay attention to. If you have to force it or act out of character, it is probably wrong.
If anyone has a problem with my link edits, first check the forum rules (specifically prohibited #1 and #4), then PM me.
"It also promotes a type of Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of social justice is destructive. The institute seems nostalgic for the days when, "because of selective mating, marriage, and the laws of civil and genetic inheritance, positions of natural authority [were] likely to be passed on within a few noble families."
They make it sound as if believing in traditional structures is necessarily a bad thing. Hoppe has made a pretty decent case that traditional structures, such as monarchy, are preferrable to populist demagogues.
Let's assume that Rothbard was indeed a racist, and that Rockwell is indeed a racist. So what? I mean so long as they're not using the state to enforce their beliefs I don't see the problem. To be honest racism ought to viewed as a venal sin as opposed to a mortal one. Jefferson might have been a slave holder and most likely a racist, but that doesn't discount the validity of his other beliefs. The Fugees might supposedly hate white people, but that doesn't mean they don't make decent music.
AJ: There's obviously a lot of creative editing in there, so if it bothers you then go find the primary sources and see what was actually written. Moreover, and I know most here will disagree, but I find the obsession with iconic figures downright disturbing. I know everyone does it, but I'd like to move past caring about who said what, whether good or bad. I don't care if a great libertarian idea came from Hitler himself. If it's good, use it. By the same token, I don't care if X libertarian thinker was a racist or the devil himself. I advocate a free market of ideas, where the best ideas win out regardless of origin. I personally think even quote attribution should be an optional - but gentlemanly - gesture, but that's another matter. The source of an idea does not determine its validity. If we understand and live according to this fact, we needn't fear of smear campaigns against individual "opinion leaders" (see how clearly this whole way of thinking is stuck in the old archist paradigm?).
A Libertarian idea came from Hitler?
Also, I thought Libertarians were actually opposed to Social Darwinism. But Rothbard believed in Natural Elites?
Democracy for Breakfast:A Libertarian idea came from Hitler?
Democracy for Breakfast:Also, I thought Libertarians were actually opposed to Social Darwinism. But Rothbard believed in Natural Elites?
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
Democracy for Breakfast: Also, I thought Libertarians were actually opposed to Social Darwinism. But Rothbard believed in Natural Elites?
No. Social Darwinism allows for fraud, etc.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
This is why you need to do more research. I'm not sure how you have been informed on libertarianism. What it is, and more importantly, what it is not.
Yeah, now we've heard 'em all. Can't believe people take these clowns seriously.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
two questions to OP:
A. Do you really eat "Democracy for Breakfast" to rid it, you know empty bowl, or is democracy what you like and find it tasty so you eat it?
B. Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can't get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread? If this has nothing to do with current thread, then let it be known. But it seems your on a tangent of some sorts, seeking questions (which isn't necessarily bad), and are trying to find something out. The something, by you, isn't yet known so you simply have a bunch of questions and want others of like mind to help you sort through the mud.
if you can state your intention it doesn't necessarily derail the thread. i'm asking and then i'll move on. wanted to know what's going on with you that might not be readily surfacing.
wilderness: two questions to OP: B. Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can't get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread? if you can state your intention it doesn't necessarily derail the thread. i'm asking and then i'll move on. wanted to know what's going on with you that might not be readily surfacing.
B. Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can't get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread?
I have begun wondering if we have a troll.
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
wilderness: two questions to OP: A. Do you really eat "Democracy for Breakfast" to rid it, you know empty bowl, or is democracy what you like and find it tasty so you eat it? B. Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can't get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread? If this has nothing to do with current thread, then let it be known. But it seems your on a tangent of some sorts, seeking questions (which isn't necessarily bad), and are trying to find something out. The something, by you, isn't yet known so you simply have a bunch of questions and want others of like mind to help you sort through the mud. if you can state your intention it doesn't necessarily derail the thread. i'm asking and then i'll move on. wanted to know what's going on with you that might not be readily surfacing.
A. I suppose its because I see Democracy appealing, but I just thought the name had a good catch, its nothing more then that.
I don't understand the first sentence. " Have you carried your axe to grind due to you can't get the music your friends have and thus your hint of yearning for socialism into this thread?"
I don't yearn for socialism. I don't understand why you think I'm a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I'm asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise.
Also, I googled Murray Rothbard, and came up with "Murray Rothbard racist" and it drew my curiosity, which is why I made this topic.
I've been a Conservative Libertarian ever since discovering Ron Paul in 2007. Now, I'm a bit iffy on American Nationalism as a whole, I mean The U.S Constitution was written for individuals and self-ownership rights. However, the means to obtain this end was Colonization of a native land, taken from Indians, from then on America became a "Monopoly on Force" where borders were erected and the new rulers would control people in a free society under its dominion. This is the thing I am pretty iffy on, America as the 1776 of a free and prosperous society, but used aggression to obtain those ends. Even now most of those "freedoms" and values are no longer relevant to our society, as people often buy the Mass Media's viewpoints and the things iconic figures say to make Socialism, such as the "Scandinavian Socialism" seem like a dream worth living up to. It almost feels like hardly any Neo-Liberals know anything, or even acknowledge U.S History.
I mean I think everyone is a Libertarian without knowing it, and not looking past their beliefs bought up from the media. Libertarianism is hardly in mainstream culture, so everyone compares to the conservative. GOP Conservatives are frowned on now, and people all seem to believe a deregulated financial market led to this economic turmoil. It seems to be, to be a Neo-Liberal is just to buy things as they are and not look into the future or the past, just like Frederic Bastiat said.
After discovering True Libertarianism, I realized most of the big movements such as Ghandi's Self-Obedience, The Hippies, French Revolution were groups of individuals wanting to live their own lives.
After spending some time at Mises, I've realized that the truth is not in the Media or the "normal" world, so I've stopped watching the News, and I listen to NPR very little, but just to keep up on issues.
"I don't yearn for socialism. I don't understand why you think I'm a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I'm asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise."
My apologies.
Democracy for Breakfast: I don't understand why you think I'm a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I'm asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise.
I don't understand why you think I'm a Troll, I seek to understand and acknowledge all the ways to defend a free society against any argument that may come up, I'm asking questions to erase any doubts in my mind of flaws in a free society that arise.
1. I didn't say nor think you a troll.
2. This statement of intent: "I'm asking questions to erase any doubts..." is the kind of statement of intent I was asking about.
good day
Any person who doesn't willingly give his money to people of other "races" on the street corner is labeled as racist these days. Looking over some of his supposedly racist quotes, I can see that most have clearly been taken out of context, or are only racist by the measurement of contemporary pc politics (e.g. opposition to affirmative action or redistributve wealth). I have read quite a bit by Murray Rothbard, and I have never seen anything regarding one race as inherently inferior to another, which seems to me to be the only legitimate definition of racism. He opposed any use of government coersion by any group to enforce their values on another group, be they black, white, asian, women, etc. This is the "racism" that these articles are referring to. Though, if you consider racism to be the unwillingness to grant special rules to people based on the color of their skin or their sex, then yes, I suppose he was a racist.
As for the natural elite bit, it is obvious in reality that natural elites exist and that all men are not equal. It isn't very pc to say that, but it is true nonetheless. Some people are smarter than others, some are more athletic, some are better musicians, or more attractive. Even between certain races there are inherent inequalities: most American Indians are naturally lactose intolerant, black people have higher rates of heart disease. The real question is whether Murray proposed to apply equally to all people the natural rights which are inherent to the being of man. He did in fact. None of these things seem racist to me.