I think I read somewhere that Murray Rothbard moderated his opposition to support for abortion in his later years. Is this true? I can't find a link.
Moderated in what way?
"La cuestión es siempre la misma: que el gobierno o el mercado. No hay tercera solución." -Ludwig von Mises
What opposition?
Yes, Individualist,"What opposition?" comes to mind here, too. I've read only snippets of Rothbard's vast output, but he's crystal clear in Chapter 14, "Children and Rights", of The Ethics of Liberty. There he wrote, "The proper groundwork for analysis of abortion is in every man's absolute right of self-ownership. This implies immediately that every woman has the absolute right to her own body, that she has absolute dominion over her body and everything within it. This includes the fetus.... Any laws restricting or prohibiting abortion are therefore invasions of the rights of mothers."
Now Rothbard wrote about 2 or 3 gajillion books and articles, and I'm not familiar with most of them. But I'm fairly certain that he never backed off of this position after the publication of The Ethics of Liberty. TEOL has appeared in different editions, but mine has an intro by Hoppe, who is plenty more familiar with Rothbard and his writings than I am. In that intro he writes, "Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
If anyone knows different, I'd appreciate a pointer to the passage or passages where Rothbard backed off.
Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion. I'm very sorry for that typo. Where's the "dunce hat" icon when you need it?
Individualist: Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion.
Yes, I was asking if he backed off from his support for (not opposition to) legalized abortion.
Ah, that makes more sense.
I'm very sorry for that typo. Where's the "dunce hat" icon when you need it?
If you need to borrow a real dunce cap, I'll gladly send you mine, so long as you don't mind one that's been worn to tatters from overuse.
As for your question, the short answer is: No he didn't back off from his support of a right to abortion.
That said, Rothbard lived his last years under the Clinton regime, and was looking for a tactical alliance with cultural conservatives, roughly Buchananite Republicans, at that time. He wrote columns analyzing the political prospects of candidates, sometimes pointing out that a pro-abortion stance might hurt a given Republican hopeful. I think some careless readers came away with the idea that Rothbard was uncritically embracing the views of those Elephant Party voters for whom a pro-abortion stance would cause trouble. Perhaps you've encountered loose talk or writing of the kind, and that's what prompted your question?
twelveguage: Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
Until the end of his life, he [Rothbard] would not budge on the problem of abortion and child neglect and insisted on a mother's absolute legal (lawful) right to an abortion and of letting her children die." So it doesn't seem that there was any opposition to moderate.
One of his most monstrous opinions.
do you have the right to force mothers to look after their children in the way you wish them to at the barrel of your gun? why not look after the kids yourself.....
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
nirgrahamUK: do you have the right to force mothers to look after their children in the way you wish them to at the barrel of your gun? why not look after the kids yourself.....
More and more, I am convinced that many libertarians just want an excuse to avoid all responsibility. Frankly, if your vision of an 'ancap' world means mothers can allow their children to starve, then I would rather deal with the state.
Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
Protip: people notice such dishonesty. And I'm going to call it as I see it by noting that you have to be an idiot to believe that no one will notice, and that you can arbitrarily re-define words to suit your beliefs.
Don't like it? Stop being dishonest, then.
what do the children want? do they want you to threaten their parents into caring for them? or do they want to live with people that just do care for them?
My emotionless view on abortion is this: as soon as you consider the fetus a person, abortion becomes murder(emotionally, I place that line pretty early). On neglect, a parent often controls his child's ability to eat; I'd say you have to argue pretty damn hard to argue a child too young to feed himself is not the responsibility of the caretaker to get fed.
It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction. Such a vulgar position is the inevitable result of trying to create an ethical universal principle; it always leads to spurious conclusions. Kant claimed that lying is always wrong, even if it meant saving someone's life; how absurd.
"If we wish to preserve a free society, it is essential that we recognize that the desirability of a particular object is not sufficient justification for the use of coercion."
Esuric:It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.
Knight_of_BAAWA: Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
Rrrright. You mean the definition that has been used since, well, the start of humankind? If a parent's responsibility to feed their children isnt a basic and obvious obligation (yes, I used the O word), then I do not know what is.
Knight_of_BAAWA:Ah yes, that wonderful re-definition of "responsibility". I love that. It makes me laugh every time some idiot tries such nonsense as said idiot thinks words can be re-defined and no one will notice.
sicsempertyrannis:Rrrright. You mean the definition that has been used since, well, the start of humankind?
Now I don't care about your position on abortion, really; I care about your gross misuse of the word "responsibility".
Knight_of_BAAWA: Esuric:It's pretty obvious that Rothbard had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.Proof, please.
How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion? His work claims that people have absolute control over their bodies, no matter what, it's their right, and yet they wouldn't be allowed to terminate unwanted pregnancies. It would have been a blatant contradiction which would have negated his main point regarding property rights.
Knight_of_BAAWA: The one that is in dictionaries. The one that you're deliberately trying to forget exists. The one that you're trying to erase and supplant with your own warped version. Now I don't care about your position on abortion, really; I care about your gross misuse of the word "responsibility".
The one that is in dictionaries. The one that you're deliberately trying to forget exists. The one that you're trying to erase and supplant with your own warped version.
Where in the hell did I bring up abortion? I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death. Hate to break it to you, but you're the one with the warped definition of responsibility - yours is catered to your ism, not reality.
Esuric:How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion?
Knight_of_BAAWA: Esuric:How could he ever possibly defend a stance against abortion?Ok, and you were talking about a contradiction. I'm wondering about that. Still.
I said he had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.
sicsempertyrannis:Where in the hell did I bring up abortion?
Hate to break it to you--oh wait, I don't hate to break it to you. I'm happy to do so. Your attempt at re-defining "responsibility" has been noted, and it caters to your odd view, not reality.
Yeah, you might want to actually SUPPORT your definition. You can't just act all childish and pout; that won't do. Either learn to support your contentions or stop making contentions. Period.
Esuric:I said he had to take this position in order to avoid contradiction.
sicsempertyrannis: I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death.
I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death.
Rothbard didn't say to go and do this. that's wrong.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sicsempertyrannis:Where in the hell did I bring up abortion?That's sorta part of the topic of this thread, y'see. Hate to break it to you--oh wait, I don't hate to break it to you. I'm happy to do so. Your attempt at re-defining "responsibility" has been noted, and it caters to your odd view, not reality.
Quite the contrary, youre the one redefining it with your odd view. Libertarians like yourself seem unwilling to accept that there are obligations in life including, yes, not neglecting your children.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
wilderness: sicsempertyrannis: I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death. Rothbard didn't say to go and do this. that's wrong.
Yes he did. From Ethics of Liberty, chapter 14:
"This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes..."
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: sicsempertyrannis: I only highlighted Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death. Rothbard didn't say to go and do this. that's wrong. Yes he did. From Ethics of Liberty, chapter 14: "This rule allows us to solve such vexing questions as: should a parent have the right to allow a deformed baby to die (e.g., by not feeding it)? The answer is of course yes..."
He doesn't say "go and do this". so you're wrong.
wilderness: Where in that sentence does Rothbard say "go and do this"?
Where in that sentence does Rothbard say "go and do this"?
Nowhere, but that wasnt the point.
sicsempertyrannis:Quite the contrary
Notice how you are incapable of defending your view. Perhaps that should tell you something.
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: Where in that sentence does Rothbard say "go and do this"? Nowhere, but that wasnt the point.
Yes. it IS the point. I said Rothbard doesn't say "go and do this". You gave a little devil icon in relation to a quote in his book in which had no relation to what I said. Now here's what I responded to:
And I said nowhere does Rothbard say you can "go and do this". Where does Rothbard talk about being "bored (etc..)"? You said this is "Rothbard's position" - i say you're wrong. (*edit: due to moving to far ahead of discussion)
wilderness: Yes. it IS the point. I said Rothbard doesn't say "go and do this". You gave a little devil icon in relation to a quote in his book in which had no relation to what I said.
Yes. it IS the point. I said Rothbard doesn't say "go and do this". You gave a little devil icon in relation to a quote in his book in which had no relation to what I said.
Actually, the devil icon was how it came out after a copy/paste from mises.org. Believe it or not it was unintentional (although appropriate).
Anyway, yes, that IS 'Rothbard's position'. There are alot of things he thought should be 'allowable' that he didnt support per se. He didnt think pornographers should be prosecuted for obscenity, but he probably didnt 'support porno'. Nevertheless, we could accurately state that 'Rothbard thought it was OK to watch porno' just as I said ' Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death' . Notice I didnt say he thought they 'should', but rather that they can.
Knight_of_BAAWA: sicsempertyrannis:Quite the contraryNo. Either support your contention or stop making contentions. Period. Notice how you are incapable of defending your view. Perhaps that should tell you something.
Yes, I did defend my view. My contention is that a parent allowing their children to starve to death is criminal, and that Rothbard is dead wrong. It is a basic human responsibility, which has only come into doubt since about 1970 when Rothbard dreamed up the rather laughable position.
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: Yes. it IS the point. I said Rothbard doesn't say "go and do this". You gave a little devil icon in relation to a quote in his book in which had no relation to what I said. Actually, the devil icon was how it came out after a copy/paste from mises.org. Believe it or not it was unintentional (although appropriate).
funny
sicsempertyrannis: Anyway, yes, that IS 'Rothbard's position'. There are alot of things he thought should be 'allowable' that he didnt support per se. He didnt think pornographers should be prosecuted for obscenity, but he probably didnt 'support porno'. Nevertheless, we could accurately state that 'Rothbard thought it was OK to watch porno'
Anyway, yes, that IS 'Rothbard's position'. There are alot of things he thought should be 'allowable' that he didnt support per se. He didnt think pornographers should be prosecuted for obscenity, but he probably didnt 'support porno'. Nevertheless, we could accurately state that 'Rothbard thought it was OK to watch porno'
nowhere does it say Rothbard says it's ok to watch porn - wrong again. You're strawmanning Rothbard again and again on issues you have no idea what Rothbard would support or not support.
sicsempertyrannis: just as I said ' Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death' . Notice I didnt say he thought they 'should', but rather that they can.
just as I said ' Rothbard's position that you can get bored of your children and allow them to starve to death' . Notice I didnt say he thought they 'should', but rather that they can.
And I said nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this". interesting ain't it
wilderness: nowhere does it say Rothbard says it's ok to watch porn - wrong again. You're strawmanning Rothbard again and again on issues you have no idea what Rothbard would support or not support.
No, but if I do some digging I bet I can find a Rothbard quote that states something to the affect of 'people who watch porn shouldnt be arrested', which is all I meant by that.
Not really, since I never made that assertion and you're the one becoming sidetracked with it.
sicsempertyrannis: My contention is that a parent allowing their children to starve to death is criminal
My contention is that a parent allowing their children to starve to death is criminal
ok you're a positivist, fine. end of story.
sicsempertyrannis:Yes, I did defend my view.
wilderness: sicsempertyrannis: My contention is that a parent allowing their children to starve to death is criminal ok you're a positivist, fine. end of story.
No, more like a negativist with some reservations.
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: nowhere does it say Rothbard says it's ok to watch porn - wrong again. You're strawmanning Rothbard again and again on issues you have no idea what Rothbard would support or not support. No, but if I do some digging I bet I can find a Rothbard quote that states something to the affect of 'people who watch porn shouldnt be arrested', which is all I meant by that.
And yet I stated nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this" - watch porn, commit abortions - nowhere does he say "go and do this". So who are you really arguing against?
sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: And I said nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this". interesting ain't it Not really, since I never made that assertion and you're the one becoming sidetracked with it.
wilderness: And I said nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this". interesting ain't it
No. You said Rothbard makes these assertions and have now back-stepped by clarifying you are talking about "arrested" which I assume you are talking about the law - and - NOT Rothbard now. So why do you keep bringing up Rothbard into the discussion? Do you want to start all over again and re-clarify your whole position now?
sicsempertyrannis: No, more like a negativist with some reservations.
You either are a positivist or a negativist - pick one. I don't know of any other category's maybe you could enlighten me, but I never heard of the "some reservations" category.
wilderness: sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: nowhere does it say Rothbard says it's ok to watch porn - wrong again. You're strawmanning Rothbard again and again on issues you have no idea what Rothbard would support or not support. No, but if I do some digging I bet I can find a Rothbard quote that states something to the affect of 'people who watch porn shouldnt be arrested', which is all I meant by that. And yet I stated nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this" - watch porn, commit abortions - nowhere does he say "go and do this". So who are you really arguing against? sicsempertyrannis: wilderness: And I said nowhere does Rothbard say "go and do this". interesting ain't it Not really, since I never made that assertion and you're the one becoming sidetracked with it. No. You said Rothbard makes these assertions and have now back-stepped by clarifying you are talking about "arrested" which I assume you are talking about the law - and - NOT Rothbard now. So why do you keep bringing up Rothbard into the discussion? Do you want to start all over again and re-clarify your whole position now?
All I meant by all of that was they were his philosophical opinions about whats OK in a libertarian world. I didnt think I needed to 'clarify' what should be obvious.
I keep bringing him up because the thread is about him and his positions, perhaps?