Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

Was Rothbard an Anarchist?

This post has 48 Replies | 2 Followers

Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator
Nitroadict replied on Tue, Sep 29 2009 10:58 PM

Angurse:

Conza88:

By the way, just interested.. does anyone know how Rothbard chose his pen name?

[This article was written in the mid-1950s under the byline "Aubrey Herbert," a pseudonym Rothbard used in the periodical Faith and Freedom.]

Ironically, its argued today whether Herbert actually was an anarchist.

 


I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. 

This page
claims Gustave Molinari was also one of the earlier figures inspired the idea of panarchism, so it doesn't surprise me the originator of Voluntaryism would be included here, as well.

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 22
Points 360
Conagain replied on Tue, Sep 29 2009 11:03 PM

Nitroadict:

 

I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. 

 

is there a difference between a panarchist and a communist?

 

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Wed, Sep 30 2009 12:22 AM

Nitroadict:

I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. 

I'd say panarchy really is anarchy, at least anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism. Although, from a left-anarchist perspective it definitely isn't anarchy.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Conagain:

Nitroadict:

 

I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. 

 

is there a difference between a panarchist and a communist?

 

You mean aside from communists typically rationalizing coercion & killing people beyond self-defense, whereas in this context of a voluntaryist, would only rationalize coercion within self-defense?

There is  a difference in the case of Auberon Herbert (a voluntaryist who could easily also be a panarchist, since a voluntary system of competitive jurisdictions would more or less be the same thing as a panarchial society).    

I don't see how communists would respect the individual's right to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, let alone an individual's right to property.

I could see anarcho-communists being pan-secessionists, but not panarchists; to be in favor of pan-archism, you would not desire to abolish it after secession, methinks.

I could easily see communists in favor of pan-secessionism eventually waring with other jursidctions in order to take over their resources to accommodate their economic ideology. 

I personally think the wikipedia article on panarchism makes a slight mistake & confuses socialists and/or communists who sympathize with pan-secessionism as being the same as sympathizing with pan-archism. 

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 22
Points 360
Conagain replied on Wed, Sep 30 2009 1:35 AM

Nitroadict:

You mean aside from communists typically rationalizing coercion & killing people beyond self-defense, whereas in this context of a voluntaryist, would only rationalize coercion within self-defense?

 

Hardly "aside from the fact", both believe in self defense, they just have a different definition of personal boundaries and property.

There is  a difference in the case of Auberon Herbert (a voluntaryist who could easily also be a panarchist, since a voluntary system of competitive jurisdictions would more or less be the same thing as a panarchial society).    

I don't see how communists would respect the individual's right to move from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, let alone an individual's right to property.

Communists don't hate private property, they only violate property when it benefits them, they'll respect property when it benefits them too.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Angurse:

Nitroadict:

I'd argue he was a panarchist, not an anarchist. 

I'd say panarchy really is anarchy, at least anarcho-capitalism or voluntaryism. Although, from a left-anarchist perspective it definitely isn't anarchy.

I would disagree that panarchism is strictly anarchism (unless you take Bakunin literally, when he clarifies that anarchism is about abolishing involuntary authority, but most would agree to the meaning of  no archy or no rule at all), but I would agree that panarchism can be a better label to describe "anarcho-capitalism".

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,221
Points 34,090
Moderator

Conagain:

Hardly "aside from the fact", both believe in self defense, they just have a different definition of personal boundaries and property.

 



I would call the various deaths resulting from communist regimes certainly a fact.  I would yield error if you were talking about anarcho-communists, or free-market communists, but you did not specify this in your initial query. 

Conagain:

Communists don't hate private property, they only violate property when it benefits them, they'll respect property when it benefits them too.




...the establishment of a communist society in which private ownership is abolished over time and the means of production and subsistence become the collective property of society.

[per: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism]



I have to disagree; the communists you speak of that do not abolish private property all together are merely Statists who lie to their masses about equality, when they hold all the keys to the property. 

I thought, under communism, the collective society was the owner of property, not an oligarchy?   

"Look at me, I'm quoting another user to show how wrong I think they are, out of arrogance of my own position. Wait, this is my own quote, oh shi-" ~ Nitroadict

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,124
Points 37,405
Angurse replied on Wed, Sep 30 2009 10:44 AM

Nitroadict:

I would disagree that panarchism is strictly anarchism (unless you take Bakunin literally, when he clarifies that anarchism is about abolishing involuntary authority, but most would agree to the meaning of  no archy or no rule at all), but I would agree that panarchism can be a better label to describe "anarcho-capitalism".

Exactly.

This is nothing more than the "nonarchy" issue of Rothbard. Ultimately Its still a stateless society, so call it what you want.

"I am an aristocrat. I love liberty, I hate equality."
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
Male
Posts 2,940
Points 49,115
Conza88 replied on Sat, Oct 10 2009 11:19 PM

delete. wrong post. sorry.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (49 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS