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

Which Austrians came from Keynesianism? from Friedman? from Other? always Austrian?

rated by 0 users
Answered (Verified) This post has 1 verified answer | 17 Replies | 6 Followers

Top 100 Contributor
852 Posts
Points 19,800
ViennaSausage posted on Thu, Apr 15 2010 12:51 PM

Which Austrians came from Keynesianism? from Friedman/Chicago?  from Other?  always Austrian?

I take it Mises was one of the few that was always Austrian.

IIRC, Hoppe came from Friedman/Chicago, but via the free market philosophy of Friedman. 

Curious to see if anyone came from Keynesianism.

  • | Post Points: 80

Answered (Verified) Verified Answer

Top 10 Contributor
5,118 Posts
Points 87,310
Verified by ViennaSausage

Murray Rothbard and Walter Block were hardcore socialists. Thomas Woods was a neocon.

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."

  • | Post Points: 40

All Replies

Top 50 Contributor
2,943 Posts
Points 49,130

Jonathan M. F. Catalán:


I almost fell off my chair. No he wasn't. He grew up in a neighbourhood where everyone was. But he and his old man were the exception.

I believe Rothbard started out as a conservative, and then moved to the left when he became disillusioned with the right.  I think that he then went back to the right, and finally settled on libertarianism.

No. Not at all. He never shifted, everyone else did. That is key. He then allied against the status quo, with the other side at the time... get published in places (remember, no lewrockwell, no, no internet) & tried to show them the consistency of libertarianism.

In Defense of Rothbard - Lew Rockwell

"Liberty from the Beginning 

Raimondo produces letters and articles from Rothbard's 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."

Everyone needs to read that. Betrayal of the American right p73.

"While I had always enjoyed economics, I had never been able to find a comfortable home in economictheory: I tended to agree with institutionalist critiques ofKeynesians and mathematicians, but also with the latters’ critiquesof the institutionalists. No positive system seemed to make senseor to hang together. But in Mises’s Human Action I found economicsas a superb architectonic, a mighty edifice with each buildingblock related to and integrated with every other. Upon reading it,I became a dedicated “Austrian” and Misesian, and I read as much Austrian economics as I could find."

... Betrayal of the American right p78

"My conversion to anarchism was a simple exercise in logic. I had engaged continually in friendly arguments about laissez-faire with liberal friends from graduate school. While condemning taxation, I had still felt that taxation was required for the provision of police and judicial protection and for that only. One night two friends and I had one of our usual lengthy  discussions, seemingly unprofitable; but this time when they’d left, I felt that for once something vital had actually been said. As I thought back on the discussion, I realized that my friends, as liberals, had posed the following challenge to my laissez-faire position:

They:  What is the legitimate basis for your laissez-faire government, for this political entity confined solely to defending person and property?

I: Well, the people get together and decide to establish such a government.

They: But if  “the people” can do that, why can’t they do exactly the same thing and get together to choose a government that will build steel plants, dams, etc.?

I realized in a flash that their logic was impeccable, that laissez-faire was logically untenable, and that either I had to become a liberal, or move onward into anarchism. I became an anarchist."


Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 50 Contributor
2,943 Posts
Points 49,130

Reading some of the some responses.. I admit to being amazed at the many misconceptions, but find it understandable.

This may be helpful for others;

Still the State's Greatest Enemy - LRC

Conventional Critiques

- He wasn't consistent.

- He wasn't original.

- He was just an ideologue.

- He had no lasting influence.

- He should have stuck to high theory.

- He quit doing serious economics after the early 1960s.

- He abandoned radical libertarianism after the early 1970s.

- He didn't do any serious scholarly work after the late 1970s.

- He allowed Libertarian activities to distract him from scholarship.

- He left libertarianism to become a leftist in the 1960s.

- He departed libertarianism during his paleo period.

- In later years, he sucked up to the Right.

- He was a great theorist but a terrible strategist.

- He loved Khrushchev and was objectively pro-communist.

- He broke with former friends.

- He talked Karl Hess into not paying taxes, thereby ruining his life.

- He became a Buchananite.

- He abandoned libertarianism for the Christian Right.

- He worshiped Mises.

- He departed from Mises.

- He changed his view of immigration.

- He refused to learn from others.

Ron Paul is for self-government when compared to the Constitution. He's an anarcho-capitalist. Proof.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 500 Contributor
194 Posts
Points 4,315
Mike replied on Fri, Apr 16 2010 8:03 PM
Rothbards beliefs never changed from the time he was a kid- he went from "right" to "left" and back again only because that is where his pro- free market anti-war beliefs were to be found why the hell do people who don't know make statements like they do??? Rothbard was never a socialist.

Be responsible, ease suffering; spay or neuter your pets.

We must get them to understand that government solutions are the problem!

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 2 of 2 (18 items) < Previous 1 2 | RSS