I use to watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. He was likely the harshest and most persistent critic of the Bush administration. For a sampling of his opposition, view some of his early Special Comments. However, he did not display the same anger toward Obama. During the 2008 campaign, he targeted the McCain campaign in multiple special comments, but he didn’t target the Obama campaign. Browse the FactCheck.org or PolitiFact.com archives and you can find material critical of both Obama and McCain. Instead of criticizing both candidates for being misleading, he only targeted one.
Countdown? I used to watch The Big Show with Keith Olbermann, when he was the antithesis of what cable news was becoming amidst the Clinton scandal. He was very even-handed about the issues and demanded that people act respectfully on his show; and I still remember him cutting Christopher Hitchens off when he couldn't help but become belligerent. He was an icon of understatement in a shout down world, imagine my dismay when Countdown came around and he had fully embraced the culture he had fought so hard to stop.
Well of course. He's a shill. And an asshole. They have a real knack for hiring those kinds of people on that network.
Anyway, does this mean you used to admire Olberdork?
“Anyway, does this mean you used to admire Olberdork?”
He sounded more like a civil libertarian during the Bush administration than a welfare statist. His bias in the 2008 election and his misunderstanding of markets, in the aftermath of the housing bubble, disappointed me.
I used to love Jello Biafra... The punk singer turned green party politician. I heard him the other day ranting about how we need rent control.
I think he's clueless now of course.
Rent control indeed.
Gero:“Anyway, does this mean you used to admire Olberdork?” He sounded more like a civil libertarian during the Bush administration than a welfare statist. His bias in the 2008 election and his misunderstanding of markets, in the aftermath of the housing bubble, disappointed me.
I take that as a "yes". That's what I figured. This is a great topic for a thread. I'm interested to see what kind of list emerges.
I guess the first person I think of is Friedman. This is of course not to say I don't still admire him (so I guess this doesn't totally count), but I was disappointed when my positions moved to less and less government, and no central bank, etc., and I went back and read through his positions from that perspective it was just disheartening. But in reality, it's almost a disappointment that he wasn't perfect, I guess, and I suppose it's not fair hold a lot of those positions against him, especially considering how far he blazed the trail. But then again, he was a contemporary of Rothbard, and basically debated him on more than one occasion, so I suppose there's no reason he couldn't have come around.
But even more than that, I was actually considerably more disappointed with Hayek after reading Block's assessment (PDF). And of course Block wasn't the only one who pointed it out.)
When you think about things like the Hayek "Beck bomb", and then realize that's what all these people are getting...I mean, it's great they're discovering the economist and probably getting introduced to the Austrian School and free market ideas they never heard, but still. It's a pretty big drawback when the "solution" is so similar to the problem.
It was a hard pill to swallow to see Hayek's pro-state views all laid in a row like that.
Friedman came to my mind too. Its not that he isnt worthy of admiration, its just that he has been outdone as an economist by Rothbard and the Austrians.
As a defender of the free market, friedman is still cool.mfree to choose was great. His appearence on Donehue was great. He has (logically speaking) chopped up quite a few socialists. Oh yeah... Still admire Friedman.
P.J. O'Rourke was the one who introduced me to libertarianism. Now... meh.
Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under - Mencken
This is probably not going to be a popular response, but Walter Block. I thought he was the best thing ever when I first got into anarcho-capitalism, just taking the NAP to its logical conclusions. It seemed like he had the right solution for all those tough cases, and he was funny to boot. Plus, he has written so damn much that you couldn't read a single issue of the JLS without coming accross one of his articles.
But now, I think his whole outlook divorces the NAP from the grounds that we would accept it on in the first place. It's like he supports the NAP for its own sake, regardless of how absurd or undesireable the conseqences are. And since he is so influential, there are a lot of libertarians out there who adopt this way of thinking, which causes them to oversimplify issues. Look at any thread on abortion, and you'll probably find 10 pages of the same 4 people trying to apply the NAP and property rights over and over again, each of them coming to a different conclusion. No one is thinking "hmm, maybe we should try a different approach," and I think its because they are really attached to the very strict kind of views espoused by Block.
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
Bill Maher.
"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."
Abe Lincoln.
Not so much as "fomerly admired," but more of "moved on" etc. I guess the two major people who come to mind are Rothbard and Rand. When I first got into libertarianism and Rothbard it was sort of like "all that I've been missing out on!" and eventually I broke out of that mold and moved into deeper material. With Rand when I finally read her I thought she was pretty awesome, but I suppose like Rothbard if you follow back to the "core" material that inluenced them you find that more admirable (difference with Rand is all the other crap she and said outside her fiction books that is rather unappealing).
Two people I currently "admire" would be Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung (non-political, but whatever).
Bert, I'm curious who exactly it is you "moved on" to with this "deeper material" after leaving Rothbard behind.
to op:
Noam Chomsky, I listened to several of his lectures and read his books, only to find out that he was unsure of himself in some ways, although i did learn a lot from him.
There was another but i can't recall at this point.
Rothbard was sort of introductory to me, but as I read more books I sort of "grew out" of "Rothbardianism" so to speak. I didn't leave him behind, but he's not as influential on me as he once was.
Bert:"Bert, I'm curious who exactly it is you "moved on" to with this "deeper material" after leaving Rothbard behind." Rothbard was sort of introductory to me, but as I read more books I sort of "grew out" of "Rothbardianism" so to speak. I didn't leave him behind, but he's not as influential on me as he once was.
I say again, who exactly is it you "grew into" after "growing out of" Rothbard and "moved on" to "deeper material"?
Well I can't speak for Bert but the more I read Rothbard and Mises, the more I agreed with the latter over the former where they disagree. Rothbard's economics and history are great, but I think Mises' conception of ethics and politics are superior to those of Rothbard. Same goes for Hayek in my opinion.
I never was really all that into the whole Rothbardian/Block/Hoppe thing all too much.
Anyway, more to the point:
I can't think of a person who I like/ respected as a person or thinker and just abandonded them as absolutlely worthless. I guess I am no longer a Hamiltonian - but I still like the guy. The same goes with John Locke.
Krugman used to be fun to read in the early 00's in high school - I remember liking book Pop Internationalism too. Keynes is still worth thinking about and addressing more than ever - even though I seldom spend time doing it.
Oh,
I may have lost some respect to for Bertrand Russel, AJ Ayer, August Comte, Hans Reichenbach, Carnap, Popper, Herbert Spencer, J.S Mill, and Behavioral Psych. Though something tells me I had little liking for some of those thinkers anyway - I just accepted their lines of logic.
Interestingly enough, due to Austrianism I may have gained a certain respect for Marx, Hegel, Feurerbach, and Freud even if I may completley disagree with some of them - and think the end results of Marxism would be barbaric.
Note: I do not mean to disparage the names of Ayer, etc in any way - they are thinkers worthy of attention.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
mikachusetts: It's like he supports the NAP for its own sake
Well... yeah. I don't get this.
mikachusetts:regardless of how absurd or undesireable the conseqences are.
What absurd or undesirable consequences come from NAP?
mikachusetts: Look at any thread on abortion, and you'll probably find 10 pages of the same 4 people trying to apply the NAP and property rights over and over again, each of them coming to a different conclusion.
That's not the problem with NAP. Block uses NAP to come to evictionism, which makes sense.
mikachusetts:No one is thinking "hmm, maybe we should try a different approach,"
What other approach would a libertarian take? NAP is what makes us libertarians.
Bert:Rothbard was sort of introductory to me, but as I read more books I sort of "grew out" of "Rothbardianism" so to speak. I didn't leave him behind, but he's not as influential on me as he once was.
I think Rothbard got a needed polishing, but I, along with JJ, await your answer to his questions.
So you actually want a core list of people who's writing I find a bit more influential on myself than Rothbard's? I just simply do not care for Rothbard's style or rhetoric anymore (some stuff I feel is a bit shallow compared to the philosophy he's debating against). I find myself more inclined to read people Bastiat, Spooner, Hegel, Thoreau, or Plato than Rothbard, and from debating with mutualists and socialists who were actually rather well read on Rothbard it wasn't long before they would take him apart on some matters. I'm not speaking down on his contributions to libertarianism which is huge, but for myself I do not care as much as I did for his work. Lately, outside of various early anarchists/mutualists, I've been looking into people like Camus and Stirner. As I said, he was introductory for me, and whether or not you percieve the people listed as "deeper material" for myself it's something that tends to click a bit more. They may have not written a magnum opus like Rothbard, but sometimes it's not how much you write, but how you write it.
gocrew: mikachusetts: It's like he supports the NAP for its own sake Well... yeah. I don't get this.
Maybe I am being misled by your use of this idiom ('for its own sake'), but I'm rather confident this won't be easily substantiated. It seems downright wrong to me.
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
gocrew,
1. When I say he supports the NAP for its own sake, I mean exactly what it sounds like. He holds it as an end in itself, not as a means to some further end (unless that further end is just libertarianism in general, in which case I think its the same thing since he defines libertarianism as strictly adhering to the NAP). I support the non-aggression principle only because its a damn good personal ethic in normal situations, and because its a pretty good rule of thumb to measure any legal or political institution against in order to acheive a florishing society. Since I think there is more to a flourishing society than just the absence of institutionalized aggression, I think there is more to political theory than the NAP.
EDIT:
Nir,
I don't think Block actually holds the NAP for its own sake, but its not an off-the-wall claim to make because it does come off that way.
Roderick Long jokingly agrees: "Well, unless rights are the only thing you care about, the only value you have — and I've sometimes told Walter that that's his view (although it isn't really, but it's fun to say that)..."
And regarding rights regardless of the consequences, Long says earlier in the same lecture: "On the other hand, you might think rights are completely independent of utility, that rights just are what they are, regardless of their results. Maybe Walter Block thinks that, I'm not sure. Rothbard is often said to have thought that, but if you read The Ethics of Liberty it's not so clear; there is some sort of eudaimonic thing going on in the background there, with the Aristotelian stuff in the early chapters."
and from debating with mutualists and socialists who were actually rather well read on Rothbard it wasn't long before they would take him apart on some matters.
Such as? Mind you I'm not 100% with Rothbard either.
When did this become an interrogation for the reasons why you no longer formerly admire a certain person for whatever subjective individual preferences said person has?
The vast majority of libertarians do not define libertarianism in this way. The term "libertarian" really has no coherent and uniform meaning. It's a buzzword.
The fact that you choose to define it in this way is immaterial.
mikachusetts:When I say he supports the NAP for its own sake, I mean exactly what it sounds like. He holds it as an end in itself
Can you cite something to show this? I don't see NAP as means or end, just a legal framework, based on logic, within which a society should operate. If Jean Valjean needs to steal a loaf of bread to save the life of a starving child, I say he should steal the loaf of bread (after other reasonable options have been exhausted). But that doesn't mean he has the right to, which means he must pay restitution when able. I feel like Rothbard would be in agreement with me on this, but I could be wrong.
mikachusetts:Since I think there is more to a flourishing society than just the absence of institutionalized aggression, I think there is more to political theory than the NAP.
Of course. NAP is a necessary but not sufficient element. I don't remember reading anything from Rothbard to indicate he felt differently.
mikachusetts:I won't go into detail here, but I've pointed out before how Block believes that there are cases where it is actually moral to defy the NAP. If someone is behaving in a moral manner but ought to be punished by law anyway, I would say that the consequences of that law are both absurd and udesireable.
I agree with you, but the problem here is that guilt is being attributed to the wrong party. When it is recognized that it is the Nazi officials who are the guilty ones, and that the concentration camp guard was acting to reduce murder, regardless of whether his finger was on the trigger or not, a lot of the problems you were pointing out fall away.
This is an area where I seem to be in disagreement with Rothbard and company. I remember a discussion on this forum (I think it was this forum) about someone who, in firing a shot to defend himself, accidentally hits an innocent bystander. Most people seemed to be of the opinion that the man who fired the shot was responsible for paying restitution to the the shot innocent bystander, regardless of the details of the case. I find this absurd in the extreme. Depending on the details, the man who fired the shot could be completely exonerated, and the man who committed the original aggression held responsible.
mikachusetts:3 and 4. If you were trying to solve a math problem, you wouldn't try to apply the NAP, and that wouldn't make you any less of a libertarian. Why are you so sure that abortion is a problem which the NAP can solve, or is at least the best approach? This is what I'm talking about with the NAP for its own sake -- you just adhere to it in any context regardless of whether it would really be the best idea given certain circumstances. Its become a magic 8 ball.
I think you are mistaking what Rothbard meant the NAP to do, although as I said, I could be wrong. I'd be interested to see some citations.
If you are trying to solve a math problem, you would indeed, as a libertarian, apply the NAP as far as it goes. You would use your own pen and paper, or the pen and paper of someone who gave you their permission to use their property. You would use your own brain, or ask for help from another, rather than forcing the other at gunpoint.
As far as your contention that Rothbard took the NAP as an end in itself, I don't see the relevance. Even if he did, it still has nothing to do with the math problem. The mere fact of taking the NAP as an end in itself does not imply that the NAP is seen as encompassing everything. It would mean, rather, that it must not ever be violated. Given two options, neither of which violate the NAP, either may be pursued with the context of the NAP. So the math equation may be solved with a pencil or a calculator. Whether the NAP is seen as an end in itself or a practical tool for a better society, to be abandoned when it does not work, we come to the same conclusion about solving the math equation.
The same is true for abortion. The NAP provides the framework for determining what may and what may not be done. Within those logical limits, choise can be applied.
Esuric:The vast majority of libertarians do not define libertarianism in this way.
Irrelevant. Especially here on the Mises forums.
Esuric:The term "libertarian" really has no coherent and uniform meaning. It's a buzzword.
Except when it means adherence to NAP. For many it's a buzzword; for us, it is rather well defined, which is why we have the best claim to it, now that the socialist anarchists don't seem to be using it.
Just to be clear, I was criticizing Block, not Rothbard. The big difference between the two, I think, is that Block is more likely to emphasize the letter of libertarian law over the spirit of libertarian law. This isn't something that can be backed up with a short quote because its somewhat intangible, but Frank van Dun has criticized Block and Kinsella "for their legalistic approach to law and their behaviourist approach to human action" and "their attempt to reduce libertarian jurisprudence to a strict, quasi-mechanical application of the Rothbardian non-aggression rule."
Here's another spot where Block differs from Rothbard. Block will often point out that libertarians don't oppose lying, being an ass, etc. "qua libertarians." He'll usually follow this up by saying that those things are immoral or distasteful, but he's never said anything to suggest that a libertarian society would suffer if it were full of assholes and liars. The overwhelming impression that one get's from Block is that the NAP is sufficient to establish a libertarian society. Rothbard, on the other hand, and especially in his later paleo years, defended values that had nothing to do with non aggression because he believed they were more likely if not necessary to bring about a libertarian society.
The mere fact of taking the NAP as an end in itself does not imply that the NAP is seen as encompassing everything. It would mean, rather, that it must not ever be violated.
The NAP provides the framework for determining what may and what may not be done. Within those logical limits, choise can be applied.
How do you reconcile these statements? If any act which violates the NAP may not be committed, and every other act may be committed, then you've described an all-encompassing rule. Anyway, this isn't Block's position. He would say that the NAP is only a theory of punishment. People can do whatever they want, but if they violate the NAP, they ought to be punished:
"The libertarian qua libertarian, then, does not say "Don't murder." He only says, "If you murder, you should be punished.""
And again, my issue with this is that if libertarians qua libertarians have nothing to say about whether should or shouldn't commit murder, why do they think murderers should be punished. It's absurd to separate the the two.
It's only irrelevant to those who don't understand the purpose of language and believe that they have the ability to define their own terms anyway they see fit.
I do have the ability to define my own terms anyway I see fit. And when a bunch of other people define it the same way, and we communicate together, guess what that's called. It starts with 'L' and ends with 'anguage'.
Frank van Dun has criticized Block and Kinsella "for their legalistic approach to law and their behaviourist approach to human action" and "their attempt to reduce libertarian jurisprudence to a strict, quasi-mechanical application of the Rothbardian non-aggression rule."
I'm not sure I completely understand Dun's criticism.
OK, but I have to confess I am losing the sense of what we're going at here. Block, correctly I think, says that libertarianism, at its heart, is a philosophy that defines violence and opines on when it is justified. Rothbard, in his grouchy conservative last years, went further than that and talked about what lifestyle was best for a libertarian. But did Rothbard ever say those values had to be adopted to be a libertarian? And is this why you admire him less?
How do you reconcile these statements? If any act which violates the NAP may not be committed, and every other act may be committed, then you've described an all-encompassing rule.
Nothing needs reconciling. The NAP does not tell you that heavy metal is better than rap. It doesn't tell you that you must help those in need, it tells you what is permissible. That would be one of those things, talked about earlier, that NAP does not opine on but which is part of a well functioning society: people helping people. Not an obligation, but a good idea.
What I meant by not all encompassing - perhaps I could have used a better term - was that it does not work its way into every aspect of our lives at every level. It tells us that we may solve a math problem under certain conditions, to use your example, but it goes no further than that; it does not tell us what technique we should use. The 'further than that' part is what, I assume, you meant by saying there was more to society than just the NAP. But anything that violates the NAP would be unjust, even stealing a loaf of bread to feed a hungry child. That is why, if you do it, you must make amends. I am not saying don't do it, because I would in that situation, but you don't have the right to do it, hence restitution must be paid.
vive la, that about explains it.