Milton Friedman got me onto the libertarian movement. He regularly smacked down people in debates, e.g. in his PBS documentary.
Is there any video/audio of Rothbard debating others?
Sukrit Sabhlok:Milton Friedman got me onto the libertarian movement
Milton Friedman was a socialist.
"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: Sukrit Sabhlok:Milton Friedman got me onto the libertarian movement Milton Friedman was a socialist.
No he wasn't.
Rooster:No he wasn't.
He believed in central planning, did he not?
he was a money and law socialist, yet a capitalist on other topics.
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:he was a money and law socialist, yet a capitalist on other topics.
Fine, he was a central planner in favor of free trade.
he was a central planner in favour of restricted trade in a some markets. money, law.
he was against the central planning of other markets, and in this aspect he was in favor of free trade.
he was certainly inconsistent, thats a given. and if pushed i would say he was an ideological enemy of mine. since he favoured the state.but in so far as he hated the state meddling in all markets but the aforementions he is an ally. life is tricksy.
Esuric: nirgrahamUK:he was a money and law socialist, yet a capitalist on other topics. Fine, he was a central planner in favor of free trade.
Wrong again, he was not a central planner. If you want to use the proper slur, some people like to call him a statist.
nirgrahamUK:but in so far as he hated the state meddling in all markets but the aforementions he is an ally. life is tricksy.
He's responsible for the removal of the gold standard, for freely floating exchange rates between many different kinds of currencies, and supports central banks "determining" the rate of inflation (which is impossible). He's basically in favor of price setting, first at the higher stages of production, and then at the lower.
I'm being pedantic, but only because I agree with you!
responsible might be too strong a word? you made him responsible for things I think he was not and perhaps have overlooked areas where more blame could be laid at his feet. (income withholding tax).
central bank determination of the rate of inflation is not impossible its what they do if they control the money supply. if they increase the money supply at a certain rate, so that is the rate of inflation... its retarded and immoral but all too horribly possile :-)
nirgrahamUK:central bank determination of the rate of inflation is not impossible its what they do if they control the money supply. if they increase the money supply at a certain rate, so that is the rate of inflation... its retarded and immoral but all too horribly possile :-)
Well yeah, I misspoke. The central banks definitely determine the rate of inflation in the long run, but can't completely control it in the short run.
Hm, it seems no one actually answered my question.
I have never seen such video, but would love to
I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater so I doubt that he was ever in many debates... I'm dissapointed as to the harsh things that have been said about Friedman thusfar in this thread.
The Late Andrew Ryan:I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater so I doubt that he was ever in many debates... I'm dissapointed as to the harsh things that have been said about Friedman thusfar in this thread.
Just look at where they are coming from, and allocate them respect accordingly.
I doubt it, Rothbard was never a fourth as famous as Friedman nor as good a debater
How can you know that without any videos of him in debate, or even any accounts of one? If anyone has such info, please share. Anyhow, I'll take the soundness of ideas over ability to smash people in debates any day.
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Sukrit:Hm, it seems no one actually answered my question.
Par for the course. There probably isn't. I think the closest I have seen is Rothbard send letters back and forth with Sam Konkin re: agorism.
E. R. Olovetto:Anyhow, I'll take the soundness of ideas over ability to smash people in debates any day.
They aren't mutually exclusive.
I know, but the former is more valuable IMO because we can see Rothbard's ideas holding their own long after he is dead. Anyhow, I have no clue what type of debater Rothbard was. Maybe there is something in his biography.
In the age of cheap and accessible rich media, legacy can be more than the written word. It can be speeches, presentations, reenactments etc.
I'll get started on an interperetive dance describing the finer details of MES. Olevetto can do the brankdancing bits.
maybe it will be as popular as Keynes v Hayek rap...
I don't think Rothbard has any recorded debates. Block has some, I think he is pretty close with Rothbard as far as political postions go. But I tend to agree with some of the sentiment on here that ones debating skill is not really related to ones actual knowledge in many cases.
No, Rothbard didn't smack down people in debates. If you have seen him in videos, he could barely put together a cohesive sentence when prodded by live discussion. A fine writer, a terrible orator.
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
Rothbard and George Schuller:
1 - Schuller's review of Human Action
2 - Response from Rothbard
3 - Schuller's rejoinder to Rothbard
4 - Rothbard's reply
"No, Rothbard didn't smack down people in debates."
Please source the debate you witnessed. Thanks.
"If you have seen him in videos, he could barely put together a cohesive sentence when prodded by live discussion."
Yeah I've seen him in videos, he cut to the core of the issue every time.
"A fine writer, a terrible orator."
My money is on him being a better orator than you.
So defensive. =p
Here's an example, not of written debate, but of his speaking abilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpATNp5DjYI
Check him out at 8:55, I call that fumbling for words. I apologize for saying "terrible" and Rothbard in the same sentence. Sorry for somehow defaming your God-man. I was not saying he wasn't intelligent or witty, just not a good speaker.
This is just my opinion. I generally have found his nasal voice off putting in the past, and more likely to put the listener to sleep than to educate them. I blame the body, not the brain.
EDIT: I thought this topic was about verbal debate, not written. I am sure he handled himself just fine when he had time to write it out.
Conza88:My money is on him being a better orator than you.
tu quoque?
I don't call that fumbling for words at all.
What's telling is your inability to back up / source your statement that he was a bad debater.
That's because you can't. I'm merely suggesting it is completely disingenuous to make the claim he wasn't, when you've never even seen him debate. I'm not making the claim he was good, because I don't know. And yet neither do you.
"tu quoque?"
Obviously not, since consistency has nothing to do with it. I'm merely offering added perspective.
Dondoolee, yes. Rothbard and Block have a lot in common, and they are both terrible speakers! Who 'thunk it? Check the Mises archives for his TV appearances. They would be funny if they weren't so sad.
EDIT: Conza, as others have stated, there are no video taped (or audio either?) recordings of Rothbard debating. I'd be curious to see them and compare them to his mumble shuffle elsewhere. Still, from what opponents and witnesses have said I can say with only a hint of doubt that he was probably worse among enemies than he was among friends. I will take back all I have said and hang my head in shame if someone can show otherwise, but educated guesses are all we have for the moment.
I will add the Walter Block links in a sec, stay tuned.
And yet Walter Block and Rothbard appear to be the most prolific when it comes to enlightening people!
Who 'thunk it? [sic]
When introducing friends, many take very warmly to Walter Block lectures both because of his humor & presentation.
Conza88:"tu quoque?" Obviously not, since consistency has nothing to do with it. I'm merely offering added perspective.
Of course consistency has something to do with it. You said, "My money is on him being a better orator than you."
Why would Tp's oratory even be a topic for discussion in this thread? You brought it up either as a tu quoque or a strawman. Either way, it isn't good argumentation.
Clarified my above post.
Telpeurion:Dondoolee, yes. Rothbard and Block have a lot in common, and they are both terrible speakers! Who 'thunk it? Check the Mises archives for his TV appearances. They would be funny if they weren't so sad.
I think you're starting to lose the plot now. I don't know much about Rothbard's public speaking, but what little I have heard delivering lectures, and yes, he has a heavy brooklyn accent. Block less so. But I think Walter Block is a very serviceable speaker.
For you to set the standard so high, you're really talking about maybe a tenth of a percent of all public intellectuals qualifying as good public speakers. Maybe you're right by that standard, but I think that standard is ridiculous to begin with, because it excludes hundreds if not thousands of public intellectuals who educate people with discourse and rhetoric throughout their careers.
Who said it was to become a topic up for discussion?
The comment was a dig at the 'holier than thou' type of attitude being displayed, which I don't think is necessary.
And it wasn't even close to being a strawman. I believe the word you are looking for is red herring.
@ tp
Futhermore in your example, Rothbard is simply recalling facts and history. He is not presenting an argument or counter-argument (as you do in a debate). And as such your attempted comparision fails remarkably.
Okay, here is Walter Block. By the end of the show they think he is a racist, not because of his ideas, but the way he describes them.
http://mises.org/media/1885
EDIT: They have him on a second time at a later date. http://mises.org/media/4208
Block made way more sense then the hosts!
I've seen Block speak in a debate before and he held his own quite well, I don't care for his New York accent, but that isn't his fault.
If he's arguing with idiots, you cannot blame Block for the misrepresentations they themselves form. Some people are also just plain disingenuous. He's not the best speaker but neither is he the worse.
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...
Apparently he used to have meetings with anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin. And Murray Bookchin left because a lot of the communists on his side were converting to Rothbard's side.
"Apparently he used to have meetings with anarcho-communist Murray Bookchin. And Murray Bookchin left because a lot of the communists on his side were converting to Rothbard's side."
Source?