Rothbard; Are Capitalist Libertarians Anarchists?

[Wolf Larson]

There are thousands of American right wing capitalist libertarians calling themselves anarchists while advocating Rothbard, Hayek, Rand, Tucker, Stirner, Spooner, Konkin and on and on. At the root of this so called anarchism is Rothbard. So, I figure we may as well ask Rothbard if he and you libertarian capitalists are advocating anarchism.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard167.html

"We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical."

-Rothbard-




Are Libertarians 'Anarchists'?

by Murray N. Rothbard


The libertarian who is happily engaged expounding his political philosophy in the full glory of his convictions is almost sure to be brought short by one unfailing gambit of the statist. As the libertarian is denouncing public education or the Post Office, or refers to taxation as legalized robbery, the statist invariably challenges. "Well, then are you an anarchist?" The libertarian is reduced to sputtering "No, no, of course I'm not an anarchist." "Well, then, what governmental measures do you favor? What type of taxes do you wish to impose?" The statist has irretrievably gained the offensive, and, having no answer to the first question, the libertarian finds himself surrendering his case. Thus, the libertarian will usually reply: "Well, I believe in a limited government, the government being limited to the defense of the person or property or the individual against invasion by force or fraud." I have tried to show in my article, "The Real Aggressor" in the April 1954 Faith and Freedom that this leaves the conservative helpless before the argument "necessary for defense," when it is used for gigantic measures of statism and bloodshed. There are other consequences equally or more grave. The statist can pursue the matter further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service – "defense" – why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services – such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel. We are left to conclude that the pure libertarian must advocate a society where an individual may voluntarily support none or any police or judicial agency that he deems to be efficient and worthy of his custom. I do not here intend to engage in a detailed exposition of this system, but only to answer the question, is this anarchism? This seemingly simple question is actually a very difficult one to answer in a sentence, or in a brief yes-or-no reply. In the first place, there is no accepted meaning to the word "anarchism" itself. The average person may think he knows what it means, especially that it is bad, but actually he does not. In that sense, the word has become something like the lamented word "liberal," except that the latter has "good" connotations in the emotions of the average man. The almost insuperable distortions and confusions have come both from the opponents and the adherents of anarchism. The former have completely distorted anarchist tenets and made various fallacious charges, while the latter have been split into numerous warring camps with political philosophies that are literally as far apart as communism and individualism. The situation is further confused by the fact that, often, the various anarchist groups themselves did not recognize the enormous ideological conflict between them. One very popular charge against anarchism is that it "means chaos." Whether a specific type of anarchism would lead to "chaos" is a matter for analysis; no anarchist, however, ever deliberately wanted to bring about chaos. Whatever else he or she may have been, no anarchist has ever deliberately willed chaos or world destruction. Indeed, anarchists have always believed that the establishment of their system would eliminate the chaotic elements now troubling the world. One amusing incident, illuminating this misconception, occurred after the end of the war when a young enthusiast for world government wrote a book entitled One World or Anarchy, and Canada's leading anarchist shot back with a work entitled Anarchy or Chaos. The major difficulty in any analysis of anarchism is that the term covers extremely conflicting doctrines. The root of the word comes from the term anarche, meaning opposition to authority or commands. This is broad enough to cover a host of different political doctrines. Generally these doctrines have been lumped together as "anarchist" because of their common hostility to the existence of the State, the coercive monopolist of force and authority. Anarchism arose in the 19th century, and since then the most active and dominant anarchist doctrine has been that of "anarchist communism." This is an apt tern for a doctrine which has also been called "collectivist anarchism," "anarcho-syndicalism," and "libertarian communism." We may term this set of related doctrines "left-wing anarchism." Anarchist communism is primarily of Russian origin, forged by Prince Peter Kropotkin and Michael Bakunin, and it is this form that has connoted "anarchism" throughout the continent of Europe. The principal feature of anarchist communism is that it attacks private property just as vigorously as it attacks the State. Capitalism is considered as much of a tyranny, "in the economic realm," as the State in the political realm. The left-wing anarchist hates capitalism and private property with perhaps even more fervor than does the socialist or Communist. Like the Marxists, the left-wing anarchist is convinced that the capitalists exploit and dominate the workers, and also that the landlords invariably are exploiting peasants. The economic views of the anarchists present them with a crucial dilemma, the pons asinorum of left-wing anarchy: how can capitalism and private property be abolished, while the State is abolished at the same time? The socialists proclaim the glory of the State, and the use of the State to abolish private property – for them the dilemma does not exist. The orthodox Marxist Communist, who pays lip service to the ideal of left-wing anarchy, resolves the dilemma by use of the Hegelian dialectic: that mysterious process by which something is converted into its opposite. The Marxists would enlarge the State to the maximum and abolish capitalism, and then sit back confidently to wait upon the State's "withering away." The spurious logic of the dialectic is not open to the left-wing anarchists, who wish to abolish the State and capitalism simultaneously. The nearest those anarchists have come to resolving the problem has been to uphold syndicalism as the ideal. In syndicalism, each group of workers and peasants is supposed to own its means of production in common, and plan for itself, while cooperating with other collectives and communes. Logical analysis of these schemes would readily show that the whole program is nonsense. Either of two things would occur: one central agency would plan for and direct the various subgroups, or the collectives themselves would be really autonomous. But the crucial question is whether these agencies would be empowered to use force to put their decisions into effect. All of the left-wing anarchists have agreed that force is necessary against recalcitrants. But then the first possibility means nothing more nor less than Communism, while the second leads to a real chaos of diverse and clashing Communisms, that would probably lead finally to some central Communism after a period of social war. Thus, left-wing anarchism must in practice signify either regular Communism or a true chaos of communistic syndics. In both cases, the actual result must be that the State is reestablished under another name. It is the tragic irony of left-wing anarchism that, despite the hopes of its supporters, it is not really anarchism at all. It is either Communism or chaos. It is no wonder therefore that the term "anarchism" has received a bad press. The leading anarchists, particularly in Europe, have always been of the left-wing variety, and today the anarchists are exclusively in the left-wing camp. Add to that the tradition of revolutionary violence stemming from European conditions, and it is little wonder that anarchism is discredited. Anarchism was politically very powerful in Spain, and during the Spanish Civil War, anarchists established communes and collectives wielding coercive authority. One of their first steps was to abolish the use of money on the pain of a death penalty. It is obvious that the supposed anarchist hatred of coercion had gone very much awry. The reason was the insoluble contradiction between the antistate and the antiproperty tenets of left-wing anarchy. How is it, then, that despite the fatal logical contradictions in left-wing anarchism, there are a highly influential group of British intellectuals who currently belong to this school, including the art critic Sir Herbert Read, and the psychiatrist Alex Comfort? The answer is that anarchists, perhaps unconsciously seeing the hopelessness of their position, have made a point of rejecting logic and reason entirely. They stress spontaneity, emotions, instincts, rather than allegedly cold and inhuman logic. By so doing, they can of course remain blind to the irrationality of their position. Of economics, which would show them the impossibility of their system, they are completely ignorant, perhaps more so than any other group of political theorists. The dilemma about coercion they attempt to resolve by the absurd theory that crime would simply disappear if the State were abolished, so that no coercion would have to be used. Irrationality indeed permeates almost all of the views of the left-wing anarchists. They reject industrialism as well as private property, and tend to favor returning to the handicraft and simple peasant conditions or the Middle Ages. They are fanatically in favor of modern art, which they consider "anarchist" art. They have an intense hatred of money and of material improvements. Living a simple peasant existence, in communes, is extolled as "living the anarchist life," while a civilized person is supposed to be viciously bourgeois and unanarchist. Thus, the ideas of the left-wing anarchists have become a nonsensical jumble, far more irrational than that of the Marxists, and deservedly looked upon with contempt by almost everyone as hopelessly "crackpot." Unfortunately the result is that the good criticisms that they sometimes make of State tyranny tend to be tarred with the same "crackpot" brush. Considering the dominant anarchists, it is obvious that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" must be answered unhesitatingly in the negative. We are at completely opposite poles. Confusion enters, however, because of the existence in the past, particularly in the United States, of a small but brilliant group of "individualist anarchists" headed by Benjamin R. Tucker. Here we come to a different breed. The individualist anarchists have contributed a great deal to libertarian thought. They have provided some of the best statements of individualism and antistatism that have ever been penned. In the political sphere, the individualist anarchists were generally sound libertarians. They favored private property [LIE], extolled free competition, and battled all forms of governmental intervention. Politically, the Tucker anarchists had two principal defects: (1) they failed to advocate defense of private landholdings beyond what the owner used personally; (2) they relied too heavily on juries and failed to see the necessity for a body of constitutional libertarian law which the private courts would have to uphold. Contrasted to their minor political failings, however, they fell into grievous economic error. The individualist anarchists believed that interest and profit were exploitative. Let the State and its monetary regulations be removed, and free banking be established, they believed, and everyone would print as much money as he needed, and interest and profits would fall to zero. This hyperinflationist doctrine, acquired from the Frenchman Proudhon, is economic nonsense. We must remember, however, that "respectable" economics, then and now, has been permeated with inflationist errors, and very few economists have grasped the essentials of monetary phenomena. The inflationists simply take the more genteel inflationism of fashionable economics and courageously push it to its logical conclusion. The irony of this situation was that while the individualist anarchists laid great stress on their nonsensical banking theories, their political order that they advocated would have led to economic results directly contrary to what they believed. They thought that free banking would lead to indefinite expansion of the money supply, whereas the truth is precisely the reverse: it would lead to "hard money" and absence of inflation. The economic fallacies of the Tuckerites, however, are of a completely different order than those of the collectivist anarchists. The errors of the collectivists led them to advocate virtual political Communism, while the economic errors of the individualists still permitted them to advocate a nearly libertarian system. The superficial might easily confuse the two, because the individualists were led to attack "capitalists," whom they felt were exploiting the workers through State restriction of the money supply. These "right-wing" anarchists did not take the foolish position that crime would disappear in the anarchist society. Yet they did tend to underestimate the crime problem, and as a result never recognized the need for a fixed libertarian constitution. Without such a constitution, the private judicial process might become truly "anarchic" in the popular sense. The Tucker wing of anarchism flourished in the 19th century, but died out by World War I. Many libertarian thinkers in that Golden Age of liberalism were working on doctrines that were similar in many respects.These individualists never referred to themselves as anarchists, however; probably the main reason was that all the anarchist groups, even the right wingers [individualists], possessed socialistic economic doctrines in common. Here we should note still a third variety of anarchist thought, one completely different from either the collectivists or individualists. This is the absolute pacifism of Leo Tolstoy. This preaches a society where force would not even be used to defend person and property, whether by State or private organizations. Tolstoy's program of nonviolence has influenced many alleged pacifists today, mainly through Gandhi, but the latter do not realize that there can be no genuinely complete pacifism unless the State and other defense agencies are eliminated. This type of anarchism, above all others, rests on an excessively idealistic view of human nature. It could only work in a community of saints. We must conclude that the question "are libertarians anarchists?" simply cannot be answered on etymological grounds. The vagueness of the term itself is such that the libertarian system would be considered anarchist by some people and archist by others. We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. On the other hand, it is clear that we are not archists either: we do not believe in establishing a tyrannical central authority that will coerce the noninvasive as well as the invasive. Perhaps, then, we could call ourselves by a new name: nonarchist. Then, when, in the jousting of debate, the inevitable challenge "are you an anarchist?" is heard, we can, for perhaps the first and last time, find ourselves in the luxury of the "middle of the road" and say, "Sir, I am neither an anarchist nor an archist, but am squarely down the nonarchic middle of the road."

[IcarusAngel]

I agree with his point that leftists are often more anti-capitalist (and anti-state) and anti-property than Marxists. I've often been appaled at the way Marxists ignore the issue of private property often altogether in their "critiques" of capitalism, which is why I always prefer leftist critiques. (Notice also that while liberals often get accused of being Marxists and socialists, some of the more advanced critiques of capitalism are closer to anarchism, or anarchist-socialism, not Marxian socialism).

The second thing I notice is that Rothbard as a writer isn't very good. Even with the paragraphs that I assume exist he writes like a 15 year old raging. I've seen bloggers do better than this.

He doesn't even justify his beliefs, nor does he show that free-syndicalist communes is akin to statism. He doesn't show that left anarchism would destory industrialism and he doesn't prove it would lead back to "Marxism."

It's really no wonder the only people that defend Rothbard are the idiots at the Mises institute and people like hayenmill.

[Nolan]

I agree with his point that leftists are often more anti-capitalist (and anti-state) and anti-property than Marxists. I've often been appaled at the way Marxists ignore the issue of private property often altogether in their "critiques" of capitalism, which is why I always prefer leftist critiques. (Notice also that while liberals often get accused of being Marxists and socialists, some of the more advanced critiques of capitalism are closer to anarchism, or anarchist-socialism, not Marxian socialism).

The second thing I notice is that Rothbard as a writer isn't very good. Even with the paragraphs that I assume exist he writes like a 15 year old raging. I've seen bloggers do better than this.

He doesn't even justify his beliefs, nor does he show that free-syndicalist communes is akin to statism. He doesn't show that left anarchism would destory industrialism and he doesn't prove it would lead back to "Marxism."

It's really no wonder the only people that defend Rothbard are the idiots at the Mises institute and people like hayenmill.

What the hell is this about Marxism? Nice strawman.

[Agnapostate]

I agree with the sentiment about Rothbard's writing style. He was known as a contrarian, and it seems as though his greatest assault was against logic itself. His writing is full of unsupported assertions and logical fallacies. I picked apart some of his commentary on animal rights in The Ethics of Liberty here (http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/13339/289803.aspx#289803), before I was banned from mises.org. His The Death Wish of the Anarcho-Communists (http://mises.org/story/2197) amazes me in his arrogant presumption that his audience would simply swallow claims like "it is hard to forget the fact that when the Spanish Anarchists (anarcho-communists of the Bakunin-Kropotkin type) took over large sections of Spain during the Civil War of the 193Os, they confiscated and destroyed all the money in their areas and promptly decreed the death penalty for the use of money" without the citation of primary sources or even the slightest reference to external evidence that would support this comment. Bryan Caplan's The Anarcho-Statists of Spain (http://www.gmu.edu/depts/economics/bcaplan/spain.htm) is at least somewhat more respectable in that regard.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. His arguments for self-ownership were particularly bad. He claimed that self-ownership was necessary for freedom of thought, basically, but because Y gets us to Z, it doesn't also mean that X couldn't get us to Z also. Even if we accept that self-ownership is necessary for freedom of thought and other such things, which Rothbard didn't show, he doesn't prove that that means you have a "right" to it. Obviously food and water is necessary as well, but Rothbard doesn't believe you have a "right" to that.

As a historian he was a failure. He badly distorted Taoism and the history of Chinese philosophy. He distorted the work of Adam Smith, and attributed it to a Calvanist and Catholic religious dispute (which I guess would lead us to believe that Marx was a Protestant).

[IcarusAngel]

Also, I should point out there have been several leftists who are both anarchists and scientists, and a few economists as well, such as Albert and Hahnel.

What did Rothbard ever do for humanity again?

[Dimentio]

To "defend" Murray Rothbard, this was quite funny. :laugh:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4257380658817319490&ei=3zaCS6PqIZjD-Qbx04SOBw&q=mozart+was+a+red#

[GPDP]

I'm of the opinion that Bookchin was the superior anarchist, as well as the superior Murray.

[Demogorgon]

It is really difficult to read a passage of that length without paragraphs. Still here is an interesting bit:
The statist can pursue the matter further: "If you grant that it is legitimate for people to band together and allow the State to coerce individuals to pay taxes for a certain service – "defense" – why is it not equally moral and legitimate for people to join in a similar way and allow the State the right to provide other services – such as post offices, "welfare," steel, power, etc.? If a State supported by a majority can morally do one, why not morally do the others?" I confess that I see no answer to this question. If it is proper and legitimate to coerce an unwilling Henry Thoreau into paying taxes for his own "protection" to a coercive state monopoly, I see no reason why it should not be equally proper to force him to pay the State for any other services, whether they be groceries, charity, newspapers, or steel.Rothbard fairly demolishes the minarchist argument. Of course he cannot solve the new problem he has set himself. He supports property rights absolutely but he has gotten rid of any neutral arbiter in disputes concerning them meaning there is no fair way of sorting out who owns what when confusion arises.

[Havet]

It's really no wonder the only people that defend Rothbard are the idiots at the Mises institute and people like hayenmill

Define "people like hayenmill"

Show proof that I have defended rothbard, or even mentioned him, in recent times.

@OP: use spoilers next time.

[Dimentio]

It is really difficult to read a passage of that length without paragraphs. Still here is an interesting bit: Rothbard fairly demolishes the minarchist argument. Of course he cannot solve the new problem he has set himself. He supports property rights absolutely but he has gotten rid of any neutral arbiter in disputes concerning them meaning there is no fair way of sorting out who owns what when confusion arises.

There is one. Who is possessing the biggest gun?

[Zanthorus]

I'd like to third the point on Rothbard's irritating writing style.

[Wolf Larson]

I agree with his point that leftists are often more anti-capitalist (and anti-state) and anti-property than Marxists. I've often been appaled at the way Marxists ignore the issue of private property often altogether in their "critiques" of capitalism, which is why I always prefer leftist critiques. (Notice also that while liberals often get accused of being Marxists and socialists, some of the more advanced critiques of capitalism are closer to anarchism, or anarchist-socialism, not Marxian socialism).

The second thing I notice is that Rothbard as a writer isn't very good. Even with the paragraphs that I assume exist he writes like a 15 year old raging. I've seen bloggers do better than this.

He doesn't even justify his beliefs, nor does he show that free-syndicalist communes is akin to statism. He doesn't show that left anarchism would destory industrialism and he doesn't prove it would lead back to "Marxism."

It's really no wonder the only people that defend Rothbard are the idiots at the Mises institute and people like hayenmill.

The only thing I'm interested in the OP post is the founding father of so called anacho capitalism admitting he's not an anarchist. :) I've read most of Rothbards work so I can both refute anarcho capitalists claim to anarchism and refute the silly hypothetical word Rothbard painted. Today, most of them use Konkin as an extension of Rothbards subjective revisionism. Of course after Rothbard wrote the above, years later, he revised history and started calling himself an anarchist. It's all absurd. As far as his paragraphs I copy/pasted it from lewrockwel.com and that's the way it turned out. We can criticize much more than that- his very cherry picking revisionism is the source of all of the anarcho capitalist madness. Rothbard is the source who perverted history and created a theoretical fantasy world which has never existed nor will ever exist. His subjective fantasy land revisionism is laughable to anyone who understands the true nature and history of both anarchism and capitalism. Maybe the Large Hadron Collider can prove his theories? LOL

EDIT: I've never seen any leftists critique private property? Not on any meaningful scale. Perhaps you can post a link to prominent liberals criticizing the coercive nature of property [capitalism]. Or did you mean leftist anarchists? Calling us leftist anarchist is bad- we're just anarchists. This is the point of the thread. There is no such thing as right wing anarchism. There is no such thing as anarcho capitalism. :)

[Wolf Larson]

Also, I should point out there have been several leftists who are both anarchists and scientists, and a few economists as well, such as Albert and Hahnel.

What did Rothbard ever do for humanity again?
He cursed us with "anarcho" capitalism.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm of the opinion that Bookchin was the superior anarchist, as well as the superior Murray.
Rothbard WAS NOT an anarchist. Get it?

[IcarusAngel]

It sounded like he's saying that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism to me.

[Wolf Larson]

It sounded like he's saying that anarcho-capitalism is the only true form of anarchism to me.

He specifically admitted anarchists are collectivists and said capitalist libertarians are not anarchists. The overall message in his doublethinking rhetoric is useless. This is all that matters. Rothbard himself admitting he is not an anarchist. It makes me smile :)

[RED DAVE]

One of the fun things about Rothbard is that he defended the right of parents to let their children starve to death.

RED DAVE

[Drace]

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists"

His saying that historically the anarchist movement has had roots in collectivization and does not fit with the "individualism" that he advocates.

Though that's really just a definition game. Its not much of a fundamental argument to establish that anarchism is something more than just "rejection of the state".

[Die Rote Fahne]

I agree with his point that leftists are often more anti-capitalist (and anti-state) and anti-property than Marxists. I've often been appaled at the way Marxists ignore the issue of private property often altogether in their "critiques" of capitalism, which is why I always prefer leftist critiques. (Notice also that while liberals often get accused of being Marxists and socialists, some of the more advanced critiques of capitalism are closer to anarchism, or anarchist-socialism, not Marxian socialism).


Fuuuuuuuuuu!!!!!

Are you really that stupid?

[John_Jordan]

I'm no expert on Rothbard, but this was written fairly early on in Rothbard's career, and it's not too hard to see that in Rothbard's later work he does call what he advocates "Anarchism", and himself an "Anarchist." Certainly a man is allowed to change his opinions.

[Dimentio]

I'm no expert on Rothbard, but this was written fairly early on in Rothbard's career, and it's not too hard to see that in Rothbard's later work he does call what he advocates "Anarchism", and himself an "Anarchist." Certainly a man is allowed to change his opinions.

Apparently, he did not change his opinions at all. I believe that he probably called himself an anarchist in order to become more notable.

[Agnapostate]

I don't believe that his "paleo-libertarian shift" represented a true deviation from his earlier ideology, either. His brief alliance with radical elements during the 1960's was simply what he perceived as a pragmatic step at the time; the increased popularity of social rightism in the wake of the Reagan-Bush decade allowed him to express his true colors more clearly. This culminated in such articles as his Right-Wing Populism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html) piece, a lament of the exclusion of David Duke from mainstream electoral politics and advocacy of straightforward authoritarianism. This placed him in fairly even lockstep with the white nationalist movement, as the expression of these sentiments earned him the proud title of "a Jew I'd be willing to invite into my house" on Stormfront (http://www.***************/forum/showthread.php?t=566223), as well as eager endorsements of "right on the money!" and "this is one of the best plans I ever read." He and fellow racist (http://reason.com/archives/2008/01/16/who-wrote-ron-pauls-newsletter) Spew Rockwell were thus exposed as two-bit statists, nothing more.

[John_Jordan]

Apparently, he did not change his opinions at all. I believe that he probably called himself an anarchist in order to become more notable.

And what is your basis for this belief?

[Left-Reasoning]

I'd like to third the point on Rothbard's irritating writing style.

I actually find Rothbard's writing style quite thrilling, if a bit self-righteous.

[Left-Reasoning]

Right-Wing Populism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch5.html)


That was disgusting.

[Wolf Larson]

I'm no expert on Rothbard, but this was written fairly early on in Rothbard's career, and it's not too hard to see that in Rothbard's later work he does call what he advocates "Anarchism", and himself an "Anarchist." Certainly a man is allowed to change his opinions.

Well then, later in life he was defiantly not on firm etymological ground and being completely unhistorical.

[Wolf Larson]

That was disgusting.

Konkin and Rothbard , it seems to me, somewhat mangled history. No, they completely and utterly mangled history. Are you also an enemy of the scientific method? Empiricism is our friend. What does history have to say about capitalism? Lets look at one little issue- what does history tell us concerning labor for a boss? It tells us, from the dawn of time, wage labor or slavery within society has always been the offspring of coercion. The coercion you advocate is the threat of homelessness or starvation. One must work for a boss under threat of homelessness or starvation and that my young capitalist friend is not free association. I'm not talking about the little examples you'll used where one person cleans the house of another person I'm talking about society in general- what compels people to work for a boss? They do not have equal access to the means of life.

[Agnapostate]

That was disgusting.

And an assortment of views he held throughout much of his life, dedicated to professions of his "anarchism." Brian Doherty, author of Radicals for Capitalism (http://www.amazon.com/Radicals-Capitalism-Freewheeling-American-Libertarian/dp/1586485725) (comprehensive history and summary of the propertarian movement), writes in the book that:


The "paleolibertarian turn" was not out of the blue for Rothbard. Even when singing the praises of the 1960s student movement, he always pledged fealty to old bourgeois cultural values. He loved pre-big band New Orleans jazz and old-fashioned narrative movies with heroes or broad comedies. He’d regularly rag libertarians’ concern with what he saw as faddish nonsense like humanistic psychology and science fiction visions of the future. In his history of economic thought, and elsewhere, he praised Christianity as the bedrock of almost all that was valuable in the Western philosophic tradition. While other libertarians talked of "living liberty" (a phrase Rothbard detested) through daring experiments in unique and sometimes bizarre social arrangements, Rothbard declared even in the early 1970s that ‘the Christian ethic is…a Rock of Ages, and it is at least incumbent on an individual to think long and hard before he abandons that Rock lest he sink into the quagmire of the capricious and bizarre.Murray's own words reveal the nature of his "anarchism."

[John_Jordan]

Well then, later in life he was defiantly not on firm etymological ground and being completely unhistorical.

I wouldn't agree, and neither would Rothbard it seems. Which is what this thread is about, is it not?

[Wolf Larson]

I wouldn't agree, and neither would Rothbard it seems. Which is what this thread is about, is it not?

'We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical' -Rothbard- :)

[John_Jordan]

""We must therefore turn to history for enlightenment; here we find that none of the proclaimed anarchist groups correspond to the libertarian position, that even the best of them have unrealistic and socialistic elements in their doctrines. Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical." -Rothbard- :)

Yes. And we've established that this was written early on his Rothbard's career, while later on in his career he did call himself an "Anarchist." It is more important to take somebody's position, especially a dead somebody, using the whole of their work, and using what they thought later in life as "what they believed." In this sense, Rothbard did believe himself to be what he called an Anarchist. Whether or not he's right isn't very important as far as this thread goes, which seems to be trying to say that Rothbard himself did not believe himself to be what he later in life clearly saw himself to be.

Oh, I and I forgot to respond to something previously:


It tells us, from the dawn of time, wage labor or slavery within society has always been the offspring of coercion.

Can you define what you mean by coercion? Also, what do you mean by "the offspring of coercion"? I'm no expert, and "coercion" is something I know about very fuzzily, so can you help me out with what you're saying?


The coercion you advocate is the threat of homelessness or starvation.

I don't think he's advocating people taking away food and houses if they don't work for him. I could be wrong of course, but that's not a very reasonable position so I don't see why he'd advocate it.


I'm not talking about the little examples you'll used where one person cleans the house of another person I'm talking about society in general- what compels people to work for a boss? They do not have equal access to the means of life.

What in the world are "the means of life"?

[Wolf Larson]

Yes. And we've established that this was written early on his Rothbard's career, while later on in his career he did call himself an "Anarchist." It is more important to take somebody's position, especially a dead somebody, using the whole of their work, and using what they thought later in life as "what they believed." In this sense, Rothbard did believe himself to be what he called an Anarchist. Whether or not he's right isn't very important as far as this thread goes, which seems to be trying to say that Rothbard himself did not believe himself to be what he later in life clearly saw himself to be.

Oh, I and I forgot to respond to something previously:



Can you define what you mean by coercion? Also, what do you mean by "the offspring of coercion"? I'm no expert, and "coercion" is something I know about very fuzzily, so can you help me out with what you're saying?



I don't think he's advocating people taking away food and houses if they don't work for him. I could be wrong of course, but that's not a very reasonable position so I don't see why he'd advocate it.



What in the world are "the means of life"?

I'm sorry but you may want to read more before you jump into these discussions. I'm not being an elitist I simply don't have the time to explain what coercion means and the context concerning capitalism. Briefly, coercion is force. The process of making a person do something under duress. Property, wage labor, interest bearing loans and rent are the offspring or are born out of coercion. People work for a boss, rent homes and take interest bearing loans under threat of starvation and homelessness because they not not have equal access to the means of life [production]. This is coercion. The majority is excluded from the ability to survive without working for a boss. This is done via private property and is facilitated/legitimized by the state which is necessary to exclude the masses of workers from being free and independent.

[John_Jordan]

I'm sorry but you may want to read more before you jump into these discussions. I'm not being an elitist I simply don't have the time to explain what coercion means and the context concerning capitalism. Briefly, coercion is force. The process of making a person do something under duress. Property, wage labor, interest bearing loans and rent are the offspring or are born out of coercion. People work for a boss, rent homes and take interest bearing loans under threat of starvation and homelessness because they not not have equal access to the means of life [production]. This is coercion. The majority is excluded from the ability to survive without working for a boss. This is done via private property and is facilitated/legitimized by the state which is necessary to exclude the masses of workers from being free and independent.

I suppose I could have made some guesses instead of just flat-out asking, and I'll attempt to do so here. The reason I asked is, "coercion" as understood by many people, does not seem to be the same thing as what you speak of. And in fact, "coercion" as defined as "force, or the process of making somebody do something under duress" is a bit vague, but commonly understood is also not what you're talking about. The sorts of things you speak of are passive, and some of them should be valid statements even under more left-wing societies. For example, can somebody/everybody sit back and do no work in the factory of which they collectively own, and expect to get food and shelter under Anarcho-Syndicalism (as just an example)? And if not, isn't that the same sort of situation of either working or starving? The only difference is the "for a boss" part, but personally, I'd work and not starve either way, and I don't think I'd feel much different or more free if I was working "for a boss" or in a collectively owned factory.

There are other statements you make that are very broad and confusing. You state that people in our society don't have access to the means of production. While this is true, in a sense, it is also false, in a sense. Theoretically, anybody could start owning factories/land/whatever, through the system currently in place. And so in that sense that statement is wrong. Of course, it's extremely difficult, and close to impossible for some, or possibly many, to actually own these things, and in that sense the statement is true. It's also true that everybody does not collectively own the means of production, and in that sense also, it's true. Now don't get me wrong, I am in no way advocating the current system, I'm just a bit confused.

There's one last thing. I had to question the means of life thing, because what is required to live is extremely small and pretty much already free to everybody. That is, basic food and water, and primitive shelter. So I was unsure if you meant, what is required to keep one's self alive, or something else.

[Left-Reasoning]

Konkin and Rothbard , it seems to me, somewhat mangled history. No, they completely and utterly mangled history.

Examples?


Are you also an enemy of the scientific method?In theory I have problems with it due to the problem of induction.[1] But that is neither here nor there.


It tells us, from the dawn of time, wage labor or slavery within society has always been the offspring of coercion.I don't know if wage labor has always been an offspring of coercion. But coercion has undoubtedly caused much more wage labor than otherwise would have existed.


The coercion you advocate is the threat of homelessness or starvation. One must work for a boss under threat of homelessness or starvation and that my young capitalist friend is not free association.I'm a capitalist now?


I'm not talking about the little examples you'll used where one person cleans the house of another person I'm talking about society in general- what compels people to work for a boss? They do not have equal access to the means of life.Completely agreed.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

[eyedrop]

[Off-topic]I found a little gem (to me) in your wiki link.


Medieval writers such as al-Ghazali (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ghazali) and William of Ockham (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham) connected the problem with God's absolute power, asking how we can be certain that the world will continue behaving as expected when God could at any moment miraculously cause the opposite.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction#cite_note-3) Which is one of my main arguments to dismiss everything supernatural, including gods.

The problem of philosophical induction is more of a brain masturbation problem than a real problem as in the real world you have to act as if the sun will rise tomorrow too.

[Agnapostate]

http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/14641.aspx

*sigh* Can't even distinguish Iain McKay from Francois.

[Wolf Larson]

To left reasoning. Yes. I consider agorists capitalists taking Rothbard's insincere revisionism into the 21'st century.. You advocate property [although Konkin and Spangler try to mindfuck themselves into believing their form of property is not coercive].

When Proudhon said property is liberty what he meant was having control of your own means of production either independently in a ONE MAN business or collectively in an industrial business is liberty- he was referring to artisans operating one man businesses such as barber, cart maker, printer, book binder, goldsmith, dressmaker, shoe repairmen, hat makers and so on. People who use their means of production to employ wage slaves are capitalists- agorists support property, wage slavery under a boss, rent under a landlord and interest payed to a bank/capitalist and thus you are capitalists in my mind. Anti revolutionary reactionaries.

Anarcho capitalism is in fact a trojan horse philosophy meant to rot anarchism from within and agorism, thanks to Konkin, is its new face. I oppose everything you passively promote. Agorism is just another way for capitalists to erode class conciseness. You advocate wage labor for a boss and call it free association while ignoring what would compel a person to work for a boss [exclusion]. You advocate rent while ignoring what would compel a person to rent a home to live in [exclusion]. You advocate interest bearing loans while ignoring what would compel a person to take on a mortgage or other interest bearing loans in order to survive [again exclusion from equal access to the means of production].

In reality wage slavery, rent, interest and usury have and always will be the bi product of people having no other means of survival. If a person could just as easily survive without working for a boss why would they choose to work for a boss? If a person could just as easily live in a home without renting or taking on an interest bearing mortgage why would they rent from a landlord or bank? If a person could live life just as easy without taking on interest bearing loans to provide sustenance why would they take on interest bearing loans? All of these things, in reality, have existed under threat of starvation and homelessness. Your so called voluntary free market capitalist society is a sham. It only exists in your mind. Wishful thinking.

PS. Other than Konkin and Rothbard you can thank Thor'sMiterSaw for my harsh words.

[John_Jordan]

In reality wage slavery, rent, interest and usury have and always will be the bi product of people having no other means of survival. If a person could just as easily survive without working for a boss why would they choose to work for a boss? If a person could just as easily live in a home without renting or taking on an interest bearing mortgage why would they rent from a landlord or bank? If a person could live life just as easy without taking on interest bearing loans to provide sustenance why would they take on interest bearing loans?This sort of thinking right here is why I don't care about Anarcho-Capitalism. IF you're right...then what do you have to worry about? I've never met an Anarcho-Capitalist who said that all other people must conform to their Anarcho-Capitalist ideals, should the state ever be disposed of. And if they're sincere, which I see no reason why they wouldn't be, and if you're right, which you seem sure of, then what's the problem? The people will have a choice, and since we're assuming that you're right, they will choose some other method of constructing their society and nobody will be an Anarcho-Capitalist.

Of course, because Anarcho-Capitalists exist, I figure that you're actually wrong about this, and given the choice, some people will choose such a life. And if they did, what then? Will you stop them? If you would, how do you justify it?

[Agnapostate]

PS. Other than Konkin and Rothbard you can thank Thor'sMiterSaw for my harsh words.

Yeah, that's a hard-core idiot right there.

[LeftSideDown]

Wall of text crits you for over 9000!!!!!!!!!!

[Agnapostate]

Murray's own words reveal the nature of his "anarchism."

I came across this (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/ir/Ch75.html) today.


[T]he egalitarian myth has been the major ideological groundwork for the welfare state, and, in its racial aspect, for the entire vast, ever expanding civil rights-affirmative action-setaside-quota aspect of the welfare state. The recognition of inheritance and natural inequalities among races as well as among individuals knocks the props out from under the welfare state system...If and when we as populists and libertarians abolish the welfare state in all of its aspects, and property rights and the free market shall be triumphant once more, many individuals and groups will predictably not like the end result. In that case, those ethnic and other groups who might be concentrated in lower-income or less prestigious occupations, guided by their socialistic mentors, will predictably raise the cry that free-market capitalism is evil and "discriminatory" and that therefore collectivism is needed to redress the balance. In that case, the intelligence argument will become useful to defend the market economy and the free society from ignorant or self-serving attacks. In short; racialist science is properly not an act of aggression or a cover for oppression of one group over another, but, on the contrary, an operation in defense of private property against assaults by aggressors.

The audacity of Rothbard in calling himself an anarchist and defaming real anarchists seems even starker at this point. What's amusing about Rothbard's support of The Bell Curve and more extreme work than that, along with the co-authorship of the late Richard Herrnstein, is that the "populist" elements he was attempting to appeal to would have been particularly unlikely to welcome support from Jews.

[IcarusAngel]

That's one of the sickest and most totalitarian things I've ever read. I've always suspected that Libertarians blame the "inequality among races" on their "inferiority" rather than on the causes of colonialism, imperialism, and just the unfair distribution of resources in the capitalist system.

Free-marketeers/anarcho-capitalists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored.

[RED DAVE]

The audacity of Rothbard in calling himself an anarchist and defaming real anarchists seems even starker at this point. What's amusing about Rothbard's support of The Bell Curve and more extreme work than that, along with the co-authorship of the late Richard Herrnstein, is that the "populist" elements he was attempting to appeal to would have been particularly unlikely to welcome support from Jews.Rothbard had all kinds of fantasies about a left/right alliance, etc., but he finally reverted to type and ended up supporting the neocons.

His fundamental, crack-pot theory was that the ultimate relationship was an ownership contract, including a contract with oneself to own oneself. This led him to posit a contractual relationship between parent and child, which since it wasn't a voluntary contract, wasn't binding on the parent, and the parent had the right to let the child starve to death.

RED DAVE

[Skooma Addict]

Strange. Although that is not half as bad as some of the terrible things said by Bertrand Russell.

[Red Saxon]

Don't Libertarian Capitalists speak of how the "wild west" was a perfect example of anarcho-capitalism?

What pot are they smoking? I want some.

[Agnapostate]

Rothbard had all kinds of fantasies about a left/right alliance, etc., but he finally reverted to type and ended up supporting the neocons.

The paleocons, actually; they were firmly opposed to the neocons, though consequently also opposed to reparations for the harm that previous administrations have caused the developing world and communities. I see a problem in that I wouldn't be surprised by Rothbard supporting interventionist aggression if he thought it defended capitalist "property rights." His contemporary George Reisman illustrated the application of that propertarian principle in his admiring obituary (http://georgereismansblog.blogspot.com/2006/12/general-augusto-pinochet-is-dead.html) of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, due to his strong-armed promotion of capitalism.


When General Pinochet stepped down, he did so with a guarantee of immunity from prosecution for his actions while in power. However, the present and previous regime in Chile violated this agreement and sought to ensnare the General in a web of legal actions and law suits, making the last years of his life a period of turmoil. This was a clear violation of contract, comparable to the seizure of property in violation of contract...Dictatorship, like war, is always an evil. Like war, it can be justified only when it is necessary to prevent a far greater evil, namely, as in this case, the imposition of the far more comprehensive and severe, permanent totalitarian dictatorship of the Communists.
I guess they have their own version of a dictatorship of the proletariat? In another post, he quoted this interesting section from his book, Capitalism:


Even if a socialist government were democratically elected, its first act in office in implementing socialism would have to be an act of enormous violence, namely, the forcible expropriation of the means of production. The democratic election of a socialist government would not change the fact that the seizure of property against the will of its owners is an act of force.

This fails both on the implicitly utilitarian justification that he's used as a defense of Pinochet's dictatorship (prevention of a greater evil), since there is greater and more intense harm associated with mass murders and kidnappings than with property theft, and also on the count that since primitive accumulation involved statism as an integral component (meaning that many current holdings were at one time aggressively gained, with South America certainly being a hotbed of such actions), it's not property theft anyway, since it's not the legitimate property of the upper class. Reisman is one of the worst "vulgar libertarian" offenders, and this asinine idiocy of his exemplifies that well.


His fundamental, crack-pot theory was that the ultimate relationship was an ownership contract, including a contract with oneself to own oneself. This led him to posit a contractual relationship between parent and child, which since it wasn't a voluntary contract, wasn't binding on the parent, and the parent had the right to let the child starve to death.

Yeah, he was really kind of an idiot. I remember laughing at his statement that parents should be permitted to starve an infant to death but not actively assault it when the two had the same consequences, and more importantly for the inconsistency between his axioms and rules, when the infant's helplessness was a direct consequence of the parents' conception and mother's carriage of it to term.

[Skooma Addict]

That's one of the sickest and most totalitarian things I've ever read. I've always suspected that Libertarians blame the "inequality among races" on their "inferiority" rather than on the causes of colonialism, imperialism, and just the unfair distribution of resources in the capitalist system.

Free-marketeers/anarcho-capitalists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored.

Can I try?


But bad times, you may say, are exceptional, and can be dealt with by exceptional methods. This has been more or less true during the honeymoon period of industrialism, but it will not remain true unless the increase of population can be enormously diminished. At present the population of the world is increasing at about 58,000 per diem. War, so far, has had no very great effect on this increase, which continued through each of the world wars. ... War ... has hitherto been disappointing in this respect ... but perhaps bacteriological war may prove more effective. If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. ... The state of affairs might be somewhat unpleasant, but what of it? Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.
--Bertrand Russell, The Impact of Science on Society

Socialists/Communists practice extreme totalitarianism. They should be ignored.

[IcarusAngel]

First of all, that quote DOES NOT EXIST in the Impact of Science on Society, and anybody who quoted it would be exposed as a charlatan. That quote is pieced together from entirely different contexts from ENTIRELY different pages. By that standard you could make any one of us here supporters of capitalism. Allow me to demonstrate:

"I hate free-markets, but many today love it.

People claim that capitalism has made the standard of living better but that is ridiculous. It has only allowed the ruling class more control over our lives and since they control all the technology and the media they have used that to oppress us in a more indirect manner with all kinds of negative results on the population.

I think socialism, on the other hand, kicks ass."

And now the "Olaf" way to quote people:

I...love... Free-markets [and] Capitalism. has made the standard of living better.... The ruling class... kicks ass.


You cannot take things from entirely different pages and chapters to form a paragraph. You can only take out [i]irrelevant words within the paragraph itself.

I researched this more deeply and it turns out that Olaf took this from the Alex Jones website:

http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Impact_Of_Science_On_Society


Alex Jones claims that Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley etc. were supporters of the New World Order. To prove this they quote mainly from their works outlining scientism, rather than their works which outline what they believe (which do exist).

In fact, many scholars believe that Huxley directly ripped of Brave New World from Impact of Science on Society, which was meant to show what a scientific society might look like. Russell himself made this claim, but was advised by his lawyer not to seek legal action, and he followed this advice.

Take a look at the quote "War, as I remarked, has hitherto been disappointed in this respect, but perhaps bacteriological may prove more effective."

In fact, the above has absolutely no relevance to the paragraph Olaf constructed. It is preceded by:

"I do not claim that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer."

So if anything he's critiquing those methods, and in fact the next paragraph notes all three have methods (birth control, wars, and mass famines) have been practiced. Nowhere does he say he "favors" it.

Basically, Agnapostate quoted something which ACCURATELY reflected the totalitarian beliefs of Rothbard, that he had READ with interest exactly BECAUSE he was looking to study what the other side believed.

Olaf quoted something from the Alex Jones website, which pieces together quotes from different paragraphs of the book contained in entirely different chapters - thus, creating their own context and ignoring Russell's actual political work where he condemned all such "population control" methods, including "genetics" as being too easily corrupted by the ruling class. The book was basically an outline of scientism, and no where in the book does Russell favor a totalitarian society in the same way that Rothbard did.

That's just absolutely pathetic. Olaf, you embarrass yourself.

[IcarusAngel]

Can a mod perhaps split this topic sense Olaf has started trolling and reclaiming things that I've already debunked?

It has NOTHING to do with this thread.

[Dimentio]

Is it only me who have this itch to post pics of Count Olaf/Jim Carrey now?

[Skooma Addict]

First of all, that quote DOES NOT EXIST in the Impact of Science on Society, and anybody who quoted it would be exposed as a charlatan. That quote is pieced together from entirely different contexts from ENTIRELY different pages. By that standard you could make any one of us here supporters of capitalism.Correct, it not an exact quote. Hence the "..."

But fine, how about this?

Q. Is it true or untrue that in recent years you advocated that a preventive war might be made against communism, against Soviet Russia?"


RUSSELL: It's entirely true, and I don't repent of it now. It was not inconsistent with what I think now.... There was a time, just after the last war, when the Americans had a monopoly of nuclear weapons and offered to internationalize nuclear weapons by the Baruch proposal, and I thought this an extremely generous proposal on their part, one which it would be very desirable that the world should accept; not that I advocated a nuclear war, but I did think that great pressure should be put upon Russia to accept the Baruch proposal, and I did think that if they continued to refuse it it might be necessary actually to go to war. At that time nuclear weapons existed only on one side, and therefore the odds were the Russians would have given way. I thought they would ... .
Q. Suppose they hadn't given way.

RUSSELL: I thought and hoped that the Russians would give way, but of course you can't threaten unless you're prepared to have your bluff called

Quoted in Bertrand Russell, The Future of Science, and Self-Portrait of the Author (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959), pp. 81-83

Or this...

I find the coloured people friendly and nice. They seem to have a dog's liking for the white man—the same kind of trust and ungrudging sense of inferiority. I don't feel any recoil from them.

See Ronald Clarke, op. cit., p. 229

Although I admit I am getting all of this from this random website I ran into.

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943a_russell_lhl.html#23-30


I researched this more deeply and it turns out that Olaf took this from the Alex Jones website:

http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/The_I...nce_On_Society (http://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/The_Impact_Of_Science_On_Society)


Alex Jones claims that Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley etc. were supporters of the New World Order. To prove this they quote mainly from their works outlining scientism, rather than their works which outline what they believe (which do exist).I didn't get it from that website. It is just a random website I ran into a long time ago.




In fact, the above has absolutely no relevance to the paragraph Olaf constructed. It is preceded by:

"I do not claim that birth control is the only way in which population can be kept from increasing. There are others, which, one must suppose, opponents of birth control would prefer."

So if anything he's critiquing those methods, and in fact the next paragraph notes all three have methods (birth control, wars, and mass famines) have been practiced. Nowhere does he say he "favors" it.From the information you presented here, there is no reason to believe he is critiquing those methods. In fact, from what you present here, it looks like he is offering alternatives to birth control.


Olaf quoted something from the Alex Jones website, which pieces together quotes from different paragraphs of the book contained in entirely different chapters - thus, creating their own context and ignoring Russell's actual political work where he condemned all such "population control" methods, including "genetics" as being too easily corrupted by the ruling class. The book was basically an outline of scientism, and no where in the book does Russell favor a totalitarian society in the same way that Rothbard did.Is the Schiller Institute an Alex Jones site? And if Russell really did condemn population control, then I assume this is inaccurate as well?

Voluntary sterilization is also to be promoted. Infant mortality must not be combatted. Mothers must not be instructed about care for infants and children's diseases. ...

Once we have converted the mass of the people to the idea of a one- or two-child system, we will have reached the goal we are aiming at ... .23 (http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_91-96/943a_russell_lhl.html#23-30)


That's just absolutely pathetic. Olaf, you embarrass yourself. I have better things to worry about besides what your opinion of me is. In fact, I had a goal in mind when I made my post, and it was achieved.


Can a mod perhaps split this topic sense Olaf has started trolling and reclaiming things that I've already debunked?

It has NOTHING to do with this thread. If saying things which have been debunked is equivalent to trolling then you would have been banned by now.

[Publius]

Strange. Although that is not half as bad as some of the terrible things said by Bertrand Russell.

Such as?

[Publius]

You have to be the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.

This is your source:
How Bertrand Russell
Became An Evil Man
by



Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.


You're quoting Lyndon RaRouche. Why not just say Bertrand Russell was a reptilian Jew?

I'd take that about as seriously: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche

You are a quoting a straight-up signboard-carrying lunatic motherfucker.

For the good if your 'reputation' I'd recommend not using insane conspiracy theorist anti-Semites as your sole source of quotes blackmailing one of the greatest humanitarian figures of the last century.

"n "An Open Letter to President Brezhnev (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brezhnev&action=edit&redlink=1)" (June 2 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=June_2&action=edit&redlink=1), 1981 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1981&action=edit&redlink=1)) LaRouche identified those pushing the world toward war as "the forces behind the World Wildlife Fund (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Wildlife_Fund), the Club of Rome (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Club_of_Rome), and the heritage of H. G. Wells (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&action=edit&redlink=1) and the evil Bertrand Russell (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&action=edit&redlink=1).""

I'm absolutely certain every quote in that "article" is a complete and utter misdirection or fabrication. Unless you think 90 year old Bertrand Russell was secretly responsible for all of the world's imperialism and suppressing scientific information.

This is some funny shit you just bought into to.

Be more careful next time you run a Google smear campaign or you'll end up quoting the Unabomber or Ted Bundy.

[Dimentio]

The Schiller Institute is belonging to the international LaRoucheite movement.

Publius has pretty well covered up what the LaRoucheites are.

[Left-Reasoning]

This led him to posit a contractual relationship between parent and child, which since it wasn't a voluntary contract, wasn't binding on the parent, and the parent had the right to let the child starve to death.

Would it be right for the parent to let the child starve to death? No and I think even Rothbard would agree here.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, the way I see Russell is similar to Publius' take. He was a humanitarian who spoke in favor of freedom for all humainty, but condemned both the LEFT and the RIGHT, and followed his own path. Thus, he does not even represent all socialists in the way that Rothbard was kind of a creator of anarcho-capitalism.

Anyway, on Russell, he participated in all aspects of intellectual, philosophical, and political life, thus pissing people off in every area of life that you can imagine, and that's what I love about him. He made enemies in mathematics and logic for his attempts to reduce mathematics to logic and for critiquing some of those same attempts, he made enemies in metaphysics by suggesting that metaphysics doesn't take us anywhere, he made enemies in philosophy by acting as a bridge that took power away from the philosophers who used old methods and put them into the hands of scientists, he made enemies of scientists by suggesting that even science cannot lead us to absolute truth and that our percept in physics is always to some degree subjective rather than objective, and of course, many ethicists and moralists disliked him as well.

"Reputations are notoriously fickle. Difficult to acquire, they are often impossible either to lose or to realize. Woe, therefore, to the unfortunate soul who - like Bertrand Russell - manages to collect not simply one but several reputations. Praise and obloquy, admiration and contempt, agreement and denunciation all accompanied Russell as, in the course of his immensely long life, he evolved from respectable scion of the Whig aristocracy to defiant CND disobedient, from conventional Victorian gentleman to notorious enthusiast for a new morality, from path-breaking logician to out-moded defender of tired philsophical fashions, from best-selling popularizer and essayist to stigmatized 'crank' and gadfly. So varied was Russell's life and so variable his reputations, indeed, that he seems to defeat any attempt to see his life and work whole." --Kirk Willis

Of course, many of those who opposed him in these fields (or a part of him, we may say) were far more worthy of response than Larouche.

Russell was actually neither left nor right, but had a bias towards tolerance and peace and preferred a balanced approach to individual freedom and social harmony. I think Bertrand Russell just wanted to give humanity one big hug, but, being unable to do so, he started fights with the conservatives of his time (such as spending his money from mathematics fighting for women's rights, attacking the old morality, preferring science to the old methods of philosophy, preferring peace to war, and so on and so forth) all with the underlying hope that we would end up with a better society.

As John G. Slater notes, "Russell loved to tweak the establishment's nose, and especially that of the philosophical establishment."

[IcarusAngel]

I did have a question for you though, publius, that I was going to PM but since Olaf has hijacked this thread I'll post it here.

You might be knowledge of this quote from Wittgenstein that Russell's books should be bound in two covers "...those dealing with mathematical philosophy in blue, and every student of philosophy should read them, while those dealing with popular subjects should be bound in red and no one should be allowed to read them."

This is a common criticism of Russell, one Monk makes, that he lowered his standards and wasted his genius by writing for the "working class," perhaps too dumb to waste time on (not saying Wittgenstein said this, but it seems the underlying thing of some).

I've read a lot of his philosophy and would not say it's subpar at all. For example, his critique of Pragmatism in Philosophical Essays is one of the best critiques of it that I've ever read, and certainly isn't below the level of William James' work or even Charles Sanders Pierce. If anything I'd say that Russell's is more intellectual.

His outline of philosophy is also pretty good and reminds us to question our assumptions.

Certainly, his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" is just as philosophical and advanced as most of Wittgenstein's famous works, and is actually recommended by the American Mathematical Society.

If Wittgenstein did indeed hate Russell's beliefs on ethics, which actually were developed by others into a full-blown rival to Moore's position, which Russell rejected in "scientific Method in Philosophy," his beliefs on politics, which radical Charles P. Trevelyan said "in all" Russell was "revolutionary but always constructive," and his philosophical works, which were often praised in the International Journal of Ethics, but also critiqued by the likes of Prichard (www.jstor.org/stable/2249248) (but also given more favorable reviews (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3745645) by others) it just goes to show the wide range of opinions that exist on this man.Wittgenstein seemed to be of the belief that only his earlier works should be studied, while others seem to believe that his philosophical works were his best works.

Russell lost a lot of money when he was fighting for women's rights and for a new morality and new education, he made it all back appealing to the working class and attacking the intellectual elite, making plenty of enemies, but millions of new "working class" fans in the process.

[Skooma Addict]

You have to be the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.



Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.


You're quoting Lyndon RaRouche. Why not just say Bertrand Russell was a reptilian Jew?

I'd take that about as seriously: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...yndon_LaRouche (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Lyndon_LaRouche)

You are a quoting a straight-up signboard-carrying lunatic motherfucker.

For the good if your 'reputation' I'd recommend not using insane conspiracy theorist anti-Semites as your sole source of quotes blackmailing one of the greatest humanitarian figures of the last century.

"n "An Open Letter to President Brezhnev (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brezhnev&action=edit&redlink=1)" (June 2 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=June_2&action=edit&redlink=1), 1981 (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=1981&action=edit&redlink=1)) LaRouche identified those pushing the world toward war as "the forces behind the World Wildlife Fund (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=World_Wildlife_Fund), the Club of Rome (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Club_of_Rome), and the heritage of H. G. Wells (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=H._G._Wells&action=edit&redlink=1) and the evil Bertrand Russell (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bertrand_Russell&action=edit&redlink=1).""

I'm absolutely certain every quote in that "article" is a complete and utter misdirection or fabrication. Unless you think 90 year old Bertrand Russell was secretly responsible for all of the world's imperialism and suppressing scientific information.

This is some funny shit you just bought into to.

Be more careful next time you run a Google smear campaign or you'll end up quoting the Unabomber or Ted Bundy. Haha, I had a feeling that website wasn't credible, but I didn't know the article was written by a crazy guy. So then I would agree that we shouldn't trust that site. To be honest I was just trying to make you guys angry more than anything else. Although the fact that my source isn't credible hurts my cause.

[Publius]

I did have a question for you though, publius, that I was going to PM but since Olaf has hijacked this thread I'll post it here.

You might be knowledge of this quote from Wittgenstein that Russell's books should be bound in two covers "...those dealing with mathematical philosophy in blue, and every student of philosophy should read them, while those dealing with popular subjects should be bound in red and no one should be allowed to read them."

This is a common criticism of Russell, one Monk makes, that he lowered his standards and wasted his genius by writing for the "working class," perhaps too dumb to waste time on (not saying Wittgenstein said this, but it seems the underlying thing of some).

It's also important to recognize Wittgenstein's eccentricities when it came to the history of philosophy.

Outside of Kierkegaard, Frege, and some obscure German and Austrian writers, he was quite dismissive of philosophical history and traditional philosophical problems.

So of course Wittgenstein would be hostile to books like "The History of Western Philosophy" and "The Problems of Philosophy", justified or not.



I've read a lot of his philosophy and would not say it's subpar at all. For example, his critique of Pragmatism in Philosophical Essays is one of the best critiques of it that I've ever read, and certainly isn't below the level of William James' work or even Charles Sanders Pierce. If anything I'd say that Russell's is more intellectual.

His outline of philosophy is also pretty good and reminds us to question our assumptions.

Certainly, his "Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy" is just as philosophical and advanced as most of Wittgenstein's famous works, and is actually recommended by the American Mathematical Society.

If Wittgenstein did indeed hate Russell's beliefs on ethics, which actually were developed by others into a full-blown rival to Moore's position, which Russell rejected in "scientific Method in Philosophy," his beliefs on politics, which radical Charles P. Trevelyan said "in all" Russell was "revolutionary but always constructive," and his philosophical works, which were often praised in the International Journal of Ethics, but also critiqued by the likes of Prichard (http://www.jstor.org/stable/2249248) (but also given more favorable reviews (http://www.jstor.org/pss/3745645) by others) it just goes to show the wide range of opinions that exist on this man.Wittgenstein seemed to be of the belief that only his earlier works should be studied, while others seem to believe that his philosophical works were his best works.

Russell lost a lot of money when he was fighting for women's rights and for a new morality and new education, he made it all back appealing to the working class and attacking the intellectual elite, making plenty of enemies, but millions of new "working class" fans in the process.

Well, Wittgenstein thought issues in politics and ethics were outside of the domain of philosophy, of language in general.

Hence his ending of the Tractatus.

I think Russell did important work outside of his logic, for example his work on definite descriptions, his epistemology, etc. He was actually a "major" philosopher in the sense that he had well developed views on most every topic in philosophy.

The problem, from Wittgenstein's perspective, is that all areas of philosophy outside of formal logic are "nonsense". This is early Wittgenstein of course. Later Wittgenstein the primacy of logic, and instead substituted ordinary language as his basis for doing philosophy.

I think Wittgenstein's view is really unique to Wittgenstein -- most everyone recognizes the work Russell did as a humanitarian, a public intellectual, a popular writer, and so on.

[Agnapostate]

To be honest I was just trying to make you guys angry more than anything else. Although the fact that my source isn't credible hurts my cause.

That's because you have no life, and are therefore too heavily invested in the forum as a means of compensation. I don't know how many people here you make genuinely angry; you seem to mistake rudeness as an indication of anger and apathy towards your substanceless contradictions as an indication of resentment, when it's really just the sort of abrasive dismissiveness that people here are prone to treat snobbish rightists with.

[Dimentio]

Haha, I had a feeling that website wasn't credible, but I didn't know the article was written by a crazy guy. So then I would agree that we shouldn't trust that site. To be honest I was just trying to make you guys angry more than anything else. Although the fact that my source isn't credible hurts my cause.

Unsuccessful troll is unsuccessful :lol:

Must admit I kinda like Skooma Addict. He's at least honest with his intentions.

[Skooma Addict]

That's because you have no life, and are therefore too heavily invested in the forum as a means of compensation.


While I am sure you will be a great psychoanalyst someday, the fact of the matter is that if I had no life I would play WoW/Oblivion/Morrowind all day as a means of compensation.



I don't know how many people here you make genuinely angry; you seem to mistake rudeness as an indication of anger and apathy towards your substanceless contradictions as an indication of resentment, when it's really just the sort of abrasive dismissiveness that people here are prone to treat snobbish rightists with.


It is too bad "rightist" is practically meaningless since most people imply it to mean anyone who isn't a "leftist."

[Agnapostate]

Mmkay. As a term you'll undoubtedly be familiar with, cool story, bro.

[Publius]

nice essay nerd > cool story bro

In my opinion.

[Skooma Addict]

Mmkay. As a term you'll undoubtedly be familiar with, cool story, bro.

If that is all you can come up with, sure. I am satisfied as long as you stop abusing the term "rightist."



nice essay nerd > cool story bro

In my opinion.


Well they are all fun games. What more could you ask for in life?

[Agnapostate]

If that is all you can come up with, sure. I am satisfied as long as you stop abusing the term "rightist."

No abuse involved, rightist.

[Dimentio]

Please someone, while interesting this thread ought to be locked and people should stop trolling the Austrians, as well as the Austrians should stop trolling the human beings.

[Meridian]

Well, Wittgenstein thought issues in politics and ethics were outside of the domain of philosophy, of language in general.
Publius I think you have misinterpreted Wittgenstein. Politics are by no means 'outside' the domain of language, nor is it so according to Wittgenstein (early and late) as far as I have understood. Ethics seem to be sort of between the metaphysical (non-sensical) and the political (ie. using language materialistically, meaningfully) to me, so I'd say it's only halfway bullshit.

I think the idea in Tractatus is that metaphysical problems and claims are sense-less. And such metaphysical theories happens to be the main concern of philosophers.

[Publius]

Publius I think you have misinterpreted Wittgenstein. Politics are by no means 'outside' the domain of language, nor is it so according to Wittgenstein (early and late) as far as I have understood. Ethics seem to be sort of between the metaphysical (non-sensical) and the political (ie. using language materialistically, meaningfully) to me, so I'd say it's only halfway bullshit.

Early Wittgenstein I think would lump politics in with ethics, art, and religion, forms of life which transcend linguistic analysis.

To early Wittgenstein these things couldn't be said or talked about, but they're the important part of life.

This, at least, is the interpretation given in the (excellent) biography of Wittgenstein by Ray Monk called "The Duty of Genius".



I think the idea in Tractatus is that metaphysical problems and claims are sense-less. And such metaphysical theories happens to be the main concern of philosophers.

I think that's based on a misreading of the Tractatus which places Wittgenstein in league with the logical positivists.

While the logical positivists interpreted Wittgenstein as arriving at similar points as them (destroying traditional metaphysics) Wittgenstein felt they radically misinterpreted him.

And the Tractatus an unmistakably metaphysical book in a lot of ways. I could quote some sections, but it's really apparent on most every page. In fact, I get sense of Liebnizian monadology in some of his statements about facts.

[Shitfaced]

Any system with money is not anarchist. the only way to do away with superiority is to do away with money, money only leads to one being above another

[Agnapostate]

That certainly goes too far.

[AnCapJack]

I'll defend Rothbard (when I wake up in a few hours).

[Comrade Anarchist]

Wow he says we should create a new word called nonarchists or to translate that a capitalist who believes the government should NOT exist. Or to make it simpler for you all anarchist capitalists.

[Agnapostate]

As far as I can tell, very few of you are capitalists. The academics who work at government-funded institutions to advocate their utopianism certainly aren't.

[LeftSideDown]

Don't Libertarian Capitalists speak of how the "wild west" was a perfect example of anarcho-capitalism?

What pot are they smoking? I want some.

There were less bank robberies in the entire period of the "wild west" than there are in one year in detroit...

or something... I heard it a long time ago.

[Jazzratt]

There were less bank robberies in the entire period of the "wild west" than there are in one year in detroit...

or something... I heard it a long time ago.

The period of the "wild" west was, indeed, less violent and so on. It was also far less far less an-cap in ethos than its common portrayal, however.

[Agnapostate]

There were less bank robberies in the entire period of the "wild west" than there are in one year in detroit...

or something... I heard it a long time ago.

Uh...what's the population, number of banks, and crime report rate of the Wild West versus Detroit? Also, since consideration of all forms of aggression would include aggression against the indigenous population (dismissing Austro-propertarians' typical Eurocentrism), you have a problem...