Yeah... I loved how he claimed that the state blocked "real research on race" to take place to further its egalitarian agenda. He was a self-described racial realist, btw.
Taxation is extortion and theft.
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
Yeah... I loved how he claimed that the state blocked "real research on race" to take place to further its egalitarian agenda. He was a self-described racial realist, btw.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
I do not think that Rothbard was a racist, but the term racial realism is too often used as an euphemism for White supremacism these days. Plently of ancaps also criticised the state for being too hierarchical, with Samuel Konkin and Kevin Carson coming to mind.
He advocated a separate country for blacks. He obviously wasn't a white supremacist (as blacks could function in his market utopia because of comparative advantage), but still.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Of course you will; you've got way too much invested in that old duffer to concede that he's anything less than unconditionally heroic. The idea that he may be so cynical as to deliberately play a role he doesn't really believe is simply beyond the pale.
Y'know, if you don't want to engage with other people's views, then you should simply state as much in clear terms, rather than making a hollow show of engagement only to retreat back to your bubble of absolute truths.So two year old kids should be able to run out into the street and get themselves killed? But what if their parents (If parents even exist in your "society") stop them. Are they then breaking the law? But wait, there can't be any law, that would be "Authority"
This literally makes no sense. I'm not sure what exactly you would call what Rothbard advocated but I would definitely say that what he proposed made a lot more sense than what you propose, although I am not exactly a Rothbardian.
Rothbard mostly used the term "anarcho-capitalism" in the 1960s, when he wanted to shift the American libertarian movement away from its traditionally alliance with paleoconservatives towards an alliance with the libertarian currents of the New left. He began to move away from the term in the late 1970s, when the New Left variously receded into compromise, academia or (in most cases, and) irrelevance, and an alliance with the paleoconservatives seemed like the brighter idea after all. This is when he became a Ron Paul fanboy and started describing himself as a "paleolibertarian", and began making much huffing and puffing about the "nihilism" of the left-libertarians he had previously been so keen to chum up with.When did he reject it? Could you tell me where I could find him doing so? I'd really like to dance that in front of my former pals over at Mises...
I'm afraid I can't give specific references, because I'm getting all this second hand; Rothbard in the original really isn't something I've ever felt the need to invest any time in.
GhostWriter16
Deity
From where I'm sitting, you don't actually have a coherent viewpoint. "All authority" means what it says. Unless it doesn't. In which case you should pick better terminology.
Paleocons are more libertarian than anything on the left.
Oh, and if Rothbard stopped using the term anarcho-capitalist, why do almost all Rothbardians I've seen use that term?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
And how would you know if my viewpoint is coherent or incoherent, given that you've shown nothing but indifference to it?
If one defines liberty in terms of property, then that's certainly true. But our would has happily possessed of a plurality of paradigms, and the propetarian is not the one that all or even most people operate within.
Because professions of anarchism are all that distinguished Rothbard from other Austrian-libertarian thinkers. Take that away, and describing yourself as "Rothbardian" would only make sense in a technical, theoretical context. When Rothbard stopped calling himself an "anarchist", he ceased to be a political Rothbardian and became a simple paleolibertarian.
GhostWriter16
Deity
Please enlighten me as to how it actually works first. I assume you disagree with at least some of my assumptions about your view. Would you care to explain why they are wrong?
Its the only one that actually works. Granted, property extends beyond the obvious. For instance, the negative right to use drugs is an extention of property rights. First of all, my body is clearly my property, and secondly, drugs that I grew or otherwise created with raw materials I own, or voluntarily bought from someone for some agreed upon currency, are also my property. Thus it is illegitimate to stop me from using my property (My body and my drugs) as I please. This right, to use drugs, does not self-evidently seem to be a property right, but by logical extension, it is.
How was Rothbard not a Rothbardian? And did he even actually change his views when he changed his terminology?
This is rich coming from someone to whom "libel" apparently means saying something disagreeable.
Don't forget disgustingly bigoted male chauvinism
although that was present throughout, not just in the seventies
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
Problem is that those who have a wealth of property may not necessarily honor the property rights of others, and thus re-establish the state (a feudal one in fact), or make existing minimal states all-controlling dictatorships. Just like anarcho-communism, as you may be aware, will not be waterproof because the unchecked democratic commune can be potentially swayed by a charismatic madman, and thus also lead to totalitarianism.
It are because of these pitfalls that I'm not a libertarian of either persuasion. Adding to the objective and provable fact that Libertarianism is a crime against civilization for making property rights/the will of the commune the exegesis of all values, thus devaluing human life and existence.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Whoa! That's a weighty statement, if ever I've seen one.
I could see how making the will of the commune the basis for all values might devalue the worth of the individual life, but I don't see how it would devalue the worth of collective life.
And "the objective and provable fact that Libertarianism is a crime against civilization" is way beyond my pay-grade to either question or agree with. Which is kind of weird.
Tahuti
Writing Deity
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2005
- Messages
- 9,492
The last sentence should of course be taken with a grain of salt, given the smiley I've used. But I do think that libertarianism's values, particularly that of the capitalist variety, does reduce human beings to mere dogmatic drones, devoid of any aesthetic. No matter how you are trying to bring libertarianism, the arguments of libertarians and randroids on the internet always carry some inherent ugliness, no matter how logically sound they are. At least Cultural Marxism makes for some good movies, despite its inherent faults.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Not even then. Paleocons have traditionally been suspicious of market forces and individual property rights as important as such. They are useful in the Paleoconservative context because they are the basis of our current society, but the Paleocons have never invested property with any real weight of it's own.
They're certainly much more suspicious of property rights as a thing then the standard Neo-Liberal paradigm.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Can you elaborate on that?
Out of curiosity, did he name any comparative advantages he thought blacks had? Because if it's something like "they are well suited for hard field work due to their tiny brains" or something like that, then he still might be.
Problem is that those who have a wealth of property may not necessarily honor the property rights of others, and thus re-establish the state (a feudal one in fact), or make existing minimal states all-controlling dictatorships. Just like anarcho-communism, as you may be aware, will not be waterproof because the unchecked democratic commune can be potentially swayed by a charismatic madman, and thus also lead to totalitarianism.
It are because of these pitfalls that I'm not a libertarian of either persuasion. Adding to the objective and provable fact that Libertarianism is a crime against civilization for making property rights/the will of the commune the exegesis of all values, thus devaluing human life and existence.
Preach, brother!
There are significantly different styles, or maybe it would be better to call them levels, between Marxist-type analysis and the libertarians you are fond of. The libertarian-type analysis has only a single level of any importance: the individual. Many other ideological frameworks analyze society at both the level of an individual and the level of the community as a whole. Marxist-type analyses are unique in the fact that they add a level where a sub-set of the community is analyzed on the basis of its economic relations with other sub-sets.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I think that the key point here is that I don't share your identification of authority and force. You assume that the use of force represents the assertion of authority, and that non-forceful relationships are therefore non-authoritarian. I disagree. I think that force and be non-authoritarian, and that authority can be non-forceful. In practice, of course, most force is authoritarian, and most authority is (ultimately) forceful, but it's not a categorical necessity.
The anarchist throws a bomb into the Tsar's carriage. This is undoubtedly a forceful act. But it is not an authoritarian act, the anarchist does not impose himself upon the Tsar as an authority.
The manager oversees his subordinates. He does not use force to achieve obedience. But this is none the less an authoritarian relationship, the manager imposes himself upon his subordinates as an authority.
Y'see what I'm getting at?
I don't believe it is the only one that works. I don't think it does work, in fact.
How do you propose that we might resolve this disagreement?
Rothbard was not always a Rothbardian, because if Rothbardianism is (professedly) anarchist, a non-anarchist Rothbard could not be considered Rothbardian in the political sense. Likewise, if Marx had in his final years recanted radical socialism, we could fairly say that he had ceased to be a Marxist.
Didn't he once famously say "I am not a Marxist?" Or is that a misquote?
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
That's true. All this natter about property-rights assumes a rationalist framework, but conservatism is pretty much defined by its hostility to rationalism, liberal as much as socialist.
He did, but it was meant ironically. It was a rebuke aimed at a group of French Marxists whom he felt were treating his writings as doctrine rather than critique. In context, it reads something to the effect of "if this is Marxism, then I am not a Marxist", the point being that when even your proclaimed guru disavows you, ur doin it rong.
Not to mention that liberty in any sense is certainly an afterthought for these people.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Noting that Cutlass is, philosophically speaking, one of the most vocal conservative posters on the board. 
Similar threads
