DOCSLIB.ORG

Walter E. Block Voting: Rejoinder to Casey, Mcelroy, Ward, Pugsley

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Walter E. Block Voting: Rejoinder to Casey, Mcelroy, Ward, Pugsley Walter E. Block Loyola University New Orleans,United States Voting: Rejoinder to Casey, McElroy, Ward, Pugsley, Konkin and Barnett 24/2018 Political Dialogues DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12775/DP.2018.002 Abstract: part in the political process be reconciled There is a debate within the libertarian with the non-aggression principle (NAP) intellectual community regarding the of libertarianism, given that from a lib- legitimacy of voting in democratic elec- ertarian anarchist point of view, the gov- tions. Critics say that such behavior is ernment necessarily violates rights? incompatible with this doctrine. The If I had to radically shorten my argu- present paper defends voting from a lib- ment in favor of political voting, I could ertarian perspective. It is an attempted do so in two words: “Ron Paul.” Indeed, refutation of the views on this matter of I am sorely tempted to merely list the Casey, McElroy, Ward, Pugsley, Konkin cases made by all libertarian opponents and Barnett. of voting, respond to each with these two words, over and over again, and thereby Key words: Voting, democracy, justice, rest my case. Why? Well, Dr. Paul has libertarianism had three careers. The first was as a doc- tor. How many people did he convert to libertarianism during his life as a physi- I. Introduction cian? I am not sure. I doubt records were The only legitimate democratic vote oc- kept. My best estimate? He promoted curs when all those concerned agree to our philosophy to a few dozen people, be bound by the results of the election. mostly through force of will, and osmo- For example, the chess club is divided sis. In this third and present career, he as to whether they should meet on Tues- has taken on the role of President of the days or Wednesdays. They all agree to Institute for Peace and Prosperity. How be bound by the ballots of the entirety of many have come to our banner as a re- the membership. That type of election is sult of this initiative of his? Again, I do entirely compatible with libertarianism. not know. I am unacquainted with any But, are there any others? For example, statistical records in this regard. My what about the political vote, in a de- guess would be a few tens of thousands, mocracy such as the U.S.? Can taking perhaps a few hundreds of thousands. 23 But it was in his second career as a poli- the latter capacity, as to whether an act tician that my estimate is that he intro- should be legal or not. But as a matter duced not millions of people to liberty of pure ethics, I fi nd it hard to dismiss and good (Austrian) economics, not tens a process that brought libertarianism to of millions, but hundreds of millions. maybe billions of people. Yes, of course Maybe even a billion souls have heard of I disapprove of “institutionalized coer- the freedom philosophy due to his mag- cion and force.” But if the goal of the vote nifi cent and herculean efforts as a con- is to reduce or eliminate these scourges, gressman and later candidate for the it is not clear to me why this should be Presidency of the U.S. Had he succeeded considered unethical. in this latter goal of his, my expectation is that within the fi rst fi ve minutes of his 2. “Voting compromises your priva- term of offi ce who would have begun the cy. It gets your name in another govern- process of bringing all U.S. troops home, ment computer database.” where they belong, and thus saved countless numbers of innocent lives. So, Yes, this is a valid liability to entering yes, in response to each and every argu- the ballot box. But we1 are already in so ment against voting, against the political many, many governmental data bases, it process itself, I am sorely tempted to of- seems that one more would be only mar- fer this two word response: “Ron Paul.” ginally harmful. We already have driver’s But, with my gift of gab, I fi nd I cannot licenses, passports, educational records, so restrain myself. Let us then consider, we are enrolled in social security and all and reject, a whole host of arguments in sorts of medical programs. It seems dif- behalf of the non-voting stance. fi cult to believe that this can be the straw We consider, and reject, the perspec- that breaks the camel’s back.2 tive of voting from a libertarian point of view, of Casey (section II), McElroy (sec- 1 Those of us who are not hippies, or hermits tion III), Ward (section IV), Pugsley (sec- alone in the woods. 2 Also, contrary to the opinion of even some tion V), Konkin (section VI) and Barnett libertarians, there is no such thing as a “right to (section VII). We conclude in section VIII. privacy.” This, rather, is an element of wealth, or command over goods and services. See on this: Block, 1991, 2012, 2013A, 2013B, ch. 18, 2016, II. Casey 2017A, 2017B; Block, Kinsella and Whitehead, 2006; Bonneau, 2012; Rothbard, 1998, Wenzel, Casey (2017) offers these fi ve reasons; 2017. States Rothbard (1998, ch. 16) “But is there my comments on each are interspersed really such a right to privacy? How can there be? How can there be a right to prevent Smith by force with them: from disseminating knowledge which he possess- es? Surely there can be no such right. Smith owns 1. “Voting in a political election is his own body and therefore has the property right to own the knowledge he has inside his head, in- unethical. The political process is one cluding his knowledge about Jones. And therefore of institutionalized coercion and force. he has the corollary right to print and disseminate If you disapprove of those things, then that knowledge. In short, as in the case of the ‘hu- you shouldn’t participate in them, even man right’ to free speech, there is no such thing as a right to privacy except the right to protect one’s indirectly.” property from invasion. The only right ‘to privacy’ is the right to protect one’s property from being in- Ethics is beyond the purview of lib- vaded by someone else. In brief, no one has the right to burgle someone else’s home, or to wiretap ertarianism. We are only interested, in someone’s phone lines. Wiretapping is properly 24 3. “Voting, as well as registering, en- a busybody mode. But, statistically, one tails hanging around government offi ces vote in scores of millions makes no more and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most difference than a single grain of sand on people can fi nd something more enjoy- a beach. That’s entirely apart from the able or productive to do with their time.” fact that offi cials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are Happily, at least some people, the in offi ce.” ones who supported You Know Who (hint, his initials are RP), found entering Yes, unless there is an otherwise tie the political process “more enjoyable or vote, your single ballot will have no ef- productive” than engaging in other activ- fect on the actual winner. However, if ities. Otherwise, there would be far fewer the Libertarian Party can attain 5% of libertarians around at present. Hey, if we the vote, so they do not have to spend want to change things, one of the sine money merely to get on the ballot, this qua nons will be to swell our numbers. will mark an important gain in public- ity for freedom. There was one occasion 4. “Voting encourages politicians. when Ron Paul ran for President, and A vote against one candidate—a major, came in second in a state ballot, and and quite understandable, reason why they announced those who came in fi rst, many people vote—is always interpret- third, fourth and fi fth. If this did not give ed as a vote for his opponent. And even a boost to libertarianism, then nothing though you may be voting for the lesser ever did or ever will. of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate II. McElroy. a tacit mandate to impose his will on so- ciety.” Let us now begin our analysis of McEl- roy’s (1996) views on the matter. She It cannot be denied this is a risk. But starts off on a very strong note, dealing suppose virtually no one voted; say, less with the following objection made to her: than 5% of those eligible. What would “‘If you could have cast the deciding vote be the likely government reaction? They against Hitler, would you have done so?’ would either make it compulsory, fi ning I replied, ‘No, but I would have no moral those who refused, or would offer a sub- objection to putting a bullet through his sidy for this practice, higher and higher skull.’ In essence, I adopted a stronger until they reached the level they wished. line -- a “plumb-line” as Benjamin Tuck- Those, while a low vote might hearten er phrased it -- on eliminating Hitler as the hearts of many, would not likely have a threat.” any lasting value. With all due respect, this author did 5. “Your vote doesn’t count. Politi- no such thing. Instead, she evaded the cians like to say it counts because it is question put to her; she changed the to their advantage to get everyone into subject, entirely.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Causes and Consequences of the Inflation Taxi
    Causes and Consequences of the Inflation Taxi Abstract: While ethical implications of direct taxation systems have recently received renewed attention, a more veiled scheme remains unnoticed: the inflation tax. We overview the causes of inflation, and assess its consequences. Salient wealth redistributions are a defining feature of inflation, as savers and fixed income individuals see a relative wealth reduction. While evasion of this tax is difficult in many instances due to the primacy of money in a monetary economy, the tax codes of most developed countries allow avoidance techniques to be employed. We analyze the ways that inflation taxes may be avoided in an attempt to preserve personal wealth, as well as the consequences of such practices. 1 Causes and Consequences of the Inflation Tax Introduction Much recent literature focuses on the ethics of direct taxation (Joel Slemrod 2007; Bagus et al. 2011; Robert W. McGee 2012c). Whether income and consumption taxes are coercively imposed on both consumers and producers has long been contested. Being this as it may, taxes can be, and often are, remitted to the government voluntarily as if they were not reliant on their coercive imposition. In this case we are led to believe that there is no difference between taxation and voluntarily donations of money to the government –both will result in spending that is consistent with taxpayers’ desires. The curiosity that arises is that if people did not donate money voluntarily to the government, neither coercion nor taxation would be necessary.ii However, the degree of “voluntariness” of the governing process implementing taxation cannot affect the core nature of the problem (Robert McGee 1994).
    [Show full text]
  • Markets Not Capitalism Explores the Gap Between Radically Freed Markets and the Capitalist-Controlled Markets That Prevail Today
    individualist anarchism against bosses, inequality, corporate power, and structural poverty Edited by Gary Chartier & Charles W. Johnson Individualist anarchists believe in mutual exchange, not economic privilege. They believe in freed markets, not capitalism. They defend a distinctive response to the challenges of ending global capitalism and achieving social justice: eliminate the political privileges that prop up capitalists. Massive concentrations of wealth, rigid economic hierarchies, and unsustainable modes of production are not the results of the market form, but of markets deformed and rigged by a network of state-secured controls and privileges to the business class. Markets Not Capitalism explores the gap between radically freed markets and the capitalist-controlled markets that prevail today. It explains how liberating market exchange from state capitalist privilege can abolish structural poverty, help working people take control over the conditions of their labor, and redistribute wealth and social power. Featuring discussions of socialism, capitalism, markets, ownership, labor struggle, grassroots privatization, intellectual property, health care, racism, sexism, and environmental issues, this unique collection brings together classic essays by Cleyre, and such contemporary innovators as Kevin Carson and Roderick Long. It introduces an eye-opening approach to radical social thought, rooted equally in libertarian socialism and market anarchism. “We on the left need a good shake to get us thinking, and these arguments for market anarchism do the job in lively and thoughtful fashion.” – Alexander Cockburn, editor and publisher, Counterpunch “Anarchy is not chaos; nor is it violence. This rich and provocative gathering of essays by anarchists past and present imagines society unburdened by state, markets un-warped by capitalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarian Party at Sea on Land
    Libertarian Party at Sea on Land To Mom who taught me the Golden Rule and Henry George 121 years ahead of his time and still counting Libertarian Party at Sea on Land Author: Harold Kyriazi Book ISBN: 978-1-952489-02-0 First Published 2000 Robert Schalkenbach Foundation Official Publishers of the works of Henry George The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation (RSF) is a private operating foundation, founded in 1925, to promote public awareness of the social philosophy and economic reforms advocated by famed 19th century thinker and activist, Henry George. Today, RSF remains true to its founding doctrine, and through efforts focused on education, communities, outreach, and publishing, works to create a world in which all people are afforded the basic necessities of life and the natural world is protected for generations to come. ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUND ATION Robert Schalkenbach Foundation [email protected] www.schalkenbach.org Libertarian Party at Sea on Land By Harold Kyriazi ROBERT SCHALKENBACH FOUNDATION New York City 2020 Acknowledgments Dan Sullivan, my longtime fellow Pittsburgher and geo-libertarian, not only introduced me to this subject about seven years ago, but has been a wonderful teacher and tireless consultant over the years since then. I’m deeply indebted to him, and appreciative of his steadfast efforts to enlighten his fellow libertarians here in Pittsburgh and elsewhere. Robin Robertson, a fellow geo-libertarian whom I met at the 1999 Council of Georgist Organizations Conference, gave me detailed constructive criticism on an early draft, brought Ayn Rand’s essay on the broadcast spectrum to my attention, helped conceive the cover illustration, and helped in other ways too numerous to mention.
    [Show full text]
  • A Response to the Libertarian Critics of Open-Borders Libertarianism
    LINCOLN MEMORIAL UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW __________________________________ VOLUME 4 FALL 2016 ISSUE 1 ____________________________________ A RESPONSE TO THE LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF OPEN-BORDERS LIBERTARIANISM Walter E. Block, Ph.D. Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Endowed Chair and Professor of Economics Joseph A. Butt, S.J. College of Business I. INTRODUCTION Libertarians may be unique in many regards, but their views on immigration do not qualify. They are as divided as is the rest of the population on this issue. Some favor open borders, and others oppose such a legal milieu. The present paper may be placed in the former category. It will outline both sides of this debate in sections II and III. Section IV is devoted to some additional arrows in the quiver of the closed border libertarians, and to a refutation of them. We conclude in section V. A RESPONSE TO THE LIBERTARIAN CRITICS OF OPEN-BORDERS LIBERTARIANISM 143 II. ANTI OPEN BORDERS The libertarian opposition to free immigration is straightforward and even elegant.1 It notes, first, a curious bifurcation in international economic relations. In the case of both trade and investment, there must necessarily be two2 parties who agree to the commercial interaction. In the former case, there must be an importer and an exporter; both are necessary. Without the consent of both parties, the transaction cannot take place. A similar situation arises concerning foreign investment. The entrepreneur who wishes to set up shop abroad must obtain the willing acquiescence of the domestic partner for the purchase of land and raw materials. And the same occurs with financial transactions that take place across 1 Peter Brimelow, ALIEN NATION: COMMON SENSE ABOUT AMERICA’S IMMIGRATION DISASTER (1995); Jesús Huerta De Soto, A Libertarian Theory of Free Immigration, 13 J.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty, Property and Rationality
    Liberty, Property and Rationality Concept of Freedom in Murray Rothbard’s Anarcho-capitalism Master’s Thesis Hannu Hästbacka 13.11.2018 University of Helsinki Faculty of Arts General History Tiedekunta/Osasto – Fakultet/Sektion – Faculty Laitos – Institution – Department Humanistinen tiedekunta Filosofian, historian, kulttuurin ja taiteiden tutkimuksen laitos Tekijä – Författare – Author Hannu Hästbacka Työn nimi – Arbetets titel – Title Liberty, Property and Rationality. Concept of Freedom in Murray Rothbard’s Anarcho-capitalism Oppiaine – Läroämne – Subject Yleinen historia Työn laji – Arbetets art – Level Aika – Datum – Month and Sivumäärä– Sidoantal – Number of pages Pro gradu -tutkielma year 100 13.11.2018 Tiivistelmä – Referat – Abstract Murray Rothbard (1926–1995) on yksi keskeisimmistä modernin libertarismin taustalla olevista ajattelijoista. Rothbard pitää yksilöllistä vapautta keskeisimpänä periaatteenaan, ja yhdistää filosofiassaan klassisen liberalismin perinnettä itävaltalaiseen taloustieteeseen, teleologiseen luonnonoikeusajatteluun sekä individualistiseen anarkismiin. Hänen tavoitteenaan on kehittää puhtaaseen järkeen pohjautuva oikeusoppi, jonka pohjalta voidaan perustaa vapaiden markkinoiden ihanneyhteiskunta. Valtiota ei täten Rothbardin ihanneyhteiskunnassa ole, vaan vastuu yksilöllisten luonnonoikeuksien toteutumisesta on kokonaan yksilöllä itsellään. Tutkin työssäni vapauden käsitettä Rothbardin anarko-kapitalistisessa filosofiassa. Selvitän ja analysoin Rothbardin ajattelun keskeisimpiä elementtejä niiden filosofisissa,
    [Show full text]
  • Speaking of Liberty
    Speaking of Liberty Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. Patrons The Mises Institute dedicates this volume to all of its generous donors, and in particular wishes to thank these Patrons: Anthony Deden, Christopher P. Condon, Hugh E. Ledbetter, Mr. and Mrs. William W. Massey, Jr., Roger Milliken, Mr. and Mrs. R. Nelson Nash, Stephenson Family Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. Willard Fischer / Fisher Printing, Inc., Douglas E. French, Don Printz, M.D., Frederick L. Maier, James Bailey / James Bailey Foundation, Mr. and Mrs. J.R. Bost, James W. Frevert, Jule R. Herbert, Jr., Julie Lauer-Leonardi, Mr. and Mrs. William Lowndes, III, William S. Morris, III / Morris Communications Corp., Donald Mosby Rembert, top dog™, James M. Rodney, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph P. Schirrick in memory of Jeannette Zummo, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Shaw, Joe Vierra, Robert H. Walker / Walker Die Casting Company ^ Andreas Acavalos, Robert B. Allan, Anonymous, Richard Bleiberg, Dr. V.S. Boddicker, John Hamilton Bolstad, Ronald Bridges, Paul H. Casey, Mr. and Mrs. John C. Cooke, Kerry E. Cutter, Carl A. Davis / Davis-Lynch, Inc., Mr. and Mrs. Charles F. de Ganahl, Eric Englund, Dr. Larry J. Eshelman, Charles Groff, Charley Hardman, Horace H. Harned, Frank W. Heemstra, Jeremy Horpedahl, Dr. and Mrs. Robert D. Hurt, Martin Jungbluth, W. Thomas Kelly, Lucille Lane, Joe R. Lee, John M. Leger, Dr. Floy Lilley, Arnold Lisio, M.D., Arthur L. Loeb, Björn Lundahl, Samuel Medrano, M.D., in honor of Lupe C. Medrano, Joseph Edward Paul Melville, Robert Mish, Brantley I. Newsom, James O’Neill, Mr. and Mrs. Ronald L. Peterson, Robert M.
    [Show full text]
  • The Minimum Wage Once Again by Walter Block* There Is a Great Cognitive Dissonance Between What Is Commonly Taught in Economics
    The Minimum Wage Once Again by Walter Block* There is a great cognitive dissonance between what is commonly taught in economics and what passes for sound public policy analysis within the beltway of Washington D.C. Nowhere is a more stark example of this to be found than in the case of the minimum wage law. Many students know that a minimum wage law exacerbates unemployment, particularly for low-skilled, youthful, and minority males. Card and Krueger (1994, p. 792) even characterize this claim as "the central prediction of the textbook model of the minimum wage," but attempt to undermine it their article. In what might be called "the political economy" of minimum wage legislation, we must take note of the fact that instead of following the received wisdom of the economics profession in this case1, the Clinton Administration’s recent legislative proposals have seen fit to follow the lead of Card and Krueger (CK). Why? Although this can only be speculative, one reason for President Clinton's support of the CK study may be that it is consonant with the position of organized labor. Unions favor minimum wages since they are always in competition with low wage labor; when unskilled labor costs are legislatively increased, this factor of production becomes less competitive with union’s own supply of labor to the market. That is, suppose a union were to demand an increase in their wage from $17 to $20 per hour. The natural reaction of the employer would be to decrease its demand for this now more expensive factor of production, skilled union labor, and to replace it with a substitute factor, unskilled labor.2 And, without a minimum wage law, this would always be a potent threat, limiting the demands for wage increases on the part of unions.
    [Show full text]
  • Libertarianizmu
    Jacek Bartyzel Geneza i próba systematyki głównych nurtów libertarianizmu Incipit Libertarianizm (ang. Libertarianism) — względnie: libertaryzm1 — można zdefiniować jako wolnościową i skrajnie indywidualistyczną ideologię społecz- no-polityczną oraz nawiązujący do jej założeń ruch polityczny, oparte o tezę, iż osnową historii jest stały i niepojednalny konflikt pomiędzy wolnością a władzą, oraz głoszące, że każdy człowiek winien mieć nieograniczoną swobodę dyspono- wania swoją osobą i własnością, czyli tym, co wypracował sam, albo dostał lub nabył od innych, o ile tylko nie ogranicza analogicznej swobody innych jednostek. W ujęciu zwolenników tego kierunku termin libertarian jest zasadniczo — według klasycznej już definicji Deana Russella — antonimem do terminu authoritarian i oznacza „tego, który odrzuca ideę zastosowania przemocy lub groźby użycia przemocy — legalnej lub nielegalnej — w celu narzucenia swojej woli lub punktu widzenia jakiejkolwiek pokojowo nastawionej osobie”2. Polemicznie natomiast libertarianizm bywa nazywany „konserwatyzmem bez duszy, nie tylko dlatego, że odmawia wierze religijnej centralnego miejsca przyznawanego jej przez konserwatyzm, ale również dlatego, że wiele nurtów myśli libertariańskiej sprzyja atomizmowi”3. Dzieje pojęcia Termin libertarian pojawił się już w epoce oświecenia, lecz bez związku z problematyką dominującą współcześnie w tej ideologii, natomiast w kontekście 1 Tę wersję skłonni bylibyśmy uznać za poprawniejszą językowo w polszczyźnie, choćby ze względu na zasadę ekonomii językowej, preferującą formy krótsze, jak również z racji analogii do tworzenia polskich odpowiedników źródłowo anglojęzycznych przypadków dotyczących doktryn politycznych, filozoficznych czy religijnych (np. utylitaryzm, komunitaryzm czy episkopalizm); jednak w tym przypadku czynimy ustępstwo na rzecz utrwalonego już uzusu. 2 D. Russell, Who is a Libertarian?, „Ideas of Liberty” May 1955, http://www.boogieonline. om/revolution/politics/name.html [odczyt 29.11.2008].
    [Show full text]
  • Rothbard's Time on the Left
    ROTHBARD'S TIME ON THE LEFT MURRAY ROTHBARD DEVOTED HIS life to the struggle for liberty, but, as anyone who has made a similar commitment realizes, it is never exactly clear how that devotion should translate into action. Conse- quently, Rothbard formed strategic alliances with widely different groups throughout his career. Perhaps the most intriguing of these alliances is the one Rothbard formed with the New Left in the rnid- 1960s, especially considering their antithetical economic views. So why would the most free market of free-market economists reach out to a gaggle of assorted socialists? By the early 1960s, Roth- bard saw the New Right, exemplified by National Review, as perpet- ually wedded to the Cold War, which would quickly turn exponen- tially hotter in Vietnam, and the state interventions that accompanied it, so he set out looking for new allies. In the New Left, Rothbard found a group of scholars who opposed the Cold War and political centralization, and possessed a mass following with high growth potential. For this opportunity, Rothbard was willing to set economics somewhat to the side and settle on common ground, and, while his cooperation with the New Left never altered or caused him to hide any of his foundational beliefs, Rothbard's rhetoric shifted distinctly leftward during this period. It should be noted at the outset that Rothbard's pro-peace stance followed a long tradition of individualist intellectuals. Writing in the early 1970s, Rothbard described the antiwar activities of turn-of-the- century economist William Graham Sumner and merchant Edward Atkinson during the American conquest of the Philippines, and noted: In taking this stand, Atkinson, Surnner, and their colleagues were not being "sports"; they were following an anti-war, anti-imperial- ist tradition as old as classical liberalism itself.
    [Show full text]
  • Contra Davidson on Counterfeiting, Round Two
    Contra Davidson on Counterfeiting, Round Two Contra Davidson en torno a la falsificación, segundo asalto WALTER E. BLOCK Loyola University New Orleans [email protected] Abstract: Libertarians and non libertarians alike agree that counterfeiting legitimate money owned by innocent people is illicit. But what about counterfeiting counterfeit money owned by the guiltless? Davidson and I, both libertarians, take the position that this would be a rights violation; that this would violate the rights of innocent owners of currency, who would be victimized by such fraudulent behavior of counterfeiters, even those who limit themselves to counterfeiting counterfeit funds. But what about counterfeiting counterfeit money owned by those who are guilty of crimes? Davidson (2013) opines, in effect, that there are no such people. The counterfeiter of counterfeit money is thus himself a criminal, she avers. I argue, very much to the contrary, that the relevant population consists mostly of guilty people, and thus they are not in a logical position to object to what would otherwise be considered victimization. As for the few innocents among them, they demonstrate their innocence to a large degree by not objecting to the counterfeiting of counterfeit money. If they do object, and take actions to prevent this practice, they act in a manner incompatible with the libertarian non aggression principle (NAP) and thus enter the ranks of the guilty. I find Davidson’s (2013) economic analysis impeccable; her understanding of libertarianism highly problematic. In the interests of full disclosure, I should make it clear that the present paper contains the radical suggestion that we should do away with our established monetary —and financial system.
    [Show full text]
  • Murray Rothbard
    Murray Rothbard Here are some parts that I have marked in my copy of the book“Murray Rothbard” by Gerard Casey. Murray Rothbard 1.“Murray Rothbard was an economist, historian, political and moral philosopher, and legal theoretician. Rothbard’s work in these diverse social science disciplines was unified by a passionate and resolute commitment to libertarianism. The particular brand of libertarianism that Rothbard espoused may be characterized as ‘anarcho-capitalism’. Whereas conventional libertarianism implies a belief that only a minimal state which does no more than provide a basic framework of the rule of law and the protection of private property rights may be justified, anarcho-capitalism implies a belief that even the legal system may be provided privately without the need for a coercive collective authority. Hence, anarcho-capitalists envisage a society where the traditional role of government is wholly subsumed by private, profit-making enterprises and all social relationships are ultimately founded upon consent.” 2.“Rothbard’s unique intellectual contribution was to build this system of thought from many pre-existing but previously disparate strands and to develop it to its logical (some would say extreme) conclusion.” www.capitalideasonline.com Page - 1 Murray Rothbard 3.“Rothbard’s starting points, then, were the well-established notions of methodological individualism, natural rights theory and individual self-ownership. But Rothbard showed that if we wish to take methodological individualism, natural rights theory and individual
    [Show full text]
  • Was Milton Friedman a Socialist? Yes
    MEST Journal DOI .......................... WAS MILTON FRIEDMAN A SOCIALIST? YES. Walter E. Block Harold E. Wirth Eminent Scholar Chair in Economics and Professor of Economics, College of Business Administration, Loyola University New Orleans, 6363 St. Charles Avenue, Box 15, Miller 321, New Orleans, LA 70118 © MESTE NGO JEL category: B, B59 Summary: Milton Friedman was a socialist, because his publications and speeches meet the criterion for the definition of this word: government ownership or control over significant sectors of the economy particularly means of production, such as money, roads; and/or redistributionist schemes such as his negative income tax. This is a controversial claim. It is backed up by the evidence. Keywords: Milton Friedman, socialist, means of production, income redistribution 1 Introduction careful systematic way. There are several Before we can answer any such question, we reasons. must be clear on what socialism is. Then and only First, categorization is an important tool of then can we ascertain whether, if, and to what scholarly scientific pursuit. It is an exaggeration to extent was Friedman a socialist. But, before we claim that biology (genus, species, family) and do that,1 let us reflect upon why it is important to chemistry (the periodic table) consists of nothing even ask this question, let alone answer it in a but compartmentalization; however, there is surely a germ of truth in so outlandish a claim. In like manner, law distinguishes between legal and The address of the author: illegal,2 philosophy is commonly divided into Walter Block subjects such as ethics, metaphysics, [email protected] epistemology, and also into schools of thought 1 Since many people will object to this question even (profiteering, price gouging), too low a price being posed (predatory price cutting, price warfare) or even the 2 Antitrust law, supported by Friedman (1999), is an same price as everyone else (cartelization, exception to this rule.
    [Show full text]