Chart usGOLD   Chart usSILVER  
 
Food for thought
Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work
Thomas Edison  
Search for :
LATEST NEWS  :
MINING STOCKS  :
Subscribe
Write Us
Add to Google
Search on Ebay :
PRECIOUS METALS (US $)
Gold 1213.700.10
Silver 17.13-0.02
Platinum 1274.20-5.05
Palladium 778.201.70
WORLD MARKETS
DOWJONES 16805-236
NASDAQ 4422-71
NIKKEI 15662-420
ASX 5299-36
CAC 40 4357-9
DAX 9375-7
HUI 1961
XAU 810
CURRENCIES (€)
AUS $ 1.4393
CAN $ 1.4044
US $ 1.2630
GBP (£) 0.7824
Sw Fr 1.2077
YEN 137.1920
CURRENCIES ($)
AUS $ 1.1398
CAN $ 1.1119
Euro 0.7917
GBP (£) 0.6195
Sw Fr 0.9563
YEN 108.6160
RATIOS & INDEXES
Gold / Silver70.85
Gold / Oil13.95
Dowjones / Gold13.85
COMMODITIES
Copper 3.04-0.02
WTI Oil 87.00-2.11
Nat. Gas 4.050.03
Market Indices
Metal Prices
RSS
Precious Metals
Graph Generator
Statistics by Country
Statistics by Metals
Advertise on 24hGold
Projects on Google Earth
In the same category
The Rothbardian Way
Published : December 05th, 2012
1249 words - Reading time : 3 - 4 minutes
( 10 votes, 3.8/5 ) , 2 commentaries Print article
 
    Comments    
Tweet
Keywords :   1971 | Government | Murray Rothbard | Nixon | Rothbard | Water |

 

 

 

 

Here is the introduction to the new edition of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto.

There are many varieties of libertarianism alive in the world today, but Rothbardianism remains the center of its intellectual gravity, its primary muse and conscience, its strategic and moral core, and the focal point of debate even when its name is not acknowledged. The reason is that Murray Rothbard was the creator of modern libertarianism, a political-ideological system that proposes a once-and-for-all escape from the trappings of left and right and their central plans for how state power should be used. Libertarianism is the radical alternative that says state power is unworkable and immoral.

"Mr. Libertarian," Murray N. Rothbard was called, and "The State's Greatest Living Enemy." He remains so. Yes, he had many predecessors from whom he drew: the whole of the classical-liberal tradition, the Austrian economists, the American antiwar tradition, and the natural-rights tradition. But it was he who put all these pieces together into a unified system that seems implausible at first but inevitable once it has been defined and defended by Rothbard. The individual pieces of the system are straightforward (self-ownership, strict property rights, free markets, anti-state in every conceivable respect) but the implications are earthshaking. Once you are exposed to the complete picture – and For a New Liberty has been the leading means of exposure for more than a quarter of a century – you cannot forget it. It becomes the indispensable lens through which we can see events in the real world with the greatest possible clarity.

This book more than any other explains why Rothbard seems to grow in stature every year (his influence has vastly risen since his death) and why Rothbardianism has so many enemies on the left, right, and center. Quite simply, the science of liberty that he brought into clear relief is as thrilling in the hope it creates for a free world as it is unforgiving of error. Its logical and moral consistency, together with its empirical explanatory muscle, represents a threat to any intellectual vision that sets out to use the state to refashion the world according to some pre-programmed plan. And to the same extent it impresses the reader with a hopeful vision of what might be.

Rothbard set out to write this book soon after he got a call from Tom Mandel, an editor at Macmillan who had seen an op-ed by Rothbard in the New York Times that appeared in the spring of 1971. It was the only commission Rothbard ever received from a commercial publishing house. Looking at the original manuscript, which is so consistent in its typeface and almost complete after its first draft, it does seem that it was a nearly effortless joy for him to write. It is seamless, unrelenting, and energetic.

The historical context illustrates a point often overlooked: modern libertarianism was born not in reaction to socialism or leftism – though it is certainly anti-leftist (as the term is commonly understood) and antisocialist. Rather, libertarianism in the American historical context came into being in response to the statism of conservatism and its selective celebration of a conservative-style central planning. American conservatives may not adore the welfare state or excessive business regulation but they appreciate power exercised in the name of nationalism, warfarism, "pro-family" policies, and invasion of personal liberty and privacy. In the post-LBJ period of American history, it has been Republican presidents more than Democratic ones who have been responsible for the largest expansions of executive and judicial power. It was to defend a pure liberty against the compromises and corruptions of conservatism – beginning with Nixon but continuing with Reagan and the Bush presidencies – that inspired the birth of Rothbardian political economy.

It is also striking how Rothbard chose to pull no punches in his argument. Other intellectuals on the receiving end of such an invitation might have tended to water down the argument to make it more palatable. Why, for example, make a case for statelessness or anarchism when a case for limited government might bring more people into the movement? Why condemn U.S. imperialism when doing so can only limit the book's appeal to anti-Soviet conservatives who might otherwise appreciate the free-market bent? Why go into such depth about privatizing courts and roads and water when doing so might risk alienating people? Why enter into the sticky area of regulation of consumption and of personal morality – and do it with such disorienting consistency – when it would have surely drawn a larger audience to leave it out? And why go into such detail about monetary affairs and central banking and the like when a watered-down case for free enterprise would have pleased so many Chamber-of-Commerce conservatives?

But trimming and compromising for the sake of the times or the audience was just not his way. He knew that he had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to present the full package of libertarianism in all its glory, and he was not about to pass it up. And thus do we read here: not just a case for cutting government but eliminating it altogether, not just an argument for assigning property rights but for deferring to the market even on questions of contract enforcement, and not just a case for cutting welfare but for banishing the entire welfare-warfare state.

Whereas other attempts to make a libertarian case, both before and after this book, might typically call for transitional or half measures, or be willing to concede as much as possible to statists, that is not what we get from Murray. Not for him such schemes as school vouchers or the privatization of government programs that should not exist at all. Instead, he presents and follows through with the full-blown and fully bracing vision of what liberty can be. This is why so many other similar attempts to write the Libertarian Manifesto have not stood the test of time, and yet this book remains in high demand.

Similarly, there have been many books on libertarianism in the intervening years that have covered philosophy alone, politics alone, economics alone, or history alone. Those that have put all these subjects together have usually been collections by various authors. Rothbard alone had mastery in all fields that permitted him to write an integrated manifesto – one that has never been displaced. And yet his approach is typically self-effacing: he constantly points to other writers and intellectuals of the past and his own generation. In addition, some introductions of this sort are written to give the reader an easier passage into a difficult book, but that is not the case here. He never talks down to his readers but always with clarity. Rothbard speaks for himself. I'll spare the reader an enumeration of my favorite parts, or speculations on what passages Rothbard might have clarified if he had a chance to put out a new edition. The reader will discover on his or her own that every page exudes energy and passion, that the logic of his argument is impossibly compelling, and that the intellectual fire that inspired this work burns as bright now as it did all those years ago.

The book is still regarded as "dangerous" precisely because, once the exposure to Rothbardianism takes place, no other book on politics, economics, or sociology can be read the same way again. What was once a commercial phenomenon has truly become a classical statement that I predict will be read for generations to come.

 

 

Tweet
Rate :Average note :3.8 (10 votes)View Top rated
Previous article by
Lew Rockwell
All articles by
Lew Rockwell
Next article by
Lew Rockwell
Receive by mail the latest articles by this author  
Latest comment posted for this article
I write to comment to the "Jim C Team" of writers who compile working papers stating "almost believable alternatives" (twisted logic) to the brilliantly independent thoughts expressed by writers on this site. Your Doubt-Inducing Psy-Ops are becoming not  Read more
Gypsy - 12/5/2012 at 9:53 PM GMT
Rating :  3  0
TOP ARTICLES
Editor's picks
RSS feed24hGold Mobile
Gold Data CenterGold & Silver Converter
Gold coins on eBaySilver coins on eBay
Technical AnalysisFundamental Analysis

Lew Rockwell

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. is founder and president of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Speaking of Liberty.
Lew Rockwell ArchiveWebsiteSubscribe to his services
Most recent articles by Lew Rockwell
9/15/2014
9/12/2014
9/8/2014
9/6/2014
9/5/2014
All Articles
Comment this article
You must be logged in to comment an article8000 characters max.
 
Sign in
User : Password : Login
Sign In Forgot password?
 
 
       
Mark Twain once consented to critique the writings of a young man and said this: "Sir, your work is both good and original. However, the good part is not original and the original is not good."

And that sums up the work of Murray Rothbard. His ideas are not original, nor are they good/valid/workable. The idea of the state, any state, having no authority over an individual was articulated long before Rothbard by the American Lysander Spooner (THE CONSTITUTION OF NO AUTHORITY) and the German Max Stirner (THE EGO AND ITS OWN).

To say that Rothbard's ideas are not good, is to say they are not only unworkable but highly destructive to individual life. There is no room here to offer a philsophical refutation but only to observe that, once allowing the logic of secession from government authority by whim, one must then allow for NO authority whatsoever. This leaves anarchy as the result -- everyman against his fellow with no objective authority or law to settle disputes or rally support for the common defense. This is not to say, as Thomas Jefferson believed, that individuals may not revolt against a tyrannical state -- but only to create a state where individual rights are defended by that state and whose powers are limited to that goal.

That Rothbard's ideas are popular is not in question: many have been seduced, the most notable and vocal being Ron Paul. Yet popularity or influence is no criteria of merit -- think Marx (DAS KAPITAL) or Hitler (MEIN KAMPF).

Rate :   8  0Rating :   8
EmailPermalink
I write to comment to the "Jim C Team" of writers who compile working papers stating "almost believable alternatives" (twisted logic) to the brilliantly independent thoughts expressed by writers on this site. Your Doubt-Inducing Psy-Ops are becoming noteworthy. The addition of a few "new contributors" using the same M O impressed me as a nice "cover the bases" dodge.
Rate :   3  0Rating :   3
EmailPermalink
Receive 24hGold's Daily Market Briefing in your inbox. Go here to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Disclaimer