Author Archive | Roderick

Ruwarchy!

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

I note with interest that my old friend Mary Ruwart is entering the race for the LP nomination. Leaving aside the tangled question of whether electoral politics is an appropriate venue for libertarian activism (for the record, my view is that it shouldn’t be central but is not forbidden either), I have to point out that Mary is clearly a more acceptable candidate to those of a left-libertarian persuasion than is Ron Paul.

Mary Ruwart On such issues as abortion, immigration, punishment, plutocracy, constitutionalism, gay marriage, and patents and copyrights, her positions, while not always perfect, are at least broadly left-libertarian, while on the issues of foreign policy and the war on terror she’s actually more radically antiwar than Paul. Plus she’s even an anarchist, though she doesn’t trumpet it or use the term. Go Mary!

In not-especially-related news, I’m pleased to see that Ken MacLeod’s Fall Revolution tetralogy, the ultimate left-libertarian science-fiction epic, is being re-released in a two-volume edition.


Kamandi meets Ayn Rand?

Arna and KamandiOkay, despite the resemblance, that’s not really a young Ayn Rand arguing with the Last Boy on Earth. And I reckon the real Rand would frown on enslaving people to steal their genes.

Still, this Jack Kirby character’s name was Arna. Ya gotta wonder ….


March ’08 Miscellany

I’ve been out of town for a week and incommunibloggo; got back today (well, yesterday since it’s now after midnight).

1. I’m very sorry to learn that Ken Gregg has died. I never met him, but always enjoyed corresponding with him; in addition to his deep knowledge of and appreciation for the history of antistatist thought, he was unfailingly sensible and polite – traits not always encountered or encouraged in the world of blogs, listservs, and prickly libertarians. He will be missed.

2. I plan to reply to Walter’s piece when I get a chance. In the meantime, Michael Palmer asks in the comments section: “what has happened to all-left.net? It’s been replaced by stock spam. Could someone do something about that?” I have no idea what’s gone wrong, but I’ll look into it. Thanks for telling me! In the meantime, the page is still accessible at its “real” address: praxeology.net/all-left.htm.

3. A couple of LRC pieces worth noting: Max Raskin on the Boston Massacre and Bob Higgs on World War II.

4. Yahoo Movies grouses (conical hat tip to LRC) about the historical inaccuracy of the film 10,000 B.C., noting that “woolly mammoths were not, in fact, used to build pyramids” and in any case “there weren’t any pyramids in Egypt until 2,500 B.C or so.” Now I haven’t seen the film, but my impression, from what I’ve read and from the clips I’ve seen, was that the pyramid-builders in 10,000 B.C. aren’t supposed to be the Egyptians; they’re a pre-Egyptian civilisation.  So that particular complaint seems to miss the mark.


Walter Block Replies

Guest Blog by Walter E. Block

Why do I think of Ron Paul as a libertarian and support his candidacy for president (for purposes of the present discussion I will not distinguish between these) but do not consider Randy Barnett in this way? As Roderick very, very truly says, each of these men hold views incompatible with libertarianism. Why, then, such a sharp distinction between them on my part?

To wit, Paul is mistaken in his views of abortion and immigration, while Barnett is in error on war (I leave to the side federalism.)

There are several reasons for my judgment.

Walter Block 1. I regard questions of war and peace, offense and defense, as far more important to libertarianism than abortion and immigration. The essence of libertarianism is the non-aggression axiom (coupled with homesteading and property rights). I see bombing innocent children and adults as a far more serious violation of liberty than aborting fetuses, or violating the rights of people to cross national borders. If this were my only reason, I regard it is sufficient to distinguish between Paul and Barnett, accepting the former as a libertarian but not the latter.

2. My second reason is that I regard abortion and immigration as far more complex issues than the question of whether a person or nation is committing an offensive act of war or a defensive one. Roderick rejects this as irrelevant. I demur. Suppose we were trying to determine who is a mathematician and who is not. Candidate A does not know that 2 + 2 = 4. Candidate B knows that, but stumbles over the Pythagorean theorem. I regard the latter as far more complex than the former. I consider B more of a mathematician than A. It seems to me that if a putative libertarian (Barnett) cannot distinguish offense from defense in such a simple case as war, while Paul certainly can, even though he stumbles on the far more complex issues of abortion and immigration, then Paul is certainly more of a libertarian, or a better one. But, the difference in complexity between these two issues is so gigantic, this difference of degree is so great that it amounts to a difference in kind, that I am entirely comfortable in evaluating Paul as a libertarian, but not Barnett.

Let me try again on this point. Here are two statements to which all Austrian economists subscribe.

a. Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial in the ex ante sense

b. The Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT) is correct

I regard (a) as exceedingly simple to grasp. The Austrian credentials of anyone who does not see this, that is, agree with it, are nil. I regard (b) as very complex. Austrianism consists of belief in scores of such claims. If someone agreed to all such claims except for (b), I would consider him an Austrian. Heck, even an Austrian in good standing. But, if he rejected (a) but accepted everything else, I’d think he was pulling my leg, so weird would this be.

In other words, complexity is not at all irrelevant to the issues which separate Roderick and me. Indeed, it is very important.

3. My supposed argument from authority: I regard my own views on abortion and immigration to be the correct libertarian positions (if I did not, I would change them). However, in my assessment, Murray Rothbard, Hans Hoppe and Stephan Kinsella are three of the most import libertarian theoreticians in all of history. They disagree with me on at least one and I think both of these issues. Thus, I am a bit more modest in my stance on abortion and immigration than I would otherwise be. However, I know of NO eminent libertarian who thinks that our war in Iraq is defensive.

At first blush, you are of course correct in asserting that this is circular reasoning on my part. For, I readily admit it, if there were some other eminent libertarian (hey, give me a break, I don’t count Randroids) who did take this view, he would be dismissed, forthwith, as a libertarian in my view. Come to think of it, I think that John Hospers takes this view. Well, scratch Hospers from the ranks not only of eminent libertarian theoreticians, but from being a libertarian at all.

And yet, and yet… How else are we to determine issues of this sort? Will you concede to me that Rothbard, Hoppe and Kinsella, completely apart from the present issues under discussion, are more deserving of the title of eminent libertarian theorist than are Barnett, Hospers and the Randroids? If so, does not your position give you pause for reconsideration?

Maybe one way to reconcile our differences is as follows. I am operating from a sort of agnostic point of view: even though I have strong opinions on abortion and immigration, I am assuming, not a God’s eye point of view, but rather the position of a newcomer to libertarianism, who doesn’t know which way to go on this question since libertarian leaders diverge. You, in contrast, adopt a more knowledgeable position.


Peek Beneath the Hood

[cross-posted at Liberty & Power]

Who (probably) said this, in 1957?

The central question that emerges … is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not prevail numerically? The sobering answer is Yes – the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race. It is not easy, and it is unpleasant, to adduce statistics evidencing the cultural superiority of White over Negro: but it is a fact that obtrudes, one that cannot be hidden by ever-so-busy egalitarians and anthropologists. … [T]he South’s premises are correct … It is more important for the community, anywhere in the world, to affirm and live by civilized standards, than to bow to the demands of the numerical majority.

See the answer.


Garden of Forking Spooners

The Mises Institute has re-released a 1972 Rothbard-edited collection of Spooner’s writings titled Let’s Abolish Government. So how does it compare with George Smith’s 1992 collection The Lysander Spooner Reader (now sadly out of print)?

Apart from the Rothbard collection’s containing facsimiles of the originals (greater guarantee of accuracy, but also harder to read), the main difference is in contents – overlapping but distinct:

Lysander Spooner Reader Let’s Abolish Government
Tucker’s Obituary for Spooner  
Natural Law  
Vices Are Not Crimes  
Essay on the Trial by Jury Essay on the Trial by Jury
No Treason No. I  
No Treason No. II  
No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority
Letter to Thomas F. Bayard Letter to Thomas F. Bayard
  Letter to Grover Cleveland
  Essay by James J. Martin

So the only piece that Let’s Abolish Government has that the Reader doesn’t have (apart from the Martin essay) is the Letter to Grover Cleveland. On the other hand, the latter is arguably Spooner’s principal manifesto, providing an overview of his whole outlook. 


Powered by WordPress. Designed by WooThemes