I am NOT a fan of Rothbard

[No Free Beer]

Lately, I have been seeing quotes from him pop up, and I must say, I am not too much of a fan.

Now, I will admit that I haven't read any of his books, which I plan on doing this summer.

But based on what I have read about him, whether through random quotes or writings on Mises.org, I have to be honest, I think he is wrong about the role of government. Mainly when it comes to the governments role in police, fire department, etc.

Now, I already know what I am going to hear, "you are a statist", which I obviously am not, due to the fact that I am a RP supporter. I would ask people to be respectful and have a good discussion and I hope some can change my mind.

- NFB

 

[Raudsarw]

Good for you. What is the point of this? You did not even elaborate why you disagree.

 

[angelatc]

Why is this in General Politics, Squishy?

 

[Shotdown1027]

Lately, I have been seeing quotes from him pop up, and I must say, I am not too much of a fan.

Now, I will admit that I haven't read any of his books, which I plan on doing this summer.

But based on what I have read about him, whether through random quotes or writings on Mises.org, I have to be honest, I think he is wrong about the role of government. Mainly when it comes to the governments role in police, fire department, etc.

Now, I already know what I am going to hear, "you are a statist", which I obviously am not, due to the fact that I am a RP supporter. I would ask people to be respectful and have a good discussion and I hope some can change my mind.

- NFB

As someone who doesn't like Rothbard's politics or personality much--take it seriously when I say, you should at least read his stuff before you try to critique him.

 

[angelatc]

Good for you. What is the point of this? You did not even elaborate why you disagree.

He doesn't know, because he actually hasn't read anything he wrote. The Mommy blogger is the same type of person. She won't read Ayn Rand, but never misses a chance to talk about how horrible her philosophy was anyway.

 

[Nirvikalpa]

She doesn't know, because she actually hasn't read anything he wrote. The Mommy blogger is the same type of person. She won't read Ayn Rand, but never misses a chance to talk about how horrible her philosophy was anyway.

*He.

Terris, care to explain why you dislike him? What quotes do you dislike/disagree with in particular?

 

[No Free Beer]

She doesn't know, because she actually hasn't read anything he wrote. The Mommy blogger is the same type of person. She won't read Ayn Rand, but never misses a chance to talk about how horrible her philosophy was anyway.

I actually have read Atlas Shrugged and loved it.

I am not a "she" either.

Anyway, I wrote this in hope that people would embark on good dialogue. People never cease to amaze me to make negative comments in order to show how awesome they are. As I said, I am obviously trying to get a good discussion going. I have read enough quotes on him and writings on Mises to give me a good idea of where he stands on some key issues. Like I said, his privatization of law enforcement and his open border ideas are ones that I disagree with. If you don't have anything pleasant to say about me, don't say anything at all.

 

[No Free Beer]

*He.

Terris, care to explain why you dislike him? What quotes do you dislike/disagree with in particular?

Thank you, Nikki.

Mainly his positions on local law enforcement and immigration policy in terms of economics.

He also mentions that government doesn't have a role in protection of people's rights. To put it differently, he thinks government creates a monopoly of force. This, I don't fully agree with. The government is there to protect people's rights, from aggression and fraud.

Again, maybe I am misreading him, that's why I created this thread.

I was hoping I wouldn;t have to comment on it again and a good discussion would ensue.

 

[aclove]

Do you think Rothbard's ideas about privatization of government services are impractical in the short term, or do you think they should not be something we strive for ever?

 

[tfurrh]

 

[No Free Beer]

Do you think Rothbard's ideas about privatization of government services are impractical in the short term, or do you think they should not be something we strive for ever?

I think that there are some services the government (mainly local or state) should maintain. I don't think it's realistic to have private law enforcement. Nothing is perfect, we know there are a bunch of problems with our police now, but I find private police force a bit unrealistic. I think the stronger would take over the weak. Also, the government should be there to help protect people from abuse, fraud, and aggression. The idea that private citizens would be able to resolve all these issues without someone there to protect them, in my view, is unrealistic.

Example: property rights. What would stop the stronger from taking advantage of the weak without government there to help protect contract and property laws.

Again, I realize the inefficiencies of gov. and the force they use and abuse. But, I don't see how people will follow rules without there being rules.

 

[Boss2]

Try this thread again after the following criteria have been met:

1. You are able to state what you disagree with Rothbard on.
2. You are able to provide reasons that logically support your conclusions.

Thanks.

 

[brandon]

I'm not the biggest fan either. In addition to him being too radical in regards to the elimination of local government, I also disagree with a lot of his writings on fractional reserve banking. He either didn't understand the money multiplier effect, or was intentionally misleading when describing it in lay terms. I also don't agree with his conclusion that FRB is inherently fraudulent and bad. The real culprit to attack is the FED and FDIC, not the process of banking itself.

I've only read a couple of his books though - I'm definitely not as well read as some of the people that post here.

 

[No Free Beer]

Try this thread again after the following criteria have been met:

1. You are able to state what you disagree with Rothbard on.
2. You are able to provide reasons that logically support your conclusions.

Thanks.

Cool. Feel better?

Why do you even bother? Move along, buddy.

 

[No Free Beer]

I'm not the biggest fan either. In addition to him being too radical in regards to the elimination of local government, I also disagree with a lot of his writings on fractional reserve banking. He either didn't understand the money multiplier effect, or was intentionally misleading when describing it in lay terms. I also don't agree with his conclusion that FRB is inherently fraudulent and bad. The real culprit to attack is the FED and FDIC, not the process of banking itself.

I've only read a couple of his books though - I'm definitely not as well read as some of the people that post here.

Yeah, I mean I def. want to read some of his stuff, because I want to give him a chance. I am open to reading different positions. But your first sentence, I completely agree with.

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Thank you, Nikki.

Mainly his positions on local law enforcement and immigration policy in terms of economics.

He also mentions that government doesn't have a role in protection of people's rights. To put it differently, he thinks government creates a monopoly of force. This, I don't fully agree with. The government is there to protect people's rights, from aggression and fraud.

Again, maybe I am misreading him, that's why I created this thread.

I was hoping I wouldn;t have to comment on it again and a good discussion would ensue.

An expropriating property protector is a contradiction of terms. Care to try and explain your way out of that? How can someone protect your rights when they are by its very nature in violation of them?

 

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I think that there are some services the government (mainly local or state) should maintain. I don't think it's realistic to have private law enforcement. Nothing is perfect, we know there are a bunch of problems with our police now, but I find private police force a bit unrealistic. I think the stronger would take over the weak. Also, the government should be there to help protect people from abuse, fraud, and aggression. The idea that private citizens would be able to resolve all these issues without someone there to protect them, in my view, is unrealistic.

Example: property rights. What would stop the stronger from taking advantage of the weak without government there to help protect contract and property laws.

Again, I realize the inefficiencies of gov. and the force they use and abuse. But, I don't see how people will follow rules without there being rules.

Again with the absence of rules mumbo jumbo. You know, instead of explaining theory and logic and history for the umpteenth time (it's not like you can't find these answers on this board all ready...), I'll just link to this and you can read it and come back a little more informed so then we can have an educated quorum.

http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_1/3_1_2.pdf

 

[kah13176]

I read "For a New Liberty" and I really enjoyed what he had to say. Plus, for market anarchists like me, supporting Ron Paul and people like him is compatible with the road to a stateless society that he suggested at the end of the book. In other words, Rothbard encourages political activism, unlike nonvoting anarchists.

 

[NoOneButPaul]

Now, I will admit that I haven't read any of his books, which I plan on doing this summer.

....well then get back to us then.

 

[TheGrinch]

Care to try and explain your way out of that? How can someone protect your rights when they are by its very nature in violation of them?

Then why do you think the founders wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights then? Probably because they saw how rights can be stripped, not just by a government entity, but anyone in a postion of control or force, because they have a desire to do so... Eliminating government is not gonig to stop those who seek control and force and have the means from doing so.

If you have a constitutional government, then there is nothing at all contradictory about an entity guaranteeing to you that no one will infringe on your god-given rights to life, liberty and protection of your property. How is it "in it's nature a violation of them" if you have an accountable government that doesn't abuse it's power (being accountable). If the police protect my property from intruders and don't infringe on my liberties or property, how can't the two be mutually exclusive? They can if they're as local as possible and accountable, but private industry cannot guarantee the same accountability when they have massive conflicts of interest not to.

Not to mention, as I already have plenty in other threads, that handing over security and trials (that are supposed to be by your peers, not hired jurors that may have a conflict of interest or be corrupted) to private industry is an absolutely terrifying concept.

The writers of the consitution gave very limited powers to the government, and that is because they saw how terrifying it was when the government did not guarantee those basic human rights, and let any powerful entity exploit them just the same as they do with excessive "safeguards".