Murray Rothbard: The Godfather of Libertarianism

This is a great and important addition to the history of the early days of the libertarian movement and the intellectual giant of that movement Murray Rothbard.

It is not an exaggeration to state that you probably are studying libertarianism because of early movement seeds planted somewhere by Rothbard.  The more and more I think about the many ways Rothbard contributed to the dissemination of libertarian ideas in the early days, the more I realize how remarkable and skilled a promoter of liberty he was. He was a genius in this field in addition to being a giant in economics, political science and philosophy.

The speakers on this clip in order are David Gordon, Walter Block and Joe Salerno.

-RW

The Nature of a Private Property Society

In a post titled Feedback, Bionic Mosquito has posted his comments, along with that of others, with regard to my comments on how I view a Private Property Society.

I am going to respond to the commentary in the hopes of advancing why I hold that full respect for private property is the best way to achieve a decent and reasonable society.

First, Bionic posts a Rothbard comment which was supplied to him by an anonymous provider:

I was sent the following by one of the prefer-to-remain-anonymous feedbackers, an excerpt from Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty, Chapter 13:

Thus, it should be quite clear that, under libertarian law, capital punishment would have to be confined strictly to the crime of murder. For a criminal would only lose his right to life if he had first deprived some victim of that same right. It would not be permissible, then, for a merchant whose bubble gum had been stolen, to execute the convicted bubble gum thief. If he did so, then he, the merchant, would be an unjustifiable murderer, who could be brought to the bar of justice by the heirs or assigns of the bubble gum thief.

Shooting someone for stealing a stick of gum – and in Rothbard’s example, not even a child.

Rothbard is proposing this restriction on punishment based on his proportionality view of punishment. But I ask anyone who holds the Rothbard proportionality view to please state how these proportionalities should be determined.

I see a huge quagmire. Do proportionalities have to be determined on an ad hoc basis? Or are they already set? That is, if Stevie Wonder pokes out a person's eye, when that person's other eye is glass, is proportionality poking out both of the already blind Stevie Wonders eyes? Or must we now have some kind of "punishment body" to determine proportionality?

If there is a heckler at a Donald Trump campaign stop, does this mean Trump gets to go to that person's house and heckle him on two separate occasions or do we bring in the ruling "punishment body" for some other punishment?

Or how about this: A landowner has a sign "No blacks," and a black trespasses, who gets on the "punishment body" in that case?

Or if a thief steals a wallet should his hand be cut off? Which, I am certain would be considered proportional punishment in parts of the Middle East.

How is the outcome of punishment less protected under a Private Property Society where the property owner has the ultimate word in punishment? Why are outsiders somehow better at this? Further. in a Private Property Society, no edifice must be constructed over private property. Call it governance, culture or whatever, it is, for all practical purposes, a ruling body over all, if rules over all are made despite the wishes of the property owner. Thus, those who are not in favor of the owner of a private property determining punishment must recognize that they are no longer anracho-capitalists. They can be limited-government libertarians but they are not against the essence of government, which is the ruling over people who may not wish to be ruled over.

Bionic then introduces Walter Block who writes in part:

[T]o think that victims and they alone may make up any punishment rules thay want on their own property, without notifying everyone else of unusual rules (like killing, or seizing coats, a la Donald Trump) I find completely incompatible with libertarianism

It seems to me by reading this comment that Prof. Block agrees with me that a property owner can set his own punishment rules on his own property--as long as warning is given. So I would say, he and I are in 95% agreement on this point. Where we differ is as to a necessary warning about the punishment,

I hold that in a society where private property is respected that no notification should be required of by a property owner of the punishment rules on his property, I see this as a minor rule above property, which I would consider a movement away from anarcho-capitalism, since who is to determine what are "unusual rules"? Again, are we going to be setting up committees or something?

I hasten to ask what would be the practical difference of a property owner who posts, "I jail people for 50 years who sneeze when on my property"? and one who keeps his rules secret? Who would go on either property?

In a Private Property Society, I fully expect decency and reasonableness to be the norm and that people would  just avoid unknown areas, just like they avoid the bad parts of town now.

Bionic next introduces "Black Flag":

 [P]erhaps the most succinct and insightful comment was offered atthe subject post:
Black Flag January 21, 2016 at 3:09 PM 

Why should Wenzel oppose the state when he's fine with an individual operating the same way? Is the libertarian objection to action, or the label attributed?

Wenzel hasn't defended Anarcho Capitalism, he has defended the judge, the jury, and the executioner, (all bundled together as one man) likely of statist ilk, who feel they can operate without consequences for error.

I wish I thought of this line of reasoning.  In sixty words, Black Flag said more than I did in ten-thousand.  Wenzel wants to create two billion tyrants.  This isn’t libertarianism.

It is difficult for me to discern Black Flag's argument here. He correctly points out:

he has defended the judge, the jury, and the executioner, (all bundled together as one man) 

But isn't this what anarcho-capitalism is? Who does Black Flag suggest be the judge, the jury, and the executioner in an "anarcho" capitalist world? I further add that in a PPS world people would simply avoid areas where reasonable and decent rules aren't set up, including areas where property owners haven't chosen reasonable judges, juries and executioners. The beauty of PPS is that it allows for freedom within the bounds of one's property and those one chooses to associate with---without the oppressive veil of government, which does now monopolize choices for all in judges, juries and executioners.

That is, there is good reason to oppose the state, very good reason, if the alternative is a Private Property Society. Since a PPS means a society where there is no government and a general respect for private property. To equate PPS with a state is extremely difficult for me to understand.

I believe a large part of the problem here remains because many don't really believe a peaceful society can exist without some rules beyond a respect for private property.

But my argument is that in many ways we live a PPS life now, with a government veil over us that pretends to protect us, when it is, in fact, the case that we protect our own property. If it was laws that protected us, why would we stay out of bad areas? Why would we have locks on our doors?

Just because one does not believe  government is necessary to protect one's property does not mean that such a person is in favor of theft. To say we shouldn't have government police on standby to protect our property doesn't mean we don't want our property protected.

To say that there should be no rules that are not set by a property owner does not mean we are an advocate of any kind of punishment, that we are for/or against racial rules on properties etc.

It means that just like now, we avoid trouble spots and act in a decent and reasonable manner  with the people we choose to deal with. Isn't this what we do now?

Just because young kids could burn themselves playing on a hot stove, it doesn't mean we should call for a ban on stoves, it means that we watch kids so that they don't get themselves in harms way.

In the same way, in a PPS, you wouldn't allow kids to wander off into unknown territory, just like you don't now.

What would be the difference in the way you act other than not having the government breathing down your neck?

 -RW

More on Private Property Society here.

Murray Rothbard on Fluoridation

FLUORIDATION REVISITED
by Murray Rothbard

Yes, I confess: I'm a veteran anti-fluoridationist, thereby – not for the first time – risking placing myself in the camp of "right-wing kooks and fanatics." It has always been a bit of mystery to me why left-environmentalists, who shriek in horror at a bit of Alar on apples, who cry "cancer" even more absurdly than the boy cried "Wolf," who hate every chemical additive known to man, still cast their benign approval upon fluoride, a highly toxic and probably carcinogenic substance. And not only let fluoride emissions off the hook, but endorse uncritically the massive and continuing dumping of fluoride into the nation's water supply.

First: the generalized case for and against fluoridation of water. The case for is almost incredibly thin, boiling down to the alleged fact of substantial reductions in dental cavities in kids aged 5 to 9. Period. There are no claimed benefits for anyone older than nine! For this the entire adult population of a fluoridated area must be subjected to mass medication!

The case against, even apart from the specific evils of fluoride, is powerful and overwhelming.

I Only Read It for the Articles! Rothbard’s Penthouse Interview

By Matt McCaffrey

G-Rated (Almost) Edit of October 1976 Cover

In the 1970s, Penthouse magazine had a reputation for featuring the ideas of unorthodox political thinkers and movements. That’s why in October 1976 it interviewed Murray Rothbard to ask about the rapidly-growing philosophy of libertarianism. This interview is now difficult to find, but was recently excavated from the archives at the Mises Institute.

The article begins with an introduction that provides a great snapshot of both Rothbard’s work and personality:

The Murray Rothbard wall poster depicts a graying professor pecking at a typewriter. His words rise magically from the machine and blend into a black flag of anarchy rippling above his head. Beneath the drawing is this caption: “Murray N. Rothbard—the greatest living enemy of the state.” The poster, like almost everything else relating to politics, causes Rothbard to laugh… If someone mentions the name of almost any establishment economist or political figure, Rothbard will respond with a nasal guffaw… Jerry Ford, John Kenneth Galbraith, Alan Greenspan, Ronald Reagan—they all receive the same response: a laugh followed by a theoretical disputation in which Rothbard employs buzz-saw logic to rip into these persons he views as enemies of liberty, prosperity, and the common good.

There are some entertaining stories as well. For instance, the interview points out that Rothbard’s criticism of conventional economics made him an unpopular choice for private consulting, which is often a lucrative line of work for economists. In Rothbard’s case though, “Only one firm—a mushroom factory—has called on him for consulting advice in the past twenty years.”

The bulk of the interview consists of Rothbard offering up his trademark analysis of economics and public policy. He tackles a long list of objections to the free society, explaining how government causes war, depression, poverty, and pollution, and how the market fixes these problems.

One of his best responses, especially relevant today, regards socialized medicine:

Penthouse: What about efforts to socialize medicine in America?

Rothbard: That would be a monstrous development. In countries with socialized medicine, for instance, Britain, the result has been a tremendous decline in the quality of the medical service and a huge burden of taxes on the public and on the economy. The usual advance estimates of how much socialized medicine would cost are always extrapolated from the current number of people going to doctors and other statistics. What most people don’t realize is that if a visit to a doctor were free, then many people would consult a doctor all the time. There would be an enormous increase in demand for medical service, most of it unnecessary, and then the doctor’s time would have to be rationed in some way and the quality of medical care would decrease. That happened in England, with the result that the people who can afford to do so avail themselves of private medical care. They have to do this in order to get decent treatment.

The current government intervention in the medical field in the United States has created most of the problems that now exist. By creating licensing requirements—state regulations restricting the number of doctors and medical schools—the government creates a medical monopoly and increases the cost of medicine. In the last decade or so, the government has created the Medicaid-Medicare program, which has enormously increased the cost of doctors and hospitals by an almost indiscriminate disbursement of money to doctors. At first everybody thought the program would be a big bonanza. “Now we’d be able to get most of our medical bills paid,” they thought. But what actually happened? Medical bills simply increased, and so we’re really no better off than we were before.

In fact, we’re worse off. Any further government intervention would compound the damage. And I advocate the elimination of licensing requirements for doctors and hospitals and the loosening of restrictions on other aspects of medicine. The cost of drugs could be cut by eliminating the requirement for prescriptions, which creates a pharmacy monopoly so that people have to go to licensed pharmacies in order to get their drugs. I don’t think there’s any real need for that.

There are plenty of other gems sure to interest fans of free-market economics. The entire interview will be published in The Rothbard Reader, forthcoming in 2015, edited by Joseph Salerno and myself. The collection will provide an introduction and overview of Rothbard’s thought, and will feature several of his lost and out-of-print writings alongside some better-known works.

The above originally appeared at Mises.org.