Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    My copy of The Machinery of Freedom is signed. Friedman signed it when I met him at the Libertarian Alliance Conference last year, at which he seemed to be perpetually surrounded by a gaggle of teenaged girls, who, I gathered, were homeschoolers or unschoolers (as are some of his own kids) and learning from him. It was either them or some Italian Austrian economics enthusiasts who wanted to challenge or debate him on why he was not an Austrian economist and on the flaws of the Chicago school.

    He is an interesting guy. I think I enjoy Rothbard more, but Friedman is very thoughtful, has gained his father's ability to explain complex issues in simple terms, and is one of those rare libertarians (unlike Rothbard) who is willing to seek out the flaws in his own positions and examine and try to resolve them.
    Rothbard as a philosopher

    What do you think about that blog post on Rothbard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emvard)
    There's no comparison really. Rothbard has written over 20 books while Friedman has written 5. Not that quantity matters but Rothbard has expressed his views far more analytically than D. Friedman has. Friedman is "young" (not to mention alive) though, so I guess he can continue to write and talk.

    Oh and he definitely is a better communicator than Rothbard! Something in Rothbard's voice made him annoying!! I much preferred reading Rothbard than listening to him... Whereas Friedman is a very smooth talker!
    Lol! I agree on Rothbard's voice: He had a very strong Bronx accent.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    Rothbard as a philosopher

    What do you think about that blog post on Rothbard?
    I don't think Rothbard was anywhere near as good a philosopher as he was an economist or historian, though I think his argument for self-ownership is better than Hoppe's. I think Feser's statement here is about correct:

    It is no defense of Rothbard to note that there may be ways for Rothbardians to try to surmount the objections I have raised. No doubt there are, but that is beside the point. What matters is that Rothbard himself never tried to surmount them, nor did he even consider them, even though they are extremely obvious objections.
    I thin that Rothbardians can try to overcome his objections, but he is correct to say that the fact that Rothbard had opportunity to do so and didn't is bad for Rothbard. On the other hand, it was poor of Feser to basically contradict his own position on option (2) (the we all belong to God) that he stated in his book On Nozick, in which he said that self-ownership was compatible with saying that we belong to God.

    I quite like, and will study further, Gerard Casey's response.

    Feser's book On Nozick is a great introduction to rights-based libertarianism, and I also love his debate on taxes here, here (JR Edward's response) and here (his response to Edwards). He has said that self-ownership itself provides a robust basis for libertarianism, in that self-ownership is intuitively appealing in itself. However, I think he also sympathises with Mack's Aristotelean argument for it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    I thin that Rothbardians can try to overcome his objections, but he is correct to say that the fact that Rothbard had opportunity to do so and didn't is bad for Rothbard. On the other hand, it was poor of Feser to basically contradict his own position on option (2) (the we all belong to God) that he stated in his book On Nozick, in which he said that self-ownership was compatible with saying that we belong to God.

    I quite like, and will study further, Gerard Casey's response.

    Feser's book On Nozick is a great introduction to rights-based libertarianism, and I also love his debate on taxes here, here (JR Edward's response) and here (his response to Edwards). He has said that self-ownership itself provides a robust basis for libertarianism, in that self-ownership is intuitively appealing in itself. However, I think he also sympathises with Mack's Aristotelean argument for it.
    I think what Feser is saying is that Rothbard's reasons for self ownership aren't compatible with the idea that we are all owned by God, not that self ownership is. Rothbard didn't mention the idea of God ownership even though many of those who he quotes like Locke used the idea that we are all owned by God to support self ownership.

    I will look at the links of yours but where do you find this stuff, may I ask?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    I think what Feser is saying is that Rothbard's reasons for self ownership aren't compatible with the idea that we are all owned by God, not that self ownership is. Rothbard didn't mention the idea of God ownership even though many of those who he quotes like Locke used the idea that we are all owned by God to support self ownership.

    I will look at the links of yours but where do you find this stuff, may I ask?
    I heard about Feser's arguments against Rothbard when I found out about Casey's response. This I found out about on the Mises.org blog, because his article is published in Libertarian Papers, which is published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I have an article with them coming out soon. I heard about Feser's book On Nozick from a review in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, by a British libertarian, Jan Lester, and, since I was interested in modern responses to criticisms of Nozick (especially those of the late GA Cohen) I got it. I think it mentioned his articles on taxation, or I may have come across them when browsing the Independent Institute's website.

    I think that Locke's argument might not have been that we belong to God, rather that we have been granted life by God, and therefore he meant us to stay alive, and so the correct principles are those most conducive to that (hence Locke's self-ownership is not full enough to permit suicide). Since Aristotle had said that things that are owned will tend to be better looked after than things that aren't, this would mean that owning ourselves is most conducive to ensuring the continuation of our lives - if we own ourselves, we have more incentive to look after ourselves.

    Personally, I think that an argument that includes a premise "God owns us" would be really unstable in the first place, because the very existence of God is not secure.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    I heard about Feser's arguments against Rothbard when I found out about Casey's response. This I found out about on the Mises.org blog, because his article is published in Libertarian Papers, which is published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. I have an article with them coming out soon. I heard about Feser's book On Nozick from a review in the Journal of Libertarian Studies, by a British libertarian, Jan Lester, and, since I was interested in modern responses to criticisms of Nozick (especially those of the late GA Cohen) I got it. I think it mentioned his articles on taxation, or I may have come across them when browsing the Independent Institute's website.
    Have you read Eric Mack's papers on Cohen? I think they're called Self-Ownership, Marxism and Egalitarianism in the journal PPE. In my humble opinion, Mack completely and utterly refutes most of Cohen's substantive arguments. There is also a great paper on Cohen's oft-repeated arguments on freedom and money here, which pins down very nicely a feeling of dissatisfaction I had with his approach.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DrunkHamster)
    Have you read Eric Mack's papers on Cohen? I think they're called Self-Ownership, Marxism and Egalitarianism in the journal PPE. In my humble opinion, Mack completely and utterly refutes most of Cohen's substantive arguments. There is also a great paper on Cohen's oft-repeated arguments on freedom and money here, which pins down very nicely a feeling of dissatisfaction I had with his approach.
    I haven't been able to get my hands on much of Eric Mack's stuff, since publications of his that are on line tend to require a subscription. I'll look at that freedom and money piece, but I do have a position on freedom most libertarians find odd (I tend to follow Hillel Steiner's approach of a pure negative view of liberty, and so would be happy to say that even permissable restrictions on actions count as losses of liberty, and also that changes in interpersonal freedom are zero sum).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Richard_A_Garner)
    Which, of course, Oswy has yet to define what this "right-libertarianism" is, and who is exemplary of being a defender of it. Rothbard is typically thought of as a "right winger," despite the fact that he condemned big business and proposed workers take over industry. His more radical followers, like Samual Edward Konkin III, on the other hand, oppose the mainstream libertarian movement, and instead form the "Movement of the Libertarian Left." In the mean time, in philosophy departments "left libertarianism" will be associated with people such as Michael Otsuka and Hillel Steiner, despite Steiner supporting positions essentially these same as those of the young Herbert Spencer in Spencer's Social Statics.
    Why is Rothbard thourght of a a right-winger if he condemns big business and proposes workers take over industry? And whats "Movement of the Libertarian left"? Please. . .I'm eager to learn I'm very interested in political theories, but pretty new at it x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    Why is Rothbard thourght of a a right-winger if he condemns big business and proposes workers take over industry? And whats "Movement of the Libertarian left"? Please. . .I'm eager to learn I'm very interested in political theories, but pretty new at it x
    Because many right wingers (at least the intellectually honest ones) are aware that the present state of affairs represents nothing close to a free market. It's more of a form of corporatism in which the government acts to favour the interests of big business at the expense of everyone else via favourable legislation and corporate welfare.

    I have a certain degree of respect for Rothbard, purely because I believe unlike Hayek he was intellectually honest and didn't go colluding with corporatists masquerading as free marketeers. That said, I obviously disagree with his conclusions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    Why is Rothbard thourght of a a right-winger if he condemns big business and proposes workers take over industry? And whats "Movement of the Libertarian left"? Please. . .I'm eager to learn I'm very interested in political theories, but pretty new at it x
    Rothbard is thought of as a right winger because he favoured extreme free market capitalism, and because the political spectrum is so messed up that if you believe in free market capitalism that makes you right wing, even if you agree with the left wingers on every other issue, and even if the Far Rightists, like Hitler and Mussolini, traditional conservatives, and neo-cons, opposed free market capitalism. The fact that, in the last decade or so of his life, he was engaged in outreach to the right and saying some appropriately right-wing things didn't help.

    From the wiki page on left-libertarianism:

    Radical free-marketeers

    See also: Libertarian perspectives on political alliances

    Mutualism emerged from early 19th-century socialism, and is generally considered a market-oriented part of the libertarian socialist tradition. Mutualists accept realty property rights, but with an eventual abandonment period. In other words, a person must make use of the realty or else he eventually loses ownership rights. This is usually referred to as "possession property" or "usufruct." Thus, in this usufruct system, absentee landlordism is illegitimate.

    Mutualism has reemerged more recently, incorporating modern economic ideas such as marginal utility theory. Kevin A. Carson's book Studies in Mutualist Political Economy was influential in this regard, updating the labor theory of value with Austrian economics. Agorism[18], an anarchist tendency founded by Samuel Edward Konkin III, advocates counter-economics, working in untaxed black or grey markets, and boycotting as much as possible the unfree taxed market with the intended result that private voluntary institutions emerge and outcompete statist ones. Geoanarchism, an anarchist form of Henry George's philosophy, is considered left-libertarian because it assumes land to be initially owned in common, so that when land is privately appropriated the proprietor pays rent to the community. These philosophies share similar concerns and are collectively known as left-libertarianism.

    Rapprochement with the Left

    The first attempt at rapprochement between the postwar American libertarian movement and the Left came in the 1960s, when Austrian School economist Murray Rothbard came to question libertarianism's traditional alliance with the Right in light of the Vietnam War. During this period, Rothbard came to advocate strategic alliances with the New Left over issues such as the military draft and black power.

    Working with radicals like Ronald Radosh, Rothbard argued that the consensus view of American economic history, wherein government has stepped in as a countervailing interest to corporate predation, is fundamentally flawed. Rather, he argued, government intervention in the economy has largely benefited established players at the expense of marginalized groups, to the detriment of both liberty and equality. Moreover, the "Robber Baron Period", adulated by the right and despised by the left as a laissez-faire haven, was not laissez-faire at all but in fact a time of massive state privilege accorded to capital. Rothbard criticized the "frenzied nihilism" of left-libertarians but also criticized right-wing libertarians who were content to rely only on education to bring down the state; he believed that libertarians should adopt any non-immoral tactic available to them in order bring about liberty.

    Rothbard's initial leftward impulse was maintained by Karl Hess, picked up by activists like Samuel Edward Konkin III and Roderick Long. These left-libertarians agree with Rothbard that presently-existing capitalism does not even vaguely resemble a free market, and that most presently-existing corporations are the beneficiaries and chief supporters of statism. By this line of reasoning, libertarianism should make common cause with the anti-corporate left. Rapprochement with the left has led many left-libertarians to reject some traditional right-libertarian stances, such as hostility to labor unions and support for intellectual property, or even to limit valid real-property rights to use-and-occupancy.

    Cultural politics

    Contemporary left-libertarians also show markedly more sympathy than mainstream or paleo-libertarians towards various cultural movements which challenge non-governmental relations of power. For instance, left-libertarians Roderick Long and Charles Johnson have called for a recovery of the nineteenth-century alliance between radical liberalism and feminism. Left-libertarians are more likely to take recognizably leftist stances on issues as diverse as feminism, gender and sexuality, sexual freedom, drug policy, race, class, immigration, environmentalism, gun rights, and foreign policy. Current writers who have significantly impacted or explored this aspect of left-libertarianism include Chris Sciabarra, Roderick Long, Charles Johnson, Kevin Carson, and Arthur Silber.
    The original Movement of the Libertarian Left website is here and some of the pamphlets and leaflets are here. There is more life, though, here and here. There is a forum to discuss this stuff here.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Because many right wingers (at least the intellectually honest ones) are aware that the present state of affairs represents nothing close to a free market. It's more of a form of corporatism in which the government acts to favour the interests of big business at the expense of everyone else via favourable legislation and corporate welfare.

    I have a certain degree of respect for Rothbard, purely because I believe unlike Hayek he was intellectually honest and didn't go colluding with corporatists masquerading as free marketeers. That said, I obviously disagree with his conclusions.
    I note your black and red flag and avatar of the Chomsky dude (he was an associate of Rothbard's occassionally, and shared panels at libertarian conferences with him).

    Have you seen Roderick Long on Chomsky? Or Joe Peacott on Chomsky's Statism?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a little confused. So if you support the free-market/big business you're right wing? Right OK. So doesn't that make fascism left-wing? Also is right/left libertarianism basically classical and modern liberalism. With classic supporting minimal state/free-market and modern supporting social intervention? Thanks for helping by the way, please can any replies not be too mind boggling for me, lol. I don't want to get tooooo deep, grasping the foundations first will prevent my mind totally numbing! xxx
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    I'm a little confused. So if you support the free-market/big business you're right wing? Right OK. So doesn't that make fascism left-wing? Also is right/left libertarianism basically classical and modern liberalism. With classic supporting minimal state/free-market and modern supporting social intervention? Thanks for helping by the way, please can any replies not be too mind boggling for me, lol. I don't want to get tooooo deep, grasping the foundations first will prevent my mind totally numbing! xxx
    No, I'm sorry to say that it is far more complicated than that.

    The biggest and most common difference between left and right is that the left usually believe in egalitarianism of some sort while the right rejects it.

    According to this fascism is rightist.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Don_Scott)
    ...
    The biggest and most common difference between left and right is that the left usually believe in egalitarianism of some sort while the right rejects it.

    According to this fascism is rightist.
    Fascism typically subordinates the needs of the people to the aims of the state, or more often 'the leader' whereas even state-based leftism seeks to make the state's aims the needs of the people. Moreover, fascism is hierarchical, usually militaristically so, but also in terms of social and economic stratas; aristocrats and fat-cat businessmen might have had to toe the line for Mussolini or Hitler but they invariably retained their advantages and status provided they did so.

    But yes, leftism is centrally about seeking egalitarian social and economic arrangements.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    I'm a little confused. So if you support the free-market/big business you're right wing? Right OK. So doesn't that make fascism left-wing? Also is right/left libertarianism basically classical and modern liberalism. With classic supporting minimal state/free-market and modern supporting social intervention? Thanks for helping by the way, please can any replies not be too mind boggling for me, lol. I don't want to get tooooo deep, grasping the foundations first will prevent my mind totally numbing! xxx
    Left/Right is outdated nomenclature. Don't think of it in terms of that. Think of it in terms of parties or political philosophies that you more or less agree with.

    Left Libertarianism is a massive group of philosophies. When I was researching different branches of Libertarianism for Southampton University Libertarian Society I found Left Libertarians emphasising their support for communal ownership of natural resources and opposition to intellectual property (full article).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Libertarianism is a joke. Probably why no one in power has or ever will take it seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yeahm8justhavina****)
    Libertarianism is a joke. Probably why no one in power has or ever will take it seriously.
    Oh really? You mean there's never been a Prime Minister who believed in minimal government interference? Nor a political party dedicated to lassaiz-faire economics?

    No. Definitely not. None of the American Founding Fathers advocated a limited government and great personal freedom either.

    Such concepts are silly, and have never been taken seriously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconzey)
    Left/Right is outdated nomenclature. Don't think of it in terms of that. Think of it in terms of parties or political philosophies that you more or less agree with.

    Left Libertarianism is a massive group of philosophies. When I was researching different branches of Libertarianism for Southampton University Libertarian Society I found Left Libertarians emphasising their support for communal ownership of natural resources and opposition to intellectual property (full article).

    The article is very helpful thanks. So modern liberals, who support state intervention. . they are not libertarians, no? Libertarians wants to abolish/minimise the state . .right? x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marchgirl91)
    Libertarians wants to abolish/minimise the state . .right? x
    Well yes, but different stripes of Libertarian differ on what they regard as "minimal". For example: Anarcho-capitalist "states" are just companies that provide dispute resolution purposes paid for through fees, whereas Geolibertarian states have a geographical monopoly, and levy a land value tax.

    It's difficult to put any kind of objective definition on "libertarian" and fundementally it's a label used for self-identification, as with many other things "I'm a libertarian/anarcho-capitalist/socialist/christian/democrat/tory/thatcherite"

    So yeah, I try to avoid labels and just talk about policies...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sconzey)
    Oh really? You mean there's never been a Prime Minister who believed in minimal government interference? Nor a political party dedicated to lassaiz-faire economics?

    No. Definitely not. None of the American Founding Fathers advocated a limited government and great personal freedom either.

    Such concepts are silly, and have never been taken seriously.
    You think people in power want to give up power? Thats pretty stupid.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: September 10, 2009
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.