Archive for Murray Rothbard
I have read a good deal of all that Murray Rothbard has written. Not everything. He has thousands of articles and essays and commentaries that have been published, so few can claim that they have read every word. But I have read the books, including the Libertarian Forum. I constantly go back for a refresher to his economic material, to verify some obscure position on political theory, or to gain new insight from his historical perspectives, especially on the Fed. When I want to spur some writing creativity, I will pick up his collection of articles The Irrepressible Rothbard and enjoy myself immensely.
But there is one book out them all that I have read three times, simply because it is ever-impactful for me. Every conservative, though they may not like “Mr. Libertarian” very much, ought to read his Betrayal of the American Right. This book, along with Justin Raimondo’s Reclaiming the American Right, speak of an American Right — the Old Right — that is distinct from the post World War II New Right. It is distinct, and it long ago died.
Today, the New Right, which might be called the Barry Goldwater right or perhaps National Review Conservatism, is juxtaposed to the actually leftist neo-conservatism of Irving Kristol and ole Norman Podhoretz. Thus we are told that to be a True Conservative is to reject the moderate-centrist (neocon) Republicans and hoist up the flag of Reagan, who, of course, was Goldwater reincarnate. False dichotomy: here we have the choice between the (50′s) New Right and the (70′s) neo-conservativism.
What about the Old Right?
What about the pre-Buckley Right that stood up to the foreign interventionism of Roosevelt and Truman?
Rothbard wrote the following of the Old Right:
If we know what the Old Right was against [namely, foreign interventionism], what were they for? In general terms, they were for a restoration of the liberty of the Old Republic, of a government strictly limited to the defense of the rights of private property. In the concrete, as in the case of any broad coalition, there were differences of opinion within this overall framework. But we can boil down those differences to this question: how much of existing government would you repeal? How far would you roll government back?
The minimum demand which almost all Old Rightists agreed on, which virtually defined the Old Right, was total abolition of the New Deal, the whole kit and kaboodle of the welfare state, the Wagner Act, the Social Security Act, going off gold in 1933, and all the rest. Beyond that, there were charming disagreements. Some would stop at repealing the New Deal. Others would press on, to abolition of Woodrow Wilson’s New Freedom, including the Federal Reserve System and especially that mighty instrument of tyranny, the income tax and the Internal Revenue Service.
Compare this to Bill Buckley, initiator of the New Right, who, during the height of Cold War central planning propaganda, opined that “we have to accept Big Government for the duration—for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged . . . except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores.” And, as Rothbard wrote, “Buckley concluded that we must all support ‘the extensive and productive tax laws that are needed to support a vigorous anti-Communist foreign policy,’ as well as ‘large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington—even with Truman at the reins of it all.’” Buckley, who was far better before his National Review years, spawned a flavor of rightism that was of a different flavor than its individualistic, even radical, predecessor. The Old Right was anti-communism, but the New Right was only against communism in foreign countries. If the Old bravely opposed what Garet Garret termed “a revolution within the form,” that is, a socialistic trend in the United States government, the New ignored it completely. (One thinks of Frank Chodorov, who, during the red-baiting years answered the question of how to get rid of communists who snuck into the American government. Contrary to the New Rightists who wanted to seek out and replace the communists, Chodorov replied: “Easy. Just abolish the jobs.” No government positions, no communists will fill them.)
What was the background of the Old Right? Briefly, it must be noted that there are several meanings of the word conservative. For instance, there is cultural conservatism in which traditional values and ethics are praised while the presence of the State and political theory is simply absent from the conversation. Or, there is political conservatism which may teach that what presently stands in society should be protected, by the strong arm and will of the State. Further, one might point to a distinction between historically developed laws (such as English common law) and the Kingdom which, in order to protect its power and prestige, ignores these laws. Thus leading to a distinction between institutions and laws.
This latter distinction is vital, and rarely considered. For instance, in his Politically Incorrect Guide to American History, the outstanding Tom Woods points out that the American secessionists in 1776 were “conservative.” But how could they be conservative if there existed Tories who were loyal to the throne in Britain? Were not the Tories conservative in wanting to maintain the political status quo? And Murray Rothbard, emphasizing their revolutionary political philosophy in his massive tome of early American history, calls them radicals. So what were they? Radicals or conservatives? The answer is both, and the solution is to employ the distinction between institution and common tradition. Whereas the British King sought to betray the property rights, via taxation and other means, of the colonists, the colonists objected that the King was breaching what had long been English law. The colonists, in this sense were conservative, especially when one considers the socialistic revolutionaries of France. But in another sense they were radicals, for they wanted complete and final separation from the throne. They did not seek to preserve the present arrangement. In short, the radical conservatives of the colonies thought that “whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends [securing rights], it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.”
Now, to be clear, the context of the times in the United States during the 18th and 19th century caused the limited government folks, the radical decentralists, to refrain from referring to themselves as “conservatives.” For to be a conservative in their mind was to support the imperialistic British King, that bastion of tyranny. In their minds they were liberals –classical liberals, who sought to be free from the chains of improper government. The reader is undoubtedly aware of the fact that liberal was not always a euphemism for a socialist. It once meant something similar to its etymological root: to be liberated. That is, to be liberated from the oppressive State, not Marx’s exploitive capitalist.
But socialist theory is a historical reality and soon liberalism was taken over and abused, much like what happens to every word that is adopted by political movements. The Progressives during the early 20th century referred to themselves as liberals. All who opposed the Progressive revolution and sought to defend American individualism and capitalistic radicalism were smeared as “conservative.” Rothbard informs:
Before that, knowledgeable libertarians had hated the word [conservative], and with good reason; for weren’t the conservatives the ancient enemy, the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Tory and reactionary suppressors of individual liberty, the ancient champions of the Old Order of Throne-and-Altar against which the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals had fought so valiantly? And so the older classical-liberals and individualists resisted the term bitterly: Ludwig von Mises, a classical liberal, scorned the term; …and when Frank Chodorov was called a “conservative” in the pages of National Review, he wrote an outraged letter declaring, “As for me, I will punch anyone who calls me a conservative in the nose. I am a radical.”
Before the Progressive revolution, before the word “liberal” was ruthlessly murdered, it was actually the liberal who
bitterly opposed the emergence of Big Government in twentieth-century America, a government allied with Big Business in a network of special privilege, a government dictating the personal drinking habits of the citizenry and repressing civil liberties, a government that had enlisted as a junior partner to British imperialism to push around nations across the globe. The individualists were opposed to this burgeoning of State monopoly, opposed to imperialism and militarism and foreign wars, opposed to the Western-imposed Versailles Treaty and League of Nations….
But as Franklin Roosevelt came to power, the Progressives and their supporters, applying “liberal” to themselves so as to attract the masses and posture themselves in an attractive light, dismissed the libertarians, the committed and dedicated capitalistic classical liberals, as conservatives and members of the right. The Progressive vision of a State-initiated New World became the “liberal” view and those who opposed it were smeared as reactionaries. Suddenly the radicals were placed in the odd category of conservative. Thus, it is important to know that this Old Right collection of anti-New Dealers and Non-interventionists were forced into the label as the conservative and liberal categories experienced a Grand Swap. Whereas in Europe conservative meant that one defended the Ancien Regime and liberal meant that he was a challenger to it, as were the American colonists, in 20th century America the labels were backwards.
The Old Right had a cause that has been long forgotten in this country: radical decentralization of politics and no foreign entanglements. The Old Right opposed a growing Washington in a consistent and philosophical way that is fundamentally unique compared to the nationalistic New Right. The Old Right was principled and dogmatic. The New Right was compromising and “pragmatic” (always a dangerous component of the power hungry politician). If the New Right emphasizes the importance of preserving the strength of the national government, especially against more local dissenters, it is the Old Right that praises dissension and nullification and constant challenges to the Central State. If the New Right desires nationalized power under the guise of unity and collective security, it is the Old Right that rejects nationalized power as a protection racket, a simple and deceitful excuse for political control.
As Tom Woods says in his introduction to Rothbard’s Betrayal:
Old Right members of Congress like Howard Buffett argued, to the cheers of Rothbard, that the cause of freedom in the world was to be advanced by the force of American example rather than by the force of arms, and that American interventionism would play into the hands of Soviet propaganda that portrayed the U.S. as a self-interested imperialist rather than a disinterested advocate for mankind.
What we laughingly call the “conservative movement” today has little incentive to remind people of the skeptics of interven- tionism to be found among conservative Republicans in the Truman years. In these pages Rothbard makes a compelling case that the Right’s embrace of global interventionism was not inevitable, but was instead the result of contingent factors: the deaths of key representatives of the Old Right at particularly inauspicious moments, the organizational skill of the opposition, and internal difficulties within Old Right institutions.
Under the beware-those-guys-over-there-ism philosophy of modern conservatism, we have forgotten that the most dangerous government is the one that presently sits over us. Despite the utopian claim that the government protects our freedom, the opposite is the case. Don’t fear the Soviet Union as did Buckley. And don’t fear Iran as do the mainstream conservatives.
If you are conservative, embrace the Old Right. Embrace the defenders of the Old Republic. Remember the Old Cause: fear domestic tyranny first and don’t trade liberty for security.
It has been fashionable of late for some libertarians to broaden the libertarian non-aggression principle in their attempts to make libertarianism less thin and brutal and more cosmopolitan and humanitarian.
I will not address this controversy here. I recently made very clear my views on libertarianism.
What I do want to address is an older libertarian attack on the non-aggression principle that has recently reared its ugly head.
Some libertarians, way back when (Liberty, May 1988) and more recently (here and here), have actually called for abandoning the non-aggression principle altogether. (See replies to the recent cases here and here).
I think it would be important before continuing to revisit exactly what it is that libertarians mean when they talk about the non-aggression principle being foundational to libertarianism. For this I turn to two of the greatest libertarian theorists and proponents: Murray Rothbard and his long-time friend and disciple (in the good sense) Walter Block.
This is the first essay in LibertarianChristians.com series “Essentials of Austrian Economics.” Throughout this series, we will explore important economic concepts and why they are crucial to an understanding of a free society.
Most people are unfamiliar with Austrian School of Economics and the work of Ludwig von Mises, Murray Rothbard, and Friedrich Hayek, but thanks to the efforts of Ron Paul, the Mises Institute, and many others the ideas are becoming much more well known.
Austrian economics is more than just a sub-theory within the field of economics – it is an different way of thinking about economic science altogether. Most of modern economics falls into either neoclassical or Keynesian economics, which tend to focus on mathematical modeling and statistical analysis. Austrian economics, in constrast, claims that economic activity is too complex and varied to be reasonably described through mathematical models. This is not to say that mathematics and statistics are bad altogether when doing economics, but such tools have limitations that do not permit them to access the core of economic theory.
Instead of statistics and numerical models, Austrian economics begins with basic axioms of human action, a study known as praxeology. The starting point that humans utilize means to achieve desired ends begins the elucidation of economic law. Ludwig von Mises defined human action in this way:
“Human action is purposeful behavior. Or we may say: Action is will put into operation and transformed into an agency, is aiming at ends and goals, is the ego’s meaningful response to stimuli and to the conditions of its environment, is a person’s conscious adjustment to the state of the universe that determines his life. Such paraphrases may clarify the definition given and prevent possible misinterpretations. But the definition itself is adequate and does not need complement of commentary.” [from Human Action] Read More→
Murray Rothbard wrote the following article for Liberty Magazine in 1990. It provides an interesting summary and perspective on the implications of millennialism upon the political landscape. Though this comes from a non-Christian author, I think it is instructive and insightful.
Christianity has played a central role in Western civilization and contributed an important influence on the development of classical-liberal thought. Not surprisingly, Christian beliefs about the "end times" are very important for us right now.
Christian Reconstructionism is one of the fastest growing and most influential currents in American religious and political life. Though the fascinating discussions by Jeffrey Tucker and Gary North (in the July and September issues of Liberty) have called libertarian attention to, and helped explain, this movement, to clarify Christian Reconstructionism fully we have to understand the role and problem of millennialism in Christian thought.
The problem centers around on the discipline of eschatology, or the Last Days, and on the question, How is the world destined to come to an end? The view that nearly all Christians accept is that at a certain time in the future Jesus will return to earth in a Second Advent, and preside over the Last Judgment, at which all those then alive and all the bodily resurrected dead will be assigned to their final places — and human history, and the world as we know it, will have come to an end.
So far, so good. A troublesome problem, however, comes in various passages in the Bible, in the Book of Daniel, and especially in the final book of Revelation, in which mention is made of a millennium, of a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth — the Kingdom of God on earth (KGE) — before the final Day of Judgment. Who is to establish that kingdom, and what is it supposed to look like?
I have been asked often over the years when and how I came to be such an outspoken critic of war, the military, and the warfare state.
I have been writing about these evils since Bush invaded Iraq in 2003. My first article on the subject was "Eight Facts about Iraq." It was first published in an obscure monthly newsletter soon after the invasion of Iraq and then published by Lew Rockwell on January 2, 2004. My next piece, and first article for this website, was "Christianity and War," which appeared on October 29, 2003. Little did I know that it would turn into a book, now in its second edition, lectures, and the theme of scores of other articles. But my antiwar odyssey did not begin when Bush launched his unconstitutional, immoral, unjust invasion of Iraq. It goes back at least ten years before that dreadful event.
I grew up in sunny central Florida near Patrick Air Force Base. Although I live in central Florida now, for twenty-four years I lived in Pensacola, Florida – the home of the Blue Angels flight demonstration squadron and the "Cradle of Naval Aviation." I was once a conservative Republican – albeit a very libertarian-leaning one – with the usual respect for the military. If it seems to you that I am the most unlikely person to be such a critic of the military, then I agree with you.
Until the late 1980s, I had never really given the subject of the military much thought. It was about then that I began to read – where I have no idea – about how the United States had troops in over a hundred foreign countries. I thought this rather odd, unnecessary, and ridiculous.
The next influence I can recall is Pat Buchanan in 1991 criticizing Bush Sr. for invading Iraq the first time (the Persian Gulf War). This made a notable and lasting impression on me because I was reading Buchanan’s columns and knew he was a conservative Republican. Buchanan went on to write one of the most important studies of World War II ever penned, Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World (2008). I reviewed the book here.
It was sometime in 1993 or 1994 that I made the acquaintance of Lew Rockwell of the Mises Institute. I had stumbled across – where I have no idea – a reference to the Mises Institute publication called The Free Market. This was before LRC and before the Mises Institute had a website. I remember calling and requesting some copies of The Free Market, which were graciously sent to me through the mail. I went on to write for this publication, beginning in 1996. It was through articles in The Free Market that I was introduced to Murray Rothbard. This led me to the Rothbard-Rockwell Report, which I used to read at my mailbox the moment it arrived. It was then that I came to realize that I was more of a libertarian than a conservative. For me, it didn’t begin with Ayn Rand; it began with Murray Rothbard.
Some time in the mid 1990s, I came across an article – where I have no idea – critical of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For years I thought it might have been written by Doug Bandow, but he told me one time when I asked him that he can’t recall if he wrote it or not. This was my first exposure to historical revisionism. My analysis of World War II is "Rethinking the Good War."
In 2001, I began to reprint old books and articles as part of my Classic Reprints series. Two articles I came across in the late 1990s, which I reprinted in 2003 as the Classic Reprint titled Christianity and War, were from Baptist ministers writing in the Christian Review. The first article was called "Wickedness of War." It appeared, unsigned, in June of 1838. It was put online in October of 2002 here. The other article, by someone who called himself Veritatis Amans, appeared in September of 1847. Here I read things like:
War has ever been the scourge of the human race. The history of the past is little else than a chronicle of deadly feuds, irreconcilable hate, and exterminating warfare. The extension of empire, the love of glory, and thirst for fame, have been more fatal to men than famine or pestilence, or the fiercest elements of nature.
And what is more sad and painful, many of the wars whose desolating surges have deluged the earth, have been carried on in the name and under the sanction of those who profess the name of Christ.
It has not been till recently, that the disciples of Christ have been conscious of the enormous wickedness of war as it usually exists. And even now there are many who do not frown upon it with that disapprobation and abhorrence, which an evil of such magnitude as an unjust war deserves.
These articles confirmed for me that there was a conservative religious antiwar tradition that I had never been exposed to.
I have also been influenced along the way by some other individuals, organizations, and institutions, but as they would not wish to be associated with me, I will not mention them.
The immediate occasion of my first writing about the Iraq War was an e-mail that was forwarded to me in 2003 that defended U.S. foreign policy, the war in Afghanistan, and the yet-to-come war in Iraq. The bulk of the text was actually from a London newspaper editorial written in 2002.
Now, I normally ignore or at least don’t reply to e-mail that is forwarded to me. I made an exception in this case because I was so sick of the adoration that many Christians at that time had (and unfortunately still have) for George W. Bush. Here is what I wrote in reply:
Tony Blair is a jerk. George Bush is a jerk. The U.S. has no business sending one soldier to any foreign country, and especially to invade it (as is the case now). The U.S. has been meddling in every foreign country for 100 years. September 11 was a reaction to our stupid foreign policy. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Remember your physics classes?
Then I simply listed some quotes from the Founding Fathers:
Thomas Jefferson: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none."
John Quincy Adams: "America . . . goes not abroad seeking monsters to destroy."
George Washington: "The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible."
This unexpectedly ended up being forwarded to a Bush-worshipping, military-loving individual who had also been sent the original e-mail that I had been forwarded. The emotional God-and-country screed that I personally received as a result of my negative comments prompted me to begin writing about the Iraq War. And the rest is history.
I have now written twenty-five articles about the Iraq War. A war in which of 4,484 American soldiers died, not defending our freedoms or fighting "over there" so we don’t have to fight "over here," but unnecessarily, duped, in vain, and for a lie.
Although the war in Iraq is "officially" over, by the grace of God I will continue writing about the folly of war and the idolatry of military worship, and especially by Christians. With the war in Afghanistan now in its eleventh year, with drone attacks increasing, with the U.S. empire of troops and bases still garrisoning the planet, with U.S. foreign policy still as reckless, belligerent, and meddling as ever, and with the warfare state further eroding our civil liberties, there is a greater need than ever to press on.