Remembering Rothbard
This month marks the 15th anniversary of the death of Murray Rothbard, arguably the most important libertarian theorist of the twentieth century. Although I only met him once in person, his work was influential in developing my “calling” in a number of ways, and the way he approached his scholarly and activist work for libertarianism over his life provides a number of lessons for advancing our own callings and the freedom movement more broadly.
Put simply, I don’t think I would be where I am today without Rothbard’s work. I first became interested in libertarianism in my mid-teens after stumbling across Robert Ringer’s book Restoring the American Dream by chance while working at the local public library. I found his very accessible case for libertarianism persuasive and, being the curious budding intellectual that I was, I looked at his bibliography for more things to read. I wrote down a couple of titles and searched the public library’s card catalog (yes, it was that long ago) to see what we had. The first book in the stacks, believe it or not, was Rothbard’s For a New Liberty. It took me a few years to realize the irony of discovering that book in a public library, an irony that would have elicited Rothbard’s unmistakably joyous cackle if he heard the story.
I devoured the book quickly and was pretty much instantly convinced of the case for radical libertarianism. It was a serious, intellectually rich book that carried with it the passion of someone who saw injustice and had a clear vision of a better world. That book also sketched a vision of the free society that continues to motivate me to this day.
And in the one chance I had to really interact with him, at a series of lectures he gave in the early days of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, when it was located on Capitol Hill, he was not just brilliant and funny but also very gracious to a group of graduate students who were already known to be somewhat critical of aspects of his economics. He autographed books for us, and I still treasure those copies. His personal magnetism was a big part of his ability to persuade so many people to the cause of liberty.
As much as Rothbard was, and remains, an inspiration for why I do what I do today, like the rest of us, he was not without his flaws. His deep passion sometimes spilled over into an impatience with and intolerance toward those who would push the libertarian movement, or Austrian economics, in directions he didn’t think were right. He thought it was important to maintain a certain sort of purity in the freedom movement, and he often reserved his harshest criticisms for those in the movement who he thought were “contaminating” it in various ways. He constantly shifted his alliances from the right to the left and back again, ending with the (unfortunate in my view) “paleo-libertarianism” of his last few years. In the process, he broke from various individuals and organizations and left hurt feelings and frustrations that continue to bedevil the freedom movement to this day.
That behavior was, I think, a product of the impatience that accompanied his passion for liberty. Murray simply could not wait to make the world more free; he had to do whatever it took to accomplish that goal as soon as possible. As admirable as that passion was — and it should be a part of what we do today — it has to be tempered by a degree of patience that prevents us from narrowing our field of vision and alienating those who share our goals. We can’t let our passion bubble over so much that it damages what we are trying to accomplish.
Over the years I have also turned to another thinker as a role model for my academic work: the Austrian economist Israel Kirzner. Kirzner’s patient and deep scholarship, and commitment above all else to truth in economic understanding, should be an inspiration for those of us in the scholarly world. But what’s missing from Kirzner is exactly what Rothbard at his best provided: a clear and radical vision of the free society and a passion for that freedom which was present on every page.
What libertarianism needs right now, when the stakes in the battle of ideas have never been higher, is the passion of Rothbard tempered by the patient and deep scholarly values of Kirzner, with both put in the service of the vision of the free society that Rothbard gave us during his long and illustrious career. Whatever his flaws, Rothbard’s work and his deep commitment to human freedom remain an inspiration to many libertarians and are an important part of my calling to the work I do.
Comment by Stephen MacLean on 14 January 2010:
A lovely tribute to the ‘full’ Murray Rothbard.
Approaching his books from the heretical perspective of Toryism–having first read his Anatomy of the State and now The Ethics of Liberty–Rothbard’s work is, at the very least, a demanding critique that any defence of State action (from my organic Tory principles) must meet exacting standards if it is not to betray its own aims and slip into statist, interventionist fallacies.
Pingback by The Calling: Remembering Rothbard | Anything Peaceful on 14 January 2010:
[...] Read Steven Horwitz’s column here. [...]
Comment by Gaurav Ahuja on 14 January 2010:
I disagree with Dr. Horowitz’s opinion on his shift to paleolibertarianism and his purity stance. This is what made him even more admirable to me. I am glad to read about Dr. Rothbard in F.E.E.
Comment by Jim Wolfe on 14 January 2010:
Steven,
Your piece is sensitivity training at its finest. I’ll try to temper my passion for liberty the next time I encounter a sellout.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 15 January 2010:
Jim,
If you think my argument was a defense of “selling out,” you need to read it again. My point was not about sticking to one’s principles, but about thinking carefully about how best to instantiate them and to not alienate one’s friends in the process. It’s not that Rothbard alienated sellouts – he alienated some hard core libertarians as much as anyone.
Pingback by Steve Horwitz sobre Murray Rothbard | OrdemLivre.org/blog on 15 January 2010:
[...] The Freeman, Steve Horwitz escrever sobre Murray Rothbard, cuja morte completou 15 anos no dia 7 de janeiro: [...]
Comment by Billy on 15 January 2010:
Great tribute Dr. Horwitz.
You show that there is much to learn from Rothbard’s virtues, and much to learn from his faults.
Comment by Tim Kelly on 16 January 2010:
There has always been tension within the libertarian movement over political strategy. After all, our current political system is corrupt and divorced from the rule of law. So how is a “pure” libertarian to participate contructively or should he just drop out and deny the system any legitimacy? You know old saying “don’t vote, it only encourages them.” While alot can be said for that attitude it leaves the field open for statists to run amok. I have always beleived Rothbard was willing to form temporary alliances, both left and right, because he was willing to support anything he believed promoted liberty. That is why he sought alliances with new Left in the 1960s and had many kinds words for Pat Buchanan’s 1992 presidential campaign.
Pingback by As lições de Rothbard « O Insurgente on 16 January 2010:
[...] Arquivado em: Economia, Livros, Política, Teoria — André Azevedo Alves @ 20:00 Remembering Rothbard. Por Steven Horwitz. This month marks the 15th anniversary of the death of Murray Rothbard, arguably [...]
Comment by Mark Thornton on 16 January 2010:
Great piece. Thank you Steve.
Pingback by Remembering Murray Rothbard | Austro-Athenian Empire on 19 January 2010:
[...] last week’s anniversary of Rothbard’s death: two articles by Steve Horwitz and Sheldon [...]
Comment by infoseekr on 20 January 2010:
Steve
pitiful assessment. Shame on you!
Murray Rothbard declared in 1992 that “with Pat Buchanan as our leader, we shall break the clock of social democracy.” Three years later, he said Buchanan developed too much faith in economic planning and centralized state power.
Rockwell wrote in 2000, before himself abandoning the description, that “paleoism” is not dead, but that Buchanan is not the right person to lead a middle class revolt. Rockwell writes:
The libertarian faction of the [paleo] movement saw that far too many compromises were being made to accommodate Buchanan’s increasingly idiosyncratic and statist political views. His anti-free market, pro-trade union bias was now out of the bag; indeed, it became a central theme of his campaign. The idea behind the paleo turn was to decry ideological sellout, not follow some ambitious politician down the same road.
WALTER BLOCK defends Rothbard from Horwitz
http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block142.html
[snippet] It is a fallacy, it is a lie, it is a vicious lie, it is a downright vicious lie, to say that collegiality requires that academic interchange must be free of vigorous controversy. Reasoned academic debate need not be personal and does not at all involve “breaking” with people. If this present response of mine to Horwitz does nothing else, I hope it explodes the fallacy of equating forceful academic debate with personal attacks. Horwitz’s Freeman essay is merely the latest illustration of this fallacy which pervades the culture of Austrian economics; well, at least some subsets of it.
Why is this so dangerous? Because if we swallow this nonsense, we are to that extent less able to vigorously propound positions, and criticize those of others, both within Austrian economics and with regard to the profession as a whole. And, unless we are able to do so, to the best of our ability, without fear or favor, we will not be able to give our utmost to the Austro-libertarian philosophy, the last best hope for the prosperity, and, yes, even survival of, mankind.
Comment by James on 20 January 2010:
Name three men combined that have advanced Austrian Economics and Libertarianism 1/2 as far as Rothbard? I was a student at UNLV while Rothbard and Hoppe were there. I can tell you that I and others disagreed and voiced that disagreement with Dr. Rothbard many times. He would simply state his point, listen very carefully to what your argument was and then proceed to defend his argument and demolish the opposing view. He was never rude, offended, nor dismissive of other views and arguments. Generally his words were seen to be correct and the other side would accept his position. If they didn’t he never dismissed them, or acted in any sense intollerant.
This article is a complete fabrication and a hit peice written for a reason I cannot comprehend as being in line with any one who supports and accepts libertarianism, or Austrian economics. As Dr. Rothbard used to say, “where I see error, i attack it.” To tolerate, or submit to error is not in the job description of an economist. As economists, we must prevent or minimize error, not tolerate it. Dr. Horowitz, how can you attack Dr. Rothbard for doing his job as an economist, and a libertarian.
If being tolerant of error is a virtue that some libertarians, or pseudo (Cato) libertarians wish to follow, just call yourselves republicans or democrats and come out of the closet. The big tent idea only works as far as the allies agree with libertarianism, where they depart we differ and stand on principle. Being co-opted isn’t a valid libertarian/Austrian strategy.
Comment by Tristan on 20 January 2010:
I wonder if the critics read the same article I did.
I think its a good tribute – acknowledging the preeminent position Rothbard had in promoting libertarianism and Austrian economics whilst admitting to his very real flaws.
Comment by Steve Horwitz on 20 January 2010:
Tristan:
They didn’t. They read they article they wanted to read.
This was not a “hit piece.” This was a sincere and heart-felt tribute to Murray’s influence on my work and my life, but one that also recognized he was no god and had flaws. (I could write a similar piece about Mises if you’d like.) I was honest about my disagreements with Rothbard in just the ways his blind defenders say is so important in intellectual interchanges. And for that, I get attacked for doing so. Ironic, eh?
That’s all it was: a sincere and heart-felt tribute to a man who was a major influence on my life and my work but who was human like the rest of us. Period. Anything else one sees there is utterly of one’s own making.
Comment by JR on 20 January 2010:
Tristan I agree with you. Unfortunately anytime there is even a slight criticism of an Austrian giant like Rothbrad bad motives are impugned. I totally disagree with Walter Block of whom I am a big fan of. However this was not a “condescending” piece. This was a very beautiful piece in which the author gave one of the highest praises you can give when he said that Rothbard is an “an inspiration for why I do what I do today” Beatiful!
The criticism he offers frankly doesn’t impress me since it seems to be more of a personality critique not really substantive at all. I dont know what Horowitz means when he says it is unfortunate that he was a “paleo libertarain”. I think the term was very apropo and it is accurate. We shouldn’t turn Rothbard into his arch nemesis Rand where if you criticize him you are bad. Like I said I find his criticism unconvincing especially his misleading statement that he turned left another discredited canard he seems to swallow. This was pro Rothbard piece.Tristan I agree with you. Unfortunately anytime there is even a slight criticism of an Austrian giant like Rothbrad bad motives are impugned. I totally disagree with Walter Block of whom I am a big fan of. However this was not a “condescending” piece. This was a very beautiful piece in which the author gave one of the highest praises you can give when he said that Rothbard is an “an inspiration for why I do what I do today” Beatiful!
The criticism he offers frankly doesn’t impress me since it seems to be more of a personality critique not really substantive at all. I dont know what Horowitz means when he says it is unfortunate that he was a “paleo libertarain”. I think the term was very apropo and it is accurate. We shouldn’t turn Rothbard into his arch nemesis Rand where if you criticize him you are bad. Like I said I find his criticism unconvincing especially his misleading statement that he turned left another discredited canard he seems to swallow. This was pro Rothbard piece.Tristan I agree with you. Unfortunately anytime there is even a slight criticism of an Austrian giant like Rothbrad bad motives are impugned. I totally disagree with Walter Block of whom I am a big fan of. However this was not a “condescending” piece. This was a very beautiful piece in which the author gave one of the highest praises you can give when he said that Rothbard is an “an inspiration for why I do what I do today” Beatiful!
The criticism he offers frankly doesn’t impress me since it seems to be more of a personality critique not really substantive at all. I dont know what Horowitz means when he says it is unfortunate that he was a “paleo libertarain”. I think the term was very apropo and it is accurate. We shouldn’t turn Rothbard into his arch nemesis Rand where if you criticize him you are bad. Like I said I find his criticism unconvincing especially his misleading statement that he turned left another discredited canard he seems to swallow. This was pro Rothbard piece.
Comment by D-A on 21 January 2010:
Steven, I very much enjoyed your article.
I have extremely high regards for prof. Walter block and consider him my favorite economist/political philosopher alive today. I have even emailed him to tell him just that.
But I think he took too much from the piece. Im not saying he went way overboard or anything but I consider it a slight over reaction. On the other hand i am not as up on all the partisan fighting in the Austrian movement anyway.
Either way good work and you almost have me convinced of free banking.
Comment by Mike on 21 January 2010:
Wow, you’d think from some of the comments on here that this article absolutely EXCORIATES Rothbard! I don’t see that. It praises him, along with a few lines of mild disagreement with his tactics. It’s nothing to get upset about.
Comment by New England Patriots Jerseys on 4 February 2012:
Excellent! it’s the term that comes in my opinion after i look at your blog and when I just read what you need to say. Your opinions are extremely much alike my own. We happy which i decided to enter your website and find out what you’re thinking about.
Trackback by stop spam plugin on 8 February 2012:
Valuable wordpress plugin…
[...]we came across a cool site that you might enjoy. Take a look if you are looking for a way to clean your blog from spam links.[...]……
Comment by fazsha on 2 March 2012:
Looking at the comments, my takeaway is this. Rothbard was a genius. Yet I don’t agree with all his views. He defended abortion by viewing the fetus as merely an “alien invader” that the mother had the right to expunge from her body any time. It’s a viewpoint; I don’t agree with it. Yet that in no way diminishes my regard for Rothbard.
I think Walter Block is right that vigorous debate should be embraced. And who hasn’t felt alienated when their viewpoint has been challenged? So, I don’t think it’s Rothbard’s fault if someone’s feelings got hurt debating issues, or even if he abandoned them. This is a search for truth, and Rothbard, through his endless writings, paid for that search with his toil. I am grateful.