Comments on: Remembering Rothbard

By: stop spam plugin

stop spam plugin — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 06:05:45 +0000

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.[...]……

By: New England Patriots Jerseys

New England Patriots Jerseys — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 10:27:58 +0000

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.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:29:03 +0000

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.

By: D-A

D-A — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:24:47 +0000

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.

By: JR

JR — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:26:21 +0000

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.

By: Steve Horwitz

Steve Horwitz — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:46:11 +0000

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.

By: Tristan

Tristan — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 22:00:13 +0000

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.

By: James

James — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 19:31:10 +0000

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.

By: infoseekr

infoseekr — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 17:06:54 +0000

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.

By: Remembering Murray Rothbard | Austro-Athenian Empire

Remembering Murray Rothbard | Austro-Athenian Empire — Tue, 19 Jan 2010 17:05:48 +0000

[...] last week’s anniversary of Rothbard’s death: two articles by Steve Horwitz and Sheldon [...]