I was just having a conversation with a visiting political philosopher from Northern Italy. He asked about a sense he has picked up from American political philosphy literature and culture. He said, and he was cautious in saying so, that he sensed that “Rothbard seems to be somehow ostracized by the profession.” He meant that mainstream books and articles do not typical deal with Rothbard’s contributons as a libertarian who hammered out a property-rights-based case for stateless society. He wondered how to account for this.
Bemused that he would wonder why–American libertarians are rather used to this fact–I asked whether it is any different in Italy. He was surprised that I was taken aback to find out that it is completely different there. No political philosopher, he said, can write broadly in his or her main field without treating Rothbard as an important thinker whose contribution must be acknowledged and grappled with. Writing about Rothbard and having knowledge of his main works–he is well translated into Italian–is a sign of academic erudition and sophistication.
How to account for this? The prophets-in-their-own-land effect? The domination of the field by Nozick? Fear of anarchism? The dearth of Rothbardian political philosophers working and teaching? Will this change in the future? All interesting questions.
{ 21 comments }
I would also have been surprised to learn that political philosophers need to treat Rothbard’s contributions seriously.
However, I’ll take a stab at it why it might be the case. Could it be partially due to the fact that people over there have been burned, in the recent past, even more severely than Americans have, by the lies and actions of their own establishment and are therefore more reluctant to be spoon fed the state line from everything from the need to invade their neighbor, to the beauty of Keynesian economics?
I once read an interesting spin on the difference between the Soviet citizen and the American. The Soviet citizen tended to know his government was always lying to him. The American remains oblivious to it. Perhaps the same goes in Academia as well.
I suspect there are lots of holes in this, but it occurred to me so i’m just putting it out.
I know that in Swedish universities, Rothbard is virtually non-existent just like Austrian economics and Ayn Rand’s Objectivism. My philosophy teacher had heard Ayn Rand’s name but didn’t know much about her and hadn’t even heard Rothbard’s name much less knew anything about him.
The only “libertarians” mentioned are Robert Nozick in Political Philosophy and Milton Friedman (Although Hayek is sometimes briefly mentioned)in Economics.
Maybe a considerable dose of personal and professional animosity and jealousy on the part of U.S. academia have contributed to Rothbard’s shoddy treatment. Or maybe the treatment is due to the fact that he has no qualms in calling a spade a spade. Or studying Rothbard may open up many cans of worms that the U.S. “intellectual” establishment would like to avoid.
Please do not misunderstand me. I’m not arguing that others have to necessarily agree with all or even most of Rothbard’s arguments. But it is inexcusable that his teachings are not properly acknowledged and addressed. Rothbard’s fate in this regard is not unlike the fate given to Mises in the later part of his life by the academic/intellectual establishment.
As a Philosophy Phd student at a top program, I can verify that Rothbard is not even on the radar. In survery Political Philosophy courses, Nozick will usually get 1 of the 10 seminars. Friedman might be a secondary reading for that day but perhaps not. Every once in a while Mises’s name comes up in connection with Oskar Lange and the calcuation debate. But never Rothbard.
I find it very interesting that things are so different in Italy. American academics are so disconnected from reality that I suppose things couldn’t be any worse over there. And perhaps they are much better.
Greg, if you have a minute or two, I’m wondering what the academics in philosophy are saying about Mises and the socialist calculation debate. Are they still claiming that Lange, Lerner, and company won the debate? Actually, I feel uncomfortable using the term “debate”, since an actual debate can only exist where both sides have a possibility of winning. Mises demonstrated the impossibility of economic calculation in a true socialist economy in 1920 with the publication of his initial article on socialist calculation; his thesis as presented in that article has never been refuted.
In Italy Rothbard is taken very seriously by many political scientists but is virtually unknown among economists. You can get a degree in economics without ever hearing of Rothbard or even Mises.
Only a small number of Rothbard’s works are currently in print in Italy, although a biography of him came out a few years ago: “Stato e anarchia. Il pensiero politico del libertarismo americano: Murray Newton Rothbard” by Stefania Mazzone, 2000. Mazzone is a young political historian and teaches at the Department of Political Sciences, University of Catania (http://www.fscpo.unict.it/rubrica_docenti.asp). I wonder if she has ever been in touch with the Mises Institute?
I find the preoccupation with Rothbard on this website remarkable. When one looks at the depth and breadth of Hayek’s work, one wonders quite why so much attention is paid. Hayek is an order of magnitude more interesting and penetrative
Hayek certainly led a much more interesting life, but I think he did not fully appreciate the possibilities of the free market as much as Rothbard did. Also, as shown on a previous discussion on this blog, Hayek’s currency model does little to prevent inflation.
On a separate theme, the study of Rothbard in Italy is connected to the emergence of a new discipline called “political science” there as distinct from economics. Originally a spin-off of philosophy departments, it specialises in the study of “human action”, so their interest in Mises and Rothbard is not surprising.
Since this website is associated with the Mises Institute and since Murray N. Rothbard is arguably the leading scholar that worked in the Misesian tradition in the second half of the twentieth century, it is not at all “remarkable” that the Mises Institute website is “preoccupied” with Rothbard. Furthermore, the Mises Institue is also dedicated to the dissemination of Classical Liberal/Libertarian thought in a number of disciplines, and with Rothbard one of the leading, if not the leading, Libertarian of his time, the emphasis of the website is easily understandable. Furthermore, there are arguably notable differences in the thought of Mises and Hayek, and the Mises Institute, while certainly recognizing Hayek’s teachings, is first and foremost devoted to the dissemination and scholarly advancement of the ideas of Mises (and Rothbard). Finally, as to whether Hayek’s thought is “an order of magnitude more interesting and penetrative” than Rothbard’s, I believe that issue is open to considerable debate.
I think there is both an economic and political component to Rothbard. I loved his lectures on economics and he is in the mold of Mises.
Economics crosses into Politics, but Mises, while writing about bureaucracy and socialism never tried to extend the market into a universal philosophy, though he described every aspect of the market.
The difficulty comes in with Rothbard trying to find market solutions for everything including things like people who are irrationally violent or when they don’t respect property. And you can find anarchic communities everywhere, e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan between the Russian pullout and the Taliban. They don’t self-organize into AnCap paradises. There is no government, but I don’t see lovers of freedom signing up to go there because there isn’t really freedom either.
I tend to agree with Any Rand and the Objectivists who posit a necessary but very limited role for a “government” (some Libertarians end up recreating a government but will not speak its name). If I have a problem with Ayn Rand is that Terry Goodkind’s Sword of Truth series is probably a better exposition than Atlas Shrugged. John Galt has no parents or heritage, manages to do magical things (e.g. there is an invisibility shield for Galt’s Gultch that solves the problem of a military in the fictional world), and seems to never suffer or make mistakes. And there is no sequel where a second generation of GGers have to cope with any difficulties. For that matter you don’t see children in Galt’s Gulch.
Politics is more subtle than economics, and economics isn’t considered a hard science.
So I think it depends which Rothbard you are talking about.
Dennis: The calculation debate doesn’t really come up. It is a fascinating point that Mises made but I think the commitment alot of academics have to socialism is at a level that Mises’s argument doesn’t really touch, if you know what I mean. —- Greg
Actually, Mises himself would have disagreed with many of the opinions of the Mises Institute. Most likely he wouldn’t have scored more than 80% on the “Are you an Austrian?” test.
I am reading his book “Bureaucracy” (1962) and in the first chapter Mises states that “there can be no state without public offices and bureaoucratic methods. And since human collaboration cannot function without a state, a certain amount of bureaucracy is inevitable” (my translation from the German edition). So Mises was definitely not an anarcho-capitalist.
Was Rothbard an anarcho-capitalist? I am not sure, but I don’t think he was either.
Hi Bruno:
Your assertion that von Mises would probably not have scored better than 80% on the “are you an Austrian” quiz is very intriguing. Would you mind indicating which questions you think he would get “wrong” and how you think he would have chosen?
For sure Mises was not an anarchist, but then again, i don’t think he nailed monopoly either, so i have to conclude that even the Greats must leave some room for improvement of at least some of their positions.
(And I do think Rothbard was a hard-core anarcho-capitalist, in contrast with Mises.)
Paul,
I believe you are correct: Mises was not an anarcho-capitalist, while Rothbard was. Mises, perhaps, may best be described as an extremely limited government Classical Liberal. If you have time, I highly recommend that you read Rothbard’s “Laissez Faire Radical: A quest for the Historical Mises”, and also Mises “Liberalism”, both of which I believe are in the Mises Institute’s Study Guide.
Paul:
The questions which Mises would have answered “wrongly” are the following
10. What is the proper size and scope of government?
15. What do taxes fund?
22. What are the economic implications of national defense?
23. What about goods like education and roads?
This should probably be called “The Murray Rothbard Institute”.
Dennis:
Do you know of any works in which Rothbard explicitly advocated anarcho-capitalism?
Thanks Bruno: I’m trying to avoid re-taking the quiz to determine what the choices are and then guess how you think he would have answered. Do you know off the top how you think he would have chosen for the questions you enumerate?
Bruno,
I am certainly no expert on this subject, the Mises Institute has several scholars associated with it who are, but here is where I would start (all are books by Rothbard): “The Ethics of Liberty”; “For a New Liberty”; and, “Power and Market”, which is now incorpoated into the new Mises Institute Edition of “Man, Economy, and State”. Also, Professor Hoppe (and I do not mean to slight anyone else) has written an outstanding essay regarding Rothbard’s work which is in R. Holcombe’s “15 Great Austrian Economists”. In addition, David Gordon of the Mises Institute has just posted on the Mises Blog (I believe on 7-29-05) a biographical essay regarding Rothbard’s work, and I believe Mr. Gordon has published a monograph, which, if I correctly recall, is entitled “Murray Rothbard: A Scholar in Defense of Freedom”.
I hope this helps.
Bruno,
To answer the question for Dennis. Rothbard touches anarcho-capitalism in all his works.
For example the economics of a free society in “Man, Economy and State” then private police services in “Power & Market”, with the discussion of all shortcomings of the state vs. the market.
Then you have the discussion of anarcho-capitalism it self in “For A New Liberty”(MUST READ)
And finally the ethics of an anarcho-capitalist society in “The Ethics of Liberty”
Of course there are other books and tons of articles, but these are the books by Rothbard that I have read on the subject.
As far as the name of the Institute goes, I think the name is just fine. The contributions that Mises has made to Austrian economics( e.g. keeping it alive, 25 books etc.), economics in general, liberalism and all the people he inspired gave Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard the incentive to found this institute. And I think Rothbard himself would like the name to stay the same, out of respect for his teacher and friend. Everyone is of course free to found the Murray Rothbard Institute or Eugen von Bohm-Bawerk Insitute, but the name of this institute should stay the same in my opinion.
To defend the Misesian quality of the quiz, it is true that on the questions highlighted above (10, 15, 22, 23) the Austrian answer certainly certainly stretches Mises’s thought beyond the point which he was not willing to take it. However, I think he would have even more strongly reject the public-goods, neutral-spending, and faux-market implications of the next-best answer in the question set (Chicago School). So in designing the questions, we faced a choice of making every single Austrian answer wholly Misesian (thus pretending as if there have been no theoretical advances at all since the 1950s) or pushing the Austrian answer a bit more toward its modern variant, while making the next based answer something that Mises was clearly reject (its rationale, in any case, if not its policy recommendation). We chose the 2nd option on a few, and that strikes me as entirely reasonable. So I do think the post above oversimplifies the issue for effect.
Regarding the name of the Mises Institute, I believe it shoud remain as it currently is. While I have tremendous respect and admiration for Murray N. Rothbard’s work, I would argue that Ludwig von Mises’s contributions to economic science are unequaled by anyone in the 20th century. Excluding epistemological issues, Rothbard’s contributions are arguably elaborations, and in the case of monopoly theory a correction, of the Misesian framework.
Thanks to all who replied to my message, Murray Rothbard was indeed an anarcho-capitalist. I was not aware of this because the only book I had read by him was “America’s Great Depression”.
My suggestion about the name of the institute was a bit tongue-in-cheek, of course I agree that the name is fine as it is.
Comments on this entry are closed.