From Rothbard’s August 11, 1984 letter to Tony Flood:
Dear Tony:I read your letter in some distress. My my: a blend of mysticism and utilitarianism, holism and Buddhism, all this adds up to what a friend of mine would call “my second favorite thing.†My first favorite? Who knows—it’s a tie between a bunch of things: an example—being kicked in the groin by a concentration camp guard. Frankly, I consider the whole thing gibberish. I’ve know some others who have gone the same route, but usually it takes a pre-immersion in California and its outré life-style. A word of caution? The only point I can make at this juncture is to relay a wise word form that great and hard-hitting Thomist work: Father Toohey’s Notes on Epistemology. Toohey said: look with great mistrust on any philosophic concept that employs capital letters: e.g., your “Absolute Self.â€
Also, I don’t think the Buddhist defense of liberty is going to get anywhere. If we are all part of one another’s self (or Self) then surely it is OK for me to cut off my toe-nail, and suppose that I regard the guy down the block as my cosmic toe-nail, or Toe-Nail? What then, O guru?
Tony, you’re a great fellow, but there are two kinds of intellectuals in this world, the Seekers and the Finders, and I am afraid that you are an unregenerate Seeker. I don’t know if anything can save you from seven years of Buddhism at this point, but you might try, before you proceed any further, Volume I, Chapter 1, of Leszek Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism, “The Origin of the Dialectic,†and the marvelous, acidulous work of Norman Cohn, Pursuit of the Millenium [sic].
Vaya con Dios,
Murray Rothbard
Update: more information on the correspondence referenced above, including the letter Rothbard was referring to.
{ 17 comments }
Rothbard could beat Chuck Norris.
I like Rothbard’s sense of humour.
I bet he was fun at parties.
The only libertarian I can think of who buys into that kind of stuff is Matthew C, who has a blog at amnap.blogspot.com but pops up frequently at other places. I’m sure there are plenty of others though.
Was Rothbard a meestic? What were his views on religion?
Is it not known that trust those that seek the truth , but doubt those who claim to have found it?
I think he was irreligious, but he had a positive attitude towards religion as a crutch for liberty.
Well, I didn’t read the letter, but am I the only guy here who is not digging the new Mises format?
I don’t think so…
Gotta agree, it’s rather counter-intuitive.
Although Rothbard and Mises seem pretty hostile to mystic, pantheistic, monistic, etc. beliefs. It sure seems to me that the connections between mysticism and libertarianism/anarchism go deep. I’m thinking of doing my senior research project (sort of a undergrad dissertation) on the link.
Anybody thinking mysticism and anti-state philosophy are unrelated or even antithetical should take a look at some of this mystic anarchist(or libertarian) or anarchist/libertarian mystic worthies:
Thoreau
Robert Anton Wilson
Lao Zi
Tolstoy
Leonard Reed?(need to investigate more)
Hakim Bey
Others have suggested I look into the following, though right now I lack the personal knowledge to comment on their degree of mystic belief:
William B. Greene
Thomas Hagerty
Ralph Chaplin
Dorothy Day
Ammon Hannacy
Ezra Haywood
Charles Lane
William Lloyd Garrison
Why the link? Well a cynic might say that people who are open to one set of out-there beliefs are more likely to embrace another set. Roderick Long has an article suggesting links between the belief and organizational structures of different religions and the political structures the believers in these faiths tend to support. http://libertariannation.org/a/f23l2.html
Believers in a direct, unmediated relationship with the divine might be inclined to favor direct, egalitarian, relationships between people. Personally I’m inclined to think that a belief in self-organizing society and economy fits in well with an appriciation for the omnipresent god of a self-organizing universe and natural world.
Interesting, thanks for the article Benjamin.
Well, I didn’t read the letter, but am I the only guy here who is not digging the new Mises format?
Um, no. The new format is cleaner, but uglier. It looks like one of those really old, neglected parts of the web, now.
Daoism is interesting when it is followed by the Emperor, like Kang Xi, but when the Emperor is more like Hitler, it’s very anti-libertarian.
In Christianity, the individual should try to make the world (which is fallen) conform to God’s law, or Natural Law. When religion is purged, you end up with Communism and Nazism attempting to conform the world to man’s desires. In the East, the individual should conform to the world as it is. There are many similar values and virutes, but the root philosophical difference is enormous.
If you’ll read Jonathan Israel’s “The Dutch Republic,” I think you’ll find that modern concepts of liberty began in the Dutch Republic in the late 16th century. Dutch Protestants implemented the ancient Christian idea that all men are equal under God, applying it to law. French Hugenot’s developed the idea that kings are subject to God’s laws even as the common people are, and from that premise concluded that the people can overthrow a tyrannical king. The Catholic Church had long taught these principles, but for some reason didn’t implement them in the law and government. The Dutch Republic did, giving poor people the first real protection of property, freedom from government confiscation, and freedom of religion/conscience.
The reference to Father Toohey and his ‘Notes on Epistemology’ was of course to tempting to resist a google search.
What I found, of course, is that the Mises Institute has made this book available in a nice .pdf format for anyone who wants to read it.
http://mises.org/books/toohey.pdf
God bless you, Mises Institute. (And thanks to Anthony Flood, who did the scanning only this year!)
TBH, before having a look at his work I thought Father Toohey might be some eccentric crank – but it seems he has written a substantial work on epistemology – I will have to read it when I get the time.
He is wrong, no proof, if you do not agree you were always wrong. Its that simple your in a true Duality
deal with it. Once it makes sense maybe you will be right but he is still wrong. you people enjoy a false sense of being full of your self but by and by
your answer your self than we can all stop digging ditches with dictionaries.
Clearly, Rothbard has never taken a large dose of LSD, or any other personality-melting psychedelic. He might soften his convictions, and he might also embrace more speculative philosophies.
“If we are all part of one another’s self (or Self) then surely it is OK for me to cut off my toe-nail, and suppose that I regard the guy down the block as my cosmic toe-nail, or Toe-Nail? What then, O guru?”
Uhm, then you’re wrong? You don’t stab yourself in the heart, do you?
Comments on this entry are closed.