Comments (21)

• Brad Dexter

  Well the caution of

  "Though his article doesn't indicate that he has had any second thoughts about his hostility to the free market (or that he even understands the crucial distinction between our present mercantilist system and the free market)"

  seems to be a very important point to remember. Altogether too many (right) libertarians seem willing to embrace the left during this time of war. Just because the Welfare State is following its logical course and finding treasures offshore doesn't give a pass to those who created and support it. Force used inward is just as bad as force used outward. The key is to drastically reduce the State so that it can't inflict harm on anyone. I find the left's slavering desire to end imperial endeavors does not rest in freedom, but that it has a tendency to distract from its own internal Good Works.

  An enemy of an enemy is not a necessarily a friend.

  Published: May 26, 2005 1:50 PM

• Dennis Sperduto

  I understand the history and context behind this issue and I can certainly appreciate anyone's, including Mr. Wolff’s, opposition to the imperialist state. But as an unrecanting Marxist, Mr. Wolff displays tremendous ignorance of basic economics and respect for property rights. Furthermore, Marxism and the various forms of socialism have much more blood on their hands than the imperialist state, which, as Mr. Carson has indicated, has little to do with the free market economy and a property rights legal framework. And what about the "erosion of such individual liberties" that must occur under Marxism. Marxism, inevitably, almost definitially, leads to economic and political totalitarianism.

  I have tremendous respect and admiration for Murray Rothbard, but I think he, in an effort to gain allies in his noble quest to further rational economics and the science of liberty, may have been a little too optimistic regarding the groups that would consistently help to further these most important endeavors. Even the great and heroic Mises was, I believe, wrong in his initial analysis of monopoly, which was later corrected by Rothbard.

  Published: May 26, 2005 1:51 PM

• Vache Folle

  "An enemy of an enemy is not a necessarily a friend."

  The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

  The enemy of my friend is my enemy.

  The enemy of my enemy might also be my enemy but could possibly be a friend.

  The friend of my friend would have to me my friend since if he was an enemy he'd be my enemy, too.

  Published: May 26, 2005 2:48 PM

• Degan

  Marxists are not friends; the collectivists only befriend you while it is expedient to their cause. Once the common enemy is defeated they will be the first to sneak up on you from behind and slit your throat. If the collectivists gain power we all know what happens next, the spying begins and people start disappearing. Anyone who undermines “the greater good� must be eliminated. I wouldn’t advise forming an alliance with slave traders if they happened to be against the war in Iraq either.

  Published: May 26, 2005 5:35 PM

• David Heinrich

  Murray Rothbard often made alliances with groups with whom he disagreed over common ground. Usually, he ultimately ended up disappointed, as these groups wavered. However, the alliances served as short-term usefulness. There is no sense in turning away an ally while an ally.

  Published: May 26, 2005 6:45 PM

• Tom

  I advise you not to waste any more time thinking about a Leftist-Anarchocapitalist coaltion. Why? Anarchy is an inherently unstable condition because power-seekers abhor a vacuum. You're just fooling yourself if you think that a Leftist-Anarchocapitalist coalition could produce a benign state of affairs. If an alliance with the Left ever resulted in the ascendancy of something resembling Anarchocapitalism in the United States (a very unlikely event) that regime would quickly devolve into a Leftist dictatorship. Your real options are to "suffer" under American "imperialism" -- which does, after all, protect your right to utter your foolishness -- or go somewhere worse (e.g., Canada, France, Russia).

  Published: May 26, 2005 7:19 PM

• faramir

  I think I have to agree. I may have opposed to the war in Iraq, but I shudder at sharing any common ground with likes of Michael Moore, Chomsky or Hollywood - who would sell our soul to the European-run United Nations.

  And that doesn't mean I agree with pacifism - philosphy embraced by collaborators.

  Published: May 26, 2005 9:04 PM

• Andy D.

  I think anarchism in the sense of the left, life without government, is impossible, depending on the definition. If the definition is a group of people who force other under thier control, it is possible to be without government. But in the sense I believe , government is a group of people who make decisions for a larger body, is against human nature. A corporation is a form of government. The ideal would probably be a bunch of corporation/governments that would be local, and you had the choice of which corporation to live under.. $.02

  The left is the enemy of the free markets and freedom. They believe freedom is freedom from work and prices, which is ibecilic. They want something for nothing, and they will use all availible violence in order to get it.

  Published: May 26, 2005 9:54 PM

• xteve

  But if we could diffuse some of the hostility Marxists have towards us maybe we can snag some of the marginal Marxists, those who are just exploring ideas, who are intrigued by some aspects of left anarchism but not all.

  To hell with the hard core socialists. They can't be saved.

  Published: May 26, 2005 11:52 PM

• Bob from Seattle

  "But if we could diffuse some of the hostility Marxists have towards us maybe we can snag some of the marginal Marxists, those who are just exploring ideas, who are intrigued by some aspects of left anarchism but not all."

  Exactly. What about the young intelectual with a rebelious anarchistic streak, who is just forming his ethic, and for whatever reason is drawn to read Wolff's article mentioning Murray Rothbard whom he would have never read about before, and proceeds to be hastily converted to a real deal Anarchist by Murry's sitilating logic and breadth of knoledge (including his copious refrences)?

  Murray seemed to quote from, endorse, or celebrate anyone's writings that he thought supported his general point (even John Meynerd Keyens of all people). Anything, it would seem, to promote an honest rigorous dialog on the efficacy and moral legitimacy of the free society, and God bless him for every last bit of it.

  "To hell with the hard core socialists. They can't be saved."

  Yes, this appears to be the rule. I suppose they have too much of their identity tied up in Marxism.

  Published: May 27, 2005 1:51 AM

• Brad Dexter

  ***"An enemy of an enemy is not a necessarily a friend."

  The friend of my enemy is my enemy.

  The enemy of my friend is my enemy.

  The enemy of my enemy might also be my enemy but could possibly be a friend.

  The friend of my friend would have to me my friend since if he was an enemy he'd be my enemy, too.***

  If this is an attempt to belittle me go ahead. Don't you think I know it's rather cliche? So what, it still might hold true, hence why the necessarily (a conditional word) was inserted.

  My statements still stand that accepting the left as cohorts is not particularly sensible as one knows the agenda for domestic tryanny. It has been shaped for decades. It is of little help to use and abet forces to limit broadcast use of force internationally only to have to defeat similar forces at home. Any assistance rendered only makes them stronger. During this time of war, what domestic program the left adores has suffered? None. We have to defeat the left and neo-right simoultaneously. Welfare States and Warfare States are connected and are two indivisible sides to the same coin.

  In the future, don't be an ass toward a person with whom you have no history.

  Published: May 27, 2005 9:40 PM

• Doug

  "Murray Rothbard often made alliances with groups with whom he disagreed over common ground. Usually, he ultimately ended up disappointed, as these groups wavered. However, the alliances served as short-term usefulness. There is no sense in turning away an ally while an ally."

  As I recall from various readings at LewRockwell.com, Rothbard forged a very brief alliance with the hippies over the Vietnam war. He quit when it was apparent (very early on) that he would never make any headway with them on property rights.

  David, I think you are being incredibly naive. The Left would have the libertarians lined up for the firing squad right behind the Republicans. How can you form a strategic alliance with people who want to kill you?

  The libertarians and the Old Right are natural allies. Unfortunately, most libertarians are really just libertines.

  Published: May 30, 2005 8:52 PM

• David Heinrich

  Doug,

  Well, if that isn't a case of fallicious reasoning from the general to the specific, I don't know what is. Simply because many leftists would "have libertarians lined up for the firing squad" doesn't mean all would. I believe the parent-blog was talking about Robert Wolff* specifically.

  Also, I think that forming an alliance to oppose a war in which thousands of people are being murdered, is maybe just slightly more important than maintaining ideological purity and making sure that you don't ally yourself with anyone who may later betray you.

  An alliance on a specific issue -- e.g., opposing the war -- does not necessitate a general alliance.

  --Dave H.

  * Just an interesting trivia, this name is similar to Paul Wolff, a governmental military character from the TV series La Femme Nikita.

  Published: May 30, 2005 9:46 PM

• Doug

  David:

  If Bush had said he was going to war because Saddam allowed Christian worship in defiance of the wishes of the Shi'ite democratic majority, half the Left would have signed up. Their objections to the war are incoherent and unbalanced, and the Old Right are repulsed by them. Hence, I see little to gain from an alliance, however temporary, with the enemy.

  Published: May 31, 2005 10:23 AM

• Rolf

  What a remarkable amount of non-sense, I have personally met a number of so called leftists in my life time though never have I know one who advocated murdering anyone, quite the contrary. "Lining libertarians in front of a firing squade", is a totally ridiculous mind frame to have.

  As for Chomsky, it would be wise to read the Linguists' work before condemning him.
  linguistics for beginners

  Published: June 7, 2005 4:53 AM

• Paul Edwards

  Chomsky presents a very interesting condemnation of a Rothbardian Libertarianism: "so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it." For an interesting discussion see James Ostrowski's "Chomsky's Economics".

  Published: June 7, 2005 11:24 AM

• Adam Odorizzi

  Not sure what you or any of Herr Chomsky's peeps find interesting about "so full of hate that no human being would want to live in it". I've heard that quote about a hundred times in various conversations with Chomsky followers varying from overheated with enemies to friendly with close colleagues but the curiosity is the same: It's a mere assertion, backed up by nothing, and spoken in emotive tongue with no bearing or link to any Rothbard-text. He simply corrals his anger at, well, whatever he's angry at, and projects it onto the 3 or 4 paragraphs (listen, it could be more but focus on how much he actually read hardly helps) of whatever he read of the late Murray. This more or less translates into how he would see himself behaving given the strata of society which Murray Rothbard's world of libertarianism, whatever that means, would slate him. Anyway...

  --Adam

  Published: June 7, 2005 12:31 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Did I give the impression that i found his statement compelling, constructive, or substantiated? Sorry. I just meant to suggest i found it interesting. Why interesting? I suppose because it surprised me when i first read it because my impression at that time was that Chomsky was an anarchist. Anyways, i see this one's a real hot button for some. I won't mention it again. :)

  Published: June 7, 2005 1:28 PM

• Michael A. Clem

  Chomsky's one of those left anarchist types, anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy as well as anti-government. I believe he describes himself as a "libertarian socialist".
  

  Published: June 7, 2005 2:03 PM

• Adam Odorizzi

  I think Chomsky IS an anarchist. I'll give the guy credit for knowing what he believes in, at least. 31 flavors of everything...

  I wasn't being hostile or sensitive. My question was geniune: why is it an interesting statement?

  Published: June 7, 2005 2:04 PM

• Paul Edwards

  Hi Adam: I agree with you (I think) that it's not clear what Chomsky believes in. I’m sure you are kidding when you suggest that an advocate of “31 flavors of everything� plainly constitutes an advocate of anarchy. In any event, i'm certainly with Ostrowski, who puts the difficulty in nailing down Chomsky as follows:

  "It turns out that figuring out what Chomsky is for is not easy. He just doesn't say much about it. He doesn't like what we have now. He disfavors Stalinism and fascism. He despises the libertarian alternative to the present regime, which he calls American libertarianism. So he is not for a minimal state, anarcho-capitalism, or a free market."

  I think Ostrowski gets it right when he concludes that Chomsky advocates some form of state enforced syndicalism:

  "Thus, based on all the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that Chomsky and the gang are not satisfied with the opportunity to practice syndicalism. No, what they really want is to prevent others who disagree with them from engaging in forms of production based on private property. And, though they rarely say as much, they apparently intend to put their rivals out of business by brute force, deadly if necessary."

  Also, aside from my earlier answer, there is no deeper reason why i found Chomsky’s comment interesting.

  Published: June 7, 2005 4:19 PM