Rothbard destroys a common statist argument.

A short extract from Murray Rothbard's book "The Ethics of Liberty". Credit to Mises Institute Media. Source:
http://mises.org/media/2107/24-The-Moral-Status-of-Relations-to-the-State [See: 14:34]

Listen to an audiobook of The Ethics of Liberty:
http://mises.org/media/category/95/The-Ethics-of-Liberty

Think this is a strawman and statists don't really make this argument? Watch TheAzov:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rm1SM3xEBy0

Link to that timeline of empires:
http://www.oxfordcartographers.com/timeline/time.htm

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Murray
• N.
• Rothbard
• destroys
• common
• statist
• argument
• statism
• liberty
• libertarianism
• authority
• authoritarianism
• human
• nature
• social
• state
• socialism
• anarchy
• anarchism
• polycentric
• law
• economy
• coercion
• private
• defence
• fallacy
• albert
• jay
• nock
• political
• politics
• freedom
• anarcho-capitalism
• ethics
• of

[DearCongress]

I don't think Rothbard "destroys" anything here. On one hand, Rothbard's argument is founded on the idea that "the state" DESTROYS "voluntary interchange and individual creativity" (and so on) without sufficiently defining the mechanisms by which it accomplishes this feat. With some exceptions, that statement is ultimately false. Additionally, he asserts that the state is not required by the nature of man, which is true, the state is required by the nature of large, heterogeneous populations.

[StatelessLiberty]

@DearCongress It wasn't intended to map out the whole economic case against the state - if you want that see Rothbard's "Man, Economy and State". The claims he makes here are supported by his other works.

The purpose was to point out the non-sequitur in a common statist argument - the claim that "libertarians believe individuals are atomistic" - because it implies that a rejection of the state must mean a rejection of society. It's still a non-sequitur even if his economic claims are false.

[WalterLiddy]

There is no leap. Private individuals have interests and biases, and in every place in history a heirarchical order has been established. The question is whether that order should be tyrannical or whether it should take the form of an impartial government serving the interests of all and biased in no one's favour. If you have a 'private organization' that works to protect everyone (i.e., policing and arbitration) then you have simply renamed democratic government a 'private organization'.

[StatelessLiberty]

@WalterLiddy "If you have a 'private organization' that works to protect everyone ... then you have simply renamed democratic government a 'private organization'."

No. There's a massive difference between a market of non-geographical competing arbitration and defence agencies, and an institution with a monopoly over a geographical area on law and defence, while forcing people in the geographical area to pay for what it produces.

This difference should be obvious.

[StatelessLiberty]

@wotan237 The power of large corporations derives from state privilege.

[StatelessLiberty]

@WalterLiddy

"Private individuals have interests and biases"

"an impartial government serving the interests of all and biased in no one's favour."

Nice, a contradiction. People have biases, so we need an unbiased government to run society! A government is just a group of people.

"whether that order should be tyrannical or whether it should take the form of an impartial government"

Please look up the term "false dichotomy".

[BIoodrunk]

I'd support libertarianism if only it wasn't so immoral in its opposition to the importance of race, culture, nationalism, anti globalism and anti immigration.

[mosesesom]

@StatelessLiberty I agree pretty much completely with what you have said. An impartial government is an impossibility because of the fact it is made up of "individuals [who] have interests and biases." @DearCongress, I don't think it would be necessary to enumerate the ways in which the state crushes voluntary action amongst private individuals. Nearly everything the government does restricts freedoms and/or coercively takes resources from private individuals, which restricts freedom in itself.

[danielamin]

@WalterLiddy The fallacy that government is a supernatural entity comprised entirely by altruistic robots and not by humans susceptible to the same flaws as everyone else...

The difference here, though, is that the state has coercive power to impose their biases at their discretion. There's no reason for them to be impartial or serve the interests of all. They don't even know your name. All they know is that you were gullible enough to believe their sweet-talk and vote for them.

[drmarmy]

@matako07 that is a massive load of BULLSHIT. The state is the easy answer; "Do what we say or we'll KILL you!". Libertarianism is the only philosophy that acknowledges that morals are subjective. Its answer is that people should come together voluntarily and that issues should be resolved through discussion and debate NOT the truncheon. Humanity has warred for centuries, over issues of "who shall rule whom". That path is the dead end path. Libertarianism is the future.

[WhackTheWax]

I think people who don't get this, will in time.

[matako07]

@blackacidlizzard Yawn indeed.

[DearCongress]

@StatelessLiberty I'll probably read his work at some point (I have a long reading list at the moment), but just going on what is said in this video, it also occurred to me that another problem with his argument (as presented here at least), is that he asserts that the state "cripples" division of labor, without acknowledging that government itself, is simply another "division" of labor. Just as doctors or lawyers represent specializations, so to do governors, legislators, presidents, and so on.

[blackacidlizzard]

@masluxx

watch?v=fEkWH8DB7b0

But thaks for playing, Mas

[blackacidlizzard]

@matako07

^yawn^ take your projection somewhere else.

[matako07]

Libertarianism is One Massive Intellectual Cul de Sac...it goes no where because it is Not Adaptable to opinions to that Diverge COMPLETELY from LiberTardianism.

The reality that there are many useful,mundane,beneficial aspects of the Big Bad State.

The blanket absolutism of Libertarianism is appealing to those who Expect Easy Answers and Easy Solutions to Age Old Problems..

Problems that millions of people throughout history have been fighting against.