Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

"is considered by some to be"

Since this has been reverted a few times, just to be nitpicky, technically the sources says Rothbard IS the Dean. However, obviously LewRockwell.com is a bit biased, so either it should be noted as "LewRockwell.Com describes Rothbard as" or left as the non-referenced but more accurate "is considered by some to be." I'm happy to leave it as it is but if others want to debate the merits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard on race

To counter the now deleted quotes from the Salon piece I put together a better overview of Rothbard's views on race. The Salon piece is based on material from The New Republic and Reason which was contested by Raimondo and others at the time. So those should be the source of any criticism and response not the second hand Salon piece. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the Salon refs because Rothbard was quoted, but no source was given for the quotes. The overall tone of the piece is troubling, as well, with everything directed toward proving Rothbard was a racist, and that, by extension, his allies are as well. The information you added is better sourced, Carol. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong impression about Rothbard's views

Language at two places gives the wrong impression.

"Rothbard advocated minimum coercive government control of the economy." 'Minimum' is euphemistic. Rothbard opposed government tooth-and-nail. "Priding himself on his radicalism, he used to brag that if there were a button one could push that would sweep away all vestiges of government in an instant, he would break his thumb pushing it." http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f23l1.html How about: Rothbard advocated abolition of governments.

"Rothbard concluded that virtually all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector." 'Virtually' is against Rothbard's philosophy. Rothbard is one of the few libertarians who don't see any place for governments at all. The 'virtually', at least, should be deleted.

The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects. Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. Morally, it must be considered as illegitimate and outside of the ordinary libertarian legal system, which delimits and insures the rights and just properties of private citizens. Thus, from the point of view of justice and morality, the State can own no property, require no obedience, enforce no contracts made with it, and indeed, cannot exist at all. The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, New York University Press, 1982, 1998; pp. 187

115.242.216.161 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan to replace `minimum' by `removal of' and remove `virtually', in the two sentences respectively. Any objections? 115.184.123.103 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good for you for catching it. Check out Libertarianism where some people are trying to delete any ref to libertarian anarchism. I just haven't had time or energy to come up with the MANY new refs for that topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Made the two changes.115.184.17.128 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I know the changes are right but I didn't really check to see if that's what the WP:RS say, meaning better WP:RS might be needed. Too many articles, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, no problem. Here is a collection of quotes from Rothbard. Please put proper references in the article too (when you get time to do so!).

• ["virtually all services":] All of this the libertarian denies: he sees the various apologia as fraudulent means of obtaining public support for the State’s rule, and he insists that whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise. [p. 32] For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Murray N. Rothbard; Revised Online edition, Ludwid von Mises Institute; 2002

• [role of State in the society:] But the critical difference between libertarians and other people is not in the area of private crime; the critical difference is their view of the role of the State—the government. For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical, whether red, white, blue, or brown. [p. 54] For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Murray N. Rothbard; Revised Online edition, Ludwid von Mises Institute; 2002 (emphasis in the original)

• ["limited state":] Advocates of a limited government often hold up the ideal of a government above the fray, refraining from taking sides or throwing its weight around, an "umpire" arbitrating impartially between contending factions in society. Yet why should the government do so? Given the unchecked power of the State, the State and its rulers will act to maximize their power and wealth, and hence inexorably expand beyond the supposed "limits." The crucial point is that in the Utopia of limited government and laissez faire, there are no institutional mechanisms to keep the State limited. Surely the bloody record of States throughout history should have demonstrated that any power, once granted or acquired, will be used and therefore abused. Power corrupts, as the libertarian Lord Acton so wisely noted. Furthermore, apart from the absence of institutional mechanisms to keep the ultimate decision-maker and force-wielder "limited" to protection of rights, there is a grave inner contradiction inherent in the very ideal of a neutral or impartial State. ... [p. 211] The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998 (all emphasis in the original)

• ["limited state", continued:] Finally there is a crucial inconsistency in the proferred criterion of laissez-faire itself: limiting the government to protection of person and property. For, if it is legitimate for a government to tax, why not tax its subjects to provide other goods and services that may be useful to consumers: why shouldn't the government, for example, build steel plants, provide shoes, dams, postal service, etc.? For each of these goods and services is useful to consumers. [p. 217] The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998

• [relation to the State:] It means, for example, that no one is morally required to obey the State (except insofar as the State simply affirms the right of just private property against aggression). For, as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property. This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, "stealing" from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, "homesteading" property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good. Here a partial exception can be made where the State has clearly stolen the property of a specific person.... [p. 218]The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998 (emphasis in the original)

N6n (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is because in libertarianism we've got these nutty minarchists who want to quote Rothbard as THE expert on why libertarianism has nothing to do with any kind of anarchism! So at some point they may drift over here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard the father of Libertarianism? really?

Even if we were to send to oblivion the fact that the French anarchist-communist Joseph Déjacque is credited with developing the idea of Libertarianism in the late 18 century, is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to use Rockwell's website to claim without attribution that Rothbard is "considered the founder of libertarianism"?

And more importantly, is www.lewrockwell.com a reliable website to use for this article? 198.22.236.230 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems it could use better sourcing (or more nuance, given the obvious leanings of lewrockwell.com). An assertion that may need balancing viewpoints probably is not best placed in the opening sentence. BigK HeX (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 441 Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism Rothbard article says Rothbard "was of central importance to the modern libertarian movement because of both his writing and scholarship and his personal outreach to young libertarians." This sounds like a good source. (Note: Sources pointing out he was often called "Mr. Libertarian". CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that "important figure in the modern libertarian movement" or some such is probably less contentious. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Carol what you posted is a far cry from Rothbard being considered "the father of Libertarianism". There's an evident difference between being associated with libertarian ideas and being credited as the "the founder" of them.

In my opinion, Rockewell's assertions merely reflect his affiliation with Rothbard and not a widely held view of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.132.56 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was this was a WP:RS way of describing him instead of "father of Libertarianism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. It should definitely differentiate between the American notion of libertarianism (ie; Anarcho-capitalism) and the classical (more widely embraced) European view of libertarianism. 198.22.236.230 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See Libertarianism article which has multiple refs on that topic, since worldwide libertarianism means both, usually pro-property in more mainstream sources; or both in sources that have a broader overview. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed intro

Murray N. Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism, a political philosophy he developed by synthesizing elements of the Austrian School of economics, individualist anarchism, non-interventionism and a revisionist history of the U.S. War of Independence, making him a central figure of the contemporary American libertarian movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.152.95 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can reference that particular synthesis, it isn't supported as an alternative to current lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists" -- Rothbard

I think this is worth pointing out.

Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. -- Murray N. Rothbard

Even Rothbard himself conceded that it was a horrible bastardization of language and history to call his beliefs 'anarchist' -- however valid or not they might be. Perhaps this is worth noting on this article or the article on anarchism? I don't think that wedging anti-state/laissez-faire capitalism into the anarchist camp without making a note of the circumstances is entirely honest. Finx (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written in the mid-1950s while his ideas were still developing and before he became an activist. So it's really only useable as a compare/contrast to other things he might have said later. I just don't remember off hand (except maybe during his paleolibertarianism stage) he spoke out against anarchism, as opposed to subsuming it under his own beliefs. CarolMooreDC 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem like it's worth a mention? I mean, I'm no expert on Rothbard, but to me, it implies one of two things, either of which would be pretty revealing: either his posturing as an anarchist is put-on or his understanding of the word's substance and etymology shifted drastically later down the road. Finx (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article section "Anarcho-capitalism" it begins: Rothbard began to consider himself a private property anarchist in the 1950s..." So evidently that was written before that point OR if one looks at the wide context of what he wrotes (and I haven't read the article) it means something a bit different than what the one sentence might indicate. Assuming the first, merely stating he originally rejected the term anarchist (long quote not really needed or put in footnote) and then continue with the statements that show he later adopted it would be relevant. People change their minds all the time - or redefine terms the way they want. He's been quite successful with that with anarcho-capitalism, which obviously pisses off a lot of left anarchists.

To provide an even more complete picture, it's not that difficult to do a books.google search of "Murray rothbard" AND Anarchist or web search of lewrockwell.com rothbard anarchist to find a variety of views by him and about him. It is an area that needs a bit more exploration, but just taking one sentence and throwing it in there is not of much use to the Wikipedia project. CarolMooreDC 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard and Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand is widely regarded as having been a thorough critic of "crony capitalism," both in her novel, Atlas Shrugged and in her work on politics, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal -- calling it, famously, "the aristocracy of pull" (which is actually a section title in Atlas Shrugged). She explicitly attacked all railroad subsidies, for example, and the whole "pressure group warfare" associated with seeking political favors as such, throughout BOTH works. Rothbard is ignoring or forgetting or dissembling about the many portraits of evil businessmen in Rand's novel, much less the portraits showing them seeking political favors just as Rothbard's complaints describe Rand allegedly ignoring. Her followers have been consistent in their opposition to all bailouts and any form of corporate welfare. See, for example, [1] and [2] Rothbard's assault here is false, and so far as to be absurd. Indeed, Rand very much and very thoroughly beat him to the punch on this issue, despite his later accusations to the contrary, giving credence to Rand's claims of plagiarism (as his writing on free will, natural rights and some basic epistemology also shows so obviously). Rothbard has been repeatedly criticized for the dishonesty in his attack on Rand. Most importantly, this has nothing to do with the section topic, Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism." The Rand criticisms in this section should simply be removed. Oolyons (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was pretty much irrelevant to that section, otherwise not aware of the details. The person who put it in could try to prove it was one of his major criticisms of her for that section, if they wanted. However, I have sourced and put back reference to "Mozart was a red" and a relevant pamphlet as not POV and entirely encyclopedic, as opposed to the vague phrase about becoming a critic. CarolMooreDC 04:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As to the last, Rothbard "lampooned" Rand's circle, not his own "relationship with Rand." That wasn't covered at all. The cited pamphlet ("Sociology") has also been criticized as being "fictionalized" -- just like the play. It falsely alleged, for example, that Rand "excommunicated" those who differed with her musical taste. When such examples were pointed out to Rothbard himself, he recognized the essay to have been "fictionalized." See, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, p. 399-400, note 43, (Valliant, J., 2005.) So, I added that it, too, is "fictionalized," as Rothbard appears to have freely admitted. As such, it is also far from "encyclopedic." Also, the way the section reads, it suggests that Rand's influence terminated when he began to "lampoon" her -- Burns, the source you cite, says otherwise. Also, the cause of their break, as Burns describes it, was his anarchism. This should all be reworded. Oolyons (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you want to get into all this it is necessary to properly source it, and from more than one source. By properly source I mean link to a readable books.google link and, upon request, also quote what the author says, which I do request below.

• The larger context needs brief presentation: Rothbard hanging out with Rand in the early 1950s, not being impressed with her until Atlas Shrugged, and then being more involved with her until a series of incidents drove him out in whatever year. It's fair to point out what sources say Rand did vs. what "her circle" did in course of biography, but not to use the article as a forum to defend Rand vs Rothbard's criticisms. And the article should link to Mozart was a red and the pamphlet.
• Obviously the fact that people in Rand's circle wanted Joey Rothbard to renounce Christianity is a well known story that should be included (since this is a biography of Rothbard, not Rand). And then there is the alleged plagiarism issue discussed by those sources and Stromberg. You might have an opinion on every detail of who did what to whom; Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and Brian Dogherty will have their own versions. But this is not the place for detailing every back and forth of every Rand fan defending Rand, just mention the most salient points. People can check the various sources for more details if they want.
• This link gives an idea of what Burns says about anarchism, which I'm sure Rand didn't like, but it helps to quote exactly what she says was disputed when since these links don't make it clear.
• Your sentence Rothbard was introduced to both Aristotelian epistemology and the "whole field" of natural rights through his discussions with Rand is highly dubious. Your page 145 source does not seem to say that, please provide whole quote saying that. Your use of "Nonetheless" in prefacing this statement, which seems to be out of chronological order of Burns' presentation, looks like an attempt at WP:Original research opinionating. Moreover, other sources say Rothbard was familiar with these views and made fun of Rand for thinking she originated age old viewpoints, so I doubt that she introduced him to these ideas, though she may have influenced some of his intepretations of them.
• If you want to prove Rothbard or anyone else said it was a "Fictionalized" essay you have to quote exactly what is written in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, p. 399-400, note 43, (Valliant, J., 2005.). You can't say "as Rothbard appears to have freely admitted" which again is your own WP:OR
• Please don't allow your POV of defending Rand (including through the Mises quote I just removed) motivate you to distort what is written or the purpose of the article. If you think this is such an important topic start an article on Rand vs. Rothbard.

I'll make a less POV version with proper referencing. Please add proper referencing for fictionalized pamphlet when you get it. CarolMooreDC 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for not quoting the source at length. (My page citations of Burns' bio appear to have been removed.) However, with all due respect, I think you need to read that source more closely. as it says precisely what I claimed it did. It reads, verbatim:

"Through Rand Rothbard learned about Aristotelian epistemology and '[t]he whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy, which he did not know existed.' ... Rothbard acknowledged that Rand had taught him something of value." Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (2005, Oxford Univ. Press), p. 145.

And Burns is here quoting merely Rothbard himself, see p. 221, note 31. This is more than enough, but should you require more, Barbara Branden also quotes Rothbard in her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand (1986, Doubleday), p. 413, as follows:

"Murray Rothbard has stated that he 'is in agreement basically with all of her philosophy,' and that it was she who convinced him of the theory of natural rights which his books uphold."

Furthermore, both biographers recognize that Rand did not expel anyone from her circle for artistic matters, as Rothbard actually alleged in "Sociology." The "fictionalized" source reads as follows: "When [the author] asked him about it in 1982, Professor Rothbard himself told [Valliant] that his "Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" was 'highly fictionalized.' For example, no one was ever 'excommunicated' from Rand's circle for not liking the music of Rachmaninoff as Rand did. Rothbard was himself explicitly aware of the dishonesty of his attack." (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, 2005 Durban House), pp. 399-400. Again, I have merely cited the source for precisely what it stated.

Also, I do not believe that we need to get into all of that other "break up" material at all. Burns biography, cited above, on page 183, indicates that a certain academic conference provided (and I quote verbatim): "the grounds for a bitter final break up between Rothbard and Rand's circle. Tensions had been building over Rothbard's stubborn allegiance to anarchism. After almost six months of regular contact Rand and the Collective expected Rothbard to be convinced that anarchism was unworkable. In July 1958 a special Saturday night session was scheduled for Rothbard and Rand to debate." Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, (2009, Oxford Univ. Press), p. 183. Instead of showing up, Rothbard realizing that he "hated [their] guts," and simply failed to show for the debate. While he was also accused of plagiarism, true, his anarchism was clearly the main issue and the one that made a continued relationship with Rand impossible, according to Burns. (In any case, Rand had positive, on going relationships with Christians, according to the recent 100 Voices: an Oral History of Ayn Rand, so Rothbard's report may, once more, be questionable.)

Also, I was not attempting to "defend" Rand with the Mises quote, only trying to provide the context for Rothbard's and Reisman's involvement with Rand. It is a fact that Mises, their teacher, already knew Rand personally and, later, admired Rand's novel, as the letter cited indicates, and it is through Mises that Rothbard's contacts first got him involved with Rand, according to Burns' biography, on page 144.

Finally, all the sources agree that Rothbard "made fun of Rand for thinking she originated age old viewpoints," but whether she was actually original or not is your own POV and his. The growing body of scholarship from Objectivist academics suggests that a great deal of what Rand thought was indeed original. See, for example, Tara Smith's recent book from Cambridge University Press, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (2006), or Allan Gotthelf's work, among many others. Her ideas have formed the basis for far too many PhD dissertations lately for her ideas to have been unoriginal, frankly. Even the work of "neo-Objectivists," such as Tibor Machan is enough to show Rand's radical originality. In any case, Rothbard was defending himself from charges of plagiarism when he "ridiculed" Rand's alleged lack of originality, and was none too clear about the specifics himself, and his claims (and yours) are argument and POV. Oolyons (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A Google Book result for Burns' book will link to the text of her doctoral dissertation of the same title on which the published version of her book is based. But the two are different in a number of ways, including, obviously, page numbering. The later and published version which I cite should, of course, be preferred. One must use a "hard copy" of Burns' book to confirm the quotations here. This may be part of the confusion. Oolyons (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm not an expert in all this, but I think the context of Rothbard's comments about Rand's influence is important: Rothbard's quote is from the "fan" letter here Raimondo talks about in Enemy of the State (p. 117-120) when he was determined to get back into her good graces. Because the Books.google version of Burns is so broken up, it's not clear if she says that. The Stromberg defense of Rothbard not plagiarizing Rand provides evidence he might have been exaggerating his ignorance and was well aware of these ideas before Rand; explicit sources saying that might be found. Stromberg notes that it was several factors that led to the split; others do too. It's fine to say Mises' fans introduced him to Rand, long quotes from Mises about here WP:Undue.

The bottom line is that an NPOV paragraph can be created that basically says (complete with refs): early 1950s Rothbard hung out with Rand and wasn't impressed for whatever reasons; in Oct. 1957 Rothbard wrote a gushing letter and got back with her; there were a number of conflicts over __,__, __,__ which ended in a split in mid-1958. He later wrote some negative stuff about her which others have contested.

What do you think? CarolMooreDC 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that we should get into all of the details. 1. It's too complex for a brief article, and unnecessary. 2. Rothbard's claims about Rand are, at least, controversial, and, at least partially, "fictionalized," and we would have to couch them as such, if we can trust them at all. And, 3. they are also really just a tangent in a bio of Rothbard. His anarchism was the most basic and most important reason for the split according to all the secondary sources I have cited. It was a necessary and sufficient cause, as it were, and fair to cite without further elaboration -- unlike all the rest.

Also, Burns' dissertation reads the same as the later text in this respect, as you can see here, and she is explicit and specific about an actual, positive and permanent influence on Rothbard's thought.Oolyons (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Stromberg defense" of Rothbard is rather odd. Rand's case for volition is what Rothbard was accused of lifting from Rand in 1958. Rothbard recapitulated this in his "Mantle of Science" essay. But it's relationship to previous "Thomistic" accounts of volition which allegedly render it unoriginal are, in fact, extremely obscure, not really the same as Rand's, and very unlikely for Rand to have known about, in any event. (They aren't even from Thomas Aquinas himself, for example.) In any case, Rothbard explicitly admitted that it was Rand who had first exposed him to it and to those other mentioned ideas. It is these explicit admissions by Rothbard which Burns and B. Branden quote, as I cited above, and of which Stromberg seems not to be aware at all. He seems to think that Rothbard picked these ideas up elsewhere -- and is seemingly unaware of Brandens' and Burns' material on Rothbard's admissions(!) Oolyons (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, this section on Rand's influence should be placed in the earlier section on Rothbard's life since this has nothing to do with his "political activism," the section's subject, and much more to do with his early influences, like Mises. Rand's influence was quite significant according to Rothbard's own repeated statements. Oolyons (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First, note that Jeffrey Tucker does a nice review of what Burns says happened here on Mises.org that comports with what I wrote. Except it doesn't mention the fan letter, which Raimondo does. You ignore the views in Raimondo's biography of Rothbard? Of Doherty and Stromberg? All of whom are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia and write on many subjects. Burns seems to be be merely an authority on Rand; not Rothbard.

Anyway, I will write my own version and put it here and get community input on what I consider to be a narrow and POV paragraph. CarolMooreDC 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of all of those other sources, and none of them contradict what Professor Burns or B. Branden wrote in the slightest -- including Jeffery Tucker's piece. Once again, with all due respect, you misread Tucker, just as you misread Burns earlier in our discussion. Tucker does not deny Rand's influence, at all, he only discusses some of the other issues that made Rothbard uneasy with her circle. Note that ~ he ~ mentions the same Mises letter that I quoted and that you excised in your obvious animus against Rand. He actually praises Burns "sorting" these very things out in a "brilliant" way. Sure, he focuses on certain elements that Burns does not, but recognizes his selective focus by introducing the section on Joey's religion, for example, with "for example..." He does not actually deny that anarchism was the real cause of the split and seems only dimly aware of the substance of Rand's ideas. Just like Tucker, indeed going beyond Tucker, my text mentions their break and not only criticism but "lampooning" of Rand's circle(!) In any case, Burns is citing Rothbard's own correspondence, and her work is a history of Rand's entire relation to the American Right. She is a valid academic secondary source from Oxford University Press. I quoted another source saying pretty much the same exact thing and who also quoted Rothbard himself much later in his life saying it once more. (B. Branden) If you can find a single source that actually contradicts Burns, then such a debate can be mentioned. Oolyons (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much welcome the input of others. Oolyons (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've retitled this section, "Rothbard and Ayn Rand" for reasons that have become clear. Oolyons (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you read what I suggested should be the relevant paragraph which includes Burns info per Tucker AND other information from other sources. But you'll see it when I write it. CarolMooreDC 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I did. Why do you think otherwise? I just don't think that we need to mention Rothbard's plagiarism, Joey's religion, etc., and all the other details of their relationship and split, with all of the other denials and explanations required, when Rothbard's anarchism was the proximate and sufficient cause of the break, and the single cause both sides agree was real. Just to review: first, you said that Burns hadn't said what I had quoted. You were mistaken. Then, you suggested that Burns wasn't as good as source as Tucker and others. When I observed that Tucker found Burns "brilliant" on this point, you changed once more into this mysterious hinting. Well, okay. Oolyons (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This proposed general summary is what I was referring to: early 1950s Rothbard hung out with Rand and wasn't impressed for whatever reasons; in Oct. 1957 Rothbard wrote a gushing letter and got back with her; there were a number of conflicts over __,__, __,__ which ended in a split in mid-1958. He later wrote some negative stuff about her which others have contested.

I just pointed out that it was this general summary that Tucker's description of Burn's supports (except fan letter aspect, and only by omission). And using only one source and ignoring other equally good ones with somewhat different perspectives is essence of POV. Anyway, no reason to further discuss til I have an alternate version. CarolMooreDC 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have embraced each source that you've mentioned, and offered multiple sources myself, so, once more, I'm not sure what you mean. (The Mises Institute is a pro-Rothbard-partisan source, of course, while Burns appears to be neutral.) Yes, I understood, but why do we need that at all? The existing text says that there were various reasons, including his anarchism, for the break. What is "narrow" or POV about that in the first place? On one side, the Objectivists claim that Rothbard lifted ideas from Rand. (This is a very complex issue.) This is actively denied, even ridiculed. Why enter a debate that would take some space to be fair to both sides about when it is of such narrow partisan interest? On the other side, Rothbard claimed his wife's religion was an issue. This is not credited in Objectivist sources as being an issue at all. Rothbard also said that esthetic issues were involved and that is very much disputed by other sources as false and "fictionalized." The fact that Rothbard "wrote some negative stuff," indeed that he "lampooned" Rand's circle, is already mentioned. As is, readers can already evaluate how "gushing" (that's POV in any case) the letter was for themselves. The other issues are simply denied claims back and forth that are unnecessary for a perfectly objective account and are only of extremely partisan interest. They can all be found in the cited sources in appropriate detail. Why not simply mention the single issue both sides agree was relevant and true, while indicating that there were others? What's POV about the existing text? You can add more citations to it if you like, as they all seem to agree that it was a central issue. Oolyons (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced "soon" with "mid-1958" (from your proposal) to the text. Oolyons (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Rand has been listed as an "influence" in the info box for some time. Oolyons (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Political Philosopher and Historian

Rothbard was more than "an author and economist." He was a political and legal theorist and a historian, as well as an economist. His multi-volume work on the American Revolution is worth noting, and even his work on the Great Depression discusses politics as well as economics. He did work on the history of economic thought toward the end of life, too. And a work like The Ethics of Liberty is no popular treatment, but a work of legal grounding, as he would see it, and basic political theory. I do not agree with Rothbard's position, but, in fairness, he should be listed as a political philosopher (in the initial description) and a historian. Or am I missing something? Oolyons (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

At the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he is called, "a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He developed and extended the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises, in whose seminar he was a main participant for many years. He established himself as the principal Austrian theorist in the latter half of the twentieth century and applied Austrian analysis to historical topics such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the history of American banking," as you can see here (emphasis added). Again, not a fan of the source, but that is how he is described. Oolyons (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard did embrace and defended Hoppe's argumentation ethics

Regarding this revision which deleted a sentence. You can see this here which should be added as a second reference, and in the original reference as-well. To quote:

In a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular, he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the scholastics, and that had brought modern libertarianism into a tiresome deadlock. Not only that: Hans Hoppe has managed to establish the case for anarcho-capitalist-Lockean rights in an unprecedentedly hard-core manner, one that makes my own natural law/natural rights position seem almost wimpy in comparison.

--MeUser42 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, this source makes sense, if you summarize the sentence below and date it and put it in relevant chrono order. Otherwise, it has same problem as Ayn Rand entry which haven't gotten around to cleaning up: It looks like some fan of Hoppe (or Rand) is trying to use the article make claims for their hero as opposed to producing and NPOV version of Rothbard's views. This may not be clear to the editor writing it, but to others it may appear that way:

Hoppe's most important breakthrough has been to start from standard praxeological axioms (e.g., that every human being acts, that is, employs means to arrive at goals), and, remarkably, to arrive at a hard-nosed anarcho-Lockean political ethic. For over 30 years I have been preaching to the economics profession that this cannot be done: that economists cannot arrive at any policy conclusions (e.g., that government should do X or should not do Y) strictly from value-free economics....(and continues til says)...And yet, remarkably and extraordinarily, Hans Hoppe has proven me wrong. He has done it: he has deduced an anarcho-Lockean rights ethic from self-evident axioms."

Understand the difference?? CarolMooreDC 17:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, thank you for the feedback. I will add the reference and revise. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Further reading: "In praise of Rothbard the economist"

It is a legitimate further reading. It deals with a side of Rothbard's work, that of the pure economist. In any case, the link should be vetoed by an expert on the topic and not by a general editor, with due respect, since a mechanic erasure could take away valid information, which would go against the ultimate end of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohaerens (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We have established guidelines around when a blog post is appropriate to use in an article. The post you linked to doesn't seem to be appropriate as a source under the reliable sources guideline or appropriate as a non-source external link under the external links guideline. As a source, it is self-published source from an individual who is not an established expert on the subject. As an external link, it is disqualified by WP:ELNO #11. Therefore the removal of it was entirely justified. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The criterion of notability according to Wikipedia establishes "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." It also clearly asserts "Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular' is secondary." I think that the link complies with the criteria of "interesting" but specially with that of "unusual enough to deserve attention", even if the author is not "famous" or "popular" to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohaerens (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are indirectly referring to the requirement in WP:ELNO #11 that any blogger who is linked as an EL should meet the notability requirements for people. A couple of problems: First, the notability guideline for people gives much more specific standards than just the overview you quote. A notable person "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources", etc. As far as I can tell, Adrian Brenes (the blogger you want to link to) does not meet those requirements. Second, for the blogger to be notable is a "minimum standard", not sufficient by itself. They must also be a "recognized authority" on the subject, which is a reference to the requirement in the verifiability policy that self-published sources must be from "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". To my knowledge Brenes is not a recognized authority on Murray Rothbard. So unless you have evidence from outside sources (not just your own opinions about what is interesting) that Brenes meets those criteria, his blog is not an appropriate external link for this article. --RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not notable. Leave it out. CarolMooreDC 23:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Opposed to Milton Friedman"

Why is this opposition so significant that none other are listed? Sure, Rothbard rejects part of Friedman's views because Friedman is a consequentialist, whereas Rothbard takes a deontological stance, but why is Friedman listed as being his only significant "opponent"? Rothbard opposes MANY MORE thinkers (leftist statists, socialists, etc.) to a much more severe degree than he opposes Friedman's consequentialism. Pitting Rothbard and Friedman against each other (especially when Friedman is the only one listed there as of present) overexaggerates their differences.h I think it should be removed, or at least, more of Rothbard's actual opponents should be listed. Onixz100 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The single name should be removed. Moreover, the infobox is a re-cap of what is already in the article.--S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post this. It's ridiculous to list Friedman as an opposition when their views mostly overlap, and yet he's the only listed opposition. More importantly, Rothbard rejected Friedman's recommendations to the government (which were a compromise based on the fact that the government were never going to accept free market suggestions), not his personal economic views. Maybe cite using this link (http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds) if required, but still I see no reason for an Opposition section, never seen it before... 188.220.252.41 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuuuup.... I agree. CarolMooreDC 03:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)