Talk:Murray Rothbard

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Murray Rothbard has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
March 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Man, Economy, and State

Why does the link to Man, Economy, and State go to the edit page??

It doesn't when I look at it. Try refreshing your browser. - Nat Krause 09:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Category: Economists

I added cat:economists so his name would appear on that list; to exclude 'Austrian School' economists from the larger listing would be to diminish that school. Paul 01:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's the way all categories are handled. An article should not appear in both a category and in a subcategory of that category. -Willmcw 03:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Here's the policy:
An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes
The problem is that that other economists on the big list should be mostly categorized into one or more subcategories. -Willmcw 03:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That seems like it would cause a whole array of problems regarding categories. Paul 21:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Maybe so. It's the policy across Wikipedia. -Willmcw 21:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Keynes is in cat: economists as well as cat: British economists. Ditto with Ricardo. And Adam Smith, except "Scottish." Friedman and Krugman are "Jewish-American Economists" in addition to the larger cat. What gives? Paul 07:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They shouldn't be. (Jewish-American economists? Who comes up with these?) An article is allowed to be in two or more branches - so Rothbard can be an "American economist" and an "Austrian School economist" at the same time. Or we can create a special category for "Austrian School American economists." (Only kidding). Regarding the category topology, I recall reading that they have plans for greatly increasing the ability to search and navigate according to categories, and that some of their style guidelines are based on those plans. The problem now is that with articles only in the most specific category, a reader has to know a great deal in order to find an article. Who would think to look for Adam Smith in the Scottish category first? Perhaps what is needed is a "show all subcategories" query. There are pages to discuss (and set) policy matters: if it interests you then you can participate in changing the rule or creating the new system. Meantime, feel free to remove any higher categories on articles. If all the economists are on their proper branches then the category should be empty except for subcategories, in theory. OTOH, you can break the rules if you want. (Category:One-armed economists) -Cheers, -Willmcw 08:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)
Making this more ridiculous is that Adam Smith is in fact British, Scotland being a part of the island of Great Britain. Which Einstein designed these categories? Paul 13:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] content dispute on coercive monopoly

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC criticism

According to the Southern Poverty Law center, [[1]] Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." Listed on their website.

Okay, as far as I can tell, the above text is composed of two sentence fragments (although the first is quite long), and it certainly does not belong in the article as the second paragraph. I am removing it it because of the generally poor quality of the writing. Obviously, if other editors feel the cited source is important enough for inclusion in this article, I would say it would be rightfully cordoned off in a new section labelled "criticism." Dick Clark 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."
  • "The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.
We should not simply delete the criticism because it is poorly written. Rather, we should summarize it in an NPOV fashion. Perhaps: "The SPLC has criticized Rothbard's writings that call "the Officially Oppressed" a "parasitic burden", and that attack activist women for supporting child labor laws with support from "top Jewish financiers" as well as for having a "dominant tradition" of lesbianism." Would that suffice? Are there better criticisms of Rothbard? -Willmcw 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
Although the criticism does not seem to be included in the article any longer, I feel it is important to put Dr Rothbard's comments in context, so as not to generate any confusion. It must be noted that the SPLC criticisms contain a lot of one word quotations rather than long, verbatim passages. In the first one, hyperbolic terms are, I feel, taken out of their original context. In the essay from which they were taken, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor", Dr Rothbard is discussing State redistribution, and is using a standard antistatist argument, which can be summarized thus: "if the state takes from the haves to give to the havenots, how do we define these groups? Is it not inevitable that people will prefer to be a havenot rather than being a have? Soon, they will create categories for themselves so as to qualify for redistributed wealth." I know it may be a little unnecessary to cite here the entire paragraph [2] from which the quote was taken, but I shall nonetheless:
"In this regime of group egalitarianism, it becomes particularly important to take one's place in the ranks of the Oppressed rather than the Oppressors. Who, then, are the Oppressed? It is difficult to determine, since new groups of oppressed are being discovered all the time. One almost longs for the good old days of classic Marxism, when there was only one "oppressed class"—the proletariat—and one or at most a very few classes of oppressors: the capitalists or bourgeois, plus sometimes the "feudal landlords" or perhaps the petit bourgeoisie. But now, as the ranks of the oppressed and therefore the groups specially privileged by society and the State keep multiplying, and the ranks of the oppressors keep dwindling, the problem of income and wealth egalitarianism reappears and is redoubled. For more and greater varieties of groups are continually being added to the parasitic burden weighing upon an ever-dwindling supply of oppressors. And since it is obviously worth everyone's while to leave the ranks of the oppressors and move over to the oppressed, pressure groups will increasingly succeed in doing so—so long as this dysfunctional ideology continues to flourish. Specifically, achieving the label of Officially Oppressed entitles one to share in an endless flow of benefits—in money, status, and prestige—from the hapless Oppressors, who are made to feel guilty forevermore, even as they are forced to sustain and expand the endless flow. It is not surprising that attaining oppressed status takes a great deal of pressure and organization."
In the case of the second criticism, much the same applies. It must also be noted that Dr Rothbard, as an anarchist, does not advocate any form of election (as he feels there shouldn't be a government!) so I feel he probably felt indifferent about universal suffrage at best. Funnily enough, whilst the source of the "Yankee women quote" (on page 11), shows no real male chauvanism, it does show a Catholic prejudice against protestants, so perhaps the SPLC just missed the real problem, so eager were they to misrepresent his views. Dr Rothbard's anti-egalitarian views were not an opposition to classical liberal equality--equality before the law and equality to be inequal--but opposition to State redistribution with the aim of equalizing wealth. As such, I can see the SPLC's comments as being nothing short of politcally motivated libel. --Henry J. Golding.
You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I've read the original article too. Though it's possible to interpret the text in various ways, we are not in a position to call some interpretations incorrect. As editors all we should do is summarize verifiable information using the neutral point of view. It is verifiable that the SPLC made the above-listed criticism, so we just need to summarize it neutrally. -Willmcw 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
The criticism SPLC put forth of Rothbard is not encyclopedia worthy. These are text snippets from various articles of Rothbard braided together in one or two sentences. Are we to take that serious? Intangible 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
They appear to me to be from one article. Have you read the reference? -Will Beback 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
That source is a notable one, and, as Will says, is worthy of a mention in the article. Now, it so happens that I think that the SPLC is spouting nonsense here, but what I think matters not given that I myself am not a notable source. I say keep the mention, publish a criticism of the SPLC criticism (if one is available from a notable source), and let the readers decide who is in the right regarding this issue. PS - I am going to be in the hospital for a depressed skull fracture repair (cranioplasty) till Wednesday, so my replies may be delayed. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up offshore radio signals when I return. Dick Clark 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
2 to be correct (although [3] might provided them even more snippets). I find it intellectually dishonest to write it up like that, especially since there is no rebutal or presentation of counter-arguments at all by the SPLC. Intangible 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I think you'll find that all of the text comes from ORIGINS OF THE WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA. -Will Beback 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Plus [4]. Does an empty line mean you can just start quoting from a different text altogether? Intangible 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<- Which text does not come from the source I listed? I don't follow your comment about an empty line. -Will Beback 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." This is from Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor. Intangible 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the SPLC article to the links of criticisms of Rothbard, it is appropriate to that extent and that extent only.--Jacrosse 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Intangible's point that the excertped text comes from different writings - Why is that a problem?
Regarding Jacrosse's comment, why is this criticism inappropriate? -Will Beback 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
What criticism? (seriously, I cannot see any original thought written by the SPLC with respect to whatever Rothbard has written) Intangible 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The subtitle of the SPLC piece is "An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable".[5]. I think the criticism is that his ideas are right-wing. -Will Beback 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Then it might be relevant to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article only; it should be discussed on that talk page however, not here. Intangible 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but the the particular text is a criticism of Rothbard. -Will Beback 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] helped define modern libertarianism

Shouldn't "who according to Wendy McElroy helped define modern libertarianism..." be according to "Wendy McElroy and others" or something? Right now it sounds as if McElroy is the only notable person to have said that, which I think would be incorrect.

If you say so. Regardless, of that it should be a parenthetical phrase. -Will Beback 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I checked the text and it really is a gratuitous attribution. Ms McElroy is hardly a notable critic in this context (no offense). While it is a POV assertion, no one could dispute that Rothbard clearly has a central position in the field. I think in this instance we can assert it as a fact. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economist?

Wouldn't it be fairer to call Rothbard a historian of economics? From the titles of his papers, there are only six that appear to do economics, rather than history of or philosophy of economics (and two of these seem to be survey articles), and his only contributions to mainstream economic journals are book reviews, mostly of a historical nature. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If economics is what economists do, then certainly Rothbard is an economist. Intangible 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
He's certainly done economics, but it's been a small proportion of his scholarly writing. His historical work receives repreated comment in the article, his work on economics is ignored. While not wrong, it appears to me not to be the most cogent way of characterising Rothbard. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Rothbard was a polymath, but he was certainly an economist of note. He wrote numerous theoretical economic works (in addition to philosophical works and historical works) both in book form and in journal articles. While he definitely authored a significant body of economic histories, his work is by no stretch of the imagination confined to that area. Now, there may be some confusion because Mises and Rothbard both engaged in economics work that many mainstream would characterize as you do: too philosophical. That is the crux of Rothbard's work, though: praxeology is not econometrics, and praxeologists would in fact decry the application of the moniker "economics" to much of the econometric work out there. Econometrics, in any case, certainly does not hold exclusive title to the field of economics. Rothbard was a contentious figure in economics and politics, and many would like to "push" him out of the economics circle, so to speak. That is not the place of Wikipedia. Dick Clark 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to drive the point home, the economics article states: A professional working inside one of the many fields of economics or having an academic degree in this subject, is an economist. Either we change that entry, or Rothbard ought to be listed as an economist.Dick Clark 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
To repeat, I agree that Rothbard has done economics, and I should also say that I have nothing against philosophically inclined economics. I pretty much agree with Bryan Caplin when he says ...the students of Mises and Rothbard have done more than their fair share of meta-economics too. Neoclassical economists go too far by purging meta-economics almost entirely, but there is certainly a reason to be suspicious of scholars who talk about economics without ever doing it. [6] (you might like to read the Hayek quote in the 2nd footnote). I asked the question here, rather than edit the page, because I thought it would prove controversial, and since nooone has sympathy for my suggestion, I won't press it. I will say, though, that Rothbard's efforts at rethinking the history of economics, building a school and building the Libertarian Party in the USA are achievements whose effects will be felt for a long time. His contributions to economics, viewed independently of the above, appear very slight by comparison. --- Charles Stewart(talk) 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. In that sense maybe Rothbard is more of a popularizer of economic theory (Man, Economy and State vs. Human Action for example). Of course if you accept praxeology (and you should as rational being!), then you can you also understand why economic departments funded by government or government research grants are not generally in favour of arm-chair economists. Intangible 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SPLC again

Article accusing Rothbard of racism by Southern Poverty Law Center where does it say that Rothbard is a racist; what is the exact critism on rothbard? Intangible 16:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

This talk page is desperately in need of cleanup---the top third of the page is an undefined mass of comments that are not titled nor formatted appropriately---how is anyone to follow the discussion? ---Charles 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top of the article

Is there anyway to reformat the article so that the top of the page is not dominated by that text box, with the beginning of the article not even visible? When I first opened the page, I thought the article had been blanked, because no text was visible until I scrolled halfway down the page. ---Charles 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

For some reason Internet Explorer isn't showing the page correctly, yet both the Firefox and Opera browsers are. Interesting. User:Hixx 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Aaahhhh... ok. Well, Internet Exploiter sucks, so I shouldn't be surprised. Hmmm... do you suppose anything can be done for it? ---Charles 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rothbard's law

Is Rothbard's Law supposed to be humorous? It sounds more like Murphy's Law than Say's Law. And it seems that if economists actually believed in it, there would be rather significant implications for the connection of personal liberty with economic efficiency. Let us please indicate one way or another in the article. -Joshuapaquin 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's close to the Peter Principle, serious but not important. -Will Beback 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Austrian school misrepresentation

I removed "These are macro-level generalizations, or heuristics, which are true for the many, but not necessarily true for any particular person." from under the list of praxeology axioms, as this is in violent contradiction to the Austrian interpretation. These axioms, according to Austrians, are true for every person, everywhere, at all times.


[edit] Notes & references seem mis-coded

I intended to add the ISBN for Justin Raimondo's book, but there are two [edit] links to click and I'm not quite sure how to address. -- RayBirks 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try clicking them both to see what happens. Not to take your fun away, but I've gone ahead and added the ISBN. Thanks for contributing, or at least trying! Cheers, -Will Beback 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I had done that previously although I did not state such. If you try clicking each yourself, you will find that the two numbered references are nowhere to be found for editing, only Justin's book. Seeing the pseudo-HTML "references with a trailing slash" there threw me as well. Haven't seen that before. Am afraid to mess things up further, thus my original comment. -- RayBirks 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read up on the Reference function and figured out that the Notes are self-generated by the "references with a trailing slash" pseudo-code that I have now placed in a new separate section for Notes. I moved Justin's book into a section called Further Reading. Finally, since those [edit] buttons were out of whack, I moved two of the book images that were causing some misalignments up to two earlier sections, and now everything appears hunky-dory. Comments welcome. -- RayBirks 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Adam Smith: Influenced Rothbard, Yes or No?

  • Since Murray's writings suggest he wasn't much of a fan of Mr. Smith, I'm not so sure he would be considered an influence (which was newly added). Murray even mentions the 'dismal reality' of Smith.[7] Other opinions? -- RayBirks 21:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I think someone must be joking, or having a very warped idea about "influence." Intangible 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I've read some of his stuff where he wrote favorably about Adam Smith. Other times he went to great lengths to diminish him. Maybe he changed his mind about him over time. --Kalmia (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Murray's degree of influence

I'm a big fan of Murray, but I am wondering just a tad if the list of people he has influenced is going overboard the slightest bit.

I am hoping someone will talk me out of my hesitation. Won't take much. :) -- RayBirks 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was a very influential libertartian theorist. However, perhaps we can remove Von Mises Insitute members, and add in 'Ludwig von Mises Institute'

[edit] How many times did he die?

Not sure who died at the Denny's, and not sure how that is important.

[edit] Removal of Libertatis Æquilibritas logo

Support: I agree, this is not an appropriate symbol for Dr. Rothbard. The dollar is a fiat currency, and he was opposed to such fraudulent mechanisms tooth and nail. -- RayBirks 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article on Hold

This is a well-written article, but I'd like to see more in-line citations. The section covering his early life has no in-line citations at this point. --Bookworm857158367 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rothbards views on the Federal Reserve?

The man writes an entire book on the Federal Reserve and even so there is absolutely no mention of his views on the Fed ?

Murray N. Rothbard, The Origins of the Federal Reserve.

Rothbard wrote a lot of books, but yeah, this is definitely important enough to be included. Granola Bars 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Grew up in Communist Culture?

At the beginning of the Life section, why is the sentence ""I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled" actually there? it has no cite, no relevance, and doesnt actually make sense. Im removing it for now. LtCrumpet (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your deletion, at least for now. It needs a fact tag, and someone should find a reference, which should not be difficult. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I found the reference in 30 seconds, just by googling it. Wedineinheck (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability of criticisms of Keynes and Bentham

Some disagreement is developing whether this section should be included/restored (it was after the Rothbard's Law section):

Criticism of Keynes and Bentham: Rothbard was an ardent critic of the influential economist John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economic thought. His essay Keynes, the Man,[20] is a scathing attack upon Keynes' economic ideas and personage. Rothbard was also severely critical of, among others, utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham in his essay, "Jeremy Bentham: The Utilitarian as Big Brother" published in his work, Classical Economics.

I would like to see it included. Please chime in with your views. --RayBirks (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it is referenced, I fail to see the problem. Not only should it be included, I would like to see it expanded. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)