![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An edit has been made re-adding the "church of Darwinism" doubts mentioned by Lew Rockwell. This was discussed, somewhat, above at Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Alleged_synthesis. The combination stems from a blog about Ron Paul, plus Lew Rockwell's observation. The Daily Dish does not discuss Rothbard, so nothing explicitly describes Rothbard's views on evolution. Next, we have Rockwell's comment. Is he explicitly saying Rothbard was denying evolution, or skeptical about evolution, or accepted evolution? No. He says Rothbard had doubts about the "Church of Darwinism" -- nothing more. I have tagged the paragraph as SYN. Commentary is welcome. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Steeletrap: In this reversion you refer to "deragatory" or "scandalous" rumor. But the guidance WP:NEWSORG is neutral in this regard -- rumors in general (positive or negative) are not encyclopedic. The source cited only tells us what his friends were thinking or reporting. It does not verify what Rothbard was thinking. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This topic was discussed in September at Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_5#Matt_Zwolinski_on_Rothbard.2C_and_the_bleedingheartlibertarians_website. Editors are invited to reopen the discussion. (If more edits occur on Zwolinski I will ask for page protection.) – S. Rich ( talk) 23:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Anythony Flood is a non-notable self-published writer/blogger and his "factoids" and opinions on Rothbard really aren't very usable, especially since are 3 (Casey, Raimondo, Gordon) or more far better biographical sources which have relevant facts. The fact that Casey's comments about Rothbard being bullied and the inferior teaching in public schools was removed is particularly questionable since it gets to the root of why he liked the private school. Having lived in Manhattan for ten years, I knew lots of Jews who got beat up in public schools, some of whom then went to better private schools, so I certainly don't like to see that removed. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Flood citation looks like SPS and is non-RS in this regard. I've removed it and tagged the sentence as cn. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that some editors question the appropriateness of citing the small harvest of my interview-based research, which unfortunately I was unable to complete, indeed, that one editor regards one of my two short articles as 'crap' (arguably in violation of at least one rule of etiquette). Casey thought both articles worth listing. The article's note 23, citing one of my short articles, asks in superscript whether the statement regarding his happy time at Birch Wathen is reliably sourced. The source is JoAnn Rothbard, Murray's widow, who gave her blessing to my hopeful project in 1997, over the course of which year I interviewed her several times. I have no peer-reviewed article to back that up. Of the five articles by 'Anthony Flood' that a search yielded, only the fifth is mine. (There's a Ph.D.-bearing professor of philosophy with the same name.) The scarce resource of a Wiki article's space must be allocated wisely, however, and the currency of 'notability' must be protected against inflation, so if those values dictate excluding input from someone who actually knew Rothbard for a dozen years, so be it. -- Tony Flood Anarchristian ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Section "Anarcho-capitalism" talks about "libertarian anarchists". What does it mean? Can there be authoritarian anarchism, or anarchists? "Libertarian anarchists" seems an oxymoron to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.227.146 ( talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Libertarian-Anarchism is what AnCaps call it when they don't want to say the C word. And Jaydubya social-anarchism isnt "some bizarre melding" its the standard anarchism, AnCap is the bizarre meld. Just look at the history of the term, Rothbard said it himself in "Are libertarians anarchists?" and the answer was "No, if you think they are you don't understand either libertarianism or anarchism and you dont know history"! [paraphrasing] As for your dictatorship of the prols, you should already know that that is Marxism not anarchism and the issue of the problem of a tyranny of the majority is already covered by Kropotkin. Christ its not wonder this article reads like a love letter, you all dont know your arse from your elbows! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 ( talk) 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(C.f. "Is Capitalism Something Good?" and "Capitalism, Corporatism, and the Freed Market" by Sheldon Richman and "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later" by Roderick T. Long.)I believe anarcho-capitalism is, in some ways, incorrectly named. … Socialism…has never been a mere intellectual discourse upon why the labor theory of value was supposedly a superior line of academic thought. Socialism is not and never has been a "club". Socialists have always been motivated by a passion for social justice as best they understand it—which naturally implies that understanding is capable of being raised to a greater degree of accuracy and sophistication. … It is my contention that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. Rather than depending upon the the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression. … Murray Rothbard was a visionary socialist. … Because the market anarchist society would be one in which the matter of systematic theft has been addressed and rectified, market anarchism…is best understood a new variety of socialism—a stigmergic socialism. Stigmergy is a fancy word for systems in which a natural order emerges from the individual choices made by the autonomous components of a collective within the sphere of their own self-sovereignty. To the extent coercion skews markets by distorting the decisions of those autonomous components (individual people), it ought to be seen that a truly free market (a completely stigmergic economic system) necessarily implies anarchy, and that any authentic collectivism is necessarily delineated in its bounds by the the natural rights of the individuals composing the collective.
89.126.25.46 also writes, "Rothbard said it himself in 'Are libertarians anarchists?' and the answer was 'No.'"
(1) That piece was written only shortly after Rothbard became an anarchist and at a time when Rothbard seemed to be timid about using the term anarchist to describe himself. (Many eschew calling themselves anarchists after first converting to anarchism, so this oughtn't be shocking.) As time went on, Rothbard became more and more comfortable acknowledging his own anarchism, and eventually even said, "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism," in stark contradiction to what he wrote in "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"
(To be clear, whether one agrees with Rothbard that "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism" is contingent upon how one defines capitalism. Plenty of left-Rothbardians would disagree with that statement precisely because they tend to define 'capitalism' as state-driven monopolisation of capital—something all libertarians, whether anarchist or not, rightly oppose. Either way, however, it must be noted that even Rothbard himself recognised that there are unjust strains of capitalism. Thus, in "A Future of Peace and Capitalism", Rothbard writes, "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation. In both cases we obtain something—whether it be money or newspapers—but we obtain them in completely different ways, ways with completely different moral attributes and social consequences." (C.f. "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty", in which Rothbard builds on the New Left's analysis of "political capitalism," and "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle", in which Rothbard suggests that there are possible situations in which it might be appropriate for workers to seize from capitalists the means of production.))
(2) More importantly, it must be noted that "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" was written under the nom de plume "Aubrey Herbert," and therefore cannot be taken as necessarily something Rothbard himself would agree with. Noms de plume are frequently used by authors to express views similar to but not necessarily identical to their own. Thus, technically speaking, we cannot be sure that any particular claim made in "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" is one with which Rothbard would absolutely agree. In short, there is no use in ever citing "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"
Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (
talk)
06:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In this good-faith edit, Allixpeeke describes MR as a believer in biological evolution and a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. The source s/he uses is a footnote from Rothbard's For a New Liberty. The footnote reads: "modern evolutionary theory is coming to abandon completely the theory of gradual evolutionary change. Instead, it is now perceived that a far more accurate picture is sharp and sudden flips from one static species equilibrium to another; this is being called the theory of "punctuational change."
There is no language in this footnote that establishes Rothbard's belief in punctuated equilibrium. If I say "it is now perceived that Keynes' view of recessions is far more accurate than Hayek's," that does not mean that I personally believe Keynes' view of recessions is more accurate than Hayek's. I am describing the perception of a certain group of people.
Rockwell's comparison of Rothbard's views on evolution to those of Ron Paul, who flat-out denies evolution, also provide reason to doubt this interpretation. Steeletrap ( talk) 21:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The evolution section previously said,
I found this paragraph to be highly problematic for multiple reasons. First, it mostly focuses on Ron Paul and Ron Paul’s views on evolution, which are entirely irrelevant to the current article. While it is true that Rockwell likened Paul’s views to those of Rothbard, that is also irrelevant to the current article.
The only relevant feature here is Rockwell saying that Rothbard “had doubts about the official church of Darwinism,” but it is not made clear what that even means. Thus, as it is written here, the entire paragraph is irrelevant.
Worse yet, because the paragraph brings up an accusation made in The Daily Dish about Paul being a denier of evolution, the paragraph falsely implies that Rothbard was a denier of evolution, even though the most one can infer from Rockwell’s actual comment is that Rothbard did not agree with Darwin’s interpretation of evolution.
So, there were only three ways to improve this.
(1) Remove all of the irrelevant info about Ron Paul and The Daily Dish, and simply say that Lew Rockwell noted that Rothbard “had doubts about the official church of Darwinism.” Unsatisfactory, because it’s meaninglessly vague.
(2) Delete the paragraph entirely. This is a better option than the first option, but an even better option would be option three.
(3) Explain what Rothbard’s actual views on evolution are.
Considering this third option the best, I proceeded to do just that.
After my edit, the evolution section read as follows:
I honestly did not think there would be an iota of controversy over this edit, but apparently, a user named
Steeletrap did not like the edit. He She reverted the section back to the way it was before.
Thus, the paragraph is now back to presenting (A) utterly irrelevant info about accusations made against Ron Paul, and (B) Rockwell’s vague comment. The paragraph is now back to falsely implying that Rothbard, an agnostic, was somehow an evolution denier.
Steeletrap justified his her edit by writing “cited source is MR describing prevailing view of ev; he doesn't endorse it.. Soc Darwin off topic.” Since I do not want this to devolve into an edit-war, I have decided to bring the topic here for review.
I admit that it is debatable whether the second paragraph (wherein I quote Rothbard’s concerns with social Darwinism) should be included. Is it “off topic,” as Steeletrap maintains? I’d say no. Rothbard expresses explicitly the personal view that social Darwinism was the product of conflating sociology with biological evolutionary theory. I think that Rothbard’s personal view on the impact of biological evolutionary theory on theories of social change merits being acknowledged in this section. It would be off-topic if Rothbard had not made the connection between the two, had not promoted the view that a connection exists between the two. But, clearly Rothbard did connect the two, and thus his connection of the two is hardly off topic.
Reasonable minds can debate the notability of his connection. Nevertheless, I don’t think one can debate whether the connection is on or off topic. Rothbard’s act of connecting the two is clearly relevant.
While it can be debated whether the Rothbard quote about social Darwinism should be included on grounds of notability, what cannot be debated is whether Rothbard believed in evolution. Contrary to Steeletrap’s claim, Rothbard is not merely presenting the views of others in describing how evolution works. He is presenting his own view. Were he not presenting his own view, he would have noted his own disagreement with the punctuational change view of evolution. Or, he would simply have not brought up the punctuational change view at all. The fact that he brings it up, and states that it is a “far more accurate picture” without indicating anything to the contrary, indicates clearly that he does not reject the idea of punctuational change, or of evolution broadly.
After all, if evolution were false, then the punctuational change view of evolution could not possibly be a “far more accurate picture” of anything (and would not be worth mentioning at all). The punctuational change view would then be just as “false” as any other view of evolution. In order for the punctuational change view to be a “far more accurate picture” of evolution as it exists in reality, evolution itself must exist in reality. If evolution does not exist in reality, there would be no point whatsoever in even bringing up the punctuational change view.
Moreover, Rothbard uses the punctuational change view of evolution to promote his own belief in the utility of revolution. Just as he connects the idea of gradual evolution to social Darwinism, he connects the idea of punctuational change to revolutionary social change, which he obviously promoted. He could hardly use the former ( punctuational change) to promote the latter (revolutionary social change) if he didn’t believe in the former! He couldn’t make the argument that revolutionary social change is desirable and in concert with natural evolution if he did not believe in natural evolution. Logic dictates that he obviously believed in evolutionary punctuational change. There are simply no two ways about it.
(Using punctuational change to promote revolutionary social change if he didn’t believe in punctuational change would make about as much sense as me using an explanation of ‘how Santa Claus works’ to promote my belief in something I actually believe in, like gravitational time dilation.)
Therefore, I propose we repair this article by restoring my expanded evolution section. There can be no doubt that Rothbard believed in evolution, and there is no rational reason why Rothbard’s acknowledgment that evolutionary punctuational change is a more accurate picture of reality should be exercised from a section about Rothbard’s views on evolution.
Please share your thoughts below. Should this section be reverted back to the way I had it before Steeletrap reverted it back?
Respectfully,
allixpeeke (
talk)
22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the only case that has been made against writing the section as I had written it is the case made by Steeletrap, who notes that a statement about the views of others does not mean the person making the statement about the views of others necessarily shares the views of others. And although that is true in isolation, Rothbard did not make his comment in isolation. He made his comment in a context, and we have to look at that context in order to understand what Rothbard meant.
If I simply say, “Modern children tend to believe the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory explains how Santa successfully operates,” then it would say nothing about my views.
If Rothbard had simply said, “Modern evolutionary biologists today tend to believe in the theory of evolutionary punctuational change,” then it would say nothing about Rothbard’s views.
But if I, in a serious work, write…
…then you can tell, by context, that I implicitly agree with the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory, and that I therefore also believe in Santa Claus.
When we look at Rothbard’s actual position, as I’ve said above, we can see that he is using the punctuational change view in order to defend the validity of revolutionary social change. Why, if he didn’t believe in the punctuational change view, would he use that particular line of argument? He wouldn’t. Ergo, he believes in the punctuational change view, and thus evolution, too.
The only way a person can conclude that evidence for Rothbard’s belief in evolution is lacking is by taking Rothbard’s comment about evolutionary experts out of context. The only reason Rothbard brings up the evolutionary experts at all is to let his reader know that he, Rothbard, didn’t come up with this punctuational change view all on his own, that this is a widely-accepted view.
To reiterate, out of context, his statement is just a statement about the beliefs of evolutionary experts, just as my facetious comment about children, when taken out of context, is just a statement about the beliefs of children.
But, when put in context, it is clear that Rothbard implicitly endorses the punctuational change view. If Rothbard did not himself believe in the punctuational change view—and thus evolution, too—he would not have brought it up when he did, but would have, instead, found some other argument in favour of revolutionary social change. (Likewise, because I don’t believe in Santa, I would, in a serious work, use some other argument in favour of gravitational time dilation, not the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory.)
Above, in the Talk:Murray Rothbard#Continued: Rockwell blog on views on evolution section, I wrote Rothbard’t entire comment on the subject.
Now, I will readily admit that if we look at Rothbard’s comment out of context, we are not able to determine his views on evolution. But can any of us, when looking at his comment in its proper context, conclude anything other than that he believed in the punctuational change view of evolution (which, obviously, he would have to believe in in order to regard it a valid defence of revolutionary social change)?
My thanks to Ms. Moore for concurring that Rockwell’s comment is far too vague to be used in isolation, and for agreeing that Rothbard’s support for evolutionary punctuated equilibrium is very clear. Having not read Rothbard vs. the Philosophers, I cannot comment thereupon, but if you know any relevant passages, I encourage you to post them here.
Best regards to all,
allixpeeke (
talk)
23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Lew Rockwell has written that Rothbard had "doubts about the official church of Darwinism".[1] In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto Rothbard wrote that the "crippling aspect" of social Darwinism was that it assumed societal changes were extremely slow, just like changes in species or genes. He noted another evolutionary theory that change occurred in "sharp and sudden flips from one static species equilibrium to another" which he described as the theory of “ punctuational change.” He quoted Stephen Jay Gould who originated the theory.[2]
[1]Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr (December 29, 2007). "Ron Paul's 'Evolution Denial'?" LewRockwell.com
[2]Murray N. Rothbard, “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism,” Ch. 1 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd. ed. (Auburn, AL: the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006; 1973, 1978), pp. 20-21.
This removes any WP:OR and summarizes briefly what he says. Obviously summaries can be tweaked, but it's a clear and simple statement. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Llewellyn compares Rothbard's views to those espoused by Paul in a Youtube. I added an RS which cites the remarks of Paul in the Youtube. This is being called "synthesis." It is not synthesis because synthesis is not explanation. Rockwell compares Rothbard's views to Paul's, and the link just explains what the views Rockwell refers to are. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Continued in a new section below. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave "Sometimes, [an external] link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves." In this case a photo of his grave-marker is provided (later in the listing of photos) along with the cemetery, This is unique information, and it is not used as a reference for anything in the text. Restoring link. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it relevant to list that Rothbard was a Jew in the opening paragraph? As far as I know, his Jewish identity is no more relevant than his birthday. Shouldn't he be listed as an American philosopher in the introduction, and shouldn't his Jewish heritage be put in the Life and Work section? -- Liam Allen-McGoran ( talk) 03:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting for "FreeKnowledgeCreator" to explain why he objects to the english language Well dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
My edit is sound. Inserting the word "ultimately" implies - unsupported by the text - that Rothbard had any conflict about supporting or not supporting the idea. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 03:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Putting up the question of an attempted edit by SRich32977 along with a pair of IP editors (one from a University of Chicago computer lab, one from what appears to be some form of VPN proxy geolocating to the middle of nowhere in China).
Checking the page history, it looks like IP editors began attempting to add this very recently; for instance, SRich's April 23rd edit does not contain the linkage.
Additionally, the second paragraph of the lede itself already contains the sentence "Rothbard was a heterodox political economist" with two sources for that sentence, so the fact that he subscribed to heterodox theory is established in the lede and it's redundant to push it forward as this edit does.
@ Srich32977:, can you provide why you believe that this needs to be pushed forward into the 1st sentence of the lede, when the lede already covers it? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good arguments on both sides, but unfortunately the discussion seems to have petered out without a clear consensus in favour of either title. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard →
Murray N. Rothbard – A web search reveals that including the middle initial and not including it are both common (I'm not sure which is more common though). Per
WP:MIDDLES, if two variants of a name are equally common, the fuller name should be chosen.
IWillBuildTheRoads (
talk)
12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's some sources that use the initial: https://www.mises.org/profile/murray-n-rothbard https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/murray-n-rothbard/ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/46810.Murray_N_Rothbard
Here's some sources that don't use the initial: https://www.libertarianism.org/people/murray-rothbard https://fee.org/articles/murray-rothbards-philosophy-of-freedom/ IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 12:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I think an important point that supports the move is that on the cover of Rothbard's books, he used the middle initial. Here's an example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/For_a_New_Liberty_%28first_edition%29.jpg IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
With regard to this removal, how would that work exactly? Are we going to have footnotes from the monograph section to references talking about how those works are significant? N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 02:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Chomsky's comment on the seriousness of Rothbard's ethics are not criticism, but a statement of fact that is not supported by other sources in this page and incorrect. True criticism would be appreciated. Tigre200 ( talk) 01:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I think Better sources are needed to support the claim that M. Rothbard is a historian. Currently, supporting sources are a)an article of M.Rothbard himself and b)an article by Cato Institute, which M.Rothbard is a founder according to WP article. Cinadon36 ( talk) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Rothbard was a charter member of the League of the South: https://web.archive.org/web/19990922090736/http:/dixienet.org/books/library.htm - shouldn't this maybe be mentioned? LamontCranston ( talk) 01:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no section on the massive amount of criticism he has received. He basically said that they invented this phony right-wing libertarianism to snatch away the term from socialists. Even that quote should be enough to demolish Rothbard's intellectual thoughts, but no criticism is ever mentioned on this page including that famous quote that shows what he really was trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.66.222 ( talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Rothbard was 18 years old in 1944. How did he not get drafted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if this belongs on the talk page, but I'm parking a couple of sources about Rothbard's stance on pollution. He was well-known for this stance and I'm planning on adding a section to the article.
HueSurname ( talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Firefly115, the fourth paragraph has been in the article since Prezbo added it in late October 2022, and in the meantime has been edited by others including me. Can you explain why you have deleted it and removed sources? Llll5032 ( talk) 04:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Can you explain further what makes the paragraph disproportionate to its treatment by independent reliable sources, and if any solutions aside from deletion (see WP:PRESERVE) would resolve the problem? Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Llll5032 ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've not taken the deep dive / or have prior expertise on Rothbard to more fully understand his history related to that section. But it appears that he discussed Duke and McCarthy in a very narrow context of tactics and possibly the appeal of non-racist points of Duke. IMO multiple times over this should not be in the lead. Given that narrow context of his mention, the discussed text and its placement in the lead is gives the appearance of being chosen for bad optics rather than being an informative summary of the body of the article or his positions. Also the chosen words (and omissions from what is in the body) implies a wider embracing of much-hated Duke and McCarthy, also giving the entry that appearance. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 |
An edit has been made re-adding the "church of Darwinism" doubts mentioned by Lew Rockwell. This was discussed, somewhat, above at Talk:Murray_Rothbard#Alleged_synthesis. The combination stems from a blog about Ron Paul, plus Lew Rockwell's observation. The Daily Dish does not discuss Rothbard, so nothing explicitly describes Rothbard's views on evolution. Next, we have Rockwell's comment. Is he explicitly saying Rothbard was denying evolution, or skeptical about evolution, or accepted evolution? No. He says Rothbard had doubts about the "Church of Darwinism" -- nothing more. I have tagged the paragraph as SYN. Commentary is welcome. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@ Steeletrap: In this reversion you refer to "deragatory" or "scandalous" rumor. But the guidance WP:NEWSORG is neutral in this regard -- rumors in general (positive or negative) are not encyclopedic. The source cited only tells us what his friends were thinking or reporting. It does not verify what Rothbard was thinking. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
This topic was discussed in September at Talk:Murray_Rothbard/Archive_5#Matt_Zwolinski_on_Rothbard.2C_and_the_bleedingheartlibertarians_website. Editors are invited to reopen the discussion. (If more edits occur on Zwolinski I will ask for page protection.) – S. Rich ( talk) 23:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Anythony Flood is a non-notable self-published writer/blogger and his "factoids" and opinions on Rothbard really aren't very usable, especially since are 3 (Casey, Raimondo, Gordon) or more far better biographical sources which have relevant facts. The fact that Casey's comments about Rothbard being bullied and the inferior teaching in public schools was removed is particularly questionable since it gets to the root of why he liked the private school. Having lived in Manhattan for ten years, I knew lots of Jews who got beat up in public schools, some of whom then went to better private schools, so I certainly don't like to see that removed. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 02:09, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The Flood citation looks like SPS and is non-RS in this regard. I've removed it and tagged the sentence as cn. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:15, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see that some editors question the appropriateness of citing the small harvest of my interview-based research, which unfortunately I was unable to complete, indeed, that one editor regards one of my two short articles as 'crap' (arguably in violation of at least one rule of etiquette). Casey thought both articles worth listing. The article's note 23, citing one of my short articles, asks in superscript whether the statement regarding his happy time at Birch Wathen is reliably sourced. The source is JoAnn Rothbard, Murray's widow, who gave her blessing to my hopeful project in 1997, over the course of which year I interviewed her several times. I have no peer-reviewed article to back that up. Of the five articles by 'Anthony Flood' that a search yielded, only the fifth is mine. (There's a Ph.D.-bearing professor of philosophy with the same name.) The scarce resource of a Wiki article's space must be allocated wisely, however, and the currency of 'notability' must be protected against inflation, so if those values dictate excluding input from someone who actually knew Rothbard for a dozen years, so be it. -- Tony Flood Anarchristian ( talk) 20:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Section "Anarcho-capitalism" talks about "libertarian anarchists". What does it mean? Can there be authoritarian anarchism, or anarchists? "Libertarian anarchists" seems an oxymoron to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.43.227.146 ( talk) 17:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Libertarian-Anarchism is what AnCaps call it when they don't want to say the C word. And Jaydubya social-anarchism isnt "some bizarre melding" its the standard anarchism, AnCap is the bizarre meld. Just look at the history of the term, Rothbard said it himself in "Are libertarians anarchists?" and the answer was "No, if you think they are you don't understand either libertarianism or anarchism and you dont know history"! [paraphrasing] As for your dictatorship of the prols, you should already know that that is Marxism not anarchism and the issue of the problem of a tyranny of the majority is already covered by Kropotkin. Christ its not wonder this article reads like a love letter, you all dont know your arse from your elbows! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.126.25.46 ( talk) 00:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
(C.f. "Is Capitalism Something Good?" and "Capitalism, Corporatism, and the Freed Market" by Sheldon Richman and "Rothbard's 'Left and Right': Forty Years Later" by Roderick T. Long.)I believe anarcho-capitalism is, in some ways, incorrectly named. … Socialism…has never been a mere intellectual discourse upon why the labor theory of value was supposedly a superior line of academic thought. Socialism is not and never has been a "club". Socialists have always been motivated by a passion for social justice as best they understand it—which naturally implies that understanding is capable of being raised to a greater degree of accuracy and sophistication. … It is my contention that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression. Rather than depending upon the the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression. … Murray Rothbard was a visionary socialist. … Because the market anarchist society would be one in which the matter of systematic theft has been addressed and rectified, market anarchism…is best understood a new variety of socialism—a stigmergic socialism. Stigmergy is a fancy word for systems in which a natural order emerges from the individual choices made by the autonomous components of a collective within the sphere of their own self-sovereignty. To the extent coercion skews markets by distorting the decisions of those autonomous components (individual people), it ought to be seen that a truly free market (a completely stigmergic economic system) necessarily implies anarchy, and that any authentic collectivism is necessarily delineated in its bounds by the the natural rights of the individuals composing the collective.
89.126.25.46 also writes, "Rothbard said it himself in 'Are libertarians anarchists?' and the answer was 'No.'"
(1) That piece was written only shortly after Rothbard became an anarchist and at a time when Rothbard seemed to be timid about using the term anarchist to describe himself. (Many eschew calling themselves anarchists after first converting to anarchism, so this oughtn't be shocking.) As time went on, Rothbard became more and more comfortable acknowledging his own anarchism, and eventually even said, "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism," in stark contradiction to what he wrote in "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"
(To be clear, whether one agrees with Rothbard that "Capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism" is contingent upon how one defines capitalism. Plenty of left-Rothbardians would disagree with that statement precisely because they tend to define 'capitalism' as state-driven monopolisation of capital—something all libertarians, whether anarchist or not, rightly oppose. Either way, however, it must be noted that even Rothbard himself recognised that there are unjust strains of capitalism. Thus, in "A Future of Peace and Capitalism", Rothbard writes, "The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation. In both cases we obtain something—whether it be money or newspapers—but we obtain them in completely different ways, ways with completely different moral attributes and social consequences." (C.f. "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty", in which Rothbard builds on the New Left's analysis of "political capitalism," and "Confiscation and the Homestead Principle", in which Rothbard suggests that there are possible situations in which it might be appropriate for workers to seize from capitalists the means of production.))
(2) More importantly, it must be noted that "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" was written under the nom de plume "Aubrey Herbert," and therefore cannot be taken as necessarily something Rothbard himself would agree with. Noms de plume are frequently used by authors to express views similar to but not necessarily identical to their own. Thus, technically speaking, we cannot be sure that any particular claim made in "Are Libertarians Anarchists?" is one with which Rothbard would absolutely agree. In short, there is no use in ever citing "Are Libertarians Anarchists?"
Sincerely yours,
allixpeeke (
talk)
06:26, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
In this good-faith edit, Allixpeeke describes MR as a believer in biological evolution and a proponent of punctuated equilibrium. The source s/he uses is a footnote from Rothbard's For a New Liberty. The footnote reads: "modern evolutionary theory is coming to abandon completely the theory of gradual evolutionary change. Instead, it is now perceived that a far more accurate picture is sharp and sudden flips from one static species equilibrium to another; this is being called the theory of "punctuational change."
There is no language in this footnote that establishes Rothbard's belief in punctuated equilibrium. If I say "it is now perceived that Keynes' view of recessions is far more accurate than Hayek's," that does not mean that I personally believe Keynes' view of recessions is more accurate than Hayek's. I am describing the perception of a certain group of people.
Rockwell's comparison of Rothbard's views on evolution to those of Ron Paul, who flat-out denies evolution, also provide reason to doubt this interpretation. Steeletrap ( talk) 21:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
The evolution section previously said,
I found this paragraph to be highly problematic for multiple reasons. First, it mostly focuses on Ron Paul and Ron Paul’s views on evolution, which are entirely irrelevant to the current article. While it is true that Rockwell likened Paul’s views to those of Rothbard, that is also irrelevant to the current article.
The only relevant feature here is Rockwell saying that Rothbard “had doubts about the official church of Darwinism,” but it is not made clear what that even means. Thus, as it is written here, the entire paragraph is irrelevant.
Worse yet, because the paragraph brings up an accusation made in The Daily Dish about Paul being a denier of evolution, the paragraph falsely implies that Rothbard was a denier of evolution, even though the most one can infer from Rockwell’s actual comment is that Rothbard did not agree with Darwin’s interpretation of evolution.
So, there were only three ways to improve this.
(1) Remove all of the irrelevant info about Ron Paul and The Daily Dish, and simply say that Lew Rockwell noted that Rothbard “had doubts about the official church of Darwinism.” Unsatisfactory, because it’s meaninglessly vague.
(2) Delete the paragraph entirely. This is a better option than the first option, but an even better option would be option three.
(3) Explain what Rothbard’s actual views on evolution are.
Considering this third option the best, I proceeded to do just that.
After my edit, the evolution section read as follows:
I honestly did not think there would be an iota of controversy over this edit, but apparently, a user named
Steeletrap did not like the edit. He She reverted the section back to the way it was before.
Thus, the paragraph is now back to presenting (A) utterly irrelevant info about accusations made against Ron Paul, and (B) Rockwell’s vague comment. The paragraph is now back to falsely implying that Rothbard, an agnostic, was somehow an evolution denier.
Steeletrap justified his her edit by writing “cited source is MR describing prevailing view of ev; he doesn't endorse it.. Soc Darwin off topic.” Since I do not want this to devolve into an edit-war, I have decided to bring the topic here for review.
I admit that it is debatable whether the second paragraph (wherein I quote Rothbard’s concerns with social Darwinism) should be included. Is it “off topic,” as Steeletrap maintains? I’d say no. Rothbard expresses explicitly the personal view that social Darwinism was the product of conflating sociology with biological evolutionary theory. I think that Rothbard’s personal view on the impact of biological evolutionary theory on theories of social change merits being acknowledged in this section. It would be off-topic if Rothbard had not made the connection between the two, had not promoted the view that a connection exists between the two. But, clearly Rothbard did connect the two, and thus his connection of the two is hardly off topic.
Reasonable minds can debate the notability of his connection. Nevertheless, I don’t think one can debate whether the connection is on or off topic. Rothbard’s act of connecting the two is clearly relevant.
While it can be debated whether the Rothbard quote about social Darwinism should be included on grounds of notability, what cannot be debated is whether Rothbard believed in evolution. Contrary to Steeletrap’s claim, Rothbard is not merely presenting the views of others in describing how evolution works. He is presenting his own view. Were he not presenting his own view, he would have noted his own disagreement with the punctuational change view of evolution. Or, he would simply have not brought up the punctuational change view at all. The fact that he brings it up, and states that it is a “far more accurate picture” without indicating anything to the contrary, indicates clearly that he does not reject the idea of punctuational change, or of evolution broadly.
After all, if evolution were false, then the punctuational change view of evolution could not possibly be a “far more accurate picture” of anything (and would not be worth mentioning at all). The punctuational change view would then be just as “false” as any other view of evolution. In order for the punctuational change view to be a “far more accurate picture” of evolution as it exists in reality, evolution itself must exist in reality. If evolution does not exist in reality, there would be no point whatsoever in even bringing up the punctuational change view.
Moreover, Rothbard uses the punctuational change view of evolution to promote his own belief in the utility of revolution. Just as he connects the idea of gradual evolution to social Darwinism, he connects the idea of punctuational change to revolutionary social change, which he obviously promoted. He could hardly use the former ( punctuational change) to promote the latter (revolutionary social change) if he didn’t believe in the former! He couldn’t make the argument that revolutionary social change is desirable and in concert with natural evolution if he did not believe in natural evolution. Logic dictates that he obviously believed in evolutionary punctuational change. There are simply no two ways about it.
(Using punctuational change to promote revolutionary social change if he didn’t believe in punctuational change would make about as much sense as me using an explanation of ‘how Santa Claus works’ to promote my belief in something I actually believe in, like gravitational time dilation.)
Therefore, I propose we repair this article by restoring my expanded evolution section. There can be no doubt that Rothbard believed in evolution, and there is no rational reason why Rothbard’s acknowledgment that evolutionary punctuational change is a more accurate picture of reality should be exercised from a section about Rothbard’s views on evolution.
Please share your thoughts below. Should this section be reverted back to the way I had it before Steeletrap reverted it back?
Respectfully,
allixpeeke (
talk)
22:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
It appears that the only case that has been made against writing the section as I had written it is the case made by Steeletrap, who notes that a statement about the views of others does not mean the person making the statement about the views of others necessarily shares the views of others. And although that is true in isolation, Rothbard did not make his comment in isolation. He made his comment in a context, and we have to look at that context in order to understand what Rothbard meant.
If I simply say, “Modern children tend to believe the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory explains how Santa successfully operates,” then it would say nothing about my views.
If Rothbard had simply said, “Modern evolutionary biologists today tend to believe in the theory of evolutionary punctuational change,” then it would say nothing about Rothbard’s views.
But if I, in a serious work, write…
…then you can tell, by context, that I implicitly agree with the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory, and that I therefore also believe in Santa Claus.
When we look at Rothbard’s actual position, as I’ve said above, we can see that he is using the punctuational change view in order to defend the validity of revolutionary social change. Why, if he didn’t believe in the punctuational change view, would he use that particular line of argument? He wouldn’t. Ergo, he believes in the punctuational change view, and thus evolution, too.
The only way a person can conclude that evidence for Rothbard’s belief in evolution is lacking is by taking Rothbard’s comment about evolutionary experts out of context. The only reason Rothbard brings up the evolutionary experts at all is to let his reader know that he, Rothbard, didn’t come up with this punctuational change view all on his own, that this is a widely-accepted view.
To reiterate, out of context, his statement is just a statement about the beliefs of evolutionary experts, just as my facetious comment about children, when taken out of context, is just a statement about the beliefs of children.
But, when put in context, it is clear that Rothbard implicitly endorses the punctuational change view. If Rothbard did not himself believe in the punctuational change view—and thus evolution, too—he would not have brought it up when he did, but would have, instead, found some other argument in favour of revolutionary social change. (Likewise, because I don’t believe in Santa, I would, in a serious work, use some other argument in favour of gravitational time dilation, not the anti-gravitational-effect-of-reindeer theory.)
Above, in the Talk:Murray Rothbard#Continued: Rockwell blog on views on evolution section, I wrote Rothbard’t entire comment on the subject.
Now, I will readily admit that if we look at Rothbard’s comment out of context, we are not able to determine his views on evolution. But can any of us, when looking at his comment in its proper context, conclude anything other than that he believed in the punctuational change view of evolution (which, obviously, he would have to believe in in order to regard it a valid defence of revolutionary social change)?
My thanks to Ms. Moore for concurring that Rockwell’s comment is far too vague to be used in isolation, and for agreeing that Rothbard’s support for evolutionary punctuated equilibrium is very clear. Having not read Rothbard vs. the Philosophers, I cannot comment thereupon, but if you know any relevant passages, I encourage you to post them here.
Best regards to all,
allixpeeke (
talk)
23:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
References
Lew Rockwell has written that Rothbard had "doubts about the official church of Darwinism".[1] In For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto Rothbard wrote that the "crippling aspect" of social Darwinism was that it assumed societal changes were extremely slow, just like changes in species or genes. He noted another evolutionary theory that change occurred in "sharp and sudden flips from one static species equilibrium to another" which he described as the theory of “ punctuational change.” He quoted Stephen Jay Gould who originated the theory.[2]
[1]Rockwell, Llewellyn H. Jr (December 29, 2007). "Ron Paul's 'Evolution Denial'?" LewRockwell.com
[2]Murray N. Rothbard, “The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism,” Ch. 1 of For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto, 2nd. ed. (Auburn, AL: the Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2006; 1973, 1978), pp. 20-21.
This removes any WP:OR and summarizes briefly what he says. Obviously summaries can be tweaked, but it's a clear and simple statement. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 04:05, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Llewellyn compares Rothbard's views to those espoused by Paul in a Youtube. I added an RS which cites the remarks of Paul in the Youtube. This is being called "synthesis." It is not synthesis because synthesis is not explanation. Rockwell compares Rothbard's views to Paul's, and the link just explains what the views Rockwell refers to are. Steeletrap ( talk) 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Continued in a new section below. – S. Rich ( talk) 03:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#Find-a-Grave "Sometimes, [an external] link is acceptable because of a specific, unique feature or information that is not available elsewhere, such as valuable images and location information of graves." In this case a photo of his grave-marker is provided (later in the listing of photos) along with the cemetery, This is unique information, and it is not used as a reference for anything in the text. Restoring link. – S. Rich ( talk) 01:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it relevant to list that Rothbard was a Jew in the opening paragraph? As far as I know, his Jewish identity is no more relevant than his birthday. Shouldn't he be listed as an American philosopher in the introduction, and shouldn't his Jewish heritage be put in the Life and Work section? -- Liam Allen-McGoran ( talk) 03:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Should we subject this article to peer review? Lbertolotti ( talk) 15:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Still waiting for "FreeKnowledgeCreator" to explain why he objects to the english language Well dude? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk • contribs) 06:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
My edit is sound. Inserting the word "ultimately" implies - unsupported by the text - that Rothbard had any conflict about supporting or not supporting the idea. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 03:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Putting up the question of an attempted edit by SRich32977 along with a pair of IP editors (one from a University of Chicago computer lab, one from what appears to be some form of VPN proxy geolocating to the middle of nowhere in China).
Checking the page history, it looks like IP editors began attempting to add this very recently; for instance, SRich's April 23rd edit does not contain the linkage.
Additionally, the second paragraph of the lede itself already contains the sentence "Rothbard was a heterodox political economist" with two sources for that sentence, so the fact that he subscribed to heterodox theory is established in the lede and it's redundant to push it forward as this edit does.
@ Srich32977:, can you provide why you believe that this needs to be pushed forward into the 1st sentence of the lede, when the lede already covers it? Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz ( talk) 02:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: no consensus. Good arguments on both sides, but unfortunately the discussion seems to have petered out without a clear consensus in favour of either title. Jenks24 ( talk) 08:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Murray Rothbard →
Murray N. Rothbard – A web search reveals that including the middle initial and not including it are both common (I'm not sure which is more common though). Per
WP:MIDDLES, if two variants of a name are equally common, the fuller name should be chosen.
IWillBuildTheRoads (
talk)
12:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Here's some sources that use the initial: https://www.mises.org/profile/murray-n-rothbard https://www.lewrockwell.com/author/murray-n-rothbard/ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/46810.Murray_N_Rothbard
Here's some sources that don't use the initial: https://www.libertarianism.org/people/murray-rothbard https://fee.org/articles/murray-rothbards-philosophy-of-freedom/ IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 12:46, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I think an important point that supports the move is that on the cover of Rothbard's books, he used the middle initial. Here's an example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/For_a_New_Liberty_%28first_edition%29.jpg IWillBuildTheRoads ( talk) 18:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
With regard to this removal, how would that work exactly? Are we going to have footnotes from the monograph section to references talking about how those works are significant? N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 02:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Chomsky's comment on the seriousness of Rothbard's ethics are not criticism, but a statement of fact that is not supported by other sources in this page and incorrect. True criticism would be appreciated. Tigre200 ( talk) 01:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
I think Better sources are needed to support the claim that M. Rothbard is a historian. Currently, supporting sources are a)an article of M.Rothbard himself and b)an article by Cato Institute, which M.Rothbard is a founder according to WP article. Cinadon36 ( talk) 08:18, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Rothbard was a charter member of the League of the South: https://web.archive.org/web/19990922090736/http:/dixienet.org/books/library.htm - shouldn't this maybe be mentioned? LamontCranston ( talk) 01:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
There is no section on the massive amount of criticism he has received. He basically said that they invented this phony right-wing libertarianism to snatch away the term from socialists. Even that quote should be enough to demolish Rothbard's intellectual thoughts, but no criticism is ever mentioned on this page including that famous quote that shows what he really was trying to accomplish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.33.66.222 ( talk) 17:33, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Rothbard was 18 years old in 1944. How did he not get drafted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saintonge235 ( talk • contribs) 10:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Don't know if this belongs on the talk page, but I'm parking a couple of sources about Rothbard's stance on pollution. He was well-known for this stance and I'm planning on adding a section to the article.
HueSurname ( talk) 01:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Firefly115, the fourth paragraph has been in the article since Prezbo added it in late October 2022, and in the meantime has been edited by others including me. Can you explain why you have deleted it and removed sources? Llll5032 ( talk) 04:58, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject". Can you explain further what makes the paragraph disproportionate to its treatment by independent reliable sources, and if any solutions aside from deletion (see WP:PRESERVE) would resolve the problem? Perhaps a compromise can be reached. Llll5032 ( talk) 18:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've not taken the deep dive / or have prior expertise on Rothbard to more fully understand his history related to that section. But it appears that he discussed Duke and McCarthy in a very narrow context of tactics and possibly the appeal of non-racist points of Duke. IMO multiple times over this should not be in the lead. Given that narrow context of his mention, the discussed text and its placement in the lead is gives the appearance of being chosen for bad optics rather than being an informative summary of the body of the article or his positions. Also the chosen words (and omissions from what is in the body) implies a wider embracing of much-hated Duke and McCarthy, also giving the entry that appearance. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 20:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)