This is one of the enormous things that Rothbard simply was flat wrong about. He ignored the work of Ludwig von Mises, specifically Human Action, to base his life-long vilification of the State on his emotional repulsion to the State rather than to address how the State inevitably arises from the consequences of basic human action, every time.
Any plan that ignores human action and its consequences is an exercise in futility.
How does it ignore human action? You should elaborate.
He based "his life-long vilification of the State on his emotional repulsion to the State"? Again, please elaborate. In being consistent with the non-aggression principle, where does the State fit in? We should suspend our abhorrence for aggressive violence when it comes to a specific group of individuals who comprise the "State"? Was the State formed voluntarily? No. That is why Rothbard vilified the State. Because it was immoral. Claiming an emotional impulse led him to this conclusion is only attempt to (hey! let's use your language!) vilify Rothbard's beliefs based on nothing other than an emotional impulse. But here, I'd say I'm more correct. After all, you are simply making claims without any appeal to reason. Why don't you actually back up your argument?
"rather than to address how the State inevitably arises from the consequences of basic human action, every time."
I'm not saying this is something that we shouldn't be concerned about. However, why is it necessarily more important than showing how the State is immoral?
"Any plan that ignores human action and its consequences is an exercise in futility."
Rothbard exposed the immorality of the State. In what way did he ignore human action while doing this?
Wow! 2 minutes of pure wisdom.
ReplyDeleteAs told in the dulcet tones of the great Jeff Riggenbach!!
ReplyDeleteIt's so OBVIOUS and SIMPLE!!! But I guess too many blue pills???
This is one of the enormous things that Rothbard simply was flat wrong about. He ignored the work of Ludwig von Mises, specifically Human Action, to base his life-long vilification of the State on his emotional repulsion to the State rather than to address how the State inevitably arises from the consequences of basic human action, every time.
ReplyDeleteAny plan that ignores human action and its consequences is an exercise in futility.
How does it ignore human action? You should elaborate.
DeleteHe based "his life-long vilification of the State on his emotional repulsion to the State"? Again, please elaborate. In being consistent with the non-aggression principle, where does the State fit in? We should suspend our abhorrence for aggressive violence when it comes to a specific group of individuals who comprise the "State"? Was the State formed voluntarily? No. That is why Rothbard vilified the State. Because it was immoral. Claiming an emotional impulse led him to this conclusion is only attempt to (hey! let's use your language!) vilify Rothbard's beliefs based on nothing other than an emotional impulse. But here, I'd say I'm more correct. After all, you are simply making claims without any appeal to reason. Why don't you actually back up your argument?
"rather than to address how the State inevitably arises from the consequences of basic human action, every time."
I'm not saying this is something that we shouldn't be concerned about. However, why is it necessarily more important than showing how the State is immoral?
"Any plan that ignores human action and its consequences is an exercise in futility."
Rothbard exposed the immorality of the State. In what way did he ignore human action while doing this?