Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Bizarre Attack on Lew Rockwell

It is truly off-the-wall as to the direction some
of the leaders of the Koch-funded Students for Liberty are going.

Eglė Markevičiūtė, a member of the International Executive Board of SFL, writes on her Facebook page about Lew Rockwell's forthcoming book (SEE: New Book From Lew Rockwell on Anarcho--Capitalism)
So, apparently, a new Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist manifesto is coming out soon. It's surprising they have chosen to keep it under 200 pages. One could think it's way too long, as some people have proven themselves to be capable of explaining life, politics and international conflicts in three letters or one abbreviation.
She added this as a follow-up comment:
 I know, I have enjoyed them in the past too. However, the scope of intellectual shortcuts some self-proclaimed Rothbardians operate in certain debates is just intolerable.
For the record, Lew Rockwell, "self-proclaimed Rothbardian," wrote  the The Rothbard-Rockwell Report ,
with Murray Rothbard, from 1990 until Rothbard's untimely death in 1995.

Rockwell is founder of the Mises Institute, where Rothbard was  Academic Vice-President from its founding in 1982.

He is also executor for the estate of Rothbard.

Thus, there might be a tiny bit of justification for others, beyond Rockwell, to consider Rockwell a Rothbardian.

Indeed, given Markevičiūtė's neocon views (see below), it would be much more appropriate to label her with the adjective "self-proclaimed" before identifying her as a libertarian. Because, she does consider herself  a libertarian.

On her SFL page, Markevičiūtė  writes (my highlight)
 Eglė is a third year student at Vilnius University, currently pursuing a Bachelors degree in Political Science. Eglė is also a Vice-Chair and Political Officer at Lithuanian Liberal Youth. She became interested in the ideas of liberty and liberalism (in an [sic] European sense) after spending one year at her university, where discourse on criticism of liberalism is particularly popular. Eglė thinks it is important to question oneself and ones ideas, however, after having acquainted herself with both libertarian and social-liberal literature and ideas, she is now an active supporter of libertarian ideas.
As for Rockwell taking intellectual short cuts, I urge everyone to read his writings and please point out any "shortcuts" he has taken. I have found none.

BTW, this is not her first attack on hardcore libertarians, in a co-authored piece with the managing director of SFL, she had this to say about Ron Paul and his views on Crimea:
 Former Congressman Ron Paul, whose views are interpreted by many as wholly representative of the libertarian movement, gets it wrong when he speaks of Crimea’s right to secede. Make no mistake about it, Crimea was annexed by Russian military force at gunpoint and its supposedly democratic “referendum” was a farce. Besides a suspiciously high voter turnout without legitimate international observers, the referendum gave Crimeans only two choices — join Russia now or later.
It’s much too simplistic to solely condemn the United States for any kind of geopolitical instability in the world. Non-interventionists who sympathize with Russia by condoning Crimea’s secession and blaming the West for the Ukrainian crisis fail to see the larger picture. Putin’s government is one of the least free in the world and is clearly the aggressor in Crimea, as it was even beforehand with its support of the Yanukovych regime that shot and tortured its own citizens on the streets of Kyiv.
 Daniel McAdams, executive director of the Ron Paul Institute responded to that attack:
What is particularly ironic about McCobin[/Markevičiūtė]’s lecture to Ron Paul on Crimea is that [their] bill of particulars is so riddled with analytical and factual errors that it actually argues quite eloquently for the opposite of what was intended. In other words his deeply flawed battle cry actually makes Dr. Paul’s case for non-interventionism. If you do not understand what is going on overseas, you should refrain from telling the people there what to do.
Later in the piece:
McCobin[/Markevičiūtė] imply that Dr. Paul’s non-interventionism is motivated somehow by “sympathy” for Russia. But it is an old neocon trick to defame opponents of war and intervention by claiming they are “supporters” of the designated US enemy of the day. 
And, then, the McAdams smackdown:
Speaking of regime sympathizers, the president of the Students for Liberty [McCobin] is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, an organization that has been honored by the US government’s chief regime change factory, the National Endowment for Democracy. Young Voices returns the favor, proudly announcing that, “The National Endowment for Democracy (NED), like Young Voices, looks for ways to empower and celebrate young people who are making an impact on their world.”...
Imagine the disappointment when the rank and file of the Students for Liberty find out that their leadership attacks Ron Paul, embraces neocon warmongering rhetoric, and is in bed with NED!
But, getting back to Rockwell's forthcoming book, I wonder what self-proclaimed libertarian Markevičiūtė finds objectionable to it. Perhaps instead of snide remarks, she can direct us to the problem with the book. This is all that Rockwell has written about the book, publicly, so-far:
Murray Rothbard called his political philosophy anarcho-capitalism to differentiate it from the far more common “communist anarchism.” Or, rather, it was more common then.
Today, Murray’s vision of free society without the oppressive, bloodthirsty, predatory State, and buttressed by private property, laissez-faire, and non-aggression, has relegated the bad guy anarchists to a particularly dusty corner of the history of thought.
Never, ever, has there been so much interest in a truly libertrian society. Young people in this country and all over the world are flocking to the Rothbardian banner. No coincidence, at the same time. media attacks on us have never been so intense or so frequent. Politicians, who you might think would be content with their looting and killing, are vociferously denouncing anarcho-capitalists, because we worry them.
This is all great news, and why I want to tell you about my new book, Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto. In it, I seek not only to tell the truth, but to refute the lies. Best of all, I think Murray—to whom I’ve dedicated the book–would be saying, Attaboy!
In this work, I talk about why I am an anarcho-capitalist, and the evils of the State, from the war system to the war on drugs, from the assault on our civil liberties to the damage the bankers’ Fed does.
Could it be that Rockwell is not pro-state enough for the self-proclaimed libertarian Markevičiūtė? Is that the problem? Is she taking an intellectual short cut and not thinking out how in a free society there will be someone to man the lighthouses?

I have recommendation for her of a forthcoming book that she should read that may take her beyond her intellectual shortcuts: Against the State: An Anarcho-Capitalist Manifesto


  1. They can't quite let go of their superstition. The cult of a false god is difficult to let go when you've worshiped at its feet almost since birth. Especially one that gives you the illusion of peace and safety.

    1. The state's not going anywhere. Reconcile yourself with that and move on to more important things. States gonna' be states. "Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."

    2. LOL! Well I'm so glad you know the entire future of the human race. What arrogance.

      And yes, let's just pretend the problem isn't there, pull a bible verse out of my ass and we'll be okay. Meanwhile we can just fold our arms and "let God deal with it". Fine. Stop going to work pal and just pray money falls from heaven so you can keep your house, care, food, and internet connection. I GUARANTEE you'll lose them all.

    3. It's all well-and-good to leave the actual vengeance to the Lord but, in the meantime, I don't think it's sacrilegious to be frank about all of the commandments that government breaks everyday.

  2. Attacking a book before it comes out... Does it get any more pathetic?

    Waiting with baited breath for her lengthy and well thought out "takedown" of Rockwell. Sure it will be revolutionary.

    1. "Attacking a book before it comes out... Does it get any more pathetic?"

      Tucker admitted to doing this now and then...so it's consistent within their purview.

    2. Did tucker really do that? Keynes is the only other person I know of who has done that

    3. Sound like something Paul Krugman would do. He certainly attacks positions that he doesn't understand, or pretends to not understand.

    4. "Did tucker really do that?"

      Just so I'm quite clear on this, I've pasting his comments from his "Brutalist" write up in the comment section:

      "oh I’ve done some book reviews where I decided in advance that I would trash it even without having read it"

      So while technically that could happen with the book not actually being out, it isn't a completely necessary condition(it could be out and he simply doesn't read it and trash it)...but my point remains the same.

  3. As I was trying to say in the previous post (freak'n cell phone), this "she is now an active supporter of libertarian ideas" is not guaranteeing her being a libertarian. In fact, I would say she's not really making that claim. What she is ultimately doing is playing around and picking and choosing ideas to support. This way in the future she can disavow (or now she is doing) people like Mr. Rockwell. She is in this for herself, as we have seen with other "feminist" libertarians. I don't even think she understands what libertarianism is, considering her Twitter description in that she splits up economic and social issues.

    This is funny. She thinks that she can take down somebody that has put himself through all that study and work over decades - decades. To make a statement as she did just shows that how non-read she is. Absurd.

  4. This is a very important time in Libertarian history. Ron Paul has whet millions of peoples' appetites for libertarian concepts. There are statists that are generally concerned with this trend and have co-opted Libertarian and libertarian leaning organizations in order to dilute the message for the inititiated and easily swayed people looking to learn these "new" concepts. The tea party is one example of this, Reason Mag is another, etc.

    This is not new in politics. The old guard wants the status quo. Any way they can make "new" concepts fit into the old mold, they're going to do that. There is a huge amount of power and wealth at stake, and the struggle between power and liberty has been going on for centuries. The only way you can change that is to educate the general public that there is an alternative to the status quo. Changing minds changes the dynamic.

    There are very basic tenants for being a Libertarian. Exactly one even. The Non-Aggression Principle. No matter how much you say you are Libertarian, if you don't believe in the NAP, you're not one.

    It may be the cool buzzword, the hip concept on social media, or whatever, but it doesn't matter. No NAP = the same old statist concepts that has put mass murder, theft, and slavery on the table as an acceptable moral dichotomy within the human species for centuries.

    Every time someone tries to muddy the water on the NAP, the response should be exactly the same. You can pretend to believe whatever you want, but you're not a Libertarian unless you abide by the NAP. The NAP isn't for sale, it's not for bargaining, it's not a fly in the ointment, it's not improperly worded, it's not a compromise.

    A libertarian is a person who believes that no one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being for any reason whatever; nor will a libertarian advocate the initiation of force, or delegate it to anyone else.

  5. Within the broadest spectrum of libertarian thinkers (when one includes the entire pseudo / thick contingent), there are only a handful that hold consistently to the NAP.

    In Rothbard's time there was...Rothbard. Today there is Rockwell.

    Certainly there are others - Hoppe, Block, Wenzel, etc. (you all know the names). But, and not taking away from any, the central focal point for the last 15 years – THE focal point during the internet age – is Rockwell.

    He – and through his efforts, Rothbard – has had more influence than the entire pseudo / thick bunch combined.

    “Bizarre Attack on Lew Rockwell”

    There is nothing bizarre about it. They see Rockwell as the enemy. They have countless millions of dollars dedicated to their cause – kill the NAP, justify state intervention in the economy and in the military, more efficient government, smarter regulation, etc.

    Rockwell symbolizes the NAP. He is the most visible spokesman. He is the manifestation of the idea they want to destroy.


    1. "Certainly there are others - Hoppe, Block, Wenzel, etc. (you all know the names). But, and not taking away from any, the central focal point for the last 15 years – THE focal point during the internet age – is Rockwell.

      He – and through his efforts, Rothbard – has had more influence than the entire pseudo / thick bunch combined."

      This should be posted in neon lights.

    2. BM, I've got to tell you - that was some pretty motivating stuff. Let them try to kill the NAP. Is this the best they can muster? I'm not impressed thus far. Try as the statists might, they can't stop the thousands upon thousands of people around the world who are becoming hardcore libertarians, dedicated to the NAP to the end. The best part is, we know that our ideas will ultimately prevail because the truth is greater than lies and good is stronger than evil. I, for one, am ready to study harder, make a contribution to Mr. Rockwell for his upcoming book, and contribute what I can to the Mises Institute. I hope other principled libertarians will do the same.

    3. Great smack down, bionic. Koch brothers backed attempts at inserting feminism and all sorts of other statist nonsense into libertarianism is not going to work thanks to the Internet. This clown is a college professor and is claiming libertarians have not written about pollution?!?!?!? And a third year war advocate (for American troops, not herself) has a problem with real ancaps and Ron Paul?

      LOL if this is the best they can do, then the Koch brothers need to get their money back. Then again, they spent who knows how many millions on reason and Cato and have had zero impact on the real world - unlike the Mises Institute.

  6. Wait a second, this E. Mark--- person is a 3rd year uni student? Why the bloody hell is anyone, including RW, giving her any publicity?? Seriously... Why is anyone listening/repeating and wasting time refuting the facebook ramblings of a uni student?

    1. In case you didn't notice she is a member of the International Executive Board of SFL. Sadly, SFL has a lot of followers and it needs to be made clear to them what SFL leadership is all about.

    2. I am glad someone with neo con views on war, rachel maddow views on secession, and is a fan of sarah silverman's "comedy" does not like Ron Paul or anarcho caps.

    3. Phil - I understand the impulse to not give the simpleton from SFL any publicity but consider this point which I feel overrides your concern.

      Whenever I come across an attempted 'take down' by someone I almost always do my own investigation/research on the target to form my own opinion and to not allow the author's disparging comments influence my judgement. I may end up agreeing with that person's charges but I make sure I get an unfiltered taste of the target's positions too. (I did this in the IP debate between Wenzel/Tucker).

      I do not think I am unique in this regard and therefore, Wenzel is right to reply in kind to this twerp. If you were a heretofore unfamiliar with Rockwell and came across the SFL commentary and there was not an informed 'counterpoint', you might allow the SFL take on things to fester in your mind and ultimately end up allowing that point of view to prevail in your judgement (if you cannot think for yourself which many people suffer from).

      The battle of ideas must be met head on and without question in my mind, the true libertarians will win this battle. Sometimes that means swatting a few gnats along the way.

  7. Lew is like a good running back. He does not look to the left and he does not look to the right, he just runs down the middle to gain the most yards. I personally have always admired that about him. In our mindless media-driven culture she will be quickly sent to the dustbin of history.

  8. Hats off to Rockwell for not doing a variant of an appeal to authority by inappropriately touting his close relationship with Rothbard.

    At the risk of overreaching to make apples into oranges, note the difference between Rockwell’s position with respect to Rothbard and Peikoff’s with respect to Rand.

    When she canonized Peikoff as her intellectual heir, Rand, so I hope, was simply having a bad heir day. Such a thing, so I believe, wouldn’t have even occurred to Rothbard.

  9. Lol the original poster's FB page "likes" Sarah Silverman - the ultimate hack "comedian" who simply blurts out "vagina" every time the crowd is silent and she needs a cheap laugh. She is not funny at all, and it makes sense that the original poster is a fan of Silverman.

  10. Did anyone see the "Independents" and specifically Kmele Foster denounce Ron Paul for posting an article (believe it was by Paul Craig Roberts) on RPI that questioned the government's conspiracy theory of 9/11? The article was mostly about the Ukrainian "crisis", but in typical PCR fashion he related it to other issues including 9/11.

    Kmele accused Paul of implicitly promoting "malevolent" forces by posting an article by a "truther" and "conspiracy theorist", as well as not denouncing them and excommunicating them from among his followers. Funny, the "Independents" have on warmongering neocons such as John Bolton that are constantly screeching for death, destruction and invasion of the Middle East and fanatically advocating American world military hegemony. Aren't they giving an outlet to blood thirsty armchair bombers and some of most odious imperialists and "malevolent forces" of our epoch?

    Say what you will about "truthers" and "conspiracy theorists" (I'm not sure. Don't believe the state, though) , but they are not explicitly advocating mass murder and destruction of foreigners like the neocons they have on their show. Shame on the "independents".

    1. I saw Justin Raimondo tweeting about that the other day. Cathy Feminwitz and other leftists parading as libertarians were all denouncing 911 truthers and conspiracy theorists, meanwhile these same groups constantly support conspiracy theories of their own about Syria or Ukraine or who knows what.

    2. That show turned out to be a major disappointment, especially with respect to foreign policy. It does seem, or I guess it's really obvious, there is a focused effort to capture back as many of those people as possible that became interested in Ron Paul, NAP, Rockwell, Rothbard, etc.

  11. This is my second attempt at posting, and will be much more concise than the original. The first version disappeared a few hours ago (ago when I hit post, browser problem), and I thought it was quite detailed and good : ) here are the clumsy cliff notes.

    What's her name neoliberal McCobinite is in the same camp as Kathy what's her face, they are not libertarians.

    However, Robert misread neoliberal McCobinite what's her name's tweets. She isn't attacking Lew, but the NAP, and actual libertarians who follow the NAP who argued against her pro-interventionist stance citing the NAP.

    Re-read it-

    "So, apparently, a new Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist manifesto is coming out soon. It's surprising they have chosen to keep it under 200 pages. One could think it's way too long, as some people have proven themselves to be capable of explaining life, politics and international conflicts in three letters or one abbreviation."

    Here she is actually pretending to promote, even be on the side of, Lew and Rothbard, while denigrating the non-aggression principle, a foundational piece to their philosophy! How can one do that? Well, like all McCobinites, her words are hollow and contradictory once understood. But this is important, this is the muddying! She is pretending to support Lew's book while insulting the NAP and being pro-war, now how can that be?

    The question is, why is she attacking twitter followers instead of directly going after Lew, who has published multiple articles opposing her position. She is muddying.

    Both what's her name and what's her face are fame seekers. Any attention is good attention to the McCobinites. So attacking the philosophy you proclaim yourself to follow is a way to get main stream appeal, articles in main stream rags, and day time television appearances, and that is all a McCobonite wants. In essence they desire to be a tool of the state. The more useful to the state they are, the more famous they will be. As long as they claim to love liberty and then promote warfare and taxes the sky is the limit!

    So, apparently, a new Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist manifesto is coming out soon. It's surprising they have chosen to keep it under 200 pages. One could think it's way too long, as some people have proven themselves to be capable of explaining life, politics and international conflicts in three letters or one abbreviation.

    "I know, I have enjoyed them in the past too. However, the scope of intellectual shortcuts some self-proclaimed Rothbardians operate in certain debates is just intolerable."

    1. Neither one of them are libertarians, thick or thin. Just statists with a self serving self proclamation of libertarian.

  12. Isn't one Megan McArdle more than enough? At least you can pronounce her name.

  13. Notice how cocky that Lode guy is in the comments section! What is he - 15 years old???? And acting intellectually superior to lew Rockwell?!?!?? LOL

  14. How shameful and cowardly it is that the "adults" (Tom Palmer?) associated with Koch dupe/pay school children like this young girl to spew THEIR envious hate toward their intellectual and entrepreneurial superiors like Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul.

  15. It's not "bizarre." She's a Lithuanian, with lots of reasons to distrust her large neighbor to the East. So when Russian immigrants take the logical next step and declare their part of the Ukraine Russia, the patriotic Lithuanian attacks those who support Russia, even if just tangentially.

    Maybe Bob will let this comment through. It surprises me how many libertarian sites seem terrified of open debate.

    1. What is bizarre is for her to call Lew a "self-proclaimed" Rothbardian and to suggest that he takes intellectual short-cuts.

    2. OMG that's so bizarre. That's like, the most bizarre thing ever.

      Let me suggest that Markevičiūtė isn't really thinking about intellectual rigor, but about blood and soil--a topic left (speaking of) bizarrely unexplored in libertarian debate.

      Biology trumps ideology.

    3. A better summary of your argument: Emotion trumps principle.

    4. "Maybe Bob will let this comment through. It surprises me how many libertarian sites seem terrified of open debate."

      Projection and a liar. No surprise there.

    5. A better summary of your argument: Emotion trumps principle.

      I can make a perfectly rational and principled argument why your wife and I should have an affair, or why a starving African child should get your first extra dollar instead of your own child. When I seduce your wife or grab that food which your kid did nothing to earn, I'll just remind you not to let emotion trump principle.

      Projection and a liar. No surprise there

      Not at all. Libertarian sites moderate comments very heavily. Lew Rockwell, for example, clammed right up once the SPLC started sniffing around him. Now, the guy can't shut up about this entity called "The State," as if no other collective--nation, family, clan, tribe, race, faith--ever existed.

      When the central State disappears, people break up along ethno-cultural lines faster than you can say 'blood is thicker than water.' Libertarians won't touch these issues with a ten-foot Pride Parade banner.

    6. You seducing someone else's wife is pretty unprincipled.... And also unlikely.

  16. Her Twitter page is quite a hoot as well.





    Easy pickings.

  17. First off this Egle lady says Lew takes shortcuts because what libertarians say about economics is simple, from an individual perspective and takes into account many of the university taught Keynesian economists don't understand and that is value and choice. They only understand coercion, force, and intervention.
    As for the comment on Ron Paul, she doesn't seem to grasp exactly what is meant by secession. Secession is the act of a group of people not agreeing with the majority and wanting to go somewhere where they can get along and live better, typically according to a way of life they see working better.
    These governmental mouthpieces do not understand the concept of freedom.
    Want to grasp more freedom, visit rathbonezvizionz.wordpress.com

  18. This is the proper defense to these tweets. Dismissing the NAP is akin to saying, "I am not a libertarian."