Sometimes . . . it seems the concept of 'freedom' runs counter to the reality of interrelatedness of a society. Rocket River
Going to ignore the obvious trolling in this thread, but the idea that Rothbard advocates a world of hate is just... wow. I remember reading this from Chomsky some years ago, but it's still astoundingly stupid. Don't take Chomsky's word on Rothbard. Heck, don't even take mine - if you really want to know what he said then read it yourself. Not some dude's opinion of him, not a quote or two, but an actual article, essay, or - gasp! - book of his. I'd say 99% of his writing is online for free. Here's a very small sample: Wall Street, Banks, and American Foreign Policy The Anatomy of the State War, Peace, and the State The Trouble with Conservatives A Future of Peace and Capitalism Rothbard was no doubt imperfect, but far from a proponent of a society of hate. Chomsky is either ignorant (most likely) or full of ****.
I just cannot picture a world reduced to property rights plus some fundamental moral principles. In the world you describe, would it be ok for a corporate to sell crack to individuals for profits? Willing buyers and sellers. That would be nobody else's business. There is such a thing called public concerns.
That, and "winning" is such an admirable thing in this culture. To your point, regulating is also to ensure level playing field, to facilitate free market.
So, polluting into open air, water would be OK as well, right? Price gauging would be OK too. There would be no anti-trust law, no financial oversight, and so on so forth. Lessons are abundant, no? From the dark age of the Lochner area to the freedom champion of Greenspan that lead to the Wall Street fixing, to food safety endemic in China. That is not a world I want to live in.
The problem with American libertarian attitudes is exactly this. We evolved a system of laws to keep the capitalist framework explicitly in check. Capitalism is, in of itself, amoral and lawless by design. It is, however, built on its' own principles: it is a system built on pleasuring yourself and others, above all else. Those who are "libertarian" really wish to default to paternalistic "force", a system of might makes right for who gets to have the most pleasure. For in a society that is ruled by unchecked capital, capital will override all (hell, even checked capital has done so). Our societal concern for the future has been shot, reamed to hell, even with some figment of a legal system based around this. Where are the rights for future inhabitants of this planet to carbon resources we have plundered, clean air, and water? Gone. What of those who are born in miserable squalor just based on their country of birth despite the wealth of resources being plundered in abundance? The vast majority of people who are not even enjoying this orgy of short-sighted thinking? Bullied into sweatshop like conditions where suicide and overwork to death are the norm. The American libertarian believes in a simplistic ideal that cannot hope to capture the reality of a very complex world, and fails to realize that in disparaging "government force", they would encourage an even more dire threat: the overwhelming force of capital, that will, like a pyramid, channel plundered resources to the top, disregarding all concern for the future, those outside of the borders of their nation, or even those within it. Capitalism is a useful tool, for some situations. A dirty useful tool. Let's not confuse it with a religion, or a way to build an entire society.
Trolling, yourself? The critical thinking of Von Mise, Hayek, Rothbard certainly should be appreciated. Giants. But as Keynes put it as comment to "Road to Serfdom" - the tricky party is to find the balance.
The thing about what people like Murray Rothbard prescribe to, is that they aren't forcing that way of life on anybody. Rothbard, in particular, believes that anarchism will result in the sort of capitalism that Chomsky refers to as being based in hate. However, that doesn't mean that Rothbard is right. In fact, many other anarchists would contend that the necessary end of anarchism would be some form of syndicalism or communism. I'm of the opinion that you'd end up with all three, and you'd end up with exactly what we have now. In other words, we live in anarchy, and the governments that have formed over time are the answer to the problem of anarchy.
