The trade winds are the
prevailing pattern of easterly surface winds found in the tropics, within the
lower portion of the Earth's atmosphere, in the lower section of the
troposphere near the Earth's equator…. The trade winds of both hemispheres meet
at the doldrums.
The trade winds are the cure for the doldrums.
Prologue
Prior to starting my series on The Libertarian Forum, edited by
Murray Rothbard, I had not read much of the (relatively) early Murray
Rothbard. The newsletter came out twice
per month beginning in 1969.
I have written about a half-dozen posts, reviewing various
issues of the newsletters; I have yet to read even the first year of this
fifteen-year series. I have not written
on several of the issues that I have read, this for various reasons.
Perhaps most prominent among these reasons: Rothbard was, in
some ways, a hard-core leftist; I find no reason to examine hard-core leftist
positions – further, on some of these positions I am aware that Rothbard
changed his views, so why spend energy on these.
On the other hand, in most areas Rothbard has remained
consistent – and in many of these areas I hold common cause. Most significantly this is true regarding his
views on foreign intervention and actions of the police state. I find no evidence that he ever budged on
these.
Am I critical of Rothbard because of this, because his views
have evolved and changed? Nothing could
be further from the truth. To begin:
what can be properly labeled “libertarian thought,” Rothbard almost
single-handedly developed from whole-cloth.
Well, maybe not whole-cloth and maybe not single-handedly,
but pretty close on both counts.
Certainly I can think of no other individual who wrote so much for so
many years with a single aim in mind: that of increasing liberty by developing
libertarian thought such that it could be used as an intellectual weapon to
bring down the state.
That Rothbard’s views evolved during his intellectual
journey is no vice – it is a virtue.
Starting from (almost) nothing, he wrote on hundreds of aspects that
were supportive of his singular aim.
Like any honest intellectual, he let the evidence lead him where it did
– not where he had previously decided it must take him. He did not remain stuck merely because he
felt invested.
Suffice it to say, my own views correspond much more with
the later Rothbard than with the early Rothbard. I have not examined why his views evolved and
why he moved in the direction that he did.
My blog is the evidence as to why I have moved in the direction that I
have.
Learning on Murray’s
Knee
Any libertarian thinker worth his salt will gladly admit
that this is true – certainly figuratively.
We owe an unpayable debt to the work of Rothbard.
For some libertarian thinkers, it is also literally
true. Walter Block is one of these; has
said of himself that he is trying his best to take what he learned while sitting
at Murray Rothbard’s knee. I believe
Walter knew Murray quite well, and knew him during those early years in New
York.
While Rothbard’s views on some libertarian topics have
evolved, Block has not taken a similar path on similar issues: specifically to
the focus of this post, the issue of immigration and open borders. But that Walter disagrees with his
libertarian mentor is neither here nor there – no one owns a monopoly on truth.
In any case, what is “truth” when it comes to a subjective
political / social philosophy? The best
we can do is place our theoretical “truth” against what we see and observe in
the behavior and nature of man, what we have seen in man’s history, what we
have seen as consequences of the various political / social paths that man has
tread.
What else do we have to weigh the consequences of political
/ social theory applied? The ivory
tower?
The Bad Economist
Any economist worth listening to understands the concept of
secondary and tertiary consequences. A child
can understand the initial consequence of an action; it takes critical
thinking, maturity, historical and social context, and an understanding of
human action to develop a rational view of the secondary and tertiary
consequences of an economic policy decision.
Is not the same true for the political / social
theorist? Is it not appropriate to
consider the secondary and tertiary consequences of the political and social
theories that we advocate? Must we
remain as intellectual children to avoid the accusation of straying from the
one true faith, with ideology placed on a pedestal as man’s salvation?
In many ways this has been my
journey at this blog: how do I take what I understand from libertarian theory
and free market economics and apply it in a world made of humans? How do we get from where we are to a society
where we have more freedom, less state?
How do we maintain our relatively increased freedom if / when we achieve
such a condition? Where and under what
conditions has such relative liberty been achieved and maintained?
I am learning that I am learning nothing new; Hans Hoppe has
plowed this field long before I ever began, and has done it far better than I
ever will. Yet, I enjoy my journey – as it
is mine.
The Bad Political
Theorist
Which comes to my point – and, as you can tell, the point
has something to do with Walter Block. I
am finding that Walter is one who, when it comes to libertarian theory, cares
not about secondary and tertiary consequences – and this is the most charitable
interpretation I can offer. I would hate
to think that he does understand the
consequences but continues to advocate his positions in the face of this.