Murray Rothbard Versus the Koch Libertarians (Cato Institute)

October 18, 2017

The following is an overview and summary, with little contribution of my own, of David Gordon’s three part series (part 1, part 2, part 3) on the relationship that Murray Rothbard had with the Koch Brothers. To understand the libertarian movement is immensely beneficial for the libertarian at all stages of development. It teaches the nuances in theory and strategy that have developed over the years and it explains where the present state of the liberty movement came from. The Gordon essay is classic Gordon. Extremely helpful, packed full of incredible detail, and uses the past struggles of Rothbard to explain current themes in the liberty movement. 

The only problem, of course, is that it is long: three essays. I have tried hard to make the following overview engaging, short, and complete; and of course, true to Gordon’s telling of the story. Murray Rothbard was the founder of the modern libertarian movement, the chief developer of the theory and the synthesizer of libertarianism as an ethical-political theory with Austrianism as a value-free science of economic thought. His story needs to be told; not just because of what happened to him –for old wounds can and do heal– but because it explains why and how libertarianism as a movement is not just a uniform thing. There are factions. There are lessons. There are very good reasons why the libertarianism of mainstream approval is not the Rothbardianism of the 1970s, 80s, and 90s.

Something happened. Here is the story.

Why Mises? (and not Hayek) - by Hans-Hermann Hoppe

Let me begin with a quote from an article that my old friend Ralph Raico wrote some 15 years ago:

Ludwig von Mises and F. A. Hayek are widely considered the most eminent classical liberal thinkers of this century. They are also the two best known Austrian economists. They were great scholars and great men. I was lucky to have them both as my teachers.… Yet it is clear that the world treats them very differently. Mises was denied the Nobel Prize for economics, which Hayek won the year after Mises's death. Hayek is occasionally anthologized and read in college courses, when a spokesman for free enterprise absolutely cannot be avoided; Mises is virtually unknown in American academia. Even among organizations that support the free market in a general way, it is Hayek who is honored and invoked, while Mises is ignored or pushed into the background.

I want to speculate — and present a thesis — why this is so and explain why I — and I take it most of us here — take a very different view. Why I (and presumably you) are Misesians and not Hayekians.

Observations on Hayek’s Plan by Mises

Abstract: This memorandum was written at the request of Henry Hazlitt to provide Mises’s comments on and concerns about F.A. Hayek’s initial proposals for what became the Mont Pèlerin Society. Mises stresses that those who favor liberty and freedom and oppose totalitarianism must also oppose interventionism. The memo argues that those who fought and lost against the rising tide of totalitarianism at the turn of the 20th Century lost their battles because they settled for middle-of-the-road policies that conceded considerable ground to the socialists. The weak point in Professor Hayek’s plan is that it relies upon the cooperation of many men who are today’s middle-of-the-roaders. As interventionists, they may not be the hoped-for intellectual pioneers to inspire people to build a freer world.

Karachi as a province

S. Akbar Zaidi
January 11, 2014

THERE is little disagreement on the suggestion that Pakistan needs many more provinces than the existing four (five, if one includes Gilgit-Baltistan). From aspects of political economy to being able to better administer smaller units, many arguments support the idea of numerous new provinces.

The argument that more provinces would break Punjab’s hegemony over the rest of Pakistan and parts of what currently constitute Punjab itself are equally valid. A Seraiki and Hazara suba are a key requirement for the people of those regions. It has been suggested that the older 12 divisions of Pakistan, with modifications, should become provinces or autonomous administrative units. One of them was Karachi Division.

The issue of making Karachi a province is laced with emotion. Any such demand is seen as incendiary and challenges the supposed integrity of the Pakistani nation-state. Karachi’s political economy must be studied to consider whether a city of 20 million could exist as a province or even as an independent territory.

Is PDA a crime in Pakistan?

Young couples, know your rights the next time you're stopped by a cop

KARACHI: As evening falls in Karachi, Ahmed* and his girlfriend Manahil* head out on a dinner date. This wasn’t just any date, the 24-year-old wanted to surprise his girlfriend with the news that his family had agreed to their marriage. But fate had another surprise in store for them: a stark reminder of the fact that they live in Pakistan, where love costs a thing or two.

On the way back from dinner, Ahmed took a detour and stopped his car on the service road. The couple shared a kiss. “It was nothing more than that,” says Manahil. “But before we knew it, two uniformed law enforcers on a bike came out of nowhere and one put his pistol on the window,” she recalls.

Ahmed opened the door and stepped out of the car, only to be hit by the personnel on his head. “They took my partner away and took away our mobile phones and wallets,” she says.

The policemen continued to harass the young couple for almost 20 minutes. They threatened them with jail time and said they would only be released if their parents came to the police station. “I started crying. They even called me a slut,” Manahil recounts. “They took Ahmed to the nearest ATM and let us go only after taking a total Rs17,000 from us.”