I was pointed to an article that I just couldn’t let go by. The article is “Dear Tom Woods, Murray Rothbard Did Indeed Suck”. Normally I try to have an open mind, and hear people out when they try to criticize people and their ideas. With a bold title like that, maybe he really does have some keen insight that is worth considering. So I read it. Tom Woods is fully capable of defending himself, and the writings of such a key figure in the liberty movement generally stand on their own merits, but I felt like it might at least be a good exercise to respond to this article.
I didn’t get even get one sentence into the article, and he already resorted to ad-hominem attacks, a common logical fallacy (1). He claims Murray Rothbard was a member and supporter of the KKK (of course without any substantiation). It does not bode well when your leading argument is just an inciting, personal attack. And it didn’t get much better.
Next, he claims that he is a libertarian, and Rothbard isn’t, because Rothbard was an anarchist. But he doesn’t define what a libertarian is, and clearly doesn’t know the basic definition of the word, because being an anarchist is absolutely consistent with libertarian ideals.
What are the underlying principles of libertarianism? The basic idea is that no one should be allowed to steal from, threaten, enslave or imprison another person. I’ve tried to articulate this as best I can in my Liberty Framework. Since governments (which coincidentally Rothbard does a great job of defining and describing in Anatomy of the State) do generally engage in such activities, it then directly follows that someone who believes in the libertarian ideals would oppose government, i.e. be an anarchist.
Then he makes attacks on the school of Austrian Economic thought. Not based on its teachings, or merits, but on whether it is popular. He claims that since Austrian Economics isn’t widely taught or used in government, that it must be wrong. But that’s a non-sequitur, another logical fallacy (2). You know what else was unpopular and opposed by those in political power for a long time? (3) The idea that the Earth was round and orbited the sun.
Then he claims that Milton Friedman is the true Free-Market thinker, because some of his economic policy prescriptions were actually enacted. But that is the same as the non-sequitur fallacy I just pointed out. Not to mention, in many instances Milton Friedman actually did oppose the free market, as libertarians would define it. He favored central banking and guaranteed universal income, Keynesian ideals. Definitely not a true free market thinker.
Near the end he asks “What, in terms of actual policy proposals, did Murray Rothbard do that changed any nation globally, with his influence?” But I’m not even sure what he means based on how that question is worded. You do policy proposals to “change a nation”, you enact policies. And the fact that Rothbard himself didn’t enact policies, isn’t because his policies were bad, it’s because he never held a position allowing him to do so. Besides, Rothbard did have a significant influence. He was a major factor in forming and promoting the libertarian movement that is still active and growing today.
So I’m going to agree with Tom Woods on this one, that Mr. Peralo IS “some brash young hothead trying to define an ideology [he doesn’t] understand.” He clearly needs a lesson in logical reasoning, another one in libertarian ideology, and a third in Austrian Economics, because that article was clear evidence that he lacks a sufficient understanding in all three.