This paper by Randy Barnett has garnered a number of links out there in blogland. The title is “The Moral Foundations of Modern Libertarianism.” My hunch was that this was probably a paper with a predictable subtext condemning Rothbard as too doctrinaire etc.–the subject of innumerable mini-treatises in libertarian newsletters over the years–and this hunch turned out to be true many times over: we are presented with a caricature of Rothbardian rights theory accompanied by a notable lack of citations to the papers Rothbard has actually written on the topic at hand (especially his work criticizing utilitarian economic theory). One gets the impression of Rothbard as little more than a firebrand who said “rights are moral and true” and excommunicated anyone who disagreed (for which Rothbard must thereby be excommunicated by “modern” [i.e. state tolerant] libertarians). Probably the most implausible claim in this paper (by a libertarian who agrees with Victor Davis Hanson that the Iraq war is purely defensive) is the assertion that Rothbardianism as theory is on the decline. But enough commentary from me: here is the paper. May it drive ever more students to read what Rothbard wrote.
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/2283/barnett-on-rothbard/
Barnett on Rothbard
Previous post: Ten Recurring Economic Fallacies, 1774-2004
Next post: Does the Income Effect Argue for Taxes?
{ 4 comments }
As an admirer of Randy Barnett, I am puzzled as to why he would be setting up such an ugly Rothbardian strawman. It is certainly not necessary to make his point, which is essentially that libertarianism does not mandate a certain code of morality (and please correct me if I misunderstood the thrust of the article), it just seeks to limit the use of power to its legitimate sphere. How Rothbard would disagree with that I have no idea. The Ethics of Liberty, IIRC, came to pretty much the same conclusions. Having never met Rothbard, I can’t say how accurate Barnett’s portrayal was, but it certainly does not jibe with the image I have gathered from myriad sources. If it was not accurate, what on earth was Barnett’s motivation?
In the subject article, Barnett characterizes Jan Narveson as a utilitarian. Narveson is far from utilitarian. His The Libertarian Idea and his more recent Respecting Persons in Theory and Practice specifically criticize utilitarianism.
One might characterize Narveson better as a neo-Hobbesian, however odd that might seem to some who have never read Narveson. Nonetheless, if one must pigeonhole Narveson either a natural lawyer or a utilitarian, he clearly falls into the previous camp.
This is not to say that many of Randy Barnett’s works are not outstanding — The Structure of Liberty is one of less than a dozen essential works for anyone wishing to understand how a stateless order might work with regard to the provision of law and order.
I agree with Ike – if idealogical “purity” is going to be the sole criteria for membership in the libertarian movement, then most of us are going to be disqualified for one reason or another. It is not necessary for all of us to be the Rothbardian version of “The Boys From Brazil”. It is sufficient that we agree that the federal govenment as presently constituted represents an intolerable usurpation of the rights of all, and that we support one another in effective remedies therof.
Gil,
Narveson used to be explicitly utilitarian, but has since changed his views. Now he considers himself a contractarian. Perhaps Barnett is not aware of this change.
Comments on this entry are closed.