1. Skip to navigation
  2. Skip to content
  3. Skip to sidebar
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/15384/the-story-of-roy-a-childs-jr-1949%e2%80%931992/

The Story of Roy A. Childs Jr. (1949–1992)

January 21, 2011 by

Childs was mightily impressed by what he read inside the covers of Rothbard’s books and by what he heard from Rothbard himself in that famous living room. And he was determined to pass his enlightenment along to the students of Objectivism. FULL ARTICLE by Jeff Riggenbach


jon January 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm

very happy to see someone write about roy!

James Thompson January 21, 2011 at 7:32 pm

Ayn gave the best Criticism of her program herself; She wanted to be the Modern Saint Thomas Aquinas–who synthesized Aristotelianism with the the Philosophy of Neo-Platonist Saint Augustine The Theologian of Hippo! She wanted to synthesize Aristotelianism with the Philosophy of the Neo-Platonist Emmanuel Kant! The first writer to use Neo-Platonism extensively, in all his his writings, was Philo Judaeus of Alexandria, Egypt. Philo lived from about 30 BCE/BC to 56 CE/AD! His imitator was Plotinus who adapted Philo to Roman Paganism, whose disciple was Saint Augustine the Theologian of Hippo! In more modern times, Emmanuel Swedenborg, imitator of Plotinus, adapting Plotinus to modern times, in his book, “Heavenly Secrets,” It was Plagiarized as “The Critique of Pure Reason,” by Emmanuel Kant, as his Signature Work! Twelve Year Old Charles Sanders Peirce, read the Obscurantist “Critique of Pure Reason,” in the Original German, and declared it full of Irreconcilable Contradictions! The “Heavenly Secrets” is available online at the Baltimore Swedenborgian Church Website! The Basis of Neo-Platonism is the Irrational Allegorical Method which uses anything to prove anything else! All Neo-Platonisms are Religions; All Religions are Neo-Platonisms! Plato Abstracted Neo-Platonism from the Athenian Pagan Religion and used it in only in a very limited and controlled context, to appease the Athenian Pagans so that he would not be indicted for Impiety and put to death as was Socrates and later Jesus! Osama Bin Ladin and the Islamacists attack the West for Impiety! Thomas Jefferson stated: “My Philosophy… is that of Old Aristotle!” See the “Collected Papers of Thomas Jefferson,” the “Index Volume,” heading “Aristotle.”

AskanIPquestion January 22, 2011 at 7:36 am

“In the 1960s Childs endorsed anarcho-capitalism, but later expressed doubts about anarchism.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Childs

Hmmm… what does that mean? Did he think of the state as a legitimate institution?

Beefcake the Mighty January 22, 2011 at 8:20 am

The magnificent Last Ditch is an admirer of Childs’ work:


newson January 23, 2011 at 6:10 pm

anarchist illusions is interesting. if the source be credible, why the iran-hostage crisis would see childs’ advocacy of anarchism end i cannot fathom.

newson January 23, 2011 at 6:51 pm

childs’ reluctance to enter into details about how an anarchist society would look is understandable. bruce benson has plenty of historic examples of how non-state legal codes have operated successfully in the recent and distant past.

newson January 23, 2011 at 8:19 pm

“Politically and culturally, we are some of America’s dead, huddling together here in The Last Ditch. We’re a jumbled bunch of old bones — defunct revolutionaries, shell-shocked reactionaries, failures of the regime’s schooling system, American Dreamers who died hard, misfits all. There are even a few of us still dreaming who might protest — like the uncooperative plague victim in the Monty Python film — “I’m not dead yet!” But we’re dead, all right — because of the handful of values we hold in common. We’re all individualists. We all love liberty. We all mourn the civilization of the West. And because of those things we have become ghosts in our own land.”

what a great site, and a good compliment to the tu ne cede malis optimism of the lvmi.

Sione January 23, 2011 at 2:54 pm


Looks like the answer to your question is NO!

What I’ve read about Roy Child’s later life (and is confirmed in the links posted above) suggests that he was particularly annoyed about a certain lack of recognition, the state of his career and also that there were personal disagreement/conflicts with some other leading libertraians. He may have been stating opposition to anarchy (or aspects of it) for the purpose of annoying a particular individual (or even a few) or for reasons of pragmatism or for reasons of ego.

The fundamental fact that remains is that in the end he was never able to produce a validation for minarchism, although he claimed he was going to. In over a decade he never did disclose an argument- either written or even oral.

In a sense the decline of his health and intellect mirrors that of Ayn Rand. The later works of both lost the sharpness and the vital insight of the earlier.


Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: