Talk:Murray Rothbard

Template:WP1.0

"is considered by some to be"

Since this has been reverted a few times, just to be nitpicky, technically the sources says Rothbard IS the Dean. However, obviously LewRockwell.com is a bit biased, so either it should be noted as "LewRockwell.Com describes Rothbard as" or left as the non-referenced but more accurate "is considered by some to be." I'm happy to leave it as it is but if others want to debate the merits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard on race

To counter the now deleted quotes from the Salon piece I put together a better overview of Rothbard's views on race. The Salon piece is based on material from The New Republic and Reason which was contested by Raimondo and others at the time. So those should be the source of any criticism and response not the second hand Salon piece. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I removed the Salon refs because Rothbard was quoted, but no source was given for the quotes. The overall tone of the piece is troubling, as well, with everything directed toward proving Rothbard was a racist, and that, by extension, his allies are as well. The information you added is better sourced, Carol. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 04:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the Reason article again on the controversial Ron Paul newsletters which is widely ref'd lately, I remembered - OOPS! - I was quoted in it. Some short reference to this angry period of Rothbard's life probably should be mentioned so it doesn't look like a coverup. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Wrong impression about Rothbard's views

Language at two places gives the wrong impression.

"Rothbard advocated minimum coercive government control of the economy." 'Minimum' is euphemistic. Rothbard opposed government tooth-and-nail. "Priding himself on his radicalism, he used to brag that if there were a button one could push that would sweep away all vestiges of government in an instant, he would break his thumb pushing it." http://www.libertariannation.org/a/f23l1.html How about: Rothbard advocated abolition of governments.

"Rothbard concluded that virtually all services provided by monopoly governments could be provided more efficiently by the private sector." 'Virtually' is against Rothbard's philosophy. Rothbard is one of the few libertarians who don't see any place for governments at all. The 'virtually', at least, should be deleted.

The State, then, is not simply a part of society. The brunt of this part of the present volume, in fact, is to demonstrate that the State is not, as most utilitarian free-market economists like to think, a legitimate social institution that tends to be bumbling and inefficient in most of its activities. On the contrary, the State is an inherently illegitimate institution of organized aggression, of organized and regularized crime against the persons and properties of its subjects. Rather than necessary to society, it is a profoundly antisocial institution which lives parasitically off of the productive activities of private citizens. Morally, it must be considered as illegitimate and outside of the ordinary libertarian legal system, which delimits and insures the rights and just properties of private citizens. Thus, from the point of view of justice and morality, the State can own no property, require no obedience, enforce no contracts made with it, and indeed, cannot exist at all. The Ethics of Liberty, Murray N. Rothbard, New York University Press, 1982, 1998; pp. 187

115.242.216.161 (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I plan to replace `minimum' by `removal of' and remove `virtually', in the two sentences respectively. Any objections? 115.184.123.103 (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good for you for catching it. Check out Libertarianism where some people are trying to delete any ref to libertarian anarchism. I just haven't had time or energy to come up with the MANY new refs for that topic. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Made the two changes.115.184.17.128 (talk) 10:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, I know the changes are right but I didn't really check to see if that's what the WP:RS say, meaning better WP:RS might be needed. Too many articles, too little time. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello, no problem. Here is a collection of quotes from Rothbard. Please put proper references in the article too (when you get time to do so!).

• ["virtually all services":] All of this the libertarian denies: he sees the various apologia as fraudulent means of obtaining public support for the State’s rule, and he insists that whatever services the government actually performs could be supplied far more efficiently and far more morally by private and cooperative enterprise. [p. 32] For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Murray N. Rothbard; Revised Online edition, Ludwid von Mises Institute; 2002

• [role of State in the society:] But the critical difference between libertarians and other people is not in the area of private crime; the critical difference is their view of the role of the State—the government. For libertarians regard the State as the supreme, the eternal, the best organized aggressor against the persons and property of the mass of the public. All States everywhere, whether democratic, dictatorial, or monarchical, whether red, white, blue, or brown. [p. 54] For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto; Murray N. Rothbard; Revised Online edition, Ludwid von Mises Institute; 2002 (emphasis in the original)

• ["limited state":] Advocates of a limited government often hold up the ideal of a government above the fray, refraining from taking sides or throwing its weight around, an "umpire" arbitrating impartially between contending factions in society. Yet why should the government do so? Given the unchecked power of the State, the State and its rulers will act to maximize their power and wealth, and hence inexorably expand beyond the supposed "limits." The crucial point is that in the Utopia of limited government and laissez faire, there are no institutional mechanisms to keep the State limited. Surely the bloody record of States throughout history should have demonstrated that any power, once granted or acquired, will be used and therefore abused. Power corrupts, as the libertarian Lord Acton so wisely noted. Furthermore, apart from the absence of institutional mechanisms to keep the ultimate decision-maker and force-wielder "limited" to protection of rights, there is a grave inner contradiction inherent in the very ideal of a neutral or impartial State. ... [p. 211] The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998 (all emphasis in the original)

• ["limited state", continued:] Finally there is a crucial inconsistency in the proferred criterion of laissez-faire itself: limiting the government to protection of person and property. For, if it is legitimate for a government to tax, why not tax its subjects to provide other goods and services that may be useful to consumers: why shouldn't the government, for example, build steel plants, provide shoes, dams, postal service, etc.? For each of these goods and services is useful to consumers. [p. 217] The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998

• [relation to the State:] It means, for example, that no one is morally required to obey the State (except insofar as the State simply affirms the right of just private property against aggression). For, as a criminal organization with all of its income and assets derived from the crime of taxation, the State cannot possess any just property. This means that it cannot be unjust or immoral to fail to pay taxes to the State, to appropriate the property of the State (which is in the hands of aggressors), to refuse to obey State orders, or to break contracts with the State (since it cannot be unjust to break contracts with criminals). Morally, from the point of view of proper political philosophy, "stealing" from the State, for example, is removing property from criminal hands, is, in a sense, "homesteading" property, except that instead of homesteading unused land, the person is removing property from the criminal sector of society—a positive good. Here a partial exception can be made where the State has clearly stolen the property of a specific person.... [p. 218]The Ethics of Liberty; Murray N. Rothbard; New York University Press, New York and London; 1998 (emphasis in the original)

N6n (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I bring it up is because in libertarianism we've got these nutty minarchists who want to quote Rothbard as THE expert on why libertarianism has nothing to do with any kind of anarchism! So at some point they may drift over here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard the father of Libertarianism? really?

Even if we were to send to oblivion the fact that the French anarchist-communist Joseph Déjacque is credited with developing the idea of Libertarianism in the late 18 century, is it appropriate for an encyclopedia to use Rockwell's website to claim without attribution that Rothbard is "considered the founder of libertarianism"?

And more importantly, is www.lewrockwell.com a reliable website to use for this article? 198.22.236.230 (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Seems it could use better sourcing (or more nuance, given the obvious leanings of lewrockwell.com). An assertion that may need balancing viewpoints probably is not best placed in the opening sentence. BigK HeX (talk) 20:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Page 441 Hamowy's Encyclopedia of Libertarianism Rothbard article says Rothbard "was of central importance to the modern libertarian movement because of both his writing and scholarship and his personal outreach to young libertarians." This sounds like a good source. (Note: Sources pointing out he was often called "Mr. Libertarian". CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that "important figure in the modern libertarian movement" or some such is probably less contentious. BigK HeX (talk) 18:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Carol what you posted is a far cry from Rothbard being considered "the father of Libertarianism". There's an evident difference between being associated with libertarian ideas and being credited as the "the founder" of them.

In my opinion, Rockewell's assertions merely reflect his affiliation with Rothbard and not a widely held view of him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.132.56 (talk) 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, my point was this was a WP:RS way of describing him instead of "father of Libertarianism." CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks good. It should definitely differentiate between the American notion of libertarianism (ie; Anarcho-capitalism) and the classical (more widely embraced) European view of libertarianism. 198.22.236.230 (talk) 14:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

See Libertarianism article which has multiple refs on that topic, since worldwide libertarianism means both, usually pro-property in more mainstream sources; or both in sources that have a broader overview. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Proposed intro

Murray N. Rothbard was the founder of anarcho-capitalism, a political philosophy he developed by synthesizing elements of the Austrian School of economics, individualist anarchism, non-interventionism and a revisionist history of the U.S. War of Independence, making him a central figure of the contemporary American libertarian movement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.152.95 (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Unless you can reference that particular synthesis, it isn't supported as an alternative to current lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

"We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists" -- Rothbard

I think this is worth pointing out.

Furthermore, we find that all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical. -- Murray N. Rothbard

Even Rothbard himself conceded that it was a horrible bastardization of language and history to call his beliefs 'anarchist' -- however valid or not they might be. Perhaps this is worth noting on this article or the article on anarchism? I don't think that wedging anti-state/laissez-faire capitalism into the anarchist camp without making a note of the circumstances is entirely honest. Finx (talk) 07:35, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The article was written in the mid-1950s while his ideas were still developing and before he became an activist. So it's really only useable as a compare/contrast to other things he might have said later. I just don't remember off hand (except maybe during his paleolibertarianism stage) he spoke out against anarchism, as opposed to subsuming it under his own beliefs. CarolMooreDC 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't this seem like it's worth a mention? I mean, I'm no expert on Rothbard, but to me, it implies one of two things, either of which would be pretty revealing: either his posturing as an anarchist is put-on or his understanding of the word's substance and etymology shifted drastically later down the road. Finx (talk) 11:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

If you read the article section "Anarcho-capitalism" it begins: Rothbard began to consider himself a private property anarchist in the 1950s..." So evidently that was written before that point OR if one looks at the wide context of what he wrotes (and I haven't read the article) it means something a bit different than what the one sentence might indicate. Assuming the first, merely stating he originally rejected the term anarchist (long quote not really needed or put in footnote) and then continue with the statements that show he later adopted it would be relevant. People change their minds all the time - or redefine terms the way they want. He's been quite successful with that with anarcho-capitalism, which obviously pisses off a lot of left anarchists.

To provide an even more complete picture, it's not that difficult to do a books.google search of "Murray rothbard" AND Anarchist or web search of lewrockwell.com rothbard anarchist to find a variety of views by him and about him. It is an area that needs a bit more exploration, but just taking one sentence and throwing it in there is not of much use to the Wikipedia project. CarolMooreDC 16:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard and Ayn Rand

Ayn Rand is widely regarded as having been a thorough critic of "crony capitalism," both in her novel, Atlas Shrugged and in her work on politics, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal -- calling it, famously, "the aristocracy of pull" (which is actually a section title in Atlas Shrugged). She explicitly attacked all railroad subsidies, for example, and the whole "pressure group warfare" associated with seeking political favors as such, throughout BOTH works. Rothbard is ignoring or forgetting or dissembling about the many portraits of evil businessmen in Rand's novel, much less the portraits showing them seeking political favors just as Rothbard's complaints describe Rand allegedly ignoring. Her followers have been consistent in their opposition to all bailouts and any form of corporate welfare. See, for example, [1] and [2] Rothbard's assault here is false, and so far as to be absurd. Indeed, Rand very much and very thoroughly beat him to the punch on this issue, despite his later accusations to the contrary, giving credence to Rand's claims of plagiarism (as his writing on free will, natural rights and some basic epistemology also shows so obviously). Rothbard has been repeatedly criticized for the dishonesty in his attack on Rand. Most importantly, this has nothing to do with the section topic, Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism." The Rand criticisms in this section should simply be removed. Oolyons (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree it was pretty much irrelevant to that section, otherwise not aware of the details. The person who put it in could try to prove it was one of his major criticisms of her for that section, if they wanted. However, I have sourced and put back reference to "Mozart was a red" and a relevant pamphlet as not POV and entirely encyclopedic, as opposed to the vague phrase about becoming a critic. CarolMooreDC 04:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As to the last, Rothbard "lampooned" Rand's circle, not his own "relationship with Rand." That wasn't covered at all. The cited pamphlet ("Sociology") has also been criticized as being "fictionalized" -- just like the play. It falsely alleged, for example, that Rand "excommunicated" those who differed with her musical taste. When such examples were pointed out to Rothbard himself, he recognized the essay to have been "fictionalized." See, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, p. 399-400, note 43, (Valliant, J., 2005.) So, I added that it, too, is "fictionalized," as Rothbard appears to have freely admitted. As such, it is also far from "encyclopedic." Also, the way the section reads, it suggests that Rand's influence terminated when he began to "lampoon" her -- Burns, the source you cite, says otherwise. Also, the cause of their break, as Burns describes it, was his anarchism. This should all be reworded. Oolyons (talk) 18:50, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, if you want to get into all this it is necessary to properly source it, and from more than one source. By properly source I mean link to a readable books.google link and, upon request, also quote what the author says, which I do request below.

• The larger context needs brief presentation: Rothbard hanging out with Rand in the early 1950s, not being impressed with her until Atlas Shrugged, and then being more involved with her until a series of incidents drove him out in whatever year. It's fair to point out what sources say Rand did vs. what "her circle" did in course of biography, but not to use the article as a forum to defend Rand vs Rothbard's criticisms. And the article should link to Mozart was a red and the pamphlet.
• Obviously the fact that people in Rand's circle wanted Joey Rothbard to renounce Christianity is a well known story that should be included (since this is a biography of Rothbard, not Rand). And then there is the alleged plagiarism issue discussed by those sources and Stromberg. You might have an opinion on every detail of who did what to whom; Rothbard, Justin Raimondo and Brian Dogherty will have their own versions. But this is not the place for detailing every back and forth of every Rand fan defending Rand, just mention the most salient points. People can check the various sources for more details if they want.
• This link gives an idea of what Burns says about anarchism, which I'm sure Rand didn't like, but it helps to quote exactly what she says was disputed when since these links don't make it clear.
• Your sentence Rothbard was introduced to both Aristotelian epistemology and the "whole field" of natural rights through his discussions with Rand is highly dubious. Your page 145 source does not seem to say that, please provide whole quote saying that. Your use of "Nonetheless" in prefacing this statement, which seems to be out of chronological order of Burns' presentation, looks like an attempt at WP:Original research opinionating. Moreover, other sources say Rothbard was familiar with these views and made fun of Rand for thinking she originated age old viewpoints, so I doubt that she introduced him to these ideas, though she may have influenced some of his intepretations of them.
• If you want to prove Rothbard or anyone else said it was a "Fictionalized" essay you have to quote exactly what is written in The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, p. 399-400, note 43, (Valliant, J., 2005.). You can't say "as Rothbard appears to have freely admitted" which again is your own WP:OR
• Please don't allow your POV of defending Rand (including through the Mises quote I just removed) motivate you to distort what is written or the purpose of the article. If you think this is such an important topic start an article on Rand vs. Rothbard.

I'll make a less POV version with proper referencing. Please add proper referencing for fictionalized pamphlet when you get it. CarolMooreDC 21:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry for not quoting the source at length. (My page citations of Burns' bio appear to have been removed.) However, with all due respect, I think you need to read that source more closely. as it says precisely what I claimed it did. It reads, verbatim:

"Through Rand Rothbard learned about Aristotelian epistemology and '[t]he whole field of natural rights and natural law philosophy, which he did not know existed.' ... Rothbard acknowledged that Rand had taught him something of value." Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right (2005, Oxford Univ. Press), p. 145.

And Burns is here quoting merely Rothbard himself, see p. 221, note 31. This is more than enough, but should you require more, Barbara Branden also quotes Rothbard in her biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand (1986, Doubleday), p. 413, as follows:

"Murray Rothbard has stated that he 'is in agreement basically with all of her philosophy,' and that it was she who convinced him of the theory of natural rights which his books uphold."

Furthermore, both biographers recognize that Rand did not expel anyone from her circle for artistic matters, as Rothbard actually alleged in "Sociology." The "fictionalized" source reads as follows: "When [the author] asked him about it in 1982, Professor Rothbard himself told [Valliant] that his "Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult" was 'highly fictionalized.' For example, no one was ever 'excommunicated' from Rand's circle for not liking the music of Rachmaninoff as Rand did. Rothbard was himself explicitly aware of the dishonesty of his attack." (The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, 2005 Durban House), pp. 399-400. Again, I have merely cited the source for precisely what it stated.

Also, I do not believe that we need to get into all of that other "break up" material at all. Burns biography, cited above, on page 183, indicates that a certain academic conference provided (and I quote verbatim): "the grounds for a bitter final break up between Rothbard and Rand's circle. Tensions had been building over Rothbard's stubborn allegiance to anarchism. After almost six months of regular contact Rand and the Collective expected Rothbard to be convinced that anarchism was unworkable. In July 1958 a special Saturday night session was scheduled for Rothbard and Rand to debate." Jennifer Burns, Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, (2009, Oxford Univ. Press), p. 183. Instead of showing up, Rothbard realizing that he "hated [their] guts," and simply failed to show for the debate. While he was also accused of plagiarism, true, his anarchism was clearly the main issue and the one that made a continued relationship with Rand impossible, according to Burns. (In any case, Rand had positive, on going relationships with Christians, according to the recent 100 Voices: an Oral History of Ayn Rand, so Rothbard's report may, once more, be questionable.)

Also, I was not attempting to "defend" Rand with the Mises quote, only trying to provide the context for Rothbard's and Reisman's involvement with Rand. It is a fact that Mises, their teacher, already knew Rand personally and, later, admired Rand's novel, as the letter cited indicates, and it is through Mises that Rothbard's contacts first got him involved with Rand, according to Burns' biography, on page 144.

Finally, all the sources agree that Rothbard "made fun of Rand for thinking she originated age old viewpoints," but whether she was actually original or not is your own POV and his. The growing body of scholarship from Objectivist academics suggests that a great deal of what Rand thought was indeed original. See, for example, Tara Smith's recent book from Cambridge University Press, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist (2006), or Allan Gotthelf's work, among many others. Her ideas have formed the basis for far too many PhD dissertations lately for her ideas to have been unoriginal, frankly. Even the work of "neo-Objectivists," such as Tibor Machan is enough to show Rand's radical originality. In any case, Rothbard was defending himself from charges of plagiarism when he "ridiculed" Rand's alleged lack of originality, and was none too clear about the specifics himself, and his claims (and yours) are argument and POV. Oolyons (talk) 03:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

A Google Book result for Burns' book will link to the text of her doctoral dissertation of the same title on which the published version of her book is based. But the two are different in a number of ways, including, obviously, page numbering. The later and published version which I cite should, of course, be preferred. One must use a "hard copy" of Burns' book to confirm the quotations here. This may be part of the confusion. Oolyons (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'm not an expert in all this, but I think the context of Rothbard's comments about Rand's influence is important: Rothbard's quote is from the "fan" letter here Raimondo talks about in Enemy of the State (p. 117-120) when he was determined to get back into her good graces. Because the Books.google version of Burns is so broken up, it's not clear if she says that. The Stromberg defense of Rothbard not plagiarizing Rand provides evidence he might have been exaggerating his ignorance and was well aware of these ideas before Rand; explicit sources saying that might be found. Stromberg notes that it was several factors that led to the split; others do too. It's fine to say Mises' fans introduced him to Rand, long quotes from Mises about here WP:Undue.

The bottom line is that an NPOV paragraph can be created that basically says (complete with refs): early 1950s Rothbard hung out with Rand and wasn't impressed for whatever reasons; in Oct. 1957 Rothbard wrote a gushing letter and got back with her; there were a number of conflicts over __,__, __,__ which ended in a split in mid-1958. He later wrote some negative stuff about her which others have contested.

What do you think? CarolMooreDC 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think that we should get into all of the details. 1. It's too complex for a brief article, and unnecessary. 2. Rothbard's claims about Rand are, at least, controversial, and, at least partially, "fictionalized," and we would have to couch them as such, if we can trust them at all. And, 3. they are also really just a tangent in a bio of Rothbard. His anarchism was the most basic and most important reason for the split according to all the secondary sources I have cited. It was a necessary and sufficient cause, as it were, and fair to cite without further elaboration -- unlike all the rest.

Also, Burns' dissertation reads the same as the later text in this respect, as you can see here, and she is explicit and specific about an actual, positive and permanent influence on Rothbard's thought.Oolyons (talk) 05:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The "Stromberg defense" of Rothbard is rather odd. Rand's case for volition is what Rothbard was accused of lifting from Rand in 1958. Rothbard recapitulated this in his "Mantle of Science" essay. But it's relationship to previous "Thomistic" accounts of volition which allegedly render it unoriginal are, in fact, extremely obscure, not really the same as Rand's, and very unlikely for Rand to have known about, in any event. (They aren't even from Thomas Aquinas himself, for example.) In any case, Rothbard explicitly admitted that it was Rand who had first exposed him to it and to those other mentioned ideas. It is these explicit admissions by Rothbard which Burns and B. Branden quote, as I cited above, and of which Stromberg seems not to be aware at all. He seems to think that Rothbard picked these ideas up elsewhere -- and is seemingly unaware of Brandens' and Burns' material on Rothbard's admissions(!) Oolyons (talk) 05:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, this section on Rand's influence should be placed in the earlier section on Rothbard's life since this has nothing to do with his "political activism," the section's subject, and much more to do with his early influences, like Mises. Rand's influence was quite significant according to Rothbard's own repeated statements. Oolyons (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

First, note that Jeffrey Tucker does a nice review of what Burns says happened here on Mises.org that comports with what I wrote. Except it doesn't mention the fan letter, which Raimondo does. You ignore the views in Raimondo's biography of Rothbard? Of Doherty and Stromberg? All of whom are notable enough to have articles on Wikipedia and write on many subjects. Burns seems to be be merely an authority on Rand; not Rothbard.

Anyway, I will write my own version and put it here and get community input on what I consider to be a narrow and POV paragraph. CarolMooreDC 20:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of all of those other sources, and none of them contradict what Professor Burns or B. Branden wrote in the slightest -- including Jeffery Tucker's piece. Once again, with all due respect, you misread Tucker, just as you misread Burns earlier in our discussion. Tucker does not deny Rand's influence, at all, he only discusses some of the other issues that made Rothbard uneasy with her circle. Note that ~ he ~ mentions the same Mises letter that I quoted and that you excised in your obvious animus against Rand. He actually praises Burns "sorting" these very things out in a "brilliant" way. Sure, he focuses on certain elements that Burns does not, but recognizes his selective focus by introducing the section on Joey's religion, for example, with "for example..." He does not actually deny that anarchism was the real cause of the split and seems only dimly aware of the substance of Rand's ideas. Just like Tucker, indeed going beyond Tucker, my text mentions their break and not only criticism but "lampooning" of Rand's circle(!) In any case, Burns is citing Rothbard's own correspondence, and her work is a history of Rand's entire relation to the American Right. She is a valid academic secondary source from Oxford University Press. I quoted another source saying pretty much the same exact thing and who also quoted Rothbard himself much later in his life saying it once more. (B. Branden) If you can find a single source that actually contradicts Burns, then such a debate can be mentioned. Oolyons (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I very much welcome the input of others. Oolyons (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I've retitled this section, "Rothbard and Ayn Rand" for reasons that have become clear. Oolyons (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like you read what I suggested should be the relevant paragraph which includes Burns info per Tucker AND other information from other sources. But you'll see it when I write it. CarolMooreDC 02:54, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I did. Why do you think otherwise? I just don't think that we need to mention Rothbard's plagiarism, Joey's religion, etc., and all the other details of their relationship and split, with all of the other denials and explanations required, when Rothbard's anarchism was the proximate and sufficient cause of the break, and the single cause both sides agree was real. Just to review: first, you said that Burns hadn't said what I had quoted. You were mistaken. Then, you suggested that Burns wasn't as good as source as Tucker and others. When I observed that Tucker found Burns "brilliant" on this point, you changed once more into this mysterious hinting. Well, okay. Oolyons (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

This proposed general summary is what I was referring to: early 1950s Rothbard hung out with Rand and wasn't impressed for whatever reasons; in Oct. 1957 Rothbard wrote a gushing letter and got back with her; there were a number of conflicts over __,__, __,__ which ended in a split in mid-1958. He later wrote some negative stuff about her which others have contested.

I just pointed out that it was this general summary that Tucker's description of Burn's supports (except fan letter aspect, and only by omission). And using only one source and ignoring other equally good ones with somewhat different perspectives is essence of POV. Anyway, no reason to further discuss til I have an alternate version. CarolMooreDC 21:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have embraced each source that you've mentioned, and offered multiple sources myself, so, once more, I'm not sure what you mean. (The Mises Institute is a pro-Rothbard-partisan source, of course, while Burns appears to be neutral.) Yes, I understood, but why do we need that at all? The existing text says that there were various reasons, including his anarchism, for the break. What is "narrow" or POV about that in the first place? On one side, the Objectivists claim that Rothbard lifted ideas from Rand. (This is a very complex issue.) This is actively denied, even ridiculed. Why enter a debate that would take some space to be fair to both sides about when it is of such narrow partisan interest? On the other side, Rothbard claimed his wife's religion was an issue. This is not credited in Objectivist sources as being an issue at all. Rothbard also said that esthetic issues were involved and that is very much disputed by other sources as false and "fictionalized." The fact that Rothbard "wrote some negative stuff," indeed that he "lampooned" Rand's circle, is already mentioned. As is, readers can already evaluate how "gushing" (that's POV in any case) the letter was for themselves. The other issues are simply denied claims back and forth that are unnecessary for a perfectly objective account and are only of extremely partisan interest. They can all be found in the cited sources in appropriate detail. Why not simply mention the single issue both sides agree was relevant and true, while indicating that there were others? What's POV about the existing text? You can add more citations to it if you like, as they all seem to agree that it was a central issue. Oolyons (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I have replaced "soon" with "mid-1958" (from your proposal) to the text. Oolyons (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that Rand has been listed as an "influence" in the info box for some time. Oolyons (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Political Philosopher and Historian

Rothbard was more than "an author and economist." He was a political and legal theorist and a historian, as well as an economist. His multi-volume work on the American Revolution is worth noting, and even his work on the Great Depression discusses politics as well as economics. He did work on the history of economic thought toward the end of life, too. And a work like The Ethics of Liberty is no popular treatment, but a work of legal grounding, as he would see it, and basic political theory. I do not agree with Rothbard's position, but, in fairness, he should be listed as a political philosopher (in the initial description) and a historian. Or am I missing something? Oolyons (talk) 17:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

At the Ludwig von Mises Institute, he is called, "a scholar of extraordinary range, made major contributions to economics, history, political philosophy, and legal theory. He developed and extended the Austrian economics of Ludwig von Mises, in whose seminar he was a main participant for many years. He established himself as the principal Austrian theorist in the latter half of the twentieth century and applied Austrian analysis to historical topics such as the Great Depression of 1929 and the history of American banking," as you can see here (emphasis added). Again, not a fan of the source, but that is how he is described. Oolyons (talk) 17:22, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Rothbard did embrace and defended Hoppe's argumentation ethics

Regarding this revision which deleted a sentence. You can see this here which should be added as a second reference, and in the original reference as-well. To quote:

In a dazzling breakthrough for political philosophy in general and for libertarianism in particular, he has managed to transcend the famous is/ought, fact/value dichotomy that has plagued philosophy since the days of the scholastics, and that had brought modern libertarianism into a tiresome deadlock. Not only that: Hans Hoppe has managed to establish the case for anarcho-capitalist-Lockean rights in an unprecedentedly hard-core manner, one that makes my own natural law/natural rights position seem almost wimpy in comparison.

--MeUser42 (talk) 16:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, this source makes sense, if you summarize the sentence below and date it and put it in relevant chrono order. Otherwise, it has same problem as Ayn Rand entry which haven't gotten around to cleaning up: It looks like some fan of Hoppe (or Rand) is trying to use the article make claims for their hero as opposed to producing and NPOV version of Rothbard's views. This may not be clear to the editor writing it, but to others it may appear that way:

Hoppe's most important breakthrough has been to start from standard praxeological axioms (e.g., that every human being acts, that is, employs means to arrive at goals), and, remarkably, to arrive at a hard-nosed anarcho-Lockean political ethic. For over 30 years I have been preaching to the economics profession that this cannot be done: that economists cannot arrive at any policy conclusions (e.g., that government should do X or should not do Y) strictly from value-free economics....(and continues til says)...And yet, remarkably and extraordinarily, Hans Hoppe has proven me wrong. He has done it: he has deduced an anarcho-Lockean rights ethic from self-evident axioms."

Understand the difference?? CarolMooreDC 17:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, thank you for the feedback. I will add the reference and revise. --MeUser42 (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Further reading: "In praise of Rothbard the economist"

It is a legitimate further reading. It deals with a side of Rothbard's work, that of the pure economist. In any case, the link should be vetoed by an expert on the topic and not by a general editor, with due respect, since a mechanic erasure could take away valid information, which would go against the ultimate end of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohaerens (talk • contribs) 17:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

We have established guidelines around when a blog post is appropriate to use in an article. The post you linked to doesn't seem to be appropriate as a source under the reliable sources guideline or appropriate as a non-source external link under the external links guideline. As a source, it is self-published source from an individual who is not an established expert on the subject. As an external link, it is disqualified by WP:ELNO #11. Therefore the removal of it was entirely justified. --RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The criterion of notability according to Wikipedia establishes "The topic of an article should be notable, or 'worthy of notice'; that is, 'significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded'." It also clearly asserts "Notable in the sense of being 'famous', or 'popular' is secondary." I think that the link complies with the criteria of "interesting" but specially with that of "unusual enough to deserve attention", even if the author is not "famous" or "popular" to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cohaerens (talk • contribs) 19:02, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are indirectly referring to the requirement in WP:ELNO #11 that any blogger who is linked as an EL should meet the notability requirements for people. A couple of problems: First, the notability guideline for people gives much more specific standards than just the overview you quote. A notable person "has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources", etc. As far as I can tell, Adrian Brenes (the blogger you want to link to) does not meet those requirements. Second, for the blogger to be notable is a "minimum standard", not sufficient by itself. They must also be a "recognized authority" on the subject, which is a reference to the requirement in the verifiability policy that self-published sources must be from "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". To my knowledge Brenes is not a recognized authority on Murray Rothbard. So unless you have evidence from outside sources (not just your own opinions about what is interesting) that Brenes meets those criteria, his blog is not an appropriate external link for this article. --RL0919 (talk) 19:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Not notable. Leave it out. CarolMooreDC 23:18, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:03, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

"Opposed to Milton Friedman"

Why is this opposition so significant that none other are listed? Sure, Rothbard rejects part of Friedman's views because Friedman is a consequentialist, whereas Rothbard takes a deontological stance, but why is Friedman listed as being his only significant "opponent"? Rothbard opposes MANY MORE thinkers (leftist statists, socialists, etc.) to a much more severe degree than he opposes Friedman's consequentialism. Pitting Rothbard and Friedman against each other (especially when Friedman is the only one listed there as of present) overexaggerates their differences.h I think it should be removed, or at least, more of Rothbard's actual opponents should be listed. Onixz100 (talk) 19:38, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The single name should be removed. Moreover, the infobox is a re-cap of what is already in the article.--S. Rich (talk) 20:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to post this. It's ridiculous to list Friedman as an opposition when their views mostly overlap, and yet he's the only listed opposition. More importantly, Rothbard rejected Friedman's recommendations to the government (which were a compromise based on the fact that the government were never going to accept free market suggestions), not his personal economic views. Maybe cite using this link (http://reason.com/archives/1995/06/01/best-of-both-worlds) if required, but still I see no reason for an Opposition section, never seen it before... 188.220.252.41 (talk) 13:24, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yuuuup.... I agree. CarolMooreDC 03:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Philosopher, Journalist

I cannot find any WP:RS that calls Rothbard a philosopher or journalist. On a web search, almost all the results are lewrockwell.com, mises.org, or blog posts. I did find one discussion, by a credentialed philosopher, of why he does not regard Rothbard a competent philosopher. [3] [4] A writer is not a philosopher merely because he may have used the term "philosophy" in its ordinary meaning, or referred to philosophical ideas.

In the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy we find other social theorists such as Ayn Rand, Robert Nozick, and John Rawls. We do not find Rothbard, and Hayek, both of whom developed important ideas, but whose work was not formulated with philosophical rigor. SPECIFICO talk 14:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Even in Edward Fesser's blog, he says does not deny the status of philosopher, but rather the fact that he dislikes/disagrees with him and his methodology. This transpires in almost every paragraph, for example when he writes: "I have expressed a low opinion of Rothbard as a philosopher", "it concerns the very foundation of Rothbard’s moral and political philosophy", etc.

Furthermore, writing a treatise on philosophy qualifies one to be categorised as being a "philosopher". Even though some criticise him and some do not.

About journalism, I agree, I know he published articles in several newspapers, but I don't know whether it's enough to call him a journalist. -- Fsol (talk) 15:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing on philosophy doesn't make one a philosopher. Just as writing on physics doesn't make one a physicist and writing on economics doesn't make one an economist. Can you find a RS that clearly characterizes:::: him as a philosopher? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 15:18, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree. One person's opinion does not make a lef description. He did political philosphy of course, but that would need to be specified. He did political polemics,not journalism. Unless you can find a bunch more high quality refs. CarolMooreDC 15:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Writing a treatise on philosophy does not make one a philosopher? We should specify this in some way, one cannot just simply ignore the fact that this person had contributions in the field of philosophy, as expressed by an entire treatise on it. Furthermore, as a weak argument, even those who criticise his philosophy still recognise him as a philosopher. -- Fsol (talk) 15:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Your personal opinion is irrelevant. If you are correct, it should be possible for you to find WP:RS citations for your statement. Meanwhile, since there has never been consensus to include philosopher and journalist, please undo your reversions. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

One ref here;

one sort of ref here, maybe others. CarolMooreDC 10:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, each of you, could you point to the specific WP:RS you have found in each case. The search pages show many things, including references to this same article. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lead problems

I see some edit warring over the lead, but actually those last three sentences are far too detailed on his more radical political statements and that material belongs under ethical and political views section. Frankly, I thought a certain agorist sock was back from the cooler messing with the article, but he may have been a few weeks back.

The lead should summarize whole article not one subsection. This February lead info that was removed also should be moved down to relevant section. Will do when get a chance unless someone else does. (Mea culpa since I think I wrote a lot of it way back when.) Also, I thought there was a lot of material in here from David Gordon's online Bio of Rothbard; anyway, adding some of it, including to lead, might help as well CarolMooreDC🗽 13:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Overstuffed Infobox

The infobox is stuffed fatter than a Christmas goose. Anyone want to slim it down to the most significant entries in each category. We're all influenced by Aquinas. SPECIFICO talk 11:42, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Really only should mention people ref'd in article already, both for influences and those he influenced. Later could be added as a "legacy" section with refs for each individual, especially living ones. Stigler influenced Rothbard? Kind of thing that also needs a ref because average person with passing knowledge of Rothbard might wonder. CarolMooreDC🗽 14:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

The editor who wisely changed Murray from Austrian Economist to Anarcho Capitalist did not also make the other change that would necessitate, namely, to use a more general infobox template instead of the "economist" template. That can be done later when the boatload of influences and influenced are pared down to a smaller number of significant ones. SPECIFICO talk 03:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

This can't be a serious proposal. You have noticed the four refs calling him one, and that was just from the first page of the internet search.

It would be better to remove it from all the crooked "economists" who are paid big bucks to help corporate and govt fat cats loot the public through the revolving door, whatever "school" they may claim to be from. (As long as we are making up schools of economics, I suggest the "Looters" school ;-) CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:07, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources identify Rothbard first as "Austrian economist"

Despite two editors correcting this issue, two highly biased self-admitted anti-Misean/Rothbard users have put "Anarcho-Capitalism" in the info box. The lead uses high quality sources to describe him as Austrian economist. The infobox should identify him as that. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:08, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, 3 different editors have changed the caption to "anarcho-capitalist" not 2. Three. One, two. Three. Let's not get preoccupied with the infobox. The same reference calls Rothbard many names including a "controversialist." The current infobox is a "infobox economist" and would need to be substituted with "infobox person" if we drop the economist label for him. As it stands, the article presents Rothbard as a political theorist and popularizer of various philosophical and historical threads of thought. SPECIFICO talk 14:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

The parameters for the economist infobox have a limited number of schools & colors. A/C is not amongst them. So, while the economist infobox may be appropriate, consensus is needed to determine which of the specified/existing infobox colors should be used. If A/C is a school of economics, then perhaps the infobox parameters can be modified (after discussion on that page). If we can't reach consensus on which school of economics is appropriate, then I suggest we switch to {{Infobox scholar}}. – S. Rich (talk) 15:27, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Srich, nobody has stated that "anarcho-capitalist" is a school of economics. I've changed to the more general template so that more information can be included without putting a 'school of economics' above Murrays portrait. SPECIFICO talk 16:34, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Two editors who have ridiculed Rothbard changed it. Who was the third one and what reason did they give?

The issue of anarcho-capitalism being a school has been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Economics#Anarcho-capitalism_is_now_a_school_of_economics.3F.3F and debunked. I mentioned that again today in case someone wants to come here and explain it to the editor or editors who support this change. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Economist infobox

At this edit User:SPECIFICO removed the economist info box. I reverted it per long time consensus, refs, talk page objections. This is just pure destructive edit warring. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Rothbard (Franco comparison)

Hi. You may be more familiar than I with the context, but Murray says he supported Francisco Franco as a kid. Sounds like statist right to me. Your addition may not be in keeping with the source. What do you think? SPECIFICO talk 15:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

First, what does he actually write? In one family gathering featuring endless pledges of devotion to "Loyalist" Spain during the Civil War, I piped up, at the age of eleven or twelve, "What's wrong with Franco, anyway?" It didn't seem to me that Franco's sins, however statist, were any worse, to put it mildly, than those of the Republicans.

His point was less to support Franco but to point out that statist republicans did many of the same things. Pretty smart for a kid, even if he may have had his facts wrong, but do we really need to detail it here? CarolMooreDC🗽 16:08, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to say we need to detail it, just not to contradict it. I'm not sure the text implied he was a statist, only that he called himself a right-winger. SPECIFICO talk 17:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read the article. First ten paragraphs talk about the "old right" so when he says "right-winger" that's what he means. But the average reader might interpret in any number of ways so the appropriate thing is to define which one he means.

If you look at both paragraphs proceeding the Franco illusion, it seems it's just as or even more important to mention he grew up an anti-Zionist:

'My father emigrated to the United States from a Polish shetl in 1910, impoverished and knowing not a word of English. Like most immigrants of that era, he had resolved "to become an American" in every sense. And that meant, for him, not only learning English and making it his language, but also abandoning Yiddish papers and culture and purging himself of any foreign accent. It also meant devotion to the basic American Way: minimal government, belief in and respect for free enterprise and private property, and a determination to rise by one's own merits and not via government privilege or handout. Russian and Polish Jews before World War I were swept with communist, socialist, and Zionist ideologies and movements, or blends of the three. But my father never fell for any of them. An individualist rather than a socialist or tribalist, he believed his loyalty was to America rather than to Zionism or to any Zionist entity in the Middle East.

I grew up in the same spirit. All socialism seemed to me monstrously coercive and abhorrent. In one family gathering featuring endless pledges of devotion to "Loyalist" Spain during the Civil War, I piped up, at the age of eleven or twelve, "What's wrong with Franco, anyway?" It didn't seem to me that Franco's sins, however statist, were any worse, to put it mildly, than those of the Republicans. My query was a conversation-stopper, all right, but I never received an answer.

Another jobbie for me for the article. CarolMooreDC🗽 19:22, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Basically, I think that your addition added your own commentary to Murray's quote. Maybe others will offer their reactions. SPECIFICO talk 20:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a clarification to avoid what otherwise looks like a POV attempt to misinterpret the source. If no one else pops up, we can take it to WP:NPOVN. CarolMooreDC🗽 20:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fine. I understand your intent. SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Problems with 6/1/13 edits

• This diff Why remove Rothbard Austrian School description from info box and replace it with "Anarcho-Capitalist" school? Is there such a school of economics? Moreover at that diff and at this diff user uses Murray Rothbard, Society without a State, talk delivered at the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy (ASPLP), December 28, 1974 to source the above and another claim about anarcho-capitalism but Rothbard doesn't even mention "anarchist-capitalism" - or capitalism! [Later: now removed.]
• Here editor just deleted summary of Miller, David, ed. (1991). Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0-631-17944-5. claiming WP:OR without tagging it with or It's not available to link from books google; it can be found on amazon, but not linkable. I will put in the full 2 or 3 sentence quote and put it back. Please use tags like I do even when your source fails verification. This is the second time I've asked you and then I had to put the material back. (Now it might or might not be undue for that lead paragraph but that's another discussion.)
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murray_Rothbard&diff=557906396&oldid=557905961 Removed fact he also has referred to free market anarchism). Sure it needs another source (or maybe an argument could be made for a couple primary sources), but again the point is if not edit warring you should put a tag asking for sources not delete it.
• Here there's a ref I could not find a copy of or link to. So I put on McVicar, rather than delete it so we can verify it really says that and not have to remove it. [Later note: No don't add a David Gordon ref and quote that. We need to know that McVicar even mentions Murray Rothbard, not to mention what it says about him.]
• At this diff removal of mention of one of several publications Rothbard started. User says the article's too long for it?!?! With all the academics out there who dream of starting just one journal that anyone will read?? Please explain...
• At this diff add a Hoppe source after complaining too many Misean-Rothbard fan related refs?? Seems a bit questionable, at least til all the most dubious ones removed. Will look at it after do so.
• Richman as source Well, we can take it to WP:RSN if it seems something that needs to be in the article; don't have an opinion currently. Wikipedia is NOT an academic journal and news journalists material often used, though of course Richman more than just a journalist.

So that's it for things that need to be fixed, put back, brought to noticeboards if there's no consensus, etc. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 03:32, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Admin recommends RfC/WP:RSN

As a result of my Editwarring complaint (that touched on most of the topics in this section]] the Admin made reasonable recommendations regarding an RfC (I assume where Specifico would list what he wants to take out/change) and/or going to WP:RSN (where that is most relevant to some of those issues). That is fine with me. More eyes from more neutral editors is all I've been wanting here to deal with issues. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Response to tags

• primary sources, additional citations for verification (to replace some of those), sources too closely associated with the subject are all legit critiques I'm working on and hopefully others will to.
• Lends undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters needs to be explained; obviously I think yet another sentence on David Duke is WP:Undue
• This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably. I don't think so. After it's cleaned up on other issues feel free to explain. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:39, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

OT means what?

At this edit and editor writes deleted OT criticism of Bentham; described contextually relevant portion of Rothbard criticism of util). Now when we use initials in Wikipedia we assume they translate into shortcuts like WP:OT, which in this case means Wikipedia:Community portal/Opentask which can't be what was meant. Please explain edit. Thanks. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 13:30, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I take it to mean "Off Topic", which it seems to be. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Now know what to look for when check source. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 15:54, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Good secondary sources on Rothbard

For information in the bio or needs to be there. Many already mentioned but need a better overview for replacing the over-abundance of primary sources with secondary ones. For starters, in alpha order by Authors/editor and/or publications. Feel free to add more - CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 22:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

• Gerard Casey book bio Murray Rothbard at books.google.
• Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern American Libertarian Movement, has a lot of material
• David Gordon short bio Biography and timeline
• David Gordon book bio, Essential Rothbard (needs link in ref)
• Liberty magazine [5]: search his name and topic and can find lots of things
• Liberty Magazine: Rothbard remembered, PDF p 20-26; long biographical intro and 19 friends and colleagues remember him
• Ludwig Von Mises Institute: Murray N. Rothbard, In Memoriam, Preface by JoAnn Rothbard, edited by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr, published by Ludwig von Mises Institute,1995.
• Justin Raimondo book bio An Enemy of the State at books.google.
• Reason Magazine: search his name and topic and can find lots of things; (Obituary/ies doubtless exist but didn’t find on line or onsight with quick search)
• David Stout, Obituary: Murray N. Rothbard, Economist And Free-Market Exponent, 68, The New York Times, January 11, 1995.
• Villanova University: Peer reviewed and other articles by or about Rothbard; bunch need to go through
• Specific searches: find material at Highbeam and Questia; search books/scholar/news archive google and topic of interest.

Removing duplicate refs from Bibliographies/Further reading, etc

While usually it's good to remove duplicate material from bibliographies or further reading sections that has been used as a reference, there isn't much guidance on this (or keeping duplicates in) in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biographies, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Bibliographies, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists of works, Wikipedia:Further reading, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies. Usually it just gets done by people adding or deleting stuff they like/don't like.

I think in following cases the information should be duplicated:

• An important work that is quoted in the article should not be removed from a bibliography (like Volker memos?)
• A subsection listing of biographies/books about the person is mentioned as being allowable, and I see that has been removed from here. I think it should be there, the only question is whether in bibliography or further reading. (And higher quality other further reading sources should be added.) (I can see a lot of bios where such sections could be added. Yet another project don't have time for.) Thoughts?? CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 23:48, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

FYI, Bibliography article on Rothbard

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Bibliographies#Author_bibliographies is more about whole articles that are bibliographical. Something that someone could do for Rothbard since he was so prolific. Just an FYI. Ain't a gonna do it my self. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 00:17, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article Review?

Given the multiple tags on the article, it is time for a WP:GAR? Posting a review will attract other editors to come in and fix/resolve the tags. – S. Rich (talk) 05:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started going through some of the shorter secondary sources above to find material that helps shape what's in the article or present new notable facts/issues/etc. (In between personal stuff and various dust ups from hasty comments on other articles on hot button issues - anarchist grannies on the peace path and all that :-)

I think it would help if a few people interest in the topic in general came by first, cause people not interested might not come for work that means learning a whole lot about people they don't know anything about and having to wade through primary sources.

If you put another note at Libertarianism Wikiproject and mention the tags and need for people interested in the topic to come add secondary sources, clean out some of the primary ones, etc., that would help.

Once it's not so over-whelmed by primary sources it would be ok to do that. CarolMooreDC - talkie talkie🗽 06:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Economic Theories

The economics section could use some beefing up. I have removed an erroneous reference to Rothbard's regarding legal tender laws. A properly sourced and clear statement of his statements on the subject would be one way to flesh out the section. SPECIFICO talk 15:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

It needs secondary sources obviously to comment on his views, what he's most noted for, etc. Big job. I got as far as listing good refs for his bio before got distracted by other things. But it's a work in progress; I've been at least tweaking article and protecting from blatant vandalism for a few years but until tags put on recently not motivated to really wikify it. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, one big problem with this article -- which has caused dispute in the past -- is that it presents MR as a political theorist, ethicist, philosopher, and founder of Anarcho-Capitalism. There is little on his contributions to economics and most of it just echoes Mises, elaborating slightly but not beyond what can be found in Mises. Now, I have not seen any significant original contributions to economics by Rothbard. I view him more as a social thinker. However if he is to be labeled an economist and infoboxed as such rather than as a philosopher and pundit, then we need to develop some RS material that could support that characterization of him. SPECIFICO talk 18:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting point. Do you have to make original contributions to economics per se to be an economist? Surely not to be an applied economist (say, a strategist), but I'm not aware of Rothbard falling into that category.

But what about just plain apologetics? If he made an original contribution, not to Mises' theory as such, but to the arguments as to why one should accept Mises' theory, would that make him an economist, or perhaps "meta-economist"?

But, in any case, if it is so that Rothbard was not really an economist, then I submit that the right thing to do is to stop presenting him as one, rather than to go looking for ways to justify presenting him as one. --Trovatore (talk) 23:28, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

What do secondary sources say? That's the main point. At some point someone with secondary sources can come through and rewrite the whole thing according them, only using material from primary sources here and there to illustrate points. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have never seen Rothbard cited in any mainstream economics article or text. I have seen references to him in a lot of popular literature that refers to his key role in anarcho-capitalism. SPECIFICO talk 03:05, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, he has minimum impact in (academic) mainstream economics, but more impact in the popular literature? Such being the case, the areas of impact need to be parsed. – S. Rich (talk) 03:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. SPECIFICO talk 03:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

So, is anyone up to writing such material? It might be an interesting Ideological Turing Test. – S. Rich (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• Books.google. Search "Murray Rothbard" and 36,000 books mention him. I'm sure at least 100+ are high quality sources that detail various aspects of his views and life.
• Scholar.google has [4300 returns.
• News.archive Google doesn't give a number but it's ten pages plus, set at 50 returns per page.

And that's not counting all sorts of other databases. So please don't assume that sources do not exist because you have not looked for any. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 14:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Google scholar is unlikely to yield even .001 for evidence of original contributions to economics among the web presence of a figure such as Rothbard. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you intend to do any research? CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 17:30, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

No doubt you meant to say any additional research, as I have already done extensive research on the subject. My conclusion is stated above. If others are motivated or able to find secondary RS sources that describe original economic theory from Rothbard, that would be great and the economics section can be expanded. For my part I have failed to find any and I view his great contribution to be his seminal contributions to anarcho-capitalism, his launching of right-libertarianism in the USA (on this point I concur with Lew Rockwell, as cited) and his articulate and curmudgeonly controversialism (on this point I agree with Raimondo, as cited.) In order to present him as an economist here we would need RS to describe substantial achievements such that they are commensurate with these more prominent and conspicuous roles. SPECIFICO talk 18:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think others share your unique and exclusionary viewpoint. See Economist: An economist is a professional in the social science discipline of economics. The individual may also study, develop, and apply theories and concepts from economics and write about economic policy. I also do not see any such exclusionary language in Template:Infobox_economist. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 18:40, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Great. Do your research, gather all the RS you can find and post here to moot your loot. We may yet make him an economist here. Good luck. Looking forward to it. SPECIFICO talk 19:04, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If I didn't have so many problems with dealing with policies issues in biographies of living persons maybe I'd have time. We're all volunteers here. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

RfC Priority of Rothbard description in lede: Primarily a Political theorist or Primarily an Economist?

Question

Which should go first in the lede characterization of Rothbard, "political theorist" or "economist?" SPECIFICO talk 23:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Favor political theorist first

• Support political theorist first. Just searched for Murray Rothbard on Encyclopedia Britannica, and he shows up only in the articles about libertarianism.[6] His article in the Encyclopedia of Political Science describes him as "a twentieth-century political economist and social theorist in the modern libertarian tradition."[7] It appears that he is mainly notable for his libertarian political theory, and so that should come first. FurrySings (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support The article text states that Rothbard was the defining figure in the origin of the current anarcho-capitalist and right-libertarian movements. He referred to economic topics to support his social theory. There is no Rothbard writing on economics cited by mainstream economic journals or other scholarly publications. The lede should reflect his main legacy, as a political theorist and promoter of the libertarian movement. The cited RS state that he was eulogized as a political theorist, not an economist. SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support
• Support His mainstream activity revolves around socio-political agenda. We can't ask what Murray Rothbard would call himself but here is what I gathered. Google string query Murray Rothbard calls himself and I get way WAY more returns on ethics, Libertarians 'Anarchists' and in the top ten results is a video titled 'Murray Rothbard: Six Stages of the Libertarian Movement' so I'm not going to call this guy an economist by any stretch of the imagination.

Geremy Hebert (talk | contribs) 21:41, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Favor economist first

• Support economist because in Wikipedia we go by reliable sources which says he was a professional, making a living as, an economist. He taught economics. He did not teach political theory. He wrote about it and had an avocation of political activism based on specific theories, but that's not his "profession." David Boaz of the Cato Institute, at the Cato website in an article that first appeared in the Encyclopedia Britannica blog, describes Rothbard as: "a professional economist and also a movement builder". In the footnote of Radicals for Capitalism Rothbard is quoted as calling himself a professional economist. I'm sure lots more high quality sources can be found. We already have four sources calling him an economist and Austrian economist, so more of these can be added. [Added later to clarify: The one source, Gerald Casey, calling him a political theorist is a rather oblique comment. See here.] In any case the article is still flawed source-wise, as the three templates at the top of the page indicate, so it will need a lot more development before there's any definitive long-term solution, no matter what short-term one some people might support based on ignoring the plentiful sources that say he was an economist, Austrian and/or professional. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 16:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'm no expert on him. But I just Googled him, and of the first 25 hits that characterized him (and were not Wikipedia or Wikipedia mirrors) 24 of the 25 listed "economist" first. The 25th was not "political theorist" but something similar. (libertarian theorist) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:06, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support – The JSTOR search on "Murray Rothbard" comes up with 385 search results. These include The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Southern Economic Journal, Journal of Economic Literature, Economica, The American Economic Review, and the like. (Now whether Rothbard is the subject of these articles, or simply mentioned, is another question.) All in all, the majority of these "hits" is for economics related material. Also, as mentioned, he's had some influence on anarcho-capitalism, which I understand advocates a free-market system with minimun/zero government influence. (Isn't free-marketism an economics idea?) So, is Rothbard using his political philosophy to support his economic views on what works best, or is he using his economic philosophy to support his political views on what works best? If these are two sides of the same coin, then we've got to go with the overall view of him, which I submit is buttressed by the JSTOR search which gives more weight to economics related articles. – S. Rich (talk) 03:34, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support

Comments: (threaded discussions in response to comments above)

• The projects listed at the talk page have been notified, with the exception of "Columbia Univeristy." SPECIFICO talk 23:20, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

• Suggest immediately rewording. Lumping 3 of the 4 together for consideration as "one" makes the RFC fatally biased and fatally flawed. North8000 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Either way, those two should the first/top two. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

• Note: To make context clear, the below comment originally was a reply and thread below my "Support" comment above.
  

Charles Ives made his living as an insurance broker (added later 03:07, 29 June 2013 (UTC):)yet his WP article describes him as a composer. How one earns a paycheck is irrelevant here. SPECIFICO talk 17:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources are what counts on Wikipedia, not editors' personal opinions and WP:OR. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 19:37, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The WP article Charles Ives says it, not me. SPECIFICO talk 20:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Please make comments regarding policy, not articles that may or may not be compliant with policy. CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

There's no policy question here. The sources are all cited in the article and overwhelmingly describe him as a political theorist as I just stated above, RE: eulogies. Please put discussion remarks in the threaded discussion section and indicate specific statements in the article which you feel are OR otherwise the mention of it is pointless. Please move your remarks to discussion section. SPECIFICO talk 02:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I assumed you'd actually looked at the refs. There is just one mention of "political theorist" with one ref that's rather oblique since quote reads: "Since the present volume is one in a series devoted to a consideration of conservative and libertarian thinkers, I am going to focus primarily on Rothbard’s contributions to political theory." CarolMooreDC - talk to me🗽 02:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)