A Swipe at Rothbard

“So, what is the answer or is there no workable solution?”

Random (but rational) thoughts on “a workable solution” in response to Nelson Hultberg’s editorial “Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard: The Verdict After Fifty Years”

“Have Rand and Rothbard given us an undergirding philosophy of rationality upon which to fight for freedom? Or have we launched a freedom movement upon a ship resplendent in sail, but possessed of a leaky hull and faulty tiller? Are our basic premises rational and irrefutable?”

Yes, No and Yes.

One of the distinguishing characteristics of Mr. Hultberg’s piece is the notable paucity of facts which  inconveniently undermine his argument(s).

Implying Rand/Rothbard failed to provide an “undergirdling” ex post facto is a tad self-serving at best and bordering on ignorant at worst. Questioning the whereabouts of a set piece philosophy while simultaneously brushing aside the ability of “all Americans well read in political affairs” to reason on their entire body of work, comes off more condescending than constructive. One could just as easily suggest the Good Ship Hultberg, its own “respendent sail” unfurled in billowing words, has “tiller” issues itself. Upon inspection, is his own hull impenetrable thanks to “irrefutable rational”? Or do I hear the sound of bilge pumps?

Let’s go with “…basic premises rational and irrefutable”.

As noted in “Slouching Toward Extinction”, would it be rational to blithely ignore Lord Acton’s famous observation “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely”? Expanding his quote is even more damning to the concept of “government”:

 If there is any presumption it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority, still more when you superadd the tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.

Irrespective of the philosophical rhetoric, nothing in Mr. Hultberg’s piece rationally or irrefutably contradicts Acton’s simple reality which torpedoes any argument that includes “government” in the solution. Most notable is Mr. Hultberg’s drive-by acknowledgment of Rothbard’s conclusion “If you can’t initiate force, then you can’t have a government.” Are we to conclude, then, that Mr. Hultberg’s recommendation necessarily includes the incorporation and subsequent deployment of Government Force? When has Force ever played nice with Freedom? Except for Anarchy, every example of government in Mr. Hultberg’s charts and political spectrums has been tried or remains intact throughout world history. Which one has maintained the protection of Life, Liberty, Private Property for its constituents? Which one has eschewed war, empire building and respect for innocent lives? Which one has respected human equality, natural rights for all?  It only took 15 years for the beacon of the  Shining City on the Hill to blow a light bulb via the “Alien and Sedition Acts”. Looks as if trading “one tyrant 3000 miles away for 3,000 tyrants one mile away” was as bad a deal as Mather Byles warned –  and we have all lived to see it, courtesy of Government.

Mr. Hultberg’s botanical rhetoric correctly observes:

“…freedom has always been a fragile orchid in a jungle of rapacious ideologies bent on snuffing its presence out.” but then goes on to argue for a hybrid of Government, the source and enforcement arm of all the “rapacious ideologies” that have been dropping Napalm on those fragile freedom orchids since forever. The biggest fallacy in Mr. Hultberg’s argument: the belief that a “State” or “Government” is a necessary and good thing; that proper motive alignment of “Ideal Men” is all that’s required. Sadly, all “governments” employing any of the –isms on Mr. Hultberg’s “political spectrum” chart are simply organizations that tell people what to do, regardless of the underlying “philosophy”. Should you choose for some principled reason to not comply, men with guns will ultimately deploy government sanctioned force to confiscate your freedom. Period. Regardless of how many “Ideal Men” could be assembled to lead all the “constitutional republicans who are solidly [sic] rooted where truth and freedom reside…in the Center of the Golden Mean”. Let the record show: whenever the Golden Rule, Golden Mean or Golden Opportunity is managed by Government, gold turns to Pyrite damn quickly.

Friend Monty Pelerin asks: “So, what is the answer or is there no workable solution?”

I’m running too low on hubris to claim the answer or solution or that it’s secretly stashed behind the barn. But unless someone can come up with a cure for Corrupting Power, I suggest History has amply demonstrated neither answer or solution is going to come via Government or even invited to the party – unless a libidinous drunken brawl with copious property damage and human sacrifice is your idea of Good Government. And that’s not a quantum leap from what we have already.

Mr. Hultberg’s mission to sell his book was the probable motive for utilizing his all-damning, all-absolute terminology. Aristotle’s brilliance notwithstanding, “moderation in all things” pretty well sums up all those “Mean” charts; “thou shalt not kill” doesn’t require several pages of Objective Law legalese to inform the masses murder is not nice and won’t be tolerated (except, of course, by Government).

As Tom Sowell pointedly points out, “The most basic question is not what’s best, but who shall decide what’s best.” As someone with the natural right to self-ownership and self-governance, I’ll decide what’s best for me; Mr. Hultberg and anyone else is free to choose Government to make – and impose – that decision.