| | "Maybe I'm missing something or being unfair, but latter day Rothbardians seem clueless, and even at times not very bright, about problems with their essential philsophical nihilism."
Interesting difference in sample sets. Most Rothbardians I've met or talked to (as opposed to just read on lewrockwell.com) either also consider themselves Objectivists (to the chagrin of some Objectivists :) ), or are at least principled atheists who hold objective-reality/reason/rational-self-interest but who say they're not Objectivists only due to schisms over specific ideas of what laissez-faire capitalism can mean.
"Rothbard seemed to hate Rand and her ideas. Reading the first couple chapters of his book on ethics recently, I noticed that he claimed to have been inspired to write the book because (paraphrasing) "No one else in the libertarian movement has even attempted to work out a system of ethics in defense of liberty." "
Rothbard was certainly full of himself, though I don't think this was a personal slight against Rand. To be fair to Rothbard, Ethics of Liberty does cover some specific hard topics rarely seriously addressed by Objectivists or other libertarians - e.g. lifeboat situations and childrens' rights. At times he could also be academic, more so than Rand who at most credited Aristotle (and Kant :) ), using footnotes and references to von Mises, Locke, Nozick, Hayek, etc. But in this case he was clearly boasting to the point of silliness, ignoring not only Rand, but Machan, Hospers, the Tannehills, heck, even Bastiat.
|
|
