red books from red beards on red men

Murray Rothbard (whose last name means "red beard") wrote about the role of the court intellectual ('red' or 'raed' is Old English for wise counsel).

"The ruling class — be it warlords, nobles, bureaucrats, feudal landlords, monopoly merchants, or a coalition of several of these groups — must employ intellectuals to convince the majority of the public that its rule is beneficent, inevitable, necessary, and even divine. The leading role of the intellectual throughout history is that of the court intellectual who, in return for a share of, a junior partnership in, the power and pelf offered by the rest of the ruling class, spins the apologias for state rule with which to convince a misguided public." --Conceived in Liberty, Vol. III, p.352

R' Samson Raphael Hirsch wrote about the people who played the role in ancient Egypt-

"In Tanach [the bible] we find, everywhere, Machshefim [illusionists/magicians] in the service of the rulers of old, just as today we find scientists in the service of the state. If today's scientists were to attempt to solve problems such as how one can indulge in every excess and debauchery without having to fear consequences detrimental to one's health - that would be attempting a misuse of man's mastery of nature, and would be in line with the basic outlook of Kishuf. [magic]" --Commentary to the book of Exodus, Chapter 7, Verse 11

This is how you can explain Keynesians who magically believe that you can consume your seed cord into prosperity or otherwise turn stones into bread! Pharoah's scientists had nothing on these goys!

the root of all evil

In concern to my last post, I meant to include a specific example indicating Murray Rothbard's even-handed approach to TPo1819, in that he would simply restate the arguments made by the differing parties without explicitly endorsing either.

For example, money-brokers were at one point considered the scourge of the early colonial American bank system. These gentle folk were guilty of the crime of purchasing discounted bank notes belonging to out of town banks, and then taking these same notes and redeeming them at their respective banks for their par value in specie. However the banks wouldn't stand these slimy two-timers who dared to impoverish their banks by withdrawing specie and so they sought to outlaw them.

It was here that I thought that Rothbard could interject that the banks had the duty to thank these money-brokers whose selfish, nefarious actions actually served to bolster the exchange value of the very same bank notes. To see why, simply imagine the lack of such money-brokers; after all if a vendor is presented with a bank note for a distant bank of which he knows almost nothing about, it would be more like that the note would have to be discounted even further before he would begin to consider it worth his trouble to accept it in lieu of specie, or in the notes of a closer banking institution.

The money-brokers in their actions thus filled a role in minimizing the discounting of bank notes of distant banks, and countervailed the tendency to further discount then what would have been otherwise.

don't panic!

Murray Rothbard's The Panic of 1819 is quite unlike any other scholarly work of his that I'm familiar with in that he let the facts speak for themselves. Though he does color the arguments presented, he does it in a fair-handed, 'just the facts, mam' manner which might mislead the unknowing reader to think that that he doesn't have a horse in the race. Honestly, I can recall seeing the term "Austrian School of Economics" mentioned just once in the entire book, a shocker considering that in it he analyzes the conditions surrounding what could have been the great depression of the early 1800's in support of the Austrian Business Cycle Theory.

The Rothbard that I'm familiar with, from the handful of his books that I've read is never dry, uncompromising, and his arguments intellectually-honed which can help the typical unmotivated reader to slog through the 1,400+ pages scholars edition of Man, Economy and State; perhaps not by the edge of his seat, but enough so.

In contrast, TPo1819 is a work of drudgery, detailing the minutia of inductive economic research, one which Rothbard clearly set aside his prejudice for utilizing the thymological method of Verstehen as pioneered by Mises in favor of appealing to those who favor a rather historical, empirical approach to the matter. After reading the first chapter I already was under the impression that Rothbard was writing not to the choir, but to mainstream historians and economic professors alike in an attempt to subtly win over academia to the ABCT.

Though this book required more patience than what I usually have to offer, I was rewarded every now and then when I found insider comments passed off as innocuous statements. One such comments appears towards the end:

"Stress on the moral virtues often took the form of attack on luxurious consumption and other extravagances of the day. Embryonic Veblenians called upon the rich to set an example in thrifty living to the lower classes, who tended to imitate the former."

point of view

From Ayn Rand, I've learned that appeals to efficiency are not as important as liberty, and that even if methodological individualism and capitalism were to be more "costly" policies to society, we should still prefer liberty to interventions seeking to enhance efficiency and stability.

From Ludwig von Mises (and Murray Newton Rothbard) I've learned that appeals to efficiency are false because costs are subjective and hence unmeasurable. Furthermore, they demonstrate in so many ways how interventions is always a decrease in utility, and would probably cause more instability, not less.

From Robert Anton Wilson I've learned that all appeals to efficiency are essentially an appeal to an illusion, a fiction with no bearing on reality.

A simple example which demonstrates the difference between all three positions would be that of your typical environmental concerns.

Ayn Rand would insist that human life is the ultimate end, and that appeals that value biological and ecological diversity above human life is irrational and anti-life.

Mises or Rothbard would argue that environmental concerns are those problems which stem from the lack of rigid property rights, the classic tragedy of the, [because there are] commons. Once polluters have to internalize all aspects of their costs, the environmental problem stops being a societal concern and one for individuals to work out in a tort system to minimize specific, individual harms. Furthermore, they would point out that government, and not private concerns have been the greatest polluters simply because they have no incentive to be efficient, as all pollutions are essentially a form of inefficiency on part of the producer who have not captured the fullest usage of all their output.

I haven't seen Robert Anton Wilson's position on environmentalism, but if he were to be a consistent discordian, he would insist that the environmental bugaboo is to be biased towards certain chemical compounds, as if the earth or "mother nature" cares for a particular composition or molecular arrangement (which it obviously doesn't). It cares not if the entire surface is desert, water, ice, forested, denuded, or atomic wasteland. The homuncular inhabitants may have their neurological circuits prefer a specific scenario, but it wouldn't exceed a normative whim in importance.