Thursday, June 7, 2012

The Imperious "Lord Keynes" demonstrates the truth of Rothbardian Natural Rights

Just as “Lord Keynes” is clueless about Austrian Economics, he is totally clueless about Rothbard, libertarianism and the non-aggression principle and he declares his ignorance to the universe in his madcap piece entitled “The Horror of Rothbardian Natural Rights”.


Since the problems facing mankind have always been assaultive crimes such as murder, theft, rape, slavery, pillage and genocide (and not a lack of aggregate demand or “structural unemployment” caused by too much freedom from SWAT teams and bureaucrats),  Rothbard’s POLITICAL SYSTEM is based upon providing the bare minimum of rights against those types of crimes.  As Rothbard explains:

The fact is that libertarianism is not and does not pretend to be a complete moral or aesthetic theory; it is only a POLITICAL theory, that is, the important subset of moral theory that deals [ONLY] with the proper role of violence in social life.

Political theory deals with what is proper or improper for government to do, and government is distinguished from every other group in society as being the institution of organized violence. Libertarianism holds that the ONLY proper role of VIOLENCE is to defend person and property against violence, that any use of violence that goes beyond such just defense is itself aggressive, unjust, and criminal. Libertarianism, therefore, is a theory which states that everyone should be free of violent invasion, should be free to do as he sees fit, except invade the person or property of another. What a person DOES with his or her life is vital and important, BUT IS SIMPLY IRRELEVANT TO LIBERTARIANISM.

I would like to call this the “anti-Ayn Rand” position.  How to live one’s life is a separate issue from libertarianism.

Moral questions such as how to live a proper moral life would be determined by voluntary associations and voluntary rules of conduct.  By contractual agreement, violators could be punished and/or banished as the case may be.  I agree that abandonment of infants and the sick is reprehensible and its prohibition would clearly be the subject of most voluntary societies.  

LK's dishonest and incompetent hack-jobs suggest that there really is no effective critique of the Rothbardian system.

Further, LK begins his little rant with a quote from the REAL Lord Keynes:

[Hayek] is an extraordinary example of how, starting with a mistake, a remorseless logician can end up in Bedlam.

But how in the world would Keynes know what was wrong with Hayek?  Keynes meticulously avoided addressing basic Austrian concepts (which he clearly never understood) in "The General Theory" just as LK and all of the other Keynesians now meticulously avoid discussing or comprehending them.

No comments:

Post a Comment