[an error occurred while processing this directive]
About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 2:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is a quote in reference to a question about Alan Greenpan that Rothbard answered in 1989.  This quote was taken from a section of the linked video between 1:12 and 1:16.  

What do you guys think?  In practice are we just a bunch of statists or was Murray just mouthing off again? :)

 - Jason

(Edited by Jason Quintana on 2/01, 2:58pm)




Post 1

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is not clear to me from that quote that Rothbard was referring to Randians as statists. But if he was, it would not surprise me. I asked him a question or two years ago that reflected my concern with the role ideas play in shaping political choices. Rothbard responded with resentment and annoyance inappropriate to the tone and meaning of the questions.

Although the prevailing outlook among Randians seems to be pro-American wars, which I consider a form of limited statism, I would prefer trying to persaude Randians that they are mistaken about the proper role of government, as contrasted with trying to persuade Lew Rockwell that he ought to give up religious superstition. With Randians, reason has a pretty good chance of winning the day.




Post 2

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I personally agree with Rand.  Though it is certainly an exaggeration to say "everyone", you must certainly have a philosophical revolution before major changes will take place.  My since of it is that Murray was saying that since Rand's philosophical revolution is never going to take place, then we will never have anything but statists.



Post 3

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 6:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Looking at it again it is hard to grasp the meaning from the quote.  Rothbard's manner of speaking doesn't lend itself well to quotations but he essentially said the following :

Objectivists are not like libertarians.  They do not believe in political action until everyone believes in their philosophical theories.  Since this will never happen Objectivists are just another group of statists.  And he implies this from the "evidence" he provided about a minute earlier regarding Greenspan. 

I thought that this was a totally outragous set of claims and inferences.  Whenever I watch a video or listen to a recording with Rothbard I am entertained but left with the distinct impression that I am not listening to someone who's ideas I should take seriously.

 - Jason




Post 4

Wednesday, February 1, 2006 - 10:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I watched the video of the link that Jason provided, and I think I grasp the broader context of this Rothbard quote.  The question he was answering was something to the effect of: 'What's the deal with Alan Greenspan?  How did he go from being a seemingly ideological free market advocate to the head of the Fed?'

Rothbard's reply basically said that Greenspan is and always was a Keynesian (even during his Randian era - is that true, by the way?), but that he was also an adherent of the "Randian strategic view" and therefore believed that everyone must "agree with Randian philosophy; free will, concept and percept and all the other crap..." before any true implentation of freedom and capitalism could take place.  As Jody seemed to infer, Rothbard's claim is that widespread cultural agreement on every one of Objectivism's philosophical tenets will never be achieved, and therefore statism is the the only reality that Objectivists will ever exist in.  That's my take on it, anyway. 




Post 5

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 6:12amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Pete, I started a thread just now in the RoR Economics Forum called "Fractional Reserve Banking" to address the question you asked about Greenspan, Keynes and Rothbard.



Post 6

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I came across this recently on another site about capitalism. I was arguing for Capitalism with an Anarcho-capitalist and it went something like this.
 
ME: So you expect all these protection agencies to follow the rules and not bar competition through the use of force? Governments today don't follow this rule what makes you think your protection agencies will?
 
HIM: Without making the dreadfully obvious point that war is unprofitable, I'll simply point out all the running in circles that is happening here. First we see the problem encountered slightly earlier in this thread - you need a central government to stop the free market from creating a central government. Or, you need the central government to restrict your liberties to keep your liberties from creating a central government that restricts your liberties to keep...

Again, the constitution of society will have a great deal to do with whether or not rights violations (PDAs attacking other PDAs in an attempt to enslave all of society) are tolerated. This is fundamentally no different from the situation in any statist society.
 




Post 7

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
War is unprofitable on the average which is not to say that war would not be profitable for those few who win and control the spoils, or in the short run, or that people using force even bother to consider the long run.  So no - If my "protection agency" can get the jump on and wipe out the competion, of course establishing how they were about to go rogue and how we "saved the people" from this injustice, I may well profit immensely from my little sneak attack (or think I will, whether I succeed or not is a moot point, just that I think I can do it).

Rothbard never changed a damn thing, did he?  Greenspan did, and he moved the US towards better money management and created more wealth.  Rothbard is a nasty, bomb throwing anarchist curmudgeon.  Greenspan is/was a great financial leader.




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greenspan was appointed to the FRB in 1987.

Today it would take $168 to purchase what could be bought for $100 then.

M1 went from $ 750.2 to $ 1368.9 (+182%, in billions).
M2 went from $2831.5 to $ 6680.5 (+236%, in billions).
M3 went from $3686.5 to $10169.3 (+276%, in billions).

I wouldn't call the creator of such inflation a "great financial leader".



Post 9

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick, thanks for your intelligent comments, which I always enjoy.



Post 10

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 1:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey Rick, what a lovely and obvious logical fallacy.

Whatever....



Post 11

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 2:42pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Marnee,

If whatever it is you believe is a logical fallacy is so obvious you shouldn't have any trouble specifying exactly what it is you are talking about.

Why don't you?



Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 4:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick Pasotto wrote:
Greenspan was appointed to the FRB in 1987.
Today it would take $168 to purchase what could be bought for $100 then.
M1 went from $ 750.2 to $ 1368.9 (+182%, in billions).

If you only put your money in 6-month T-bills for 1987-2005, $100 initially invested would be worth about $230 now. Also, average wages have nearly doubled over the same period.

Your "+182%" can mislead. 1368.9/750.2 is 1.82, but that is only an 82% increase. By the way, GNP and GDP have increased about 80% over the same 19 year period.

So I don't believe Greenspan's record is as nearly as bad as you portray it.

EDIT:  The above ending T-bill amount was not adjusted for taxes. Adjusting for taxes at a 30% rate, the ending amount would be about $180.

(Edited by Merlin Jetton on 2/02, 6:12pm)




Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, February 2, 2006 - 6:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> "before you can do anything politically you have to have everyone agree with [Objectivism]"

The Rothbard quote shows what a glib, fast-talking, irresponsible slimeball he was.

He takes the Rand principle that one needs to change a culture's philosophy to have change that is both fundamental (radically changing the system) and permanent (so that it won't slide back fifty or a hundred years later) and oversimplifies it and twists to saying you can't have ANY change without philosophical change. He adds the gratuitous claim that Rand's view would be that EVERY PERSON has to agree. Then he uses this, along with his other distortions of Rand, to set up Objectivism as a straw man he can smear and discredit.

This is a perfect example of him doing it. It is short and easy to grasp in a single sentence so that no thinking person could miss the exaggeration.

Thanks, Murray, you slippery bastard, for the rope to hang you with.


(Edited by Philip Coates
on 2/02, 6:23pm)




Post 14

Saturday, February 4, 2006 - 7:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rick Pasotto is right. It's hard to believe an Objectivist would think the Federal Reserve Board creates wealth or that Alan Greenspan was a great financial leader.

All the Fed can do is artificially manipulate the national money supply, which has created a lot of inflation. It's entrepreneurship and technology that drives the economy forward and raises wages. The president and Congress can help by substantially reducing taxation and regulation, but the Fed can't do anything positive except let the markets work.

The fact that GDP grew tremendously during Greenspan's tenure is largely because of the IT revolution that happened in spite of the Fed, not because of it.



Post 15

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I think Rothbard's point was that if you are going to wait until everyone agrees with you, that will be a long, long time.  So in the meantime you form coalitions with like-minded folks.

As I understand the Official Objectivist position, you can't vote "for" someone, but only agianst someone (I think Rand voted for Nixon as against McGovern) and you can't say anything favorable about semi-Randians (in fact you can't even mention them).

The O.O. approach delays the influence of Objectivism in the name of doctrinal purity. 




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Neil, it's not an "I think Rothbard's point was" issue, it's a "what Rothbard actually said" issue.



Post 17

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 9:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"As I understand the Official Objectivist position, you can't vote "for" someone, but only agianst someone" [Neil]

HUH??



Post 18

Sunday, February 5, 2006 - 10:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ok, I think that's what Rothbard was saying.

O.O.s will not vote for a libertarian, no matter how close he is to an Objectivist.  So Rand voted for Nixon not because she liked him, but because she thought he was better than McGovern.

If Nixon had been a libertarian, however, she wouldn't have voted for him.

At least that's how I understand O.O.s.  Their rules of association are as complicated as Landmark Baptists who require "third degree" separation.




Post to this thread
[an error occurred while processing this directive]


User ID Password or create a free account.