News Item: A letter from Murray Rothbard, largely about the Voluntaryist
(Category: Window into the Past)
Posted by Wendy McElroy
Friday 22 December 2023 - 17:43:58
In organizing my files, I found a letter from Murray Rothbard dated January 9, 1983 in which he comments extensively on the contents of an early issue of "The Voluntaryist" -- a periodical founded by Carl Watner, George Smith and me. A .pdf of the issue upon which Murray comments can be found here. For more letters from Murray, BTW, check this blog over the next several days.
Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York, N.Y. 10024
Wendy McElroy
Editor, The Voluntaryist
Dear Wendy:
Congratulations on another intelligent and thoughtful issue of "The Voluntaryist." Neither of us seems to have the capacity to convert the other on the central question of the morality of voting or running for office, so I won't deal with that here
I would like to correct the historical record on the assertion in your and George's editorial that the Dallas Accord in 1974 was a failure of nerve on the part of the anarchists, who had triumphed in the Libertarian Party and somehow failed in the clutch. The facts are precisely the opposite. Your readers would never know that the Libertarian Party, in its earliest years, was aggressively minarchist and neo-Randian. Go back to the LP platforms of the 1972-73 era, and you will find the Statement of Principles and platform studded with such obnoxious phrases as: "The proper function of government is...." For those of us who believe that the only "proper function of government" is to disappear, this was an intolerable state of affairs. The Dallas Accord of 1974 was a great triumph for anarchists in the party, because the minarchists agreed to purge the Statement of Principles and the platform of all "proper function of government" statements.
Furthermore, even as anarchists I frankly don't see what you have to complain about on the current platform. The LP Platform, in addition to attacking every conceivable form of government intervention, also calls for: "eventual repeal of all taxation", and, pending such repeal, the immediate termination of "all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion." While it is true that the platform does not explicitly use the word anarchism or call for smashing the State, what else, I ask you, would be left of archy if this platform were implemented? About the only thing left would be government monopoly of justice, and ever there, the platform "applauds the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutally acceptable judges." Just as Tucker was willing to ally himself with Auberon Herbert, so it seems to me that we should be willing to live with this LP-Herbertian society for at least a few months until we press on to final victory.
In your editorial, you attack those of us "who view the transition from a minimal government to an anarchist society as simply the last step of a long journey. And, on that journey, why not ally oneself with minarchists, especially Herbert-Rand type anti-tax minarchists, until, say, there is only one government cop and one judge in each city, and then we move on to the final goal?
Oddly enough, I agree with you 100 per cent that the real problem in the libertarian movement is not the abstract anarchist vs. minarchist debate, but the political culture in which most contemporary minarchists move: their pro-patriotic, pro-militarist, pro-war positions. But in that case, what's wrong with the Dallas Accord, since we all really do agree almost completely on abstract issues of government? The problem, then, is not with monarchy per se or with the Dallas Accord, but the War Question.
Let me put it this way: Minarchists don't have to be pro-war. As you know full well, the great 19th century minarchist traditions: with the Spencers, the Cobdens, the Brights, etc. was fervently and militantly anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-militarist. Fess up Wendy: wouldn't even you be strongly tempted to join a Libertarian Party in which the right wing would be constituted by people like Auberon Herbert and Herbert Spencer?? And while it helps to be an anarchist on the war question, there are some anarchists who are bad on militarism and foreign policy: pace David Friedman.
To put this in perspective, let me continue with my history of the Libertarian Party. After the "proper function of government" stuff was eradicated in 1974, the next crucial and titanic struggle occurred at the New York national convention in 1975. In the midst of a pro-war political culture, in the face of a then-existing platform which called for military alliances with "democracies", Bill Evers and myself launched a virtually two-man campaign to purge the platform of pro-intervention and pro-war policies: first on the platform committee and then on the floor. Bear in mind, too, that the pro-interventionist forces were led that year by the brilliant and charismatic Robert Nozick, in his one foray into LP politics. Despite this formidable and overwhelming opposition, Evers and I managed to do it, and we emerged from the 1975 convention with an anti-foreign interventionist platform.
At the next convention in San Francisco in 1977, John Hospers and the Florida party tried a comeback to put back the pro-interventionist clauses, but they were beaten with surprising ease. Since then, the platform gains have been consolidated and have, each convention, been extended.. It is true that the opportunists in the Party try their best to ignore the platform, which is a constant bone in their sellouty throats, but there are enough to make sure that the platform does not get forgotten.
Finally, I would like to rise to a point of personal privilege on Dyanne Petersen's kind words about me in her interview. She wonders why I spend time attacking "Ed Crane and his cohorts" since they will be less than footnotes in history in a couple of decades. Well I contend that we are living in the Here and Now as well as sub specie aeternitatis. The fact that Crane & Company will be long gone years from now is somehow not sufficient comfort on cold winter nights. It always struck me that one of the shakiest aspects of Randian theory was her sharp distinction between the "journalistic" and the "metaphysical." When I took the first Branden Lecture Series back in 1958, the lecture I was impatiently waiting for was the one on "The Impotence of Evil," where Branden would prove that evil was impotent. The brunt of the thesis, however, was the not very satisfying view that who cares if evil is "journalistically" triumphant since we know that "metaphorically" we have reason and reality on our side and are therefore metaphysically victorious. At about the same time Iremember Rand telling me proudly that if a lynch mob were about to burn her at the stake, she would greet them with a smile of mocking contempt since she'd know that metaphysically she had conquered. I can understand a Christian resting content with a justice being handed out on the Day of Judgment, but I have never been able to figure out how an atheist could adopt such a detached stance. At any rate, just call me an Old Journalist at heart, since I cannot follow Rand into the empyrean. I want justice in the Here and Now, on this earth, and am prepared to spend at least some of my time away from the lofty flights of high theory in order to achieve it.
As Ever,
Murray
This news item is from WendyMcElroy.com
( http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2520 )
(Category: Window into the Past)
Posted by Wendy McElroy
Friday 22 December 2023 - 17:43:58
In organizing my files, I found a letter from Murray Rothbard dated January 9, 1983 in which he comments extensively on the contents of an early issue of "The Voluntaryist" -- a periodical founded by Carl Watner, George Smith and me. A .pdf of the issue upon which Murray comments can be found here. For more letters from Murray, BTW, check this blog over the next several days.
Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York, N.Y. 10024
Wendy McElroy
Editor, The Voluntaryist
Dear Wendy:
Congratulations on another intelligent and thoughtful issue of "The Voluntaryist." Neither of us seems to have the capacity to convert the other on the central question of the morality of voting or running for office, so I won't deal with that here
I would like to correct the historical record on the assertion in your and George's editorial that the Dallas Accord in 1974 was a failure of nerve on the part of the anarchists, who had triumphed in the Libertarian Party and somehow failed in the clutch. The facts are precisely the opposite. Your readers would never know that the Libertarian Party, in its earliest years, was aggressively minarchist and neo-Randian. Go back to the LP platforms of the 1972-73 era, and you will find the Statement of Principles and platform studded with such obnoxious phrases as: "The proper function of government is...." For those of us who believe that the only "proper function of government" is to disappear, this was an intolerable state of affairs. The Dallas Accord of 1974 was a great triumph for anarchists in the party, because the minarchists agreed to purge the Statement of Principles and the platform of all "proper function of government" statements.
Furthermore, even as anarchists I frankly don't see what you have to complain about on the current platform. The LP Platform, in addition to attacking every conceivable form of government intervention, also calls for: "eventual repeal of all taxation", and, pending such repeal, the immediate termination of "all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion." While it is true that the platform does not explicitly use the word anarchism or call for smashing the State, what else, I ask you, would be left of archy if this platform were implemented? About the only thing left would be government monopoly of justice, and ever there, the platform "applauds the growth of private adjudication of disputes by mutally acceptable judges." Just as Tucker was willing to ally himself with Auberon Herbert, so it seems to me that we should be willing to live with this LP-Herbertian society for at least a few months until we press on to final victory.
In your editorial, you attack those of us "who view the transition from a minimal government to an anarchist society as simply the last step of a long journey. And, on that journey, why not ally oneself with minarchists, especially Herbert-Rand type anti-tax minarchists, until, say, there is only one government cop and one judge in each city, and then we move on to the final goal?
Oddly enough, I agree with you 100 per cent that the real problem in the libertarian movement is not the abstract anarchist vs. minarchist debate, but the political culture in which most contemporary minarchists move: their pro-patriotic, pro-militarist, pro-war positions. But in that case, what's wrong with the Dallas Accord, since we all really do agree almost completely on abstract issues of government? The problem, then, is not with monarchy per se or with the Dallas Accord, but the War Question.
Let me put it this way: Minarchists don't have to be pro-war. As you know full well, the great 19th century minarchist traditions: with the Spencers, the Cobdens, the Brights, etc. was fervently and militantly anti-war, anti-imperialist, and anti-militarist. Fess up Wendy: wouldn't even you be strongly tempted to join a Libertarian Party in which the right wing would be constituted by people like Auberon Herbert and Herbert Spencer?? And while it helps to be an anarchist on the war question, there are some anarchists who are bad on militarism and foreign policy: pace David Friedman.
To put this in perspective, let me continue with my history of the Libertarian Party. After the "proper function of government" stuff was eradicated in 1974, the next crucial and titanic struggle occurred at the New York national convention in 1975. In the midst of a pro-war political culture, in the face of a then-existing platform which called for military alliances with "democracies", Bill Evers and myself launched a virtually two-man campaign to purge the platform of pro-intervention and pro-war policies: first on the platform committee and then on the floor. Bear in mind, too, that the pro-interventionist forces were led that year by the brilliant and charismatic Robert Nozick, in his one foray into LP politics. Despite this formidable and overwhelming opposition, Evers and I managed to do it, and we emerged from the 1975 convention with an anti-foreign interventionist platform.
At the next convention in San Francisco in 1977, John Hospers and the Florida party tried a comeback to put back the pro-interventionist clauses, but they were beaten with surprising ease. Since then, the platform gains have been consolidated and have, each convention, been extended.. It is true that the opportunists in the Party try their best to ignore the platform, which is a constant bone in their sellouty throats, but there are enough to make sure that the platform does not get forgotten.
Finally, I would like to rise to a point of personal privilege on Dyanne Petersen's kind words about me in her interview. She wonders why I spend time attacking "Ed Crane and his cohorts" since they will be less than footnotes in history in a couple of decades. Well I contend that we are living in the Here and Now as well as sub specie aeternitatis. The fact that Crane & Company will be long gone years from now is somehow not sufficient comfort on cold winter nights. It always struck me that one of the shakiest aspects of Randian theory was her sharp distinction between the "journalistic" and the "metaphysical." When I took the first Branden Lecture Series back in 1958, the lecture I was impatiently waiting for was the one on "The Impotence of Evil," where Branden would prove that evil was impotent. The brunt of the thesis, however, was the not very satisfying view that who cares if evil is "journalistically" triumphant since we know that "metaphorically" we have reason and reality on our side and are therefore metaphysically victorious. At about the same time Iremember Rand telling me proudly that if a lynch mob were about to burn her at the stake, she would greet them with a smile of mocking contempt since she'd know that metaphysically she had conquered. I can understand a Christian resting content with a justice being handed out on the Day of Judgment, but I have never been able to figure out how an atheist could adopt such a detached stance. At any rate, just call me an Old Journalist at heart, since I cannot follow Rand into the empyrean. I want justice in the Here and Now, on this earth, and am prepared to spend at least some of my time away from the lofty flights of high theory in order to achieve it.
As Ever,
Murray
This news item is from WendyMcElroy.com
( http://www.wendymcelroy.com/news.php?extend.2520 )