Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Man, Economy, and State

Why does the link to Man, Economy, and State go to the edit page??

It doesn't when I look at it. Try refreshing your browser. - Nat Kraus e 09:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Category: Economists

I added cat:economists so his name would appear on that list; to exclude 'Austrian School' economists from the larger listing would be to diminish that school. Paul 01:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That's the way all categories are handled. An article should not appear in both a category and in a subcategory of that category. -Willmcw 03:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here's the policy:

An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes

The problem is that that other economists on the big list should be mostly categorized into one or more subcategories. -Willmcw 03:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

That seems like it would cause a whole array of problems regarding categories. Paul 21:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Maybe so. It's the policy across Wikipedia. -Willmcw 21:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Keynes is in cat: economists as well as cat: British economists. Ditto with Ricardo. And Adam Smith, except "Scottish." Friedman and Krugman are "Jewish-American Economists" in addition to the larger cat. What gives? Paul 07:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They shouldn't be. (Jewish-American economists? Who comes up with these?) An article is allowed to be in two or more branches - so Rothbard can be an "American economist" and an "Austrian School economist" at the same time. Or we can create a special category for "Austrian School American economists." (Only kidding). Regarding the category topology, I recall reading that they have plans for greatly increasing the ability to search and navigate according to categories, and that some of their style guidelines are based on those plans. The problem now is that with articles only in the most specific category, a reader has to know a great deal in order to find an article. Who would think to look for Adam Smith in the Scottish category first? Perhaps what is needed is a "show all subcategories" query. There are pages to discuss (and set) policy matters: if it interests you then you can participate in changing the rule or creating the new system. Meantime, feel free to remove any higher categories on articles. If all the economists are on their proper branches then the category should be empty except for subcategories, in theory. OTOH, you can break the rules if you want. (Category:One-armed economists) -Cheers, -Willmcw 08:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Making this more ridiculous is that Adam Smith is in fact British, Scotland being a part of the island of Great Britain. Which Einstein designed these categories? Paul 13:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

content dispute on coercive monopoly

There appears to be a content dispute on the coercive monopoly article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at Talk:Coercive_monopoly. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

SPLC criticism

According to the Southern Poverty Law center, [[1]] Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." Listed on their website.

Okay, as far as I can tell, the above text is composed of two sentence fragments (although the first is quite long), and it certainly does not belong in the article as the second paragraph. I am removing it it because of the generally poor quality of the writing. Obviously, if other editors feel the cited source is important enough for inclusion in this article, I would say it would be rightfully cordoned off in a new section labelled "criticism." Dick Clark 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."

"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.

We should not simply delete the criticism because it is poorly written. Rather, we should summarize it in an NPOV fashion. Perhaps: "The SPLC has criticized Rothbard's writings that call "the Officially Oppressed" a "parasitic burden", and that attack activist women for supporting child labor laws with support from "top Jewish financiers" as well as for having a "dominant tradition" of lesbianism." Would that suffice? Are there better criticisms of Rothbard? -Willmcw 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Although the criticism does not seem to be included in the article any longer, I feel it is important to put Dr Rothbard's comments in context, so as not to generate any confusion. It must be noted that the SPLC criticisms contain a lot of one word quotations rather than long, verbatim passages. In the first one, hyperbolic terms are, I feel, taken out of their original context. In the essay from which they were taken, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor", Dr Rothbard is discussing State redistribution, and is using a standard antistatist argument, which can be summarized thus: "if the state takes from the haves to give to the havenots, how do we define these groups? Is it not inevitable that people will prefer to be a havenot rather than being a have? Soon, they will create categories for themselves so as to qualify for redistributed wealth." I know it may be a little unnecessary to cite here the entire paragraph [2] from which the quote was taken, but I shall nonetheless:

"In this regime of group egalitarianism, it becomes particularly important to take one's place in the ranks of the Oppressed rather than the Oppressors. Who, then, are the Oppressed? It is difficult to determine, since new groups of oppressed are being discovered all the time. One almost longs for the good old days of classic Marxism, when there was only one "oppressed class"—the proletariat—and one or at most a very few classes of oppressors: the capitalists or bourgeois, plus sometimes the "feudal landlords" or perhaps the petit bourgeoisie. But now, as the ranks of the oppressed and therefore the groups specially privileged by society and the State keep multiplying, and the ranks of the oppressors keep dwindling, the problem of income and wealth egalitarianism reappears and is redoubled. For more and greater varieties of groups are continually being added to the parasitic burden weighing upon an ever-dwindling supply of oppressors. And since it is obviously worth everyone's while to leave the ranks of the oppressors and move over to the oppressed, pressure groups will increasingly succeed in doing so—so long as this dysfunctional ideology continues to flourish. Specifically, achieving the label of Officially Oppressed entitles one to share in an endless flow of benefits—in money, status, and prestige—from the hapless Oppressors, who are made to feel guilty forevermore, even as they are forced to sustain and expand the endless flow. It is not surprising that attaining oppressed status takes a great deal of pressure and organization."

In the case of the second criticism, much the same applies. It must also be noted that Dr Rothbard, as an anarchist, does not advocate any form of election (as he feels there shouldn't be a government!) so I feel he probably felt indifferent about universal suffrage at best. Funnily enough, whilst the source of the "Yankee women quote" (on page 11), shows no real male chauvanism, it does show a Catholic prejudice against protestants, so perhaps the SPLC just missed the real problem, so eager were they to misrepresent his views. Dr Rothbard's anti-egalitarian views were not an opposition to classical liberal equality--equality before the law and equality to be inequal--but opposition to State redistribution with the aim of equalizing wealth. As such, I can see the SPLC's comments as being nothing short of politcally motivated libel. --Henry J. Golding.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I've read the original article too. Though it's possible to interpret the text in various ways, we are not in a position to call some interpretations incorrect. As editors all we should do is summarize verifiable information using the neutral point of view. It is verifiable that the SPLC made the above-listed criticism, so we just need to summarize it neutrally. -Willmcw 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

The criticism SPLC put forth of Rothbard is not encyclopedia worthy. These are text snippets from various articles of Rothbard braided together in one or two sentences. Are we to take that serious? Intangible 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

They appear to me to be from one article. Have you read the reference? -Will Beback 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

That source is a notable one, and, as Will says, is worthy of a mention in the article. Now, it so happens that I think that the SPLC is spouting nonsense here, but what I think matters not given that I myself am not a notable source. I say keep the mention, publish a criticism of the SPLC criticism (if one is available from a notable source), and let the readers decide who is in the right regarding this issue. PS - I am going to be in the hospital for a depressed skull fracture repair (cranioplasty) till Wednesday, so my replies may be delayed. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up offshore radio signals when I return. Dick Clark 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

2 to be correct (although [3] might provided them even more snippets). I find it intellectually dishonest to write it up like that, especially since there is no rebutal or presentation of counter-arguments at all by the SPLC. Intangible 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you'll find that all of the text comes from ORIGINS OF THE WELFARE STATE IN AMERICA. -Will Beback 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Plus [4]. Does an empty line mean you can just start quoting from a different text altogether? Intangible 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

<- Which text does not come from the source I listed? I don't follow your comment about an empty line. -Will Beback 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." This is from Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor. Intangible 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to the SPLC article to the links of criticisms of Rothbard, it is appropriate to that extent and that extent only.--Jacrosse 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Intangible's point that the excertped text comes from different writings - Why is that a problem?

Regarding Jacrosse's comment, why is this criticism inappropriate? -Will Beback 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What criticism? (seriously, I cannot see any original thought written by the SPLC with respect to whatever Rothbard has written) Intangible 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The subtitle of the SPLC piece is "An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable".[5]. I think the criticism is that his ideas are right-wing. -Will Beback 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Then it might be relevant to the Ludwig von Mises Institute article only; it should be discussed on that talk page however, not here. Intangible 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the the particular text is a criticism of Rothbard. -Will Beback 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Are my tired old eyes failing me or has the SPLC criticism of Rothbard been deleted from the article after consensus seems to have favored inclusion? If The Von Mises Institute deemed it appropriate to repond to them specifically in regard to Rothbard in particular, perhaps they do belong in the article:

"Another SPLC complaint involves an essay on the Mises Institute website by Murray Rothbard http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?pid=106. According to an SPLC "Intelligence Report" written by Chip Berlet"

http://www.spiritus-temporis.com/ludwig-von-mises-institute/criticisms.html

I'd prefer to stay out of this but I do think the SPLC criticisms are legitimate, relevant and worthy of inclusion. I don't like getting involved in disputes about personalities and personality cults. It is my humble opinion that every legitimate observation and criticism Rothbard made with respect to Ayn Rand's cult-like following could apply equally as well to Rothbard and Rothbardians.

The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult, by Murray N. Rothbard

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html

I'm may try to be objective, but in this case, I'm not too kindly disposed to those who won't allow anything but "glowing hagiographies," so to speak. I've never met any real saints personally, in or out of the church. And since I'm getting involved in this now, the very first line: "Murray Newton Rothbard (March 2, 1926 – January 7, 1995) was an influential American historian..." Really? Influential to whom and on what? I thought he was an economist and one can debate his influence on that field. If his writings in the field of history are really all that influential, shouldn't we have some evidence of this? 76.103.124.31 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Bogan444 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2008 (UTC)I think the larger point is that Rothbard had plenty of influential critics. Why on earth would a random quote from the SLPC, a minor political outfit at best with no connection at all to economics, warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia entry? It would be like including a quote from the Conservative Citizens Council in the John Maynard Keynes entry. And of course we also have to deal with the bias and ignorance of the statement itself. The SPLC seems ignorant of the fact that Rothbard believed in neither democracy, elections, or government (a pretty important oversight if unintentional, and an omission that qualifies as pure deception if intentional), and their advice that we should read "Officially Oppressed" as "blacks, women, and so forth" is completely unsupported by actual Rothbard quote they are referencing.

helped define modern libertarianism

Shouldn't "who according to Wendy McElroy helped define modern libertarianism..." be according to "Wendy McElroy and others" or something? Right now it sounds as if McElroy is the only notable person to have said that, which I think would be incorrect.

If you say so. Regardless, of that it should be a parenthetical phrase. -Will Beback 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked the text and it really is a gratuitous attribution. Ms McElroy is hardly a notable critic in this context (no offense). While it is a POV assertion, no one could dispute that Rothbard clearly has a central position in the field. I think in this instance we can assert it as a fact. Cheers, -Will Beback 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Economist?

Wouldn't it be fairer to call Rothbard a historian of economics? From the titles of his papers, there are only six that appear to do economics, rather than history of or philosophy of economics (and two of these seem to be survey articles), and his only contributions to mainstream economic journals are book reviews, mostly of a historical nature. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If economics is what economists do, then certainly Rothbard is an economist. Intangible 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

He's certainly done economics, but it's been a small proportion of his scholarly writing. His historical work receives repreated comment in the article, his work on economics is ignored. While not wrong, it appears to me not to be the most cogent way of characterising Rothbard. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard was a polymath, but he was certainly an economist of note. He wrote numerous theoretical economic works (in addition to philosophical works and historical works) both in book form and in journal articles. While he definitely authored a significant body of economic histories, his work is by no stretch of the imagination confined to that area. Now, there may be some confusion because Mises and Rothbard both engaged in economics work that many mainstream would characterize as you do: too philosophical. That is the crux of Rothbard's work, though: praxeology is not econometrics, and praxeologists would in fact decry the application of the moniker "economics" to much of the econometric work out there. Econometrics, in any case, certainly does not hold exclusive title to the field of economics. Rothbard was a contentious figure in economics and politics, and many would like to "push" him out of the economics circle, so to speak. That is not the place of Wikipedia. Dick Clark 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to drive the point home, the economics article states: A professional working inside one of the many fields of economics or having an academic degree in this subject, is an economist. Either we change that entry, or Rothbard ought to be listed as an economist.Dick Clark 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

To repeat, I agree that Rothbard has done economics, and I should also say that I have nothing against philosophically inclined economics. I pretty much agree with Bryan Caplin when he says ...the students of Mises and Rothbard have done more than their fair share of meta-economics too. Neoclassical economists go too far by purging meta-economics almost entirely, but there is certainly a reason to be suspicious of scholars who talk about economics without ever doing it. [6] (you might like to read the Hayek quote in the 2nd footnote). I asked the question here, rather than edit the page, because I thought it would prove controversial, and since nooone has sympathy for my suggestion, I won't press it. I will say, though, that Rothbard's efforts at rethinking the history of economics, building a school and building the Libertarian Party in the USA are achievements whose effects will be felt for a long time. His contributions to economics, viewed independently of the above, appear very slight by comparison. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I see what you mean. In that sense maybe Rothbard is more of a popularizer of economic theory (Man, Economy and State vs. Human Action for example). Of course if you accept praxeology (and you should as rational being!), then you can you also understand why economic departments funded by government or government research grants are not generally in favour of arm-chair economists. Intangible 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

SPLC again

Article accusing Rothbard of racism by Southern Poverty Law Center where does it say that Rothbard is a racist; what is the exact critism on rothbard? Intangible 16:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

This talk page is desperately in need of cleanup---the top third of the page is an undefined mass of comments that are not titled nor formatted appropriately---how is anyone to follow the discussion? ---Charles 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Rothbard's law

Is Rothbard's Law supposed to be humorous? It sounds more like Murphy's Law than Say's Law. And it seems that if economists actually believed in it, there would be rather significant implications for the connection of personal liberty with economic efficiency. Let us please indicate one way or another in the article. -Joshuapaquin 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd say it's close to the Peter Principle, serious but not important. -Will Beback 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Austrian school misrepresentation

I removed "These are macro-level generalizations, or heuristics, which are true for the many, but not necessarily true for any particular person." from under the list of praxeology axioms, as this is in violent contradiction to the Austrian interpretation. These axioms, according to Austrians, are true for every person, everywhere, at all times.

Notes & references seem mis-coded

I intended to add the ISBN for Justin Raimondo's book, but there are two [edit] links to click and I'm not quite sure how to address. -- RayBirks 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

You could try clicking them both to see what happens. Not to take your fun away, but I've gone ahead and added the ISBN. Thanks for contributing, or at least trying! Cheers, -Will Beback 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I had done that previously although I did not state such. If you try clicking each yourself, you will find that the two numbered references are nowhere to be found for editing, only Justin's book. Seeing the pseudo-HTML "references with a trailing slash" there threw me as well. Haven't seen that before. Am afraid to mess things up further, thus my original comment. -- RayBirks 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, I read up on the Reference function and figured out that the Notes are self-generated by the "references with a trailing slash" pseudo-code that I have now placed in a new separate section for Notes. I moved Justin's book into a section called Further Reading. Finally, since those [edit] buttons were out of whack, I moved two of the book images that were causing some misalignments up to two earlier sections, and now everything appears hunky-dory. Comments welcome. -- RayBirks 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Adam Smith: Influenced Rothbard, Yes or No?

Since Murray's writings suggest he wasn't much of a fan of Mr. Smith, I'm not so sure he would be considered an influence (which was newly added). Murray even mentions the 'dismal reality' of Smith.[7] Other opinions? -- RayBirks 21:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I think someone must be joking, or having a very warped idea about "influence." Intangible 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read some of his stuff where he wrote favorably about Adam Smith. Other times he went to great lengths to diminish him. Maybe he changed his mind about him over time. --Kalmia (talk) 08:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Murray's degree of influence

I'm a big fan of Murray, but I am wondering just a tad if the list of people he has influenced is going overboard the slightest bit.

I am hoping someone will talk me out of my hesitation. Won't take much. :) -- RayBirks 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, he was a very influential libertarian theorist. However, perhaps we can remove Von Mises Insitute members, and add in 'Ludwig von Mises Institute'

How many times did he die?

Not sure who died at the Denny's, and not sure how that is important.

Removal of Libertatis Æquilibritas logo

Support: I agree, this is not an appropriate symbol for Dr. Rothbard. The dollar is a fiat currency, and he was opposed to such fraudulent mechanisms tooth and nail. -- RayBirks 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good Article on Hold

This is a well-written article, but I'd like to see more in-line citations. The section covering his early life has no in-line citations at this point. --Bookworm857158367 15:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Rothbards views on the Federal Reserve?

The man writes an entire book on the Federal Reserve and even so there is absolutely no mention of his views on the Fed ?

Murray N. Rothbard, The Origins of the Federal Reserve.

Rothbard wrote a lot of books, but yeah, this is definitely important enough to be included. Granola Bars 15:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Grew up in Communist Culture?

At the beginning of the Life section, why is the sentence ""I grew up in a Communist culture," he recalled" actually there? it has no cite, no relevance, and doesn't actually make sense. I'm removing it for now. LtCrumpet (talk) 14:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I am reverting your deletion, at least for now. It needs a fact tag, and someone should find a reference, which should not be difficult. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I found the reference in 30 seconds, just by googling it. Wedineinheck (talk) 16:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability of criticisms of Keynes and Bentham

Some disagreement is developing whether this section should be included/restored (it was after the Rothbard's Law section):

Criticism of Keynes and Bentham: Rothbard was an ardent critic of the influential economist John Maynard Keynes and Keynesian economic thought. His essay Keynes, the Man,[20] is a scathing attack upon Keynes' economic ideas and personage.
Rothbard was also severely critical of, among others, utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham in his essay, "Jeremy Bentham: The Utilitarian as Big Brother" published in his work, Classical Economics.

I would like to see it included. Please chime in with your views. --RayBirks (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Considering that it is referenced, I fail to see the problem. Not only should it be included, I would like to see it expanded. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

ancap

"[rothbard] founded a form of free-market anarchism he termed "anarcho-capitalism"."

That's wrong. Market anarchism was invented by Gustave de Molinari in 1849 -- a fact well known by libertarians. At best rothbard invented the term 'anarcho-capitalism', but nothing else.201.213.51.75 (talk) 23:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

sources documenting that Molinari was the first to come up with market anarchism ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari and http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm

201.213.51.75 (talk) 01:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it does seem to say that. Why don't you go ahead and fix the article? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather disorganized article

I came to stick in one WP:RS factoid, but the more I read it, the more the disorganization -- not to mention lack of WP:RS, including for somethings that are dubious - annoys me. So doing some cleanup. Feel free to comment! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I then cleaned it up, but still want to make a section with viewpoints and stick in current ones and a number of others of interest that were left out. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Need refs for "Influenced" section of template??

I usually delete unreferenced names of people who belong to some listing per WP:BLP. Doesn't that apply here? FYI one can add me (Carol Moore) here but I don't think I have a WP:RS for that either. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

What subsections under political views?

Besides Noninterventionism, which was central to Rothbard's views and activism, what other issues foremost? I think the childrens' rights issue is important - if properly described, as I did. Also I had some good stuff from David Gordon meant to put in a few months back which I should look at again. Plus whatever seems important that comes up. Old radical caucus list of priorities has some good ideas. Read more easily here. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Rothbard's Law Link

Don't know how to fix it, but the Rothbard's Law Link sends you right back to Murray Rothbard page. link ought to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.175.179.1 (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Author

As I said, isn't it pretty much self-evident that anyone who can be described as an economist and philosopher will be an author (and, of course, an intellectual). Maybe there have been economists who have worked entirely in the oral tradition, but I've never heard of any. This kind of thing smacks a bit of desperation.JQ (talk) 07:11, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

See John Quiggin (text of which carries the word author) and User:John Quiggin (the above editor) for background. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that the word "author" should not appear in the text of an article, pretty much the reverse. The main topic of an article like this will normally be based on what the subject has authored. If the subject of an article described as a philosopher or economist was not an author, or had written very little, that might be notable enough for the lead, as in Socrates. JQ (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Emphasis in lede

I'm new to WP (how do you create a username?) but I'm well aware of MR's works, having read virtually everything he has ever written (thanks LRC and Mises.org). In summarizing his writings you need to look at (1) the volume of his work and (2) its influence. There is no question that (1) the core of his major writings (America's Great Depression, The Mystery of Banking) and the scores of pamphlets (Taking Money Back, What has Govt Done to Our Money, and many others) and (2) his major influence was, in the economics field, monetary and financial analysis of FRB and central banking, carrying on the "lost" Mises/Hayek critique on centralization of credit and money creation. In fact, MR's major works on ABCT stem from his understanding of FRB and the perils of centralization of credit creation.

I was surprised (amazed) that the peripheral stuff on children's rights even had a section in WP (perhaps to add spice and controversy beyond monetary reform issues?). For a New Liberty has a whole section on the environment for example, which is detailed and groundbreaking and should be added to this article. Why doesn't that have a section? Why is the relatively minor issue of child's rights so prominent? It's like someone picked out the trivial stuff and dumped it in the article saying "Look at this! Controversial, eh?"

Yes, ultimately balance in the lede is a subjective assessment, but emphasis in the lede should ultimately be drawn from (1) volume of work and (2) influence. You would not say in the lede "MR, a leading advocate of children's rights...." because that was (1) not a main part of the corpus of his writings and (2) had little impact beyond the libertarian community (and even in that community it was peripheral - you never see it discussed. If you do, show me the references).

Focus is a matter of perspective. Saying Bush's major achievement was the promotion of the novel pronounciation of "nuclear" as "nucular" would demean his presidency and his "achievements" (or at least notoriety) in other areas of his presidency. You wouldn't say in the opening paragraph of the WP entry for GWBush, "Former President GW Bush, the guy who pronounced "nuclear" wrong,....". You focus on the main body of his activities and writings.

Money reform was a major (perhaps THE major) aspect of MR's writings in the field of economics and finance. It is absolutely essential that this be prominent in the lede. Anyone who has read MR's writings (and doesn't read with a distorted lense) would agree, I am sure.

I hope I have made my point perfectly, crystal, clear. - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I see you have this in talk already. Guess what, kids rights are just as important as money policy. So is noninterventionism. It is WP:POV and WP:UNDUE to promote just one issue in the lead. That's why I put it back to general views. Please do not revert it.

Also note that you are using phrase "decentralized" - the source does NOT use that. That is called WP:original research which is against wikipedia polices. Please read the policies I refer to. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Please listen to what Carol has to say about this, thanks. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

What happens when you listen - but don't agree? In the most rational, polite way I can (given the circumstances) I make the following perfectly reasonable points: Carol (1) hasn't given one reference to support the idea that MR's minor writings on children's rights gained any prominence inside (or outside) the libertarian community; (2) hasn't commented on (and can't refute) the point that the vast bulk of his writings dealt with problems associated with FRB and central banking (3) "centralization" is mentioned in America's Great Depression ("why do so many businesses all make the same mistake at the same time? Central bank policy etc etc") (4) is inconsistent (tax - a "single issue" if ever there was one - is left in the first paragraph but FRB is taken out) (5) is clearly biased in her approach by thinking that children's rights was a major issue for MR (it may be for her but constituted less than 1% of MR's total writings) (6) I have no idea why Carol is given such respect on these matters when she doesn't seem to have qualifications in the area of economics. Volume of work does not equate with quality of output. I'm going to revert and please respond with (1) references to back up your statements and (2) a rational argument. - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In wikipedia we go by the wikipedia rules - or try to change those rules through wikipedia processes. That is what is rational.

If you are in fact a sockpuppet, people don't need any reason to delete what you wrote
It's not about anyone's degrees in any subject, but what they can source to WP:RS
If you are not a sockpuppet, it is still true tat neither of your sources SAY that money and banking are Rothbard's number one issue
If at least two good ones do you might have an argument; but perhaps others could be found saying, for example, noninterventionism was equally important. Then that would have to go in there too.
But in the end it's still a consensus of editors what belongs in lead and what is WP:UNDUE. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

What is a "sockpuppet"? I haven't seen one of those since I was a child (without any rights). (1) You have given not one reference to your bizarre fixation on the importance of "children's rights", yet you insist on me getting a reference to show that the bulk of his writings were on monetary theory - even though it's obvious when you look at the volume of his writings. (2) By "consensus" you seem to mean "anyone who agrees with me and my friend Gwen". (3) I don't even know whether you've read Am's Great Depn, The Mystery of Banking, Taking Money Back, What Has Govt Done to Our Money, or countless other articles. The quality of WP editor is appalling and sad. Only "fringe" writers seem to have the time to devote themselves to the project, so others who are more familiar with certain subjects (but who are busier actually living) try to dip in occasionally, often to find their contributions deleted by those with a skewed perspective or agenda. This is but one such example. I've consented to your dictates simply because I know to fight you is pointless given your attitude to the world ("My way or the highway"). However I have "adjusted" the lede to remove the bizarre fixation on tax when that is but one of MR's bugbears. You should surely support the more neutral balanced lede now. At least if you've actually read For a New Liberty and the other references I've mentioned above. I humbly beg your highness to consent to the amendment. - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI WP:civility is a policy and there is a noticeboard for complaints about civility with sanctions for severe or repeated incivility. Yet another policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:58, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Sock puppets and The Gold Issue

First, I don't know if I am dealing with one or more sockpuppets on this issue (including because of all the anon IPs, which I do not keep track of), which is part of the problem of my being quick to revert material not on page 261 and technical words like recursive and another one formerly deleted not found in whole document. So if you are not a sockpuppet and have been working on it a) refer to pages that use embezzlemnt and b) stop using technical words not in Rothbard's text. Of course, excessive quoting of primary sources is another problem. That's why we need secondary sources as a lead to any section. You don't have to love, hate, agree or disagree with Rothbard to follow basic wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Second, if there are Rothbarding freebanking gold bugs out there they might try to get at least a paragraph on nongovernmental voluntary free banking gold standards in the Gold standard article.

Obviously the solution is to request semi-protection vs. anon Ips... CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Direct quote from the Introduction to (blocked website not archived) (verifiable by anyone with an internet connection and an IQ higher than their shoe size):

FOREWORD by Gary North

You have in your hands a unique academic treatise on money and banking, a book which combines erudition, clarity of expression, economic theory, monetary theory, economic history, and an appropriate dose of conspiracy theory. Anyone who attempts to explain the mystery of banking—a deliberately contrived mystery in many ways—apart from all of these aspects has not done justice to the topic. But, then again, this is an area in which justice has always been regarded as a liability. The moral account of central banking has been overdrawn since 1694: “insufficient funds.”

I am happy to see The Mystery of Money back in print. I had negotiated with Dr. Rothbard in 1988 to re-publish it through my newsletter publishing company, but both of us got bogged down in other matters. I dithered. I am sure that the Mises Institute will do a much better job than I would have in getting the book into the hands of those who will be able to make good use of it.

I want you to know why I had intended to re-publish this book. It is the only money and banking textbook I have read which forthrightly identifies the process of central banking as both immoral and economically destructive. It identifies fractional reserve banking as a form of embezzlement. While Dr. Rothbard made the moral case against fractional reserve banking in his wonderful little book, What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1964), as far as I am aware, The Mystery of Banking was the first time that this moral insight was applied in a textbook on money and banking.

Perhaps it is unfair to the author to call this book a textbook. Textbooks are traditional expositions that have been carefully crafted to produce a near-paralytic boredom—”chloroform in print,” as Mark Twain once categorized a particular religious treatise.

Textbooks are written to sell to tens of thousands of students in college classes taught by professors of widely varying viewpoints.

Textbook manuscripts are screened by committees of conventional representatives of an academic guild. While a textbook may not be analogous to the traditional definition of a camel—a horse designed by a committee—it almost always resembles a taxidermist’s version of a horse: lifeless and stuffed. The academically captive readers of a textbook, like the taxidermist’s horse, can be easily identified through their glassy-eyed stare. Above all, a textbook must appear to be morally neutral. So, The Mystery of Banking is not really a textbook. It is a monograph.

Those of us who have ever had to sit through a conventional college class on money and banking have been the victims of what I regard—and Dr. Rothbard regards—as an immoral propaganda effort. Despite the rhetoric of value-free economics that is so common in economics classrooms, the reality is very different. By means of the seemingly innocuous analytical device known in money and banking classes as the T-account, the student is morally disarmed. The purchase of a debt instrument—generally a national government’s debt instrument—by the central bank must be balanced in the T-account by a liability to the bank: a unit of money.

"It identifies fractional reserve banking as a form of embezzlement. While Dr. Rothbard made the moral case against fractional reserve banking in his wonderful little book, What Has Government Done to Our Money? (1964), as far as I am aware, The Mystery of Banking was the first time that this moral insight was applied in a textbook on money and banking."

"It identifies fractional reserve banking as a form of embezzlement". As. A. Form. Of. Embezzlement. It could not be clearer.

I rest my case. - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You didn't say if you are a sock puppet.
I added noninterventionism to lead but will change banking to reflect what article says.
Two long quotes saying essentially the same thing are redundant. Which one should go?
Recursive not in sources so still WP:OR, plus other tweaks
No one is denying he talks about embezzlement, just asking for a page number which I'll put in myself. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Isolationism

There's been a little edit warring over whether MR was an "isolationist" and advocated "isolationism". It's a very loaded term. 18th century Japan was "isolationist". So was 18th century China. They stopped a significant volume of foreign trade, did not permit the local population to travel overseas and in Japan's case the shogunate sporadically killed Dutch missionaries (who may or may not have been consorting with local women). The point is that in the academic literature "isolationism" generally refers to this kind of policy of "self-sufficiency", cut off from military AND trade AND commercial dealings with foreign powers. North Korea's policy today could be termed isolationist for example. Few countries are isolationist in this strict sense. MR was most definitely NOT an isolationist in this sense. He strongly supported free trade between peoples and nations. He was anti-interventionist. He uses the term once in all my readings, only the context of military power. Never in the context of trade. This has resulted in this term being thrown about in the lede, totally being blown out of proportion with the vast bulk of his writings. I will assume good faith but I do through gritted teeth (grrrr). Perhaps the editor hasn't read most of MR's writings. I don't know, but to tar MR with the brush of isolationism is grossly distorting the true picture. Exactly the same smear is used to tar Ron Paul today. Same tired old arguments. Many opponents call his policies "isolationist" when in fact they are (and he calls them) "non-interventionist". It's the same logical error made by many people with...with...black and white perspectives about the world. For example, for some feminists, if someone they know doesn't want to beat up his neighbor for being an anti-abortionist well then he must be a wimp. No, he just might not be a psychopath - even if he IS pro-abortion. He may just respect the right of different people to have different views. I know that's incredible, but some people really don't want to shove their views down other people's throats (the wimps!). Refusing to napalm Vietnam in 1972 for example could be termed a policy advocating non-interventionism OR isolationism depending on whether the advocate just wanted to stop the bombing or wanted the US to withdraw from international affairs completely (including trade). One does not equal the other. It's a matter of degree. A lot of people seem to think if Ron Paul (or MR) were advocating the cessation of killing in a foreign land that necessarily means they were "isolationist" (a.k.a "wimps"). No. They just might not have been psychopaths. I hope this is clear and shows the nuances between isolationism and non-interventionism. I am open to differing views, so please feel free to contribute even if you disagree :-) - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The issue has been resolved with an overlooked quote from the Antiwar.com/Reason interview put in section and summarized in lead. Remember, we look for what Sources say, we don't impose our interpretation on what a source says. He did yap on a lot about Isolationism quite a bit during the years - do we ignore that fact because it's now politically incorrect? Find far more and more recent quotes where he says "noninterventionism" than isolationism and that could be rendered irrelevant. See WP:RS if you need more guidance.

Also Gordon says aggressive foreign policy, Stromberg (in fixed reference) says rising American empire; both phrases can be quoted and attributed to those secondary sources as being their descriptions of what rothbard says if you like, i.e.:

According to David Gordon Rothbard opposed the “aggressive foreign policy”[ref] of what Joseph Stromberg writes Rothbard characterized as “the rising American empire”[ref}

Also he was vs. Military Intervention first and foremost. So let's not throw in "domestic affairs" as if that was all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's irrelevant now because it doesn't appear in the lede any more, but I have to make this "housekeeping" point (for want of a better word). I don't know whether you see the innately misleading way you used "rising American empire" but simply because STROMBERG writes this phrase does not mean it should be attributed to MR or included in this article (on MR - not Stromberg). Use MR's words when attempting to summarize what he wrote. For example if Paul Krugman wrote "Bush was an idiot who did not believe in the reality of climate change", you wouldn't write in an article on GW Bush "Bush did not believe in the reality of climate change". The term "reality" is used by Krugman not Bush and is editorializing. It looks like WP itself is supporting the view that climate change is a "reality". To defend its use simply because it sits in the same sentence as "Bush" shows a complete lack of understanding of proper sourcing (and logic). I hope you see the subtle issue being raised and don't slip into the same embarrassing logical error again. Cheers! - VaccinateThePopulace (talk) 09:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, I thought I was just following: Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources Our policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from secondary sources. Articles may include analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims so long as they have been published by a reliable secondary source. In fact too much of this article is original research of what editors are saying he said by looking/quoting at his original words, including stuff I've put in :-). CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Gordon says Dorfman, not Burns

Please find another source if he also studied under Burns instead of changing it to something not sourced in that article. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's an interview with the Ludwig von Mises Institute:

AEN: How many years were involved from the time you started working on Man, Economy, and State to the time it was published?

MNR: This is complicated. I received the grant in 1952, but shortly afterwards I had to finish my doctoral thesis under Arthur Burns. From 1953 to 1956 I was working partly on both. I finally finished Man, Economy, and State in 1960 and it was published in 1962. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.11.234 (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Great. A name of article, date, and link would help. CarolMooreDC (talk) 23:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

"The Science of Liberty", summer 1990, http://mises.org/journals/aen/aen11_2_1.asp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.132.1.122 (talk) 08:22, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Free market money overly long, redundant, POV

I know there is at least one person who in the past has constantly reverted attempts to make this section less redundantly argumentative. But I'm going to shorten it and see what happens. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Carol, I believe the edits you refer to were made by the troll karmaisking, a banned user who won't come to his senses and go away. Policy is that edits made by banned users can be reverted by anyone on sight. Unfortunatly, KiK keeps on coming back, even though everything he writes is eventually reverted. Apparently, he just finds some sort of mean satisfaction in insulting people here. The best thing to do is probably to follow WP:RBI, Revert, Ignore, Block. LK (talk) 02:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the reminder. I assume you mean go to where ever it is you go to get blocks. Brain not working too good tonight but have it somewhere. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The banned sockpuppeteer User:Karmaisking has again been editing this page as User:TimothyDon-HughMak. Please keep an eye out for any untoward edits. Thanks, LK (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Murray Rothbard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

GA Sweeps: Kept

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. It would be beneficial to add a citation for "Rothbard's books, such as Man, Economy, and State, Power and Market, The Ethics of Liberty, and For a New Liberty, are considered by some to be classics of natural law libertarian thought." Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be a good idea to add access dates for all of the sources and add any missing parameters (consider using the citation templates at WP:CITET for formatting). If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:49, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't think he advocated freebanking...

Isn't the Rothbardian line that 'it's wrong to have multiple claims to the same property'? I thought he believed in 100% reserve?(Joenorton75 (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC))

Look at the sources used and see if they support use of that phrase. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. I'd added the refs that clearly show his prioritization on these issues and also re-organized the text in this section to be cleaner, and more encyclopedic. I hope you agree this section is cleaner and clearer now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.51.58 (talk) 13:00, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Anon IP changes may be questionable

I missed the first bunch by one Anon IP and noticed a bunch by another. I suspect there's a lot of WP:OR going on, esp. since many changes not explained, ignoring the work done to try to stick to sources. I'll try to take a better look at it later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Please check them out. I've been working on tidying up expression and linking - hence few explanations. The changes are fully ref'd. With the greatest respect, you don't appear to know an enormous amount about MR's interest in FullRB, based on your comments above, so please read the references before attempting to edit. MR was one of the foremost FullRB supporters of the 20th century, so, as joenorton75 rightly points out, it is surprising that the original version from several weeks ago appeared to focus solely on his support of free banking rather than FullRB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.49.194 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

What the sources say, not what the editor "Knows" is the issue in wikipedia. The question is, are they ref'd by the reference already there? In the past when someone was doing a lot of changes I checked out wording and kept it consistent with sources. Is this wording consistent with those sources or just wording you prefer to use? Not clear from your response. At my leisure I will check it out and make any necessary changes. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.