Murray N. Rothbard vs. the Philosophers - Ludwig von Mises Institute

MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS
100 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI
the common good; he is pro-acquisitiveness, competition,
material gain, and business activity, as against the older
“virtues” of pure thought, leisure, etc.
Horror of horrors, in short, is that Machiavelli favors
worldly gain, worldly comforts, the translation of thought
into action in this world, as against mystical contemplation
of God. The more I read Strauss’s attack, the more I concluded
that Machiavelli had more good points in his philosophy
than I had imagined. Pushing this viewpoint to its logical
conclusion, Strauss denounces the modern, Machiavellian
emphasis on applying science to this world in the form
of advancing technology. Technological inventions are apparently
evil to Strauss and should be repressed by society (represented,
of course, by the State). This is the final measure
of Strauss’s “conservatism.”
Here are some quotations to give some of the flavor of
the Straussian position as he concluded his book. Contrasting
(good) classical philosophy to (bad) modern philosophy
as ushered in by Machiavelli:
In classical philosophy, “the superiority of peace to war or
of leisure to business is a reflection of the superiority of
thinking to doing or making.” 49
Wicked Machiavelli
achieves the decisive turn toward that notion of
philosophy according to which its purpose is to
relieve man’s estate or to increase man’s power or
to guide man toward the rational society, the bond
and the end of which is enlightened self-interest
or the comfortable self-preservation of each of its
members. 50
(Once again: must Strauss push me into being a “Machiavellian”?)
49 Strauss, Thoughts on Machiavelli, p. 295.
50 Ibid., p. 296.