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

LAW AND NATURE IN THE WORK OF MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 17
would make another man happier or less discontented.
22
Given his ethical subjectivism, Mises rejects the entire
notion of natural law.
The teachings of utilitarian philosophy and classical
economics have nothing at all to do with the
doctrine of natural right. . . . They recommend
popular government, private property, tolerance,
and freedom not because they are natural and
just, but because they are beneficial. 23
Why does Rothbard resort to an argument of an ethical
nature to support the free market? He must, after all, have
been aware that the question of natural law is extremely
controversial. Rothbard explains that Mises’s way of proceeding
is correct in relation to praxeology, but it is nevertheless
unable to tell us what is best for the human being.
In brief, Mises’s reasoning does not satisfy the Rothbardian
requirement of establishing an objective and rational basis
for liberty. Mises shows that policies constraining the market
economy would lead to undesired consequences for
almost all people. Once this has been demonstrated, everyone
should logically accept the market economy. Rothbard
points out that the situation is not quite so simple, since
some individuals could actually desire consequences such as
shortages of goods, hunger, or poverty to occur. Alternatively,
some could have a short-term interest in favoring
heavily interventionist policies; others could be egalitarian
22Ludwig von Mises, Human Action: A Treatise on Economics,
scholar’s edition (Auburn, Ala.: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1998),
pp. 18–19.
23Mises, Human Action, p. 174. On the different positions of
Mises and Rothbard on these questions, see David Gordon, “Le
implicazioni etiche e politiche della Scuola austriaca di economia,”
in David Gordon and Roberta A. Modugno, eds., Individualismo
metodologico: dalla Scuola austriaca all’anarco-capitalismo (Rome:
Luiss Edizioni, 2001), pp. 36–71.