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

LAW AND NATURE IN THE WORK OF MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 23
seems to have been a more explicit and direct relationship
between Henry Veatch and Den Uyl and Rasmussen, who
were even closer philosophically to Veatch than Rothbard
had been.
CRITICISM OF HAYEK:
HISTORICAL RIGHTS AND NATURAL RIGHTS
ROTHBARD’S CRITICISM OF HAYEK’S formulation, both evolutionist
and fallibilist, is closely connected to the discussion
of natural law. The fact that Hayekian and Rothbardian
premises are irreconcilable emerges in the two reviews of
Constitution of Liberty. To explain the reasons for liberty,
Hayek starts from evolutionary and fallibilist positions that
are inevitably going to contrast with the doctrine of natural
law and rationalism, the latter being the premises for Rothbard’s
anarcho-capitalist theory. In Rothbard’s opinion, one
of the shortcomings of Hayek’s work is that he totally
ignores the tradition of natural law, even when discussing
theorists who were actually great supporters of the doctrine
of natural law, as in the case of John Locke. Hayek seems
to be unaware of this great tradition of thought, which
played such an important role in the growth of liberal ideas,
in safeguarding the intangible individual sphere, and in limiting
the powers of the state—and which, we should not
forget, contributed so much to the history of constitutionalism
itself, given the links between natural rights, contractualism,
and constitutionalism. 39
39 On the historical role of the notion of natural law, see Passerin
d’Entrèves, La dottrina del diritto naturale, and Guido Fassò, La
legge della ragione (Milan: Giuffrè, 1999).