04.06.2013 Views

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

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

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

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

MURRAY N. ROTHBARD VS. THE PHILOSPHERS: UNPUBLISHED WRITINGS<br />

50 ON HAYEK, MISES, STRAUSS, AND POLYANI<br />

promptly “reorganize,” “meaning simply that <strong>the</strong> recent (and<br />

forthcoming) accretions of State power are here to stay . . .<br />

and that . . . <strong>the</strong>y are preparing to dispose <strong>the</strong>mselves most<br />

advantageously in a contest for <strong>the</strong>ir control and management.”<br />

3<br />

In 1952, we shall be treated to a “contest” between a<br />

Douglas-Bowles or Humphrey-Bowles ticket versus a<br />

Stassen-Saltonstall ticket, if indeed Stassen is not considered<br />

by that time as an “ultrareactionary.” 4 The New Dealish<br />

voters will all vote for Douglas-Bowles while <strong>the</strong> substantial<br />

minority of true liberal voters will “go fishing” in<br />

disgust. The consequence will be a thumping Democratic<br />

landslide and four more years of even more socialism.<br />

In l956 . . . well who knows whe<strong>the</strong>r elections <strong>the</strong>mselves<br />

may not be “outmoded” by that time?<br />

As for Dr. Cutten’s speech, I found it very interesting,<br />

particularly since it is <strong>the</strong> first document I’ve received from<br />

<strong>the</strong> foundation with which I find myself in almost complete<br />

disagreement.<br />

The philosophy of rugged individualism has always seemed<br />

to me to be not only a useless but also a pernicious outgrowth<br />

or variant of individualism. Rugged individualism, also<br />

known as social Darwinism, is inhumane and illogical; it is<br />

based on a completely false use of analogy and an absurd<br />

<strong>the</strong>ory of ethics.<br />

The <strong>the</strong>ory is originally based on an unwarranted extension<br />

of Darwinism to <strong>the</strong> history of man. Supposedly, man develops<br />

continually struggling against nature—i.e., struggling to<br />

3Rothard notes, A.J. Nock, Our Enemy, <strong>the</strong> State (New York:<br />

William Morrow, 1935), p. 20.<br />

4Paul Douglas (1892–1976) was a U.S. senator (Democrat);<br />

Chester Bowles (1901–1986) was a U.S. congressman (Democrat)<br />

and diplomat; Hubert Humphrey (1911–1978) was vice president of<br />

<strong>the</strong> United States from 1965 to 1969; Harold Stassen<br />

(1907–2001) was a U.S. senator (Republican). In 1948 and many<br />

times <strong>the</strong>reafter, Stassen ran for <strong>the</strong> Republican presidential nomination,<br />

but he was always defeated; Leverett Saltonstall was a U.S.<br />

senator (Republican).

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!