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
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 53<br />
and truly kind, etc. All this may be permissible in <strong>the</strong>ology,<br />
where apparently anything goes, but not in political philosophy<br />
where we are supposedly dealing with <strong>the</strong> world of facts<br />
and not a world of dreams. Nature is simply <strong>the</strong> environment<br />
on earth in which man finds himself, and to treat it as<br />
a separate being in <strong>the</strong> image of man is sheer nonsense.<br />
Second, <strong>the</strong> Rugged Individualist not only blandly asserts<br />
<strong>the</strong> existence of such a being, but also claims that he has an<br />
exclusive pipeline on her wishes, desires, etc. Who is he to<br />
speak for Nature? I could with equal validity propound <strong>the</strong><br />
doctrine that “Nature” is an evil old hag who is trying her<br />
best to eliminate <strong>the</strong> human race—all of it. Not only would<br />
such a proposition be equally valid with that of <strong>the</strong> Rugged<br />
Individualist, it would probably be more consonant with <strong>the</strong><br />
facts. And from this proposition an entirely different set of<br />
policies would follow.<br />
Third, <strong>the</strong> teleological fallacy. This is <strong>the</strong> doctrine that<br />
all of <strong>the</strong> history of man has some sort of deep purpose and<br />
goal ordained divinely or by “Nature.” This conceives of history<br />
with absurd optimism as marching steadily or in zigzag<br />
fashion (<strong>the</strong> Marxists, for example, believe in <strong>the</strong> zigzag<br />
path) toward some “good” goal, which usually by some<br />
strange coincidence turns out to be <strong>the</strong> very goal that <strong>the</strong><br />
one who propounds <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory desires! Thus, <strong>the</strong> Marxist<br />
sees history as a grand march toward <strong>the</strong> socialist society of<br />
his dreams, and <strong>the</strong> Rugged Individualist sees history as a<br />
grand march of weeding out <strong>the</strong> “unfit” and improving <strong>the</strong><br />
race. In both cases <strong>the</strong>re is a grand design and in both cases<br />
<strong>the</strong> design is one that suits <strong>the</strong> man who propounds it.<br />
Again, this teleology will pass in <strong>the</strong> confines of <strong>the</strong> church<br />
but not in a discussion of political or social philosophy. In<br />
<strong>the</strong>se latter realms it is simply mystic nonsense, with no<br />
basis in fact or human experience whatsoever.<br />
2. The Fallacy of <strong>the</strong> “Survival of <strong>the</strong> Fittest”<br />
The entire concept of <strong>the</strong> “fit” surviving is a complete fallacy.<br />
Let us suppose that several thousand hard-working,