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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 65<br />
lumps <strong>the</strong> libertarian Physiocrats toge<strong>the</strong>r with <strong>the</strong> tyrant<br />
Rousseau. Later on, he praises Jefferson on <strong>the</strong> U.S. Constitution<br />
without fully realizing that <strong>the</strong> Constitution, which<br />
Hayek admires, is precisely an example of systematic rationalist<br />
design and <strong>the</strong> deliberate changing of society.<br />
He points to Bentham as a terrible example of French<br />
rationalist influence without pointing out that Bentham was<br />
indeed terrible, but why? Precisely because his “rationalism”<br />
was a false one, for it rejected and attacked <strong>the</strong> true rationalist<br />
tradition of natural rights. It was because Bentham<br />
attacked natural rights and substituted <strong>the</strong> utilitarian doctrine<br />
that morality cannot be found by right reason, that he<br />
permitted <strong>the</strong> State to define morality and employ coercion.<br />
Since Hayek doesn’t see any significance to natural law or<br />
rights, he confuses <strong>the</strong> whole thing completely.<br />
Burke to publish his Reflections on <strong>the</strong> Revolution in France, and it<br />
opened a wide debate on <strong>the</strong> events in France. Amongst Price’s<br />
works worthy of note are A Review of <strong>the</strong> Principal Questions and<br />
Difficulties in Morals (1758) and Observations on <strong>the</strong> Nature of Civil<br />
Liberty (1776).<br />
Joseph Priestley (1733–1804), a prolific writer and innovative<br />
thinker, distinguished himself in <strong>the</strong> fields of <strong>the</strong>ology, political <strong>the</strong>ory,<br />
pedagogy, and science. He was a Unitarian, and in 1775 he<br />
became minister of <strong>the</strong> small Presbyterian parish of Needham Market<br />
in Suffolk, although his <strong>the</strong>ological stance did not please his<br />
parishioners. We later find Priestley teaching literature at <strong>the</strong> Dissenting<br />
Warrington Academy. Then, in 1767, he became a Dissenting<br />
minister in Leeds. His attacks on <strong>the</strong> official Church, his demonstrated<br />
support for <strong>the</strong> French Revolution, and his insistence on <strong>the</strong><br />
need for parliamentary reform in an age of disorder and fear created<br />
<strong>the</strong> image of Priestley as a threat to order and orthodoxy. This fear<br />
led to <strong>the</strong> Birmingham Riots of 1791 (sometimes referred to as <strong>the</strong><br />
Priestley Riots). It was during this rioting that Priestley himself, and<br />
o<strong>the</strong>r Dissenters were attacked, <strong>the</strong>ir homes burned, and many of<br />
<strong>the</strong>ir writings destroyed. In <strong>the</strong> spring of 1794, he moved to <strong>the</strong><br />
United States, where he continued his work. He wrote An Essay on<br />
<strong>the</strong> First Principles of Government (1768), Disquisitions Relating to<br />
Matter and Spirit (1777), Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity<br />
(1777), and Some Considerations on <strong>the</strong> Poor in General (1787).<br />
One of <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>mes of An Essay on <strong>the</strong> First Principles of Government<br />
was opposition to any state role in <strong>the</strong> field of education, in<br />
which he thought pluralism and competition should rule.