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

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 67<br />

Burke who led both <strong>the</strong> bloody and murderous war against <strong>the</strong><br />

French abroad and <strong>the</strong> tyrannical, liberty-destroying suppressions<br />

at home—while it was Price and his Radical friends who<br />

defended both domestic liberty and foreign isolationism.<br />

Philosophically, Hayek, much as he denies it, is a conservative,<br />

in <strong>the</strong> sense that he believes we must blindly follow<br />

traditions even if we can’t defend <strong>the</strong>m. He differs from<br />

Kirk, et al., largely in a bad way, i.e., by adopting <strong>the</strong> opposite<br />

fallacy that <strong>the</strong> case for liberty rests on <strong>the</strong> fact that we<br />

know nothing, or very little, and must <strong>the</strong>refore keep <strong>the</strong><br />

roads open so that we can learn something. In short, Hayek<br />

explicitly rests his case on man’s ignorance, differing from<br />

Kirk who believes that at least tradition gives us some<br />

knowledge. This is <strong>the</strong> J.S. Mill, H.B. Phillips, Gerald<br />

Heard argument. 18 Of course, such a puny argument means<br />

that, as civilization advances, and we get to know more and<br />

more, <strong>the</strong> case for liberty becomes weaker and weaker. To<br />

evade this conclusion, Hayek employs two contradictory<br />

stratagems: (1) using <strong>the</strong> absurd and self-contradictory bromide<br />

that “<strong>the</strong> more we know, <strong>the</strong> more we know how little<br />

we know,” and (2) saying even if we do know more, we still<br />

know less than we don’t know, i.e., we still know less than<br />

50 percent of what <strong>the</strong>re is to be known. How he knows this<br />

is, of course, in <strong>the</strong> lap of <strong>the</strong> gods.<br />

Both <strong>the</strong> Kirkian worship of <strong>the</strong> past and <strong>the</strong> Mill-Phillips<br />

emphasis on man’s ignorance have one thing in common:<br />

<strong>the</strong>ir attack on man’s reason. But how else could Hayek combine<br />

two contradictory fallacies? In an interesting way:<br />

through his knowledge of <strong>the</strong> free market. For to Hayek, <strong>the</strong><br />

market is an example of a social institution that works better<br />

than any individual knows and is needed because of each<br />

18 Gerald Heard (1889–1971). A historian and philosopher,<br />

Heard studied at Cambridge and briefly taught at Oxford before<br />

moving in 1937 to <strong>the</strong> United States. He briefly taught at Duke University<br />

before founding Trabuco College in 1941. He was well known<br />

for his evolutionary <strong>the</strong>ory of human consciousness. See his works<br />

The Ascent of Humanity (1929), The Source of Civilization (1935),<br />

and The Five Ages of Man (1963).

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!