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.

REVIEWS AND COMMENTS BY MURRAY N. ROTHBARD 85<br />

radical Anglican Archdeacon Blackburne. 29 Francis Hutcheson<br />

30 is shown to have played a very important role, in England<br />

as well as Scotland, and is shown to be a far better libertarian<br />

than his pupil, Adam Smith. (Although <strong>the</strong>re is a<br />

light in <strong>the</strong> sun, native, original, inherent, and unlimited<br />

by anything human. In governors, it may be compared<br />

to <strong>the</strong> reflected light of <strong>the</strong> moon, for it is only<br />

borrowed, delegated, and limited by <strong>the</strong> intention of<br />

<strong>the</strong> people, whose it is, and to whom governors are to<br />

consider <strong>the</strong>mselves responsible, while <strong>the</strong> people are<br />

answerable only to God.<br />

Central to Burgh’s thought was his criticism of <strong>the</strong> electoral system,<br />

which he considered to be corrupt and unrepresentative. Burgh<br />

wanted <strong>the</strong> right to vote to be extended to all those who paid taxes,<br />

because only in this way could <strong>the</strong> balance in favor of <strong>the</strong> great<br />

landowners be redressed and trade and manufacturing interests be<br />

represented. It is worth noting that Burgh advocated extending <strong>the</strong><br />

right to vote to anyone who paid taxes—he was not talking about<br />

universal male suffrage. While maintaining <strong>the</strong> need for wider representation,<br />

Burgh did not question <strong>the</strong> link between property and<br />

political representation.<br />

John Jackson (1686–1763) wrote The Grounds of Civil and<br />

Ecclesiastical Government, in which he maintained that <strong>the</strong> state<br />

should be limited by natural law and <strong>the</strong> resulting civil laws. Jackson<br />

criticized <strong>the</strong> <strong>the</strong>ory of <strong>the</strong> divine right of kings and maintained that<br />

<strong>the</strong> citizens were bound to <strong>the</strong> sovereign as long as <strong>the</strong> sovereign<br />

acted justly; o<strong>the</strong>rwise <strong>the</strong> power was dissolved.<br />

John Lee (1733–1793) was part of <strong>the</strong> circle of Rational Dissenters<br />

and a member of <strong>the</strong> Club of Honest Whigs toge<strong>the</strong>r with<br />

Price and Burgh. A friend of Joseph Priestley, he was solicitor general<br />

in <strong>the</strong> Rockingham administration.<br />

29Francis Blackburne (1705–1787) published The Confessional<br />

(1766) anonymously in defense of <strong>the</strong> Unitarian faith and against <strong>the</strong><br />

restrictions imposed on religious dissenters.<br />

30Francis Hutcheson (1694–1746) was considered to be one of <strong>the</strong><br />

main exponents of <strong>the</strong> Scottish Enlightenment. In 1729, he succeeded<br />

Gershom Carmichael (see note below) in <strong>the</strong> chair of moral philosophy<br />

at <strong>the</strong> University of Glasgow, and Adam Smith was one of his students.<br />

Hutcheson placed at <strong>the</strong> basis of any moral judgment a feeling grounded<br />

in <strong>the</strong> notion that human nature produced approval for virtuous actions<br />

and disapproval for vicious actions. This instinct explained <strong>the</strong> possibility<br />

of moral judgments independent of any considerations dictated by

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!