Dreamofunity
07-28-2009, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure which forum to post this in, so Mods feel free to move it to where ever is appropriate.
This is a paper I wrote for psychology class. We were to pick a famous person (anyone with at least two books written about them) and then to evaluate their life through psychological theory.
The paper is supose to look like this:
Description of life
Personal analysis
Applied psychological theory to life
Personal Reflection
But because I was a study group leader I only had to do two sections, unfortunately she cut out the fun ones. Bold is what the paper below consists of.
Also, I'm not really looking for spelling and grammatical errors, this paper is from last semester and I already got an A on it, I'm just sharing it for those interested.
TL;DR
Paper on Rothbard.
Damnit, block text... the format didn't stay.
Enemy of the State
To attain such a title as Enemy of the State, one would think you would have to perform horrendous actions against the state; for Murray Rothbard, ideas alone served as merit. Rothbard was a philosopher, economist, political theorist, historian, and most of all, a man of principle. He based his theories of politics and ethics on the principle of individual liberty, and stood by them until they reached their logical conclusions, regardless of the consequences the remained for him. He committed his whole life to furthering the cause of freedom for the individual.
Murray was born Murray Newton Rothbard on March 2, 1926 to David and Rae Rothbard. He was born into a culture of left-wing Jewish immigrants, many of whom where outright Marxists, and lived in the Bronx area of New York. The only exception to the cultural Marxism that surrounded young Rothbard was his father, who ended up being a big influence on Murray’s life and ideas. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 23-25) Rothbard’s intellect and quality of mind played a big influence to his development as well, but it caused problems for him early on. Once in Public Schooling, Rothbard felt trapped. He described the system of schooling as completely forgetting the individual, and a place where he felt “imprisoned in a steel cage.” (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 29) His parents soon had him transferred to a private school after first attempting other remedies. There he soared, but soon found the classes and school to be too small to fully expand his curious mind. By the time he reached high school, he was well developed and contrasted in his political ideals. He was known as the school conservative in a sea of “New York ‘Park Avenue’ or ‘limousine’ liberals.” (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 32)
Rothbard’s political ideas, which may have leaned towards the right in his early life, were well rooted in libertarianism by 1940, but no where near to the extent to which he would later in his life conclude. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 34) He had many periods of political influence in his life; from his alliance with the old right, his acceptance of the new anti-war left, and his coming together with Ayn Rand including their influence on the newly formed Libertarian Party; but his contact with Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics had the biggest impact on Rothbard’s political work. (Raimondo, 2000) In 1945, Rothbard received a B.A. in Mathematics from Columbia University, and in 1946, he attained a M.A. in Economics from the same school. He spent the majority of his life constantly writing and expounding upon his ideas up until his death on January 7, 1995, from a heart attack. (Gordon, 2000) He had authored over two dozen books, along with thousands of articles for numerous papers and journals. (McElroy, 2000) His most important piece of work being either, Man, Economy, and State, based off Mises’ book Human Action, which became a central work for the Austrian School; or For a New Liberty, which was another influential work of Rothbard’s, and served as the basis for a Libertarian Manifesto. (Gordon, 2000)
Considering the vast amount of work and material produced by Rothbard, it is difficult to sum up the sole of his philosophy. Add in his often changing perspectives in attempts to gain new followers; from the old right, the new left, Randian objectivists, and back to the right in the end, it becomes even more difficult. One thing is for certain though; Rothbard always held on to his emphasis for individual liberty and often transcended the political spectrum. After adhering strictly to laissez-faire economics presented by Mises and the Austrian School, Rothbard found himself with a dilemma of sorts while remaining consistent and bringing this theory to its logical conclusion. The state has a monopoly on the use of force, which goes against the principles of free-market economics; Rothbard either had to agree with socialism or divulge himself as an individualist anarchist. From 1949 on, Rothbard considered himself an Anarchist. (Gordon, 2000) Rothbard coined the term Anarcho-Capitalist to distinguish himself from the left-leaning individualist anarchists that oppose private property. (Modugno)
The majority of Rothbard’s theory, while prevalent throughout most his work, is summed up in For a New Liberty. Rothbard made no special distinction between an individual and the state. An action can be immoral regardless of who performs it. According to Rothbard, “War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery.” (Rothbard, 1994, pp. 24-25) Such actions would be considered immoral regardless of the sanctions the state receives while performing them. Rothbard based his theory on two major principles. The first one was within the realm of property rights; based on axiom of self-ownership, and from there the homesteading principle. The other principle, and arguably the most important regarding individual liberty, is the Non-Aggression Axiom. Rothbard defined this as the central creed to Libertarianism, “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” (Rothbard, 1994, pp. 23) Basically, one has the right to live their life however they please as long as they do not aggress against another, or total and pure individual liberty up until the point of aggression. While most would agree to this principle on the surface, Rothbard did the unthinkable; he applied this axiom to the state.
Rothbard’s political life and work were often times controversial, and had he stuck to more conventional or statist rhetoric and conclusions, he arguably could have been more successful in his academic career. Regardless, Rothbard never gave in to the pressure to conform and always remained quintessentially himself. He was often described as ‘too funny to be an economist’ and his wife, JoAnn Rothbard, made the comment that he probably would have never married her if she could not laugh at his jokes. (Rothbard, 1996) Murray was passionate, the life found in the room, and often times stayed up late giving up his personal time in discussions with anyone who was eager to listen. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 17) He was a man consistent with his principles, although not particularly with his alignments, but nevertheless contributed greatly to the social and political thoughts of the 20th century; even though he still to this day remains rather unknown.
Rothbard through Psychology
Rothbard was not particularly a fan of Psychology, and once wrote an article entitled “Psychoanalysis as a Weapon,” in which he goes on to describe how “Psycho-history has most often been used as a weapon against radical groups in the past. Any radical group that challenged the status quo is assumed ipso facto to be crazy or neurotic, people whose ideas and behavior have to be ‘explained.’ The ‘explanation’ of course is never that they had perceived what they considered to be a grave injustice in society and were trying to set it right.” (Rothbard, 1980) Nevertheless, I will attempt to interpret his life though Psychological theory. If you disregard his conclusions, I do not believe anyone could consider such a logically consistent man to be crazy. If one were a typical psychologist working for the state and were to consider his ideas in regard to the government institution they work for, I could see how they may be forced to come to the conclusion of neuroticism.
To take on such a task as analyzing Murray Rothbard, I believe the best attempt would be to come from the Cognitive or Humanistic approach to Psychology. Most of the information presented about his life, and evident throughout his work, has to do with his ideas, belief systems, and individual world view. These things, while relatively unique, I believe make sense in the context to which Rothbard was growing up. Given the environment in which he grew up in, for the most part being surrounded by Marxists during the “Red Decade” of the thirties, one would expect through the presented emotion culture and social referencing that Rothbard would end up being a Marxist like his family. Instead, Rothbard ended up becoming the antithesis to Marx. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 23) I attribute this to the early on rebel attitude he attained from being smarter than the rest of his age group and having that one “exception to this communist milieu,” his father. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 24) Rothbard was very close to his parents throughout their lives; and I believe through Watson’s Behaviorism, a young Murray observed his father’s attempt to make it on his own in a new world and new environment. Through their relationship and Murray’s observation, Rothbard learned to rebel and succeed on an individual, rather than collectivist, level like his father did. He watched the difference between his father’s and mother’s adaptation to America, and through Vicarious Learning, Rothbard saw the success of his father, and decided to imitate him. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 25-28)
Rothbard was very intelligent from a young age, and while most likely he had a high IQ, I believe he also acquired other types of intelligence in reference to Gardner. Rothbard’s verbal and linguistic intelligence is one of the easiest spotted. Throughout his many books, articles, and lectures, Rothbard wrote with ease explaining difficult concept such as Austrian Economics to the layman (www.mises.org for numerous articles, online books and audio lectures displaying this intelligence). He also displayed great logical and mathematical intelligence; his B.A. in Mathematics from Columbia University is an example of this. This type of intelligence is also presented in his philosophical and political works through the logic he used to present his arguments. (Gordon, 2000) Murray notably had poor body and kinesthetic intelligence, and did very poorly in athletics. Rothbard also displayed intense interpersonal intelligence, evident through his relationship with his wife, and intrapersonal intelligence evident through his unwavering desire for truth. (Rothbard, 1996) Through his philosophical work, I believe he presented existential intelligence; although he tended to argue over the existence of the state more than existence and life in general. I also believe he showed a balance in Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of intelligence, by being both logically and practically intelligent while still displaying creativity though his humor and a play he wrote about his fall out with Ayn Rand titled “Mozart was a Red.” (Rothbard, 1960)
According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I believe Rothbard’s life and work to generally be geared towards self-actualization. He was not coming to his conclusions for achievement or to gain respect from his colleagues in the academic field. He very easily could have remained a minarchist, rather than an anarchist, and gathered more respect in his field of work. This to me means he was working beyond his esteem level towards self-actualization. In accordance to this, and Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, I believe Rothbard generally acted on the Post Conventional Level at a stage six. While his overall universal principle was not specifically human life, it was something even more fundamental to it. He based his ethics and moral principles on individual human liberty. His strict adherence and consistent application of the Non-Aggression Axiom makes the case for a stage six moral character. While undoubtedly there were moments in his personal life where Rothbard may have acted in a lower level, I believe he was one of the few who actually attain a stage six level, especially if Kohlberg’s theory was applied strictly to Rothbard’s political theories.
This is a paper I wrote for psychology class. We were to pick a famous person (anyone with at least two books written about them) and then to evaluate their life through psychological theory.
The paper is supose to look like this:
Description of life
Personal analysis
Applied psychological theory to life
Personal Reflection
But because I was a study group leader I only had to do two sections, unfortunately she cut out the fun ones. Bold is what the paper below consists of.
Also, I'm not really looking for spelling and grammatical errors, this paper is from last semester and I already got an A on it, I'm just sharing it for those interested.
TL;DR
Paper on Rothbard.
Damnit, block text... the format didn't stay.
Enemy of the State
To attain such a title as Enemy of the State, one would think you would have to perform horrendous actions against the state; for Murray Rothbard, ideas alone served as merit. Rothbard was a philosopher, economist, political theorist, historian, and most of all, a man of principle. He based his theories of politics and ethics on the principle of individual liberty, and stood by them until they reached their logical conclusions, regardless of the consequences the remained for him. He committed his whole life to furthering the cause of freedom for the individual.
Murray was born Murray Newton Rothbard on March 2, 1926 to David and Rae Rothbard. He was born into a culture of left-wing Jewish immigrants, many of whom where outright Marxists, and lived in the Bronx area of New York. The only exception to the cultural Marxism that surrounded young Rothbard was his father, who ended up being a big influence on Murray’s life and ideas. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 23-25) Rothbard’s intellect and quality of mind played a big influence to his development as well, but it caused problems for him early on. Once in Public Schooling, Rothbard felt trapped. He described the system of schooling as completely forgetting the individual, and a place where he felt “imprisoned in a steel cage.” (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 29) His parents soon had him transferred to a private school after first attempting other remedies. There he soared, but soon found the classes and school to be too small to fully expand his curious mind. By the time he reached high school, he was well developed and contrasted in his political ideals. He was known as the school conservative in a sea of “New York ‘Park Avenue’ or ‘limousine’ liberals.” (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 32)
Rothbard’s political ideas, which may have leaned towards the right in his early life, were well rooted in libertarianism by 1940, but no where near to the extent to which he would later in his life conclude. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 34) He had many periods of political influence in his life; from his alliance with the old right, his acceptance of the new anti-war left, and his coming together with Ayn Rand including their influence on the newly formed Libertarian Party; but his contact with Ludwig Von Mises and the Austrian School of Economics had the biggest impact on Rothbard’s political work. (Raimondo, 2000) In 1945, Rothbard received a B.A. in Mathematics from Columbia University, and in 1946, he attained a M.A. in Economics from the same school. He spent the majority of his life constantly writing and expounding upon his ideas up until his death on January 7, 1995, from a heart attack. (Gordon, 2000) He had authored over two dozen books, along with thousands of articles for numerous papers and journals. (McElroy, 2000) His most important piece of work being either, Man, Economy, and State, based off Mises’ book Human Action, which became a central work for the Austrian School; or For a New Liberty, which was another influential work of Rothbard’s, and served as the basis for a Libertarian Manifesto. (Gordon, 2000)
Considering the vast amount of work and material produced by Rothbard, it is difficult to sum up the sole of his philosophy. Add in his often changing perspectives in attempts to gain new followers; from the old right, the new left, Randian objectivists, and back to the right in the end, it becomes even more difficult. One thing is for certain though; Rothbard always held on to his emphasis for individual liberty and often transcended the political spectrum. After adhering strictly to laissez-faire economics presented by Mises and the Austrian School, Rothbard found himself with a dilemma of sorts while remaining consistent and bringing this theory to its logical conclusion. The state has a monopoly on the use of force, which goes against the principles of free-market economics; Rothbard either had to agree with socialism or divulge himself as an individualist anarchist. From 1949 on, Rothbard considered himself an Anarchist. (Gordon, 2000) Rothbard coined the term Anarcho-Capitalist to distinguish himself from the left-leaning individualist anarchists that oppose private property. (Modugno)
The majority of Rothbard’s theory, while prevalent throughout most his work, is summed up in For a New Liberty. Rothbard made no special distinction between an individual and the state. An action can be immoral regardless of who performs it. According to Rothbard, “War is Mass Murder, Conscription is Slavery, and Taxation is Robbery.” (Rothbard, 1994, pp. 24-25) Such actions would be considered immoral regardless of the sanctions the state receives while performing them. Rothbard based his theory on two major principles. The first one was within the realm of property rights; based on axiom of self-ownership, and from there the homesteading principle. The other principle, and arguably the most important regarding individual liberty, is the Non-Aggression Axiom. Rothbard defined this as the central creed to Libertarianism, “that no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.” (Rothbard, 1994, pp. 23) Basically, one has the right to live their life however they please as long as they do not aggress against another, or total and pure individual liberty up until the point of aggression. While most would agree to this principle on the surface, Rothbard did the unthinkable; he applied this axiom to the state.
Rothbard’s political life and work were often times controversial, and had he stuck to more conventional or statist rhetoric and conclusions, he arguably could have been more successful in his academic career. Regardless, Rothbard never gave in to the pressure to conform and always remained quintessentially himself. He was often described as ‘too funny to be an economist’ and his wife, JoAnn Rothbard, made the comment that he probably would have never married her if she could not laugh at his jokes. (Rothbard, 1996) Murray was passionate, the life found in the room, and often times stayed up late giving up his personal time in discussions with anyone who was eager to listen. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 17) He was a man consistent with his principles, although not particularly with his alignments, but nevertheless contributed greatly to the social and political thoughts of the 20th century; even though he still to this day remains rather unknown.
Rothbard through Psychology
Rothbard was not particularly a fan of Psychology, and once wrote an article entitled “Psychoanalysis as a Weapon,” in which he goes on to describe how “Psycho-history has most often been used as a weapon against radical groups in the past. Any radical group that challenged the status quo is assumed ipso facto to be crazy or neurotic, people whose ideas and behavior have to be ‘explained.’ The ‘explanation’ of course is never that they had perceived what they considered to be a grave injustice in society and were trying to set it right.” (Rothbard, 1980) Nevertheless, I will attempt to interpret his life though Psychological theory. If you disregard his conclusions, I do not believe anyone could consider such a logically consistent man to be crazy. If one were a typical psychologist working for the state and were to consider his ideas in regard to the government institution they work for, I could see how they may be forced to come to the conclusion of neuroticism.
To take on such a task as analyzing Murray Rothbard, I believe the best attempt would be to come from the Cognitive or Humanistic approach to Psychology. Most of the information presented about his life, and evident throughout his work, has to do with his ideas, belief systems, and individual world view. These things, while relatively unique, I believe make sense in the context to which Rothbard was growing up. Given the environment in which he grew up in, for the most part being surrounded by Marxists during the “Red Decade” of the thirties, one would expect through the presented emotion culture and social referencing that Rothbard would end up being a Marxist like his family. Instead, Rothbard ended up becoming the antithesis to Marx. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 23) I attribute this to the early on rebel attitude he attained from being smarter than the rest of his age group and having that one “exception to this communist milieu,” his father. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 24) Rothbard was very close to his parents throughout their lives; and I believe through Watson’s Behaviorism, a young Murray observed his father’s attempt to make it on his own in a new world and new environment. Through their relationship and Murray’s observation, Rothbard learned to rebel and succeed on an individual, rather than collectivist, level like his father did. He watched the difference between his father’s and mother’s adaptation to America, and through Vicarious Learning, Rothbard saw the success of his father, and decided to imitate him. (Raimondo, 2000, pp. 25-28)
Rothbard was very intelligent from a young age, and while most likely he had a high IQ, I believe he also acquired other types of intelligence in reference to Gardner. Rothbard’s verbal and linguistic intelligence is one of the easiest spotted. Throughout his many books, articles, and lectures, Rothbard wrote with ease explaining difficult concept such as Austrian Economics to the layman (www.mises.org for numerous articles, online books and audio lectures displaying this intelligence). He also displayed great logical and mathematical intelligence; his B.A. in Mathematics from Columbia University is an example of this. This type of intelligence is also presented in his philosophical and political works through the logic he used to present his arguments. (Gordon, 2000) Murray notably had poor body and kinesthetic intelligence, and did very poorly in athletics. Rothbard also displayed intense interpersonal intelligence, evident through his relationship with his wife, and intrapersonal intelligence evident through his unwavering desire for truth. (Rothbard, 1996) Through his philosophical work, I believe he presented existential intelligence; although he tended to argue over the existence of the state more than existence and life in general. I also believe he showed a balance in Sternberg’s Triarchic theory of intelligence, by being both logically and practically intelligent while still displaying creativity though his humor and a play he wrote about his fall out with Ayn Rand titled “Mozart was a Red.” (Rothbard, 1960)
According to Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, I believe Rothbard’s life and work to generally be geared towards self-actualization. He was not coming to his conclusions for achievement or to gain respect from his colleagues in the academic field. He very easily could have remained a minarchist, rather than an anarchist, and gathered more respect in his field of work. This to me means he was working beyond his esteem level towards self-actualization. In accordance to this, and Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development, I believe Rothbard generally acted on the Post Conventional Level at a stage six. While his overall universal principle was not specifically human life, it was something even more fundamental to it. He based his ethics and moral principles on individual human liberty. His strict adherence and consistent application of the Non-Aggression Axiom makes the case for a stage six moral character. While undoubtedly there were moments in his personal life where Rothbard may have acted in a lower level, I believe he was one of the few who actually attain a stage six level, especially if Kohlberg’s theory was applied strictly to Rothbard’s political theories.