The Rothbardian School & Ron Paul

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Last December, Brian Doherty wrote a column for Reason in which he noted that there are two major schools of libertarianism that matter: The moderate Hayekian school pushed by the Cato Institute and the much more radical Rothbardian school pushed by Ron Paul and the Ludwig von Mises Institute.

While refraining from badmouthing the Hayekians, Doherty makes the case that Ron Paul’s Rothbardian school is the driving force behind whatever libertarian mass movement exists today:


http://www.lewrockwell.com/mcmaken/mcmaken133.html

....Rothbard carried on the radically anti-interventionist economics of Ludwig von Mises who denied the value of government intervention in markets virtually 100 percent of the time. Rothbard takes this even further in his political economy, but for the educated layman, the economics of Mises and Rothbard will differ very little.


Great piece. Let's continue to stay principled.

:p

[ronpaulhawaii]

oops - nm

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

am reading, but wondering about this line:

"...the moderate Hayekian branch of Austrian Economics and the much more radical Rothbardian branch..."

Is there a Hayekian branch of Austrian Economics?

Yes. Hayek himself advocated a Welfare-State for instance (among other oddities). The Hayek portion of Austrian Economics when it comes to policy is vastly more moderated and more status-quo. There are a few in Academia who are really pushing this and there's a sort of current under-tow of antagonism right now between GMU and the LvMI. GMU is heavily Hayekian. Even today so-called proponents still bash (not critique mind you) Mises. It is fucking absurd, but whatever.

[Sola_Fide]

Hayek was a convert to Austrian economics right?


Great post TS.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Hayek was a convert to Austrian economics right?


Great post TS.

Yes. He studied under Ludwig von Mises. You can tell who generally sells out by who gets the prestigious University positions. Mises was shunned. Rothbard was shunned. These two were polemical polymaths. Hayek was given posts at London & U of Chicago. Paid posts. (Not to mention won the establishment award of Nobel Prize for ABCT which was Mises' crown and glory)

[ronpaulhawaii]

Yes. Hayek himself advocated a Welfare-State for instance (among other oddities). The Hayek portion of Austrian Economics when it comes to policy is vastly more moderated and more status-quo. There are a few in Academia who are really pushing this and there's a sort of current under-tow of antagonism right now between GMU and the LvMI. GMU is heavily Hayekian. Even today so-called proponents still bash (not critique mind you) Mises. It is fucking absurd, but whatever.

Dang, you're quick... my reading comprehension was lacking and I was thinking Keynes while reading Hayek

:o

[djdellisanti4]

So is the Libertarian spectrum...?

Anarcho-Capitalism-----Not quite Anarchy.....No central bank......Central Bank


Rothbard>>>>>>>>>>>Mises>>>>>>>>>>Hayek>>>>>>>>>Friedman



Would that be a fair assement?

The divide between Rothbard and Mises is not meant to be as large as the arrows make it seem, btw.

EDIT: Or are Rothbard and Mises about the same? I'm not sure as I've yet to read "Human Action" or any of his other works.

[robert68]

...


Where are you on FRB?

[djdellisanti4]

The economist in question is Peter Boettke, who is no doubt a competent economist and a helpful opponent of the American mega-state. But given the intellectual pedigree of the most active and expansive branch of Austrian Economics in America right now, it is odd that the Journal would choose as the standard bearer of the movement an economist who is in many ways a Hayekian rather than a Rothbardian, and who has in recent years even attempted to distance himself from the phrase "Austrian Economics."


On another note, he wrote my intro to econ textbook... It could be worse.

[heavenlyboy34]

Nice find, AED. :cool: