Murray Rothbard Strikes Again
Mise.Org published nearly 40 pages of an article and a 1998 web debate (at least that is what it took on my printer) on Murray Rothbard’s assessment of Adam Smith and David Friedman’s critical comments. I am always interested in material on Adam Smith and will take sometime to read through the pages to assess its quality.
I posted a comment on the mises.org blog (see below) because I noted immediately that on one issue at least David Friedman was wrong and on one issue at least Murray Rothbard was right: Adam Smith was not an advocate of laissez faire (he never used the words), and if this is what I think the vulgar call a ‘pissing contest’, Rothbard won that round.
For my comments on 'Murray Rothbard’s Myths about Adam Smith' see my article under the button on the left column here.
My posting on mises.org today:
“I am impressed with the amount of resources that Mises.org is devoting to Adam Smith, though I have severe reservations about the approach of Murray Rothbard to the subject. I have already criticised material published under Rothbard’s name on the division of labour (which I believe he got seriously wrong, as well as muddling his reading of the relevant passages). I posted some of this here and also on www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com (‘Murray Rothbard’s Myths’).
However, I am grateful for your publishing this 1998 exchange between David Friedman and the Misses institute and also this latest article by David Gordon. Ii will take some time to read through it all (36 pages of a web debate), plus what Gordon has published today. I shall return to this when I have digested the issues.
On one point I can contribute right now.
‘Rothbard's contention that Smith did not consistently advocate laissez-faire is much less radical than Friedman insinuates.’
If this is an argument about whether Smith was in favour of laissez-faire, I can state, with authority I hope, that Smith was not in favour of laissez faire to the degree that Friedman appears to be asserting, which I take is from his version of Adam Smith, as preached at Chicago, and not the Adam Smith who lived in Kirkcaldy, Scotland.
Smith never used the words laissez faire in his circa one-and-half-million published words. He was never in favour of (nor thought it was other than utopian to believe that) such an economic arrangement be instituted. He was not an anarchist or a libertarian. If Rothbard is asserting that Smith was less than an advocate of laissez-faire, then he is correct and Friedman is wrong.
On Cantillon, I commented on this blog [mises.org] last week. I shall return to the other issues soon.”
I posted a comment on the mises.org blog (see below) because I noted immediately that on one issue at least David Friedman was wrong and on one issue at least Murray Rothbard was right: Adam Smith was not an advocate of laissez faire (he never used the words), and if this is what I think the vulgar call a ‘pissing contest’, Rothbard won that round.
For my comments on 'Murray Rothbard’s Myths about Adam Smith' see my article under the button on the left column here.
My posting on mises.org today:
“I am impressed with the amount of resources that Mises.org is devoting to Adam Smith, though I have severe reservations about the approach of Murray Rothbard to the subject. I have already criticised material published under Rothbard’s name on the division of labour (which I believe he got seriously wrong, as well as muddling his reading of the relevant passages). I posted some of this here and also on www.adamsmithslostlegacy.com (‘Murray Rothbard’s Myths’).
However, I am grateful for your publishing this 1998 exchange between David Friedman and the Misses institute and also this latest article by David Gordon. Ii will take some time to read through it all (36 pages of a web debate), plus what Gordon has published today. I shall return to this when I have digested the issues.
On one point I can contribute right now.
‘Rothbard's contention that Smith did not consistently advocate laissez-faire is much less radical than Friedman insinuates.’
If this is an argument about whether Smith was in favour of laissez-faire, I can state, with authority I hope, that Smith was not in favour of laissez faire to the degree that Friedman appears to be asserting, which I take is from his version of Adam Smith, as preached at Chicago, and not the Adam Smith who lived in Kirkcaldy, Scotland.
Smith never used the words laissez faire in his circa one-and-half-million published words. He was never in favour of (nor thought it was other than utopian to believe that) such an economic arrangement be instituted. He was not an anarchist or a libertarian. If Rothbard is asserting that Smith was less than an advocate of laissez-faire, then he is correct and Friedman is wrong.
On Cantillon, I commented on this blog [mises.org] last week. I shall return to the other issues soon.”
posted by Gavin Kennedy at 11:29 AM
6 Comments:
"If this is an argument about whether Smith was in favour of laissez-faire, I can state, with authority I hope, that Smith was not in favour of laissez faire to the degree that Friedman appears to be asserting, which I take is from his version of Adam Smith, as preached at Chicago, and not the Adam Smith who lived in Kirkcaldy, Scotland.
Smith never used the words laissez faire in his circa one-and-half-million published words. He was never in favour of (nor thought it was other than utopian to believe that) such an economic arrangement be instituted. He was not an anarchist or a libertarian."
I am a little puzzled as to what I wrote that made you think I was asserting that Smith was an anarchist, or that he used the words "laissez-faire," or that his views were entirely libertarian
I haven't reread the old exchange, but my central claim was that Rothbard had extensively, and almost certainly deliberately, misrepresented both Smith's position and the position of the French economists who Rothbard thought more libertarian than Smith. If you can show that my statements in that regard are mistaken, I am interested. But I cannot see how the question of whether Smith used the words "laissez-faire" comes into the question at all.
David,
Coming into a debate long after it started and reading it cold is different from initiating a debate and participating from the start. So I apologise if a summary point is made that you feel is inaccurate. We are in what Smith called an exchange of rhetoric (or rather you were in the original debate over Rothbard’s ideas and assertions about Adam Smith.
That is why I asked ‘If this is an argument about whether Smith was in favour of laissez-faire’ which it seems to me was becoming the central question in your debate: Rothbard arguing that Smith wasn’t in favour of laissez-faire, but was a ‘Statist’, a charge made from the Libertarian perspective, and you were arguing that he was in favour of laissez-faire.
That is what I addressed, denying emphatically that Smith was not a laissez-faire enthusiast, certainly not to the degree taught within the ‘Chicago tradition’ (i.e., the tradition that dominates American academe) from Friedman, Stigler, etc., but neither was he remotely a ‘Statist’, as meant, often as a term of abuse among anarchist-libertarians, by the broad Church of ‘leftwing Libertarians to rightwing Libertarians. Smith would have called them ‘Men of system’ (Moral Sentiments, VI.ii.2.13: pp 232-4) and they certainly exhibit many of their features in their published writings.
I have not the time this morning to delve through the over 40 pages of your debate, and the contributions of others, to identify the stances taken by you on all these issues. My question was an attempt to summarise what seemed to be at issue: how much of a laissez-faire economist was Smith? If that was the issue the summary sentence stating that that he never used the words, though familiar with them – he read French fluently (speaking was a different matter) and translated from the French too. But his non-use of the key words, not even in translation, is indicative of the point I made, as a short-cut to the core of the debate. Viner’s 1926 essay is good on this matter, and a close reading of his Works supports my rhetorical use of the distinction between the ‘Chicago’ and ‘Kirkcaldy’ Smith (I read this distinciton somewhere but cannot find the reference).
In your criticisms of Rothbard I find much to agree with you, as shown in my contributions to the current debate. I have made a few observations myself. If you are not arguing that Smith was a laissez-faire economist, great; if you are, you are vulnerable to Rothbard’s, albeit tastelessly-expressed counters, while he pursues his other agenda of denigrating Smith, misrepresenting his views, and advocating the Rothbard ‘System’.
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信,
2008真情寫真aa片免費看捷克論壇微風論壇大眾論壇plus論壇080視訊聊天室情色視訊交友90739美女交友-成人聊天室色情小說做愛成人圖片區豆豆色情聊天室080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網台中情人聊天室桃園星願聊天室高雄網友聊天室新中台灣聊天室中部網友聊天室嘉義之光聊天室基隆海岸聊天室中壢網友聊天室南台灣聊天室南部聊坊聊天室台南不夜城聊天室南部網友聊天室屏東網友聊天室台南網友聊天室屏東聊坊聊天室雲林網友聊天室大學生BBS聊天室網路學院聊天室屏東夜語聊天室孤男寡女聊天室一網情深聊天室心靈饗宴聊天室流星花園聊天室食色男女色情聊天室真愛宣言交友聊天室情人皇朝聊天室上班族成人聊天室上班族f1影音視訊聊天室哈雷視訊聊天室080影音視訊聊天室38不夜城聊天室援交聊天室080080哈啦聊天室台北已婚聊天室已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室520情色聊天室QQ成人交友聊天室免費視訊網愛聊天室愛情公寓免費聊天室拉子性愛聊天室柔情網友聊天室哈啦影音交友網哈啦影音視訊聊天室櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集123上班族聊天室尋夢園上班族聊天室成人聊天室上班族080上班族聊天室6k聊天室粉紅豆豆聊天室080豆豆聊天網新豆豆聊天室080聊天室免費音樂試聽流行音樂試聽免費aa片試看免費a長片線上看色情貼影片免費a長片
本土成人貼圖站大台灣情色網台灣男人幫論壇A圖網嘟嘟成人電影網火辣春夢貼圖網情色貼圖俱樂部台灣成人電影絲襪美腿樂園18美女貼圖區柔情聊天網707網愛聊天室聯盟台北69色情貼圖區38女孩情色網台灣映像館波波成人情色網站美女成人貼圖區無碼貼圖力量色妹妹性愛貼圖區日本女優貼圖網日本美少女貼圖區亞洲風暴情色貼圖網哈啦聊天室美少女自拍貼圖辣妹成人情色網台北女孩情色網辣手貼圖情色網AV無碼女優影片男女情色寫真貼圖a片天使俱樂部萍水相逢遊戲區平水相逢遊戲區免費視訊交友90739免費視訊聊天辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網080視訊聊天室日本美女肛交美女工廠貼圖區百分百貼圖區亞洲成人電影情色網台灣本土自拍貼圖網麻辣貼圖情色網好色客成人圖片貼圖區711成人AV貼圖區台灣美女貼圖區筱萱成人論壇咪咪情色貼圖區momokoko同學會視訊kk272視訊情色文學小站成人情色貼圖區嘟嘟成人網嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區免費色情a片下載台灣情色論壇成人影片分享免費視訊聊天區微風 成人 論壇kiss文學區taiwankiss文學區
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment
<< Home