pull down to refresh

Murray Rothbard is well known as an opponent of warfare perpetrated by states. This includes acts of war by states against other states, as well as acts of war by states against non-state organizations and individuals. Consequently, Rothbard historical scholarship and his political commentary is characterized by consistent opposition to aggressive warfare and imperialism as practiced by states in general, and by the United States government in particular.
Thus, Rothbard’s normative analysis of foreign policy and international relations is quite clear in his many prescriptive statements calling for fewer wars, smaller wars, and more limited warfare in general. In this, Rothbard follows a long tradition of libertarian or radical “classical liberal” theorists.
But did Rothbard provide us with a positive or descriptive analysis of international relations? That is, did Rothbard have a value-free theory of international relations describing the structure of the international system? The answer is yes if we extrapolate from his analysis of the nature of the state and how states interact with each other.
The Fundamental Characteristics of Rothbard’s International System
Rothbard’s description of international relations is characterized by four key tenets of states and their foreign policy:
  1. The international system is anarchic.
  2. States are controlled by an oligarchic ruling elite insulated from non-state actors, and a state’s foreign policy is primarily determined by the state’s elites who seek to preserve the system.
  3. Above all else, states seek to preserve themselves, and they seek to expand their own power, relative to other states, when possible.
  4. War can be a tool of domestic policy. In some cases, states tend toward war because wars offer an opportunity for states to expand the state’s power over the domestic population.
Rothbard saw the international situation in light of the above four points. This leads to the place where wars are part of diplomacy because states are formed through violent procedures, and, thus, are violent in their relations with outsiders. Whether it is to protect themselves or add more territory they use this tool of diplomacy as a basis of actions. It also means that unless we break one of the four tenents, it will be hard to break the war cycle.
67 sats \ 7 replies \ @k00b 6h
I'm not a big IR buff or anything but it sounds like Rothbard was a pretty straightforward Realist. He's obviously a bit more introspective than I'd guess the average realist is.
reply
73 sats \ 5 replies \ @kepford 4h
IR is pretty interesting. I think you are right about Rothbard being a realist. Until a few years ago I wasn't aware of the different schools of thought on IR. It's an interesting lens to look at things through.
It is interesting to me how often the presidents of opposing parties are of the same school. It confirms many of my thoughts about the US empire and the power elite.
reply
21 sats \ 3 replies \ @kepford 4h
I've heard some IR people say Trump is a realist as well and I think that's the category that he best fits in as well.
reply
I think that he has to be at least acceptable to them to make it to the top of the ticket.
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @kepford 4h
He wasn't accepted. Still isn't.
reply
I know he is not accepted by the politicians! He trounced too many of them and is “uncouth” to boot. I guess that is just tough sh*t for them, isn’t it? This time around he knows where the skeletons are and will have the FBI information in hand. Either the blackmaill stops or it gets really bad. Which one do you think it will be.
reply
I came to the realization that the president has to be vetted and pretty much accepted by the current Uniparty ELites to become the candidate for the party. That way they have it covered from both sides. Wonder who THEY are?
reply
I think that he had a lot of time to think during the ‘60s. He was working and getting paid once every six months. His work was writing from his perspective about liberty and economics. He had a great output and influenced Ron Paul in many respects. I think you could say that he was not your average realist, at all.
reply
0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Akg10s3 5h
Now that I read this article, it's very interesting, because before I didn't consider it that way, but I have to admit that yes... war is necessary in one way or another!! Even if we don't want it!!
Now I see that your name or nickname here on S.N is
@ Rothbardian_fanatic..
So you're a fan of Murray Rothbard??
reply
Yes, a big fan of Murray Rothbard. I have been since I was reading Austrian Economics. I got to Mises’ Human Action then jumped to Rothbard’s Man, Economy, and State with Power and Market. I have read several of his books and appreciate his theories. He is an OG libertarian, too. Then I went back and read Hayek. Just wait until you can read some of his other works, just beautiful!!!
reply
0 sats \ 1 reply \ @Akg10s3 5h
Perfect. The truth is that your posts have good content and are always loaded with that libertarian tone!! For the past year, I have awakened my dormant mind and am currently reading 2 books at the same time!! And I also hope to find a writer or mentor who inspires me and who I can follow...
reply
Try reading the Austrians. Start with Hazlitt then go to Callahan then Mises and Rothbard. There are others that are good, too, both before Mises in real time and after Rothbard in real time. Rothbard is especially interesting in his holistic outlook.
reply