From: "mattd" <mattd@useoz.com>
David Wieck's critique of Rothbard, applicable to Libertarianism in general, will close this discussion. ``Out of the history of anarchist thought and action Rothbard has pulled forth a single thread, the thread of individualism, and defines that individualism in a way alien even to the spirit of a Max Stirner or a Benjamin Tucker, whose heritage I presume he would claim - to say nothing of how alien is his way to the spirit of Godwin, Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin, Malatesta, and the historically anonymous persons who through their thoughts and action have tried to give anarchism a living meaning. Out of this thread Rothbard manufactures one more bourgeois ideology.''[31] [Mark] And this is supposed to be a CRITIQUE of Rothbard. "He doesn't agree with my saints, so he's wrong.". Duh. The stuff about Ayn Rand was nice, though: <<More revealing, however, is why Libertarians retain the state. What they always insist on maintaining are the state's coercive apparatuses of law, police, and military.[29] The reason flows directly from their view of human nature, which is a hallmark of liberalism, not anarchism. That is, Libertarianism ascribes social problems within society (crime, poverty, etc.) to an inherent disposition of humans (re: why Locke argues people leave the ``state of nature''), hence the constant need for ``impartial'' force supplied by the state.>> This is one of the arguments used by Roy Childs: the politics in Objectivism are in total contradiction with the rest, since they presume that humans are bad, except when they are part of the (minimal, or even not so minimal) government. Mark