[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think ACists are nuts, but I also recognize this as a really terrible argument, and the type of attack I expect to see from partisan hacks in Pub v. Dem debates. Essentially the argument is that the idea can't be valid, because someone who shared that idea was a bit wacko.

ACism can be debated on its merits quite nicely, just what is this supposed to by arguing?

[/ QUOTE ]


valenzuela notes above, "Even if Rothbard is misogynistic and homophobic that doesnt mean his ideas are wrong." That is certainly true. Just because a person may have odious beliefs on some issues doesn't equate to all that person's beliefs being wrong.


However it still is relevant to discuss the philosphers/heroes of any group of thought. The question is, assuming of course that the ACists here disavow some seemingly odious beliefs that Rothbard might be imputed to have had due to his choice of words and themes, is why they use him. Surely their philosophy is not so bereft of good minds that they have to rely on persons who might have questionable beliefs in some areas and would be sure to cause embarrassment if those beliefs became generally known. Plus the fact is that if Rothbard had certain biases, which he seems to have had, then that very much calls into question his overall analysis, as it may have been too constrained by such biases to result in valid conclusions.

While I don't doubt that the groups he discusses had a large part in the development of socialistic welfare state policies in the U.S., it seems to me that his overall argument too casually dismisses some causes, like the trade union movements, which he concludes were not in fact a cause, but a symptom/result. It would seem to me that such could only be true as to the hyper-unionist socialism that we have today, with its legal provisions against right to work laws, and others that overly favour the unions versus the employers. But the impetus of the labor union movements was to have the right to organize and negotiate collectively, which surely AC supports, *as long as* employers are equally free to fire those employees and hire replacements, and which have involved a much greater number of persons who were leaders and thinkers for those diverse union movements, than Rothbard discusses. Also when discussing the various religious imepetus to the welfare state, Rothbard doesn't really even adequately begin to note Catholic support for trade unions, especially in the wake of Rerum Novarum.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would seem that your objections to Rothbard's arguments have nothing to do with his alleged antisemitism, homophobia, or misogyny. So why do you bring it up, anyway?