| Revision as of 02:59, 20 February 2007 editMinskist popper (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,302 edits GA nom← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 02:59, 20 December 2024 edit undoMeistro1 (talk | contribs)57 edits →issue in the opening: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{GAnominee|2007-02-20}} |
|
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
== Man, Economy, and State == |
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=ap}} |
|
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|action1=GAN |
|
|
|action1date=18:24, 3 March 2007 |
|
|
|action1result=listed |
|
|
|action1oldid=112370245 |
|
|
|action1link=Talk:Murray Rothbard# |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action2=GAR |
|
Why does the link to ] go to the edit page?? |
|
|
|
|action2date=July 17, 2009 |
|
|
|action2result=Kept |
|
|
|action2link=Talk:Murray Rothbard/GA1 |
|
|
|action2oldid=302643610 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|action3=GAR |
|
:It doesn't when I look at it. Try refreshing your browser. - ]] 09:40, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|action3date=November 10, 2013 |
|
|
|action3result=Kept |
|
|
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Murray Rothbard/1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|currentstatus=GA |
|
== Category: Economists == |
|
|
|
|topic=Socsci |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{afd-merged-from|Mozart Was a Red|Mozart Was a Red (2nd nomination)|23 December 2013}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |collapsed=yes |class=GA |vital=yes |blp=no |listas=Rothbard, Murray Newton |1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Capitalism}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Economics |importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes |s&a-priority=}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid |contemporary=yes |social=yes |philosopher=yes}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Objectivism |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=Low |libertarianism=yes |libertarianism-importance=high |American=yes |American-importance=low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York (state) |importance=Low |Columbia=yes |Columbia-importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject New York City |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject History |importance=Mid}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
| algo = old(90d) |
|
|
| archive = Talk:Murray Rothbard/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
| counter = 10 |
|
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
|
| archiveheader = {{Aan}} |
|
|
| minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Praising David Duke == |
|
I added cat:economists so his name would appear on that list; to exclude 'Austrian School' economists from the larger listing would be to diminish that school. ] 01:30, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rothbard on Duke: “ It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? “ I think “praising David Duke” is a fair way to describe what Rothbard was doing in that article. ] (]) 01:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:That's the way all categories are handled. An article should not appear in both a category and in a subcategory of that category. -] 03:10, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
:Here's the policy: |
|
|
::An article should not be in both a category and its subcategory, e.g. Microsoft Office is in Category:Microsoft software, so should not also be in Category:Software — except when the article defines a category as well as being in a higher category, e.g. Ohio is in both Category:U.S. states and Category:Ohio. ] |
|
|
:The problem is that that other economists on the big list should be mostly categorized into one or more subcategories. -] 03:13, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Do third-party RS use the word "praising"? ] (]) 05:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
::That seems like it would cause a whole array of problems regarding categories. ] 21:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
::Duke is best known for racist KKK. A common meaning of "Praising David Duke" without being more specific would indicate endorsement of that which would be very misleading. Rothbard was commenting on beliefs other than that.<b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:17, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
:::Maybe so. It's the policy across Misplaced Pages. -] 21:49, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::And a short vague statement that gives the impression that he generally praised Duke (while leaving out the all-important specifics) would need ultra strong sourcing in a biography. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:: is a book published by Routledge which says that he “embraced” Duke. ] (]) 00:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::George Hawley's well reviewed 2017 book ''Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism''<ref>{{Cite book |last=Hawley |first=George |url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/925410917 |title=Right-wing critics of American conservatism |date=2016 |isbn=978-0-7006-2193-4 |location=Lawrence |oclc=925410917}}</ref> has a long summary of Rothbard and his views from pages 159-167 that includes, "While in the 1960s and 1970s Rothbard had praised black militants, in the 1990s Rothbard was defending David Duke and echoing much of his rhetoric." The book could be a good source for a number of sections in this article. ] (]) 03:36, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks for finding. That wording is fine with me. ] (]) 09:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
::I don’t think Rothbard would have had much problem with KKK era Duke either. But you can say that he praises David Duke “during his 1990s campaign for governor” if you want. I don’t see why it matters that this is a biography. It’s ok to describe dead people accurately. |
|
:Keynes is in cat: economists as well as cat: British economists. Ditto with Ricardo. And Adam Smith, except "Scottish." Friedman and Krugman are "Jewish-American Economists" in addition to the larger cat. What gives? ] 07:05, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:This was discussed before. Whether or not Rothbard "praised" Duke in his article is a matter of opinion, not fact. The relevant article where Rothbard is said to have praised Duke is (''The Rothbard-Rockwell Report'' January 1992, pp.5-13). |
|
::They shouldn't be. (Jewish-American economists? Who comes up with these?) An article is ''allowed'' to be in two or more branches - so Rothbard can be an "American economist" and an "Austrian School economist" at the same time. Or we can create a special category for "Austrian School American economists." (''Only kidding''). Regarding the category topology, I recall reading that they have plans for greatly increasing the ability to search and navigate according to categories, and that some of their style guidelines are based on those plans. The problem now is that with articles only in the most specific category, a reader has to know a great deal in order to find an article. Who would think to look for Adam Smith in the Scottish category first? Perhaps what is needed is a "show all subcategories" query. There are pages to discuss (and set) policy matters: if it interests you then you can participate in changing the rule or creating the new system. Meantime, feel free to remove any higher categories on articles. If all the economists are on their proper branches then the category should be empty except for subcategories, in theory. OTOH, you can break the rules if you want. (]) -Cheers, -] 08:49, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:The article followed the ], when Duke received just under 39% of the vote in the Nov. 16, 1991 run-off, getting 55% of the white vote. Basically Rothbard says what George Hawley does in ''Right-Wing Critics of American Conservatism'', that by repackaging unpopular or esoteric views as populism, fringe politicians can become serious contenders. (pp. 53-56) |
|
|
:Other than that, AFAIK Rothbard never mentioned Duke. |
|
|
:] (]) 06:54, 24 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::You’re responding to an out of place reply, so I apologize for that. But 1) the current wording in the article is different anyway and 2) it’s well sourced.] (]) 01:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
{{reflist-talk}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== December 2023 == |
|
:::Making this more ridiculous is that Adam Smith is in fact British, Scotland being a part of the island of Great Britain. Which Einstein designed these categories? ] 13:39, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
that had removed ] and had added some ] and primary-sourced ]s. The ] policy (specifically ]) and the No Original Research policy (specifically ]) say that the encyclopedia follows the emphasis of the best available ] ] instead of Misplaced Pages editors choosing from primary sources or statements of the subjects themselves. ] (]) 16:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
==content dispute on ]== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== issue in the opening == |
|
There appears to be a content dispute on the ] article. If this subject is of interest to you, please reply to the straw poll at ]. -- ] <sup><small>]</small></sup> 16:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"Rothbard rejected mainstream economic methodologies and instead embraced the ] of ]." |
|
==SPLC criticism== |
|
|
:''According to the Southern Poverty Law center, ] Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." Listed on their website.'' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, as far as I can tell, the above text is composed of two sentence fragments (although the first is quite long), and it certainly does not belong in the article as the second paragraph. I am removing it it because of the generally poor quality of the writing. Obviously, if other editors feel the cited source is important enough for inclusion in this article, I would say it would be rightfully cordoned off in a new section labelled "criticism." ] 19:17, 28 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This implies that praxeology is an economic methodology. Actually, Mises conceived of praxeology as the science of human action, of which economics and history are both subsets. The sentence should read and instead "embraced the apriorism of Ludwig von Mises." ] (]) 07:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
::*''A key player in the institute for years was the late Murray Rothbard, who worked with Rockwell closely and co-edited a journal with him. The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits." '' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:or better even still |
|
::*''"The call of 'equality,'" he wrote, "is a siren song that can only mean the destruction of all that we cherish as being human." Rothbard blamed much of what he disliked on meddling women. In the mid-1800s, a "legion of Yankee women" who were "not fettered by the responsibilities" of household work "imposed" voting rights for women on the nation. Later, Jewish women, after raising funds from "top Jewish financiers," agitated for child labor laws, Rothbard adds with evident disgust. The "dominant tradition" of all these activist women, he suggests, is lesbianism.'' |
|
|
|
:"Rothbard rejected mainstream economic methodologies, rooted in empiricism, and instead embraced the apriorism of ]." ] (]) 07:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The article currently appears to lack citations to third-party reliable sources describing Rothbard's use of Mises' praxeology. If you have seen such sources, then citing them and summarizing ] would improve the article. ] (]) 20:16, 14 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::We should not simply delete the criticism because it is poorly written. Rather, we should summarize it in an NPOV fashion. Perhaps: "The SPLC has criticized Rothbard's writings that call "the Officially Oppressed" a "parasitic burden", and that attack activist women for supporting child labor laws with support from "top Jewish financiers" as well as for having a "dominant tradition" of lesbianism." Would that suffice? Are there better criticisms of Rothbard? -] 23:33, 28 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::<nowiki>https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought/article/abs/methodology-of-austrian-economics-as-a-sophisticated-rather-than-naive-philosophy-of-economics/C69BA46C4367DD9E92EB6684CC5E1FD1</nowiki> ] (]) 02:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I am on phone now but will attempt to do so later ] (]) 02:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::Although the criticism does not seem to be included in the article any longer, I feel it is important to put Dr Rothbard's comments in context, so as not to generate any confusion. It must be noted that the SPLC criticisms contain a lot of one word quotations rather than long, verbatim passages. In the first one, hyperbolic terms are, I feel, taken out of their original context. In the essay from which they were taken, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor", Dr Rothbard is discussing State redistribution, and is using a standard antistatist argument, which can be summarized thus: "if the state takes from the haves to give to the havenots, how do we define these groups? Is it not inevitable that people will prefer to be a havenot rather than being a have? Soon, they will create categories for themselves so as to qualify for redistributed wealth." I know it may be a little unnecessary to cite here the entire paragraph from which the quote was taken, but I shall nonetheless: |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::"In this regime of group egalitarianism, it becomes particularly important to take one's place in the ranks of the Oppressed rather than the Oppressors. Who, then, are the Oppressed? It is difficult to determine, since new groups of oppressed are being discovered all the time. One almost longs for the good old days of classic Marxism, when there was only one "oppressed class"—the proletariat—and one or at most a very few classes of oppressors: the capitalists or bourgeois, plus sometimes the "feudal landlords" or perhaps the petit bourgeoisie. But now, as the ranks of the oppressed and therefore the groups specially privileged by society and the State keep multiplying, and the ranks of the oppressors keep dwindling, the problem of income and wealth egalitarianism reappears and is redoubled. For more and greater varieties of groups are continually being added to the parasitic burden weighing upon an ever-dwindling supply of oppressors. And since it is obviously worth everyone's while to leave the ranks of the oppressors and move over to the oppressed, pressure groups will increasingly succeed in doing so—so long as this dysfunctional ideology continues to flourish. Specifically, achieving the label of Officially Oppressed entitles one to share in an endless flow of benefits—in money, status, and prestige—from the hapless Oppressors, who are made to feel guilty forevermore, even as they are forced to sustain and expand the endless flow. It is not surprising that attaining oppressed status takes a great deal of pressure and organization." |
|
|
|
|
|
::::In the case of the second criticism, much the same applies. It must also be noted that Dr Rothbard, as an anarchist, does not advocate any form of election (as he feels there shouldn't be a government!) so I feel he probably felt indifferent about universal suffrage at best. Funnily enough, whilst the source of the "Yankee women quote" , shows no real male chauvanism, it does show a Catholic prejudice against protestants, so perhaps the SPLC just missed the real problem, so eager were they to misrepresent his views. Dr Rothbard's anti-egalitarian views were not an opposition to classical liberal equality--equality before the law and equality to be inequal--but opposition to State redistribution with the aim of equalizing wealth. As such, I can see the SPLC's comments as being nothing short of politcally motivated libel. --Henry J. Golding. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::You are certainly welcome to your opinion. I've read the original article too. Though it's possible to interpret the text in various ways, we are not in a position to call some interpretations incorrect. As editors all we should do is summarize verifiable information using the neutral point of view. It is verifiable that the SPLC made the above-listed criticism, so we just need to summarize it neutrally. -] 18:31, 29 December 2005 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::: The criticism SPLC put forth of Rothbard is not encyclopedia worthy. These are text snippets from various articles of Rothbard braided together in one or two sentences. Are we to take ''that'' serious? ] 21:58, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::They appear to me to be from one article. Have you read the reference? -] 23:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::That source is a notable one, and, as Will says, is worthy of a mention in the article. Now, it so happens that I think that the SPLC is spouting nonsense here, but what I think matters not given that I myself am not a notable source. I say keep the mention, publish a criticism of the SPLC criticism (if one is available from a notable source), and let the readers decide who is in the right regarding this issue. PS - I am going to be in the hospital for a depressed ] repair (cranioplasty) till Wednesday, so my replies may be delayed. Hopefully I'll be able to pick up offshore radio signals when I return. ] 00:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::: 2 to be correct (although might provided them even more snippets). I find it intellectually dishonest to write it up like that, especially since there is no rebutal or presentation of counter-arguments at all by the SPLC. ] 00:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think you'll find that all of the text comes from ''''. -] 00:58, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::: Plus . Does an empty line mean you can just start quoting from a different text altogether? ] 09:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
<- Which text does not come from the source I listed? I don't follow your comment about an empty line. -] 11:52, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:''The institute's Web site includes a cybershrine to Rothbard, a man who complained that the "Officially Oppressed" of American society (read, blacks, women and so on) were a "parasitic burden," forcing their "hapless Oppressors" to provide "an endless flow of benefits."'' This is from . ] 12:10, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I added a link to the SPLC article to the links of criticisms of Rothbard, it is appropriate to that extent and that extent only.--] 21:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Regarding ]'s point that the excertped text comes from different writings - Why is that a problem? |
|
|
::Regarding ]'s comment, why is this criticism inappropriate? -] 22:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::What criticism? (seriously, I cannot see any original thought written by the SPLC with respect to whatever Rothbard has written) ] 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::The subtitle of the SPLC piece is "An array of right-wing foundations and think tanks support efforts to make bigoted and discredited ideas respectable".. I think the criticism is that his ideas are right-wing. -] 11:53, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::: Then it might be relevant to the ] article only; it should be discussed on that talk page however, not here. ] 16:39, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Yes, but the the particular text is a criticism of Rothbard. -] 17:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==helped define modern libertarianism== |
|
|
Shouldn't "who according to Wendy McElroy helped define modern libertarianism..." be according to "Wendy McElroy and others" or something? Right now it sounds as if McElroy is the only notable person to have said that, which I think would be incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
|
:If you say so. Regardless, of that it should be a parenthetical phrase. -] 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I checked the text and it really is a gratuitous attribution. Ms McElroy is hardly a notable critic in this context (no offense). While it is a POV assertion, no one could dispute that Rothbard clearly has a central position in the field. I think in this instance we can assert it as a fact. Cheers, -] 10:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Economist? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't it be fairer to call Rothbard a historian of economics? From the titles of his papers, there are only six that appear to do economics, rather than history of or philosophy of economics (and two of these seem to be survey articles), and his only contributions to mainstream economic journals are book reviews, mostly of a historical nature. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>]</sup> 20:57, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
: If ] is what ] do, then certainly Rothbard is an economist. ] 21:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::He's certainly done economics, but it's been a small proportion of his scholarly writing. His historical work receives repreated comment in the article, his work on economics is ignored. While not wrong, it appears to me not to be the most cogent way of characterising Rothbard. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>]</sup> 21:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Rothbard was a polymath, but he was certainly an economist of note. He wrote numerous theoretical economic works (in addition to philosophical works and historical works) both in book form and in journal articles. While he definitely authored a significant body of economic histories, his work is by no stretch of the imagination confined to that area. Now, there may be some confusion because Mises and Rothbard both engaged in economics work that many mainstream would characterize as you do: too philosophical. That is the crux of Rothbard's work, though: praxeology is not econometrics, and praxeologists would in fact decry the application of the moniker "economics" to much of the econometric work out there. Econometrics, in any case, certainly does not hold exclusive title to the field of economics. Rothbard was a contentious figure in economics and politics, and many would like to "push" him out of the economics circle, so to speak. That is not the place of Misplaced Pages. ] 22:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Just to drive the point home, the ] article states: ''A professional working inside one of the many fields of economics or having an academic degree in this subject, is an economist.'' Either we change that entry, or Rothbard ought to be listed as an ].] 23:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
::To repeat, I agree that Rothbard has done economics, and I should also say that I have nothing against philosophically inclined economics. I pretty much agree with Bryan Caplin when he says ''...the students of Mises and Rothbard have done more than their fair share of meta-economics too. Neoclassical economists go too far by purging meta-economics almost entirely, but there is certainly a reason to be suspicious of scholars who talk about economics without ever doing it.'' (you might like to read the Hayek quote in the 2nd footnote). I asked the question here, rather than edit the page, because I thought it would prove controversial, and since nooone has sympathy for my suggestion, I won't press it. I will say, though, that Rothbard's efforts at rethinking the history of economics, building a school and building the Libertarian Party in the USA are achievements whose effects will be felt for a long time. His contributions to economics, viewed independently of the above, appear very slight by comparison. --- '''Charles Stewart'''<sup>]</sup> 04:30, 18 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::: I see what you mean. In that sense maybe Rothbard is more of a popularizer of economic theory (] vs. ] for example). Of course if you accept ] (and you should as rational being!), then you can you also understand why economic departments funded by government or government research grants are not generally in favour of arm-chair economists. ] 04:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== SPLC again == |
|
|
|
|
|
''Article accusing Rothbard of racism by Southern Poverty Law Center'' where does it say that Rothbard is a racist; what is the exact critism on rothbard? ] 16:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Cleanup == |
|
|
|
|
|
This talk page is desperately in need of cleanup---the top third of the page is an undefined mass of comments that are not titled nor formatted appropriately---how is anyone to follow the discussion? ---] 17:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Top of the article == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is there anyway to reformat the article so that the top of the page is not dominated by that text box, with the beginning of the article not even visible? When I first opened the page, I thought the article had been blanked, because no text was visible until I scrolled halfway down the page. ---] 17:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:For some reason Internet Explorer isn't showing the page correctly, yet both the Firefox and Opera browsers are. Interesting. ] 23:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::Aaahhhh... ok. Well, Internet Exploiter sucks, so I shouldn't be surprised. Hmmm... do you suppose anything can be done for it? ---] 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Rothbard's law == |
|
|
|
|
|
Is Rothbard's Law supposed to be humorous? It sounds more like ] than ]. And it seems that if economists actually believed in it, there would be rather significant implications for the connection of personal liberty with economic efficiency. Let us please indicate one way or another in the article. -] 23:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'd say it's close to the ], serious but not important. -] 01:07, 1 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Austrian school misrepresentation == |
|
|
I removed "These are macro-level generalizations, or heuristics, which are true for the many, but not necessarily true for any particular person." from under the list of praxeology axioms, as this is in violent contradiction to the Austrian interpretation. These axioms, according to Austrians, are true for every person, everywhere, at all times. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Notes & references seem mis-coded == |
|
|
I intended to add the ISBN for Justin Raimondo's book, but there are two links to click and I'm not quite sure how to address. -- ] 16:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:You could try clicking them both to see what happens. Not to take your fun away, but I've gone ahead and added the ISBN. Thanks for contributing, or at least trying! Cheers, -] 00:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I had done that previously although I did not state such. If you try clicking each yourself, you will find that the two numbered references are nowhere to be found for editing, only Justin's book. Seeing the pseudo-HTML "references with a trailing slash" there threw me as well. Haven't seen that before. Am afraid to mess things up further, thus my original comment. -- ] 01:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
OK, I read up on the Reference function and figured out that the Notes are self-generated by the "references with a trailing slash" pseudo-code that I have now placed in a new separate section for Notes. I moved Justin's book into a section called Further Reading. Finally, since those buttons were out of whack, I moved two of the book images that were causing some misalignments up to two earlier sections, and now everything appears hunky-dory. Comments welcome. -- ] 02:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Adam Smith: Influenced Rothbard, Yes or No? == |
|
|
|
|
|
* Since Murray's writings suggest he wasn't much of a fan of Mr. Smith, I'm not so sure he would be considered an influence (which was newly added). Murray even mentions the 'dismal reality' of Smith. Other opinions? -- ] 21:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think someone must be joking, or having a very warped idea about "influence." ] 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Murray's degree of influence == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm a big fan of Murray, but I am wondering just a tad if the list of people he has influenced is going overboard the slightest bit. |
|
|
|
|
|
I am hoping someone will talk me out of my hesitation. Won't take much. :) -- ] 16:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Well, he was a very influential libertartian theorist. However, perhaps we can remove Von Mises Insitute members, and add in ']' |
|
|
|
|
|
== How many times did he die? == |
|
|
|
|
|
Not sure who died at the Denny's, and not sure how that is important. |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of Libertatis Æquilibritas logo == |
|
|
|
|
|
'''Support:''' I agree, this is not an appropriate symbol for Dr. Rothbard. The dollar is a fiat currency, and he was opposed to such fraudulent mechanisms tooth and nail. -- ] 01:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
Rothbard on Duke: “ It is fascinating that there was nothing in Duke's current program or campaign that could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites: what's wrong with any of that? “ I think “praising David Duke” is a fair way to describe what Rothbard was doing in that article. Prezbo (talk) 01:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
