When I was in high school, I was on the debate team, which I know is hard to imagine. My senior year, the resolution under debate was economic (about the government providing employment to impoverished citizens [sic]). On our team, I was the capitalist guy, quoting Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises in debate rounds, and then there was the guy who used to play "Marxist radical criminology" and, dearer to his art, anarchism. It was fun, and we could argue about it because we had the same priorities, really. It occurs to me to wonder if he was using Rothbard.
But maybe this is also why I'm so inclined to think of Ayn Rand Paul libertarianism as a phase that people should have grown out of by the time they're voting in their second or third election.
On Fri, Aug 20, 2010 at 3:31 AM, Joseph Catron <jncatron at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:20 PM, Jeffrey Fisher <jeff.jfisher at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hayek is too nuanced to serve that kind of role. Rothbard, maybe?
> >
> > Is it wrong of me to feel a little bit relieved that I don't even know
> > Rothbard?
> >
>
> While cleaning old files tonight, I ran across an essay of his reprinted by
> something called the "Alliance of the Libertarian Left," with the somewhat
> unlikely title "All Power to the Soviets!" You can see it, and their
> introduction of him, here:
>
> http://sonv.libertarianleft.org/distro
>
> Ah, the wonderful weirdness of youthful politics ...
>
> --
> "Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen
> lytlað."
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>