What do you think?
Rate this book
Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays
All evidence points to the superiority of the libertarian ideal—private property, capitalism, international trade, laissez-faire—but something is keeping the world from embracing it. That something is wrong-headed ideology, some philosophical error grown into a massive system of thought, an agenda that if unleashed would mutilate and crush civilization as we know it.
Murray Rothbard had a nose for such error. And when he smelled it, he wrote it up, exposed its underside, refuted its logic, and obliterated its intellectual foundation. That's why he was so hated—and so loved. He is so relentless that it makes the reader squirm. But he also teaches and inspires.
So it goes through this wonderful book called "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays." It might just be the wildest Rothbard romp ever. Fully armed, he slices and dices crazies of all sorts, from those who would level all incomes to those who would free all people's of the world through bombings and nuclear war. This is Rothbard providing the reader a strong does of sanity against the hordes of ideological fanatics who care not a knit for reality or reason.
But Rothbard is not one of those thinkers who, like Russell Kirk, conclude that ideology is itself a bad thing. On the contrary, Rothbard believes that ideology is critical for the defense of we must organize our ideas to make sense of the world and to have an agenda for the future.
Thus does this book also include outstanding pieces of positive theory, including "Justice and Property Rights," "War, Peace, and the State," and "Left and The Prospects for Liberty." It concludes with his rallying "Why Be Libertarian?"
With all the political books out there, each with a partisan spin, it's wonderful to read a thinker who doesn't fear exposing the errors of left and right, measuring anyone and everyone against the great benchmark of the idea of liberty.
Murray Rothbard had a nose for such error. And when he smelled it, he wrote it up, exposed its underside, refuted its logic, and obliterated its intellectual foundation. That's why he was so hated—and so loved. He is so relentless that it makes the reader squirm. But he also teaches and inspires.
So it goes through this wonderful book called "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, and Other Essays." It might just be the wildest Rothbard romp ever. Fully armed, he slices and dices crazies of all sorts, from those who would level all incomes to those who would free all people's of the world through bombings and nuclear war. This is Rothbard providing the reader a strong does of sanity against the hordes of ideological fanatics who care not a knit for reality or reason.
But Rothbard is not one of those thinkers who, like Russell Kirk, conclude that ideology is itself a bad thing. On the contrary, Rothbard believes that ideology is critical for the defense of we must organize our ideas to make sense of the world and to have an agenda for the future.
Thus does this book also include outstanding pieces of positive theory, including "Justice and Property Rights," "War, Peace, and the State," and "Left and The Prospects for Liberty." It concludes with his rallying "Why Be Libertarian?"
With all the political books out there, each with a partisan spin, it's wonderful to read a thinker who doesn't fear exposing the errors of left and right, measuring anyone and everyone against the great benchmark of the idea of liberty.
352 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
70 people are currently reading
1308 people want to read
About the author
Murray N. Rothbard
275 books1,087 followersMurray Newton Rothbard was an influential American historian, natural law theorist and economist of the Austrian School who helped define modern libertarianism. Rothbard took the Austrian School's emphasis on spontaneous order and condemnation of central planning to an individualist anarchist conclusion, which he termed "anarcho-capitalism".
In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.
In the 1970s, he assisted Charles Koch and Ed Crane to found the Cato Institute as libertarian think tank.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
April 26, 2016
Somewhat disappointing. There is much to like about Rothbard as a writer, economist and even as a historian of economic thought, but in many ways these essays, even the much-vaunted "Anatomy of the State," generally lack depth, and are even crankish at times (his essay on women's liberation, for example, demonstrates that Rothbard had no idea what people mean when they talk about "treating women as sex objects"). The titular essay is pretty good, and "Left and Right" is interesting in some historical details, though the latter is marred by Rothbard's self-conscious utopianism (which I find to be uncharacteristic of his thought elsewhere). "Conservation in the Free Market" is thought-provoking, and the essay on Mises is enjoyable as you would expect reading Rothbard on his great master to be.
"Justice and Property Rights" is notable for the absolutely devastating critique of utilitarianism in the first section. The remainder of the essay is far less impressive and leaves doubts about Rothbard's abilities as a philosopher (see Edward Feser's criticism of Rothbard in this respect). Still, the beginning of the essay stands out as one of the best parts of the book, along with the final essay, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor."
"Justice and Property Rights" is notable for the absolutely devastating critique of utilitarianism in the first section. The remainder of the essay is far less impressive and leaves doubts about Rothbard's abilities as a philosopher (see Edward Feser's criticism of Rothbard in this respect). Still, the beginning of the essay stands out as one of the best parts of the book, along with the final essay, "Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor."
July 27, 2017
A fascinating collection of essays that further elucidated what it means to be a libertarian. Not only does he demonstrate in these essays his commitment to liberty based on sound first principles, but he also shows a clear passion for deductive reasoning that is clearly articulated and consistently applied. Don't let his common sense language fool you; those plain words come from an erudite mind that is matched by few. To say that it is impressive for an economist to demonstrate not only competency but also mastery in history, philosophy, and anthropology is a severe understatement. He also occasionally has the nerve - the nerve! - to show a sense of humor that is both enjoyable to read and devastating to the target of his prose. ("Short people, unite! All you have to lose is your elevator shoes.") Each of the essays stand on their own merits, so one can read an essay or two without missing out on what Rothbard has to offer.
February 15, 2017
As this book is a collection of essays, loosely connected by the theme of egalitarianism and leftism, I will review each essay separately, then give a short opinion on the book as a whole. So you know where I'm coming from: I consider myself a great admirer of Rothbard, and him as the single biggest influence on my worldview. However, I deviate a lot from some of his more theoretical ideas, and am not averse to criticizing him when it's due. With that said, let's begin.
The titular essay, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, deconstructs the ideal of equality (not to be confused with equity, equality before the law, be it the law of the state, of God, or the natural law). Instead of merely showing how equality for the sake of equality is incompatible with liberty, which is the usual approach libertarians and classical liberals seem to take, Rothbard points out that underlying the cry for equality is the sentiment that reality itself is unfair and must be radically changed. He makes a (very humorous) comparison with a system of ethics that demands people fly by flapping their arms around; just as this system would be discarded by anyone with a clear mind as fundamentally incompatible with reality, so does egalitarianism have to be discarded for the very same reason. While Rothbard does not demolish the entirety of egalitarian ideologies - as it is far too easy to come up with more or less plausible ways of avoiding his harsh arguments -, he does trash many of their favorite slogans and rhetoric devices. In this essay, Rothbard shows himself from his best side, incredibly convincing and brilliant in the simplicity of his argumentation. He also, more or less, contradicts what he said in For a New Liberty, that economic arguments for anarchocapitalism are not necessary for making a case for it as an ethical system. A system of ethics must at least not cause an extinction-event, so showing that anarchocapitalism is workable is necessary (and sufficient) in making a case for it. I take that as a weakness of his overall argumentation, but a strength of this particular essay.
The next essay that follows is Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. It was not a bad essay, but in large parts refuted by Hoppe in Democracy--The God That Failed. Rothbard overlooks that the Old Order Rothbard decries was, in many ways, more liberty-minded than the modern age. It pains me to say that with this in mind, his optimism seems unwarranted to me. The rest of his essay still remains relevant and interesting, however, particularly his analysis of the downfalls of classical liberal thought: Pessimism, and the replacement of natural law with utilitarianism and social darwinism.
In Anatomy of the State, Rothbard first shows how the state is defined by its resort to political means (force and violence), as opposed to economic means (voluntary exchange and cooperation). This shows some interesting parallels to Death by Government, where Rummel likewise laments the naïveté of schools of thought that see the state as a voluntary institution, sometimes even making its defining trait that it (supposedly) protects the rights of its inhabitants. I like seeing how different thinkers, with completely different approaches and results, can come to such similar conclusions. However, Rothbard takes this idea further, and shows how the state consistently operates in a parasitic manner, how it rules its subjects, and how it ultimately relies on the help of intellectuals to justify its rule, among other things. It's not a must-read for anarchocapitalists, but a great and succinct summary of what he wrote in other works, with some additional wisdoms thrown into the mix.
In his fourth essay, Justice and Property Rights, Rothbard shows that utilitarianism necessarily has to argue based on the status quo, and cannot lead to what would be called just results from a perspective that cared about justice. It must always start its inquiry with the status quo, and give legitimation to it insofar as modifying it would not result in an increase in overall utility. This even goes if the status quo is itself the result of tyrannical measures. For that reason, utilitarianism and libertarianism don't go well together. After Rothbard has shown this (I share his reasoning here completely), he goes on to present his own property-theory and its ramifications. This part should feel incredibly redundant for anyone who's read For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, but it's a good reiteration, and I'd have done well to read it back when I was merely trying to get familiar with anarchocapitalist theory. Standing on its own, it may not address all the fears of someone who's new to anarchocapitalism, and that person will have to read one of his other books anyway. So I see its primary value in making anarchocapitalists familiar with Rothbard's property-theory, and in reiterating it for those that know it, but still have some trouble applying it.
I've read War, Peace and the State in The Myth of National Defense already, so I skimmed/skipped it here. For that reason, I will not review it at this point.
In The Fallacy of the Public Sector, Rothbard deals with the fallacies that make the public sector look productive and even indispensable, while showing that it is neither. He shows that the productiveness of the public sector is measured in how much it spends, even if this spending is completely wasted and has no utility for anybody. Far from adding to the wealth of the nation, the public sector can subtract from it and still report a growth of the economy! After having dealt with this, Rothbard delivers a devastating critique to Galbraith's The Affluent Society, demolishing his views that the private sector doesn't fulfill needs while the public sector does. Lastly, Rothbard offers a nice, but very short critique of the problem of external benefits and the claim that there are services which the market cannot provide. He doesn't provide counter-examples for the latter (although he has given plenty in his longer works), but instead calls for proponents of social experimentation to experiment with more liberty, not less, for a change. I think critics of anarchocapitalists could benefit from reading the one passage in the end, although the essay in total has a lot to offer for everybody. It's definitely one of his better works.
Kid Lib deals with Rothbard's view on the right of children and parents. This topic is seen as his weakpoint by many anarchocapitalists, sometimes even as an outright embarassment. I can perfectly understand that sentiment, although I think most of his arguments could be salvaged by acknowledging a positive duty of parents to provide for their child, which should be easily possible (either as a modification of natural law, or by treating procreation analogous to other cases where someone is put in a helpless situation). If you look past Rothbard's terrible views on parental neglect, and his off-putting rhetoric on the "baby market", there's something to get from this essay, like his defense of illegal adoption (which often puts children into affluent and caring families that just don't want to deal with red tape) and critique of progressive standards for child-rearing (grant them freedom when they need guidance, take their freedom away when they become responsible adults). What I was missing was his deservedly harsh critique of the current practice of juvenile detention from The Ethics of Liberty, which in his eyes is totalitarian and goes against all the established rules of criminal procedure. Also, I'll never understand why Rothbard had such an antagonizing vocabulary on this topic: Baby market? Come on! Just call it adoption, because that's what it is, and you'll piss off much fewer people that way.
I've heard bad things about The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting it Straight prior to reading it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually incredibly funny. Not just that, he rightly criticizes the polylogism (the belief that groups of people reason in fundamentally different and irreconcilable ways) of feminists, who claim that everyone who does not agree with them is brainwashed, and their one-sided focus on the troubles of women while cheerfully ignoring those of men. It's a nice, entertaining and pretty informative read, albeit not on par with his best works. It still stands out among the trash that every side publishes in the gender-debate.
Conservation in the Free Market is a critique of environmentalism and its statist tendencies. Rothbard attacks romantic notions of nature and the misanthropism inherent in many of them and offers solutions that a free market would come up with to preserve natural resources, plants, animals and the ecosystem. This essay, like many others in this book, should be nothing new to people who are familiar with Rothbard, but it's a good cheat-sheet nonetheless.
The Meaning of Revolution was very short, just three pages, more a call to action than an academic essay. Rothbard gives a brief account of how the popular revolutions of the past (in America, England and France) worked on many fronts at once, with journalists, pamphleteers, agitators, activists and thinkers all working together, and calls for revolutionaries to try and emulate this instead of trying to copy the leftists, who - in his eyes - are not revolutionary at all, but rather statist reactionaries constantly cramoring for just another chance. Given the short format, you shouldn't expect more from this essay than an interesting viewpoint for activists to consider.
The next essay, National Liberation, was rather unremarkable. It didn't fully convince me, as sympathetic as I am to secessionist movements. What if the seceeding nation will treat its citizens worse than the imperialist government? Rothbards response lies somewhere between handwaving and a kind of strange utilitarianism. I missed the pointedness of his earlier essays. So this is one of the weaker essays of this book. It doesn't drag it down, as Rothbards arguments are merely unsatisfactory but not terrible, and as the essay is again rather short.
In Anarcho-Communism, Rothbard picks up the pace again. His main point is that anarcho-communists are not potential allies, they are enemies, and he makes that point well, showing how anarcho-communists want to abolish capitalism more badly than they want to abolish the state, how they abhor the individual as much as all other communists do, and how they have caused havoc whenever they have become active. He also points out shortcomings of their ideology like the vagueness of their vision and the fallacious and utopian idea of post-scarcity that many of them resort to. Again, Rothbard is clear, poignant, insightful, and - when that is due - condemning.
The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View is something that every single one of these anarchists that can't stop putting the "anarcho-" part of anarchocapitalism in quotation marks has to read. Rothbard carefully evaluates the influence that both Tucker and Spooner had on him, before discussing his points of contention with them. Interestingly, Rothbard is very respectful, even admiring in this essay, and goes to great lengths to show that a reconciliation of individualist anarchism and his own views is easily possible. This stark contrast to his essays on feminism and anarcho-communism alone makes this an interesting read, and a nice insight into Rothbards past and his character.
In Ludwig von Mises and the Paradigm for our Age, Rothbard first describes the theory of science of Thomas S. Kuhn, according to which the evolution of scientific theories is not a matter of continual progress, but rather of paradigm changes. These changes require not just that an alternative paradigm exists, but also that defending the old paradigm has become untenable. Rothbard applies this theory to the history of Austrian economics, to show why Mises, despite his brilliancy and the superiority of his own theory, failed to establish a major paradigm change in economics. This essay shows Rothbards great versatility: He applies the theory of a philosopher that he has nothing in common with in a novel way, touching upon history, positivism and economics in a single essay without ever losing the golden thread. As such, it might be one of the hidden gems of this book.
Why be Libertarian is an essay that appealed to me very much, and on a personal level. The love for justice, Rothbard claims, is what should fuel the libertarian creed. Incidentally, it wasn't the utilitarian aspects of libertarianism that made me accept it; I was very skeptical of those even months after I became an anarchocapitalist. It wasn't egoism, either; having a legal education, I could have a comfortable life working for the state. No, it was exactly my sense of right and wrong that made me an anarchocapitalist. Not just was this essay inspiring, it also tells you the philosophy underlying all reasonable anarchocapitalist strategies. Just like the abolitionists during the time of slavery, we acknowledge that we most likely cannot reach our goal with one single blow, but must focus on intermediate goals. However, just like them, we also acknowledge that if it were possible to instantly abolish the institution we despise, we would do so. Strategically, we are gradualists, but philosophically, we are strict abolitionists. If you want to know whether anarchocapitalists are utopians or revolutionaries, then read this essay.
The last essay is Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor, an arrow against the romanticists and the primitivists that despise modern civilization and want us to return to a more simple, tribal stage of development. What most impressed me was the anthropological evidence he cited, that the supposed noble savages don't live in harmony with each other, but rather that their relations are marked by greed, envy and paranoia. This is a very interesting notion, and something I have to research further.
So, what is my final verdict of this collection? I found it less brilliant than For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, but would still give it 4.5 stars if I could. If you're an anarchocapitalist or libertarian who wants to improve his knowledge of anarchocapitalism, then this is an excellent book for you, especially if you still have some misconceptions about the philosophy. Just don't take it as a systematic treatise, it isn't and doesn't pretend to be one. I benefitted greatly from reading this, and would award it 4.5 stars if that were possible. Alas, I can't, but I think five stars would be less of an injustice than just four.
The titular essay, Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, deconstructs the ideal of equality (not to be confused with equity, equality before the law, be it the law of the state, of God, or the natural law). Instead of merely showing how equality for the sake of equality is incompatible with liberty, which is the usual approach libertarians and classical liberals seem to take, Rothbard points out that underlying the cry for equality is the sentiment that reality itself is unfair and must be radically changed. He makes a (very humorous) comparison with a system of ethics that demands people fly by flapping their arms around; just as this system would be discarded by anyone with a clear mind as fundamentally incompatible with reality, so does egalitarianism have to be discarded for the very same reason. While Rothbard does not demolish the entirety of egalitarian ideologies - as it is far too easy to come up with more or less plausible ways of avoiding his harsh arguments -, he does trash many of their favorite slogans and rhetoric devices. In this essay, Rothbard shows himself from his best side, incredibly convincing and brilliant in the simplicity of his argumentation. He also, more or less, contradicts what he said in For a New Liberty, that economic arguments for anarchocapitalism are not necessary for making a case for it as an ethical system. A system of ethics must at least not cause an extinction-event, so showing that anarchocapitalism is workable is necessary (and sufficient) in making a case for it. I take that as a weakness of his overall argumentation, but a strength of this particular essay.
The next essay that follows is Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty. It was not a bad essay, but in large parts refuted by Hoppe in Democracy--The God That Failed. Rothbard overlooks that the Old Order Rothbard decries was, in many ways, more liberty-minded than the modern age. It pains me to say that with this in mind, his optimism seems unwarranted to me. The rest of his essay still remains relevant and interesting, however, particularly his analysis of the downfalls of classical liberal thought: Pessimism, and the replacement of natural law with utilitarianism and social darwinism.
In Anatomy of the State, Rothbard first shows how the state is defined by its resort to political means (force and violence), as opposed to economic means (voluntary exchange and cooperation). This shows some interesting parallels to Death by Government, where Rummel likewise laments the naïveté of schools of thought that see the state as a voluntary institution, sometimes even making its defining trait that it (supposedly) protects the rights of its inhabitants. I like seeing how different thinkers, with completely different approaches and results, can come to such similar conclusions. However, Rothbard takes this idea further, and shows how the state consistently operates in a parasitic manner, how it rules its subjects, and how it ultimately relies on the help of intellectuals to justify its rule, among other things. It's not a must-read for anarchocapitalists, but a great and succinct summary of what he wrote in other works, with some additional wisdoms thrown into the mix.
In his fourth essay, Justice and Property Rights, Rothbard shows that utilitarianism necessarily has to argue based on the status quo, and cannot lead to what would be called just results from a perspective that cared about justice. It must always start its inquiry with the status quo, and give legitimation to it insofar as modifying it would not result in an increase in overall utility. This even goes if the status quo is itself the result of tyrannical measures. For that reason, utilitarianism and libertarianism don't go well together. After Rothbard has shown this (I share his reasoning here completely), he goes on to present his own property-theory and its ramifications. This part should feel incredibly redundant for anyone who's read For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, but it's a good reiteration, and I'd have done well to read it back when I was merely trying to get familiar with anarchocapitalist theory. Standing on its own, it may not address all the fears of someone who's new to anarchocapitalism, and that person will have to read one of his other books anyway. So I see its primary value in making anarchocapitalists familiar with Rothbard's property-theory, and in reiterating it for those that know it, but still have some trouble applying it.
I've read War, Peace and the State in The Myth of National Defense already, so I skimmed/skipped it here. For that reason, I will not review it at this point.
In The Fallacy of the Public Sector, Rothbard deals with the fallacies that make the public sector look productive and even indispensable, while showing that it is neither. He shows that the productiveness of the public sector is measured in how much it spends, even if this spending is completely wasted and has no utility for anybody. Far from adding to the wealth of the nation, the public sector can subtract from it and still report a growth of the economy! After having dealt with this, Rothbard delivers a devastating critique to Galbraith's The Affluent Society, demolishing his views that the private sector doesn't fulfill needs while the public sector does. Lastly, Rothbard offers a nice, but very short critique of the problem of external benefits and the claim that there are services which the market cannot provide. He doesn't provide counter-examples for the latter (although he has given plenty in his longer works), but instead calls for proponents of social experimentation to experiment with more liberty, not less, for a change. I think critics of anarchocapitalists could benefit from reading the one passage in the end, although the essay in total has a lot to offer for everybody. It's definitely one of his better works.
Kid Lib deals with Rothbard's view on the right of children and parents. This topic is seen as his weakpoint by many anarchocapitalists, sometimes even as an outright embarassment. I can perfectly understand that sentiment, although I think most of his arguments could be salvaged by acknowledging a positive duty of parents to provide for their child, which should be easily possible (either as a modification of natural law, or by treating procreation analogous to other cases where someone is put in a helpless situation). If you look past Rothbard's terrible views on parental neglect, and his off-putting rhetoric on the "baby market", there's something to get from this essay, like his defense of illegal adoption (which often puts children into affluent and caring families that just don't want to deal with red tape) and critique of progressive standards for child-rearing (grant them freedom when they need guidance, take their freedom away when they become responsible adults). What I was missing was his deservedly harsh critique of the current practice of juvenile detention from The Ethics of Liberty, which in his eyes is totalitarian and goes against all the established rules of criminal procedure. Also, I'll never understand why Rothbard had such an antagonizing vocabulary on this topic: Baby market? Come on! Just call it adoption, because that's what it is, and you'll piss off much fewer people that way.
I've heard bad things about The Great Women's Liberation Issue: Setting it Straight prior to reading it. I was pleasantly surprised to see that it was actually incredibly funny. Not just that, he rightly criticizes the polylogism (the belief that groups of people reason in fundamentally different and irreconcilable ways) of feminists, who claim that everyone who does not agree with them is brainwashed, and their one-sided focus on the troubles of women while cheerfully ignoring those of men. It's a nice, entertaining and pretty informative read, albeit not on par with his best works. It still stands out among the trash that every side publishes in the gender-debate.
Conservation in the Free Market is a critique of environmentalism and its statist tendencies. Rothbard attacks romantic notions of nature and the misanthropism inherent in many of them and offers solutions that a free market would come up with to preserve natural resources, plants, animals and the ecosystem. This essay, like many others in this book, should be nothing new to people who are familiar with Rothbard, but it's a good cheat-sheet nonetheless.
The Meaning of Revolution was very short, just three pages, more a call to action than an academic essay. Rothbard gives a brief account of how the popular revolutions of the past (in America, England and France) worked on many fronts at once, with journalists, pamphleteers, agitators, activists and thinkers all working together, and calls for revolutionaries to try and emulate this instead of trying to copy the leftists, who - in his eyes - are not revolutionary at all, but rather statist reactionaries constantly cramoring for just another chance. Given the short format, you shouldn't expect more from this essay than an interesting viewpoint for activists to consider.
The next essay, National Liberation, was rather unremarkable. It didn't fully convince me, as sympathetic as I am to secessionist movements. What if the seceeding nation will treat its citizens worse than the imperialist government? Rothbards response lies somewhere between handwaving and a kind of strange utilitarianism. I missed the pointedness of his earlier essays. So this is one of the weaker essays of this book. It doesn't drag it down, as Rothbards arguments are merely unsatisfactory but not terrible, and as the essay is again rather short.
In Anarcho-Communism, Rothbard picks up the pace again. His main point is that anarcho-communists are not potential allies, they are enemies, and he makes that point well, showing how anarcho-communists want to abolish capitalism more badly than they want to abolish the state, how they abhor the individual as much as all other communists do, and how they have caused havoc whenever they have become active. He also points out shortcomings of their ideology like the vagueness of their vision and the fallacious and utopian idea of post-scarcity that many of them resort to. Again, Rothbard is clear, poignant, insightful, and - when that is due - condemning.
The Spooner-Tucker Doctrine: An Economist's View is something that every single one of these anarchists that can't stop putting the "anarcho-" part of anarchocapitalism in quotation marks has to read. Rothbard carefully evaluates the influence that both Tucker and Spooner had on him, before discussing his points of contention with them. Interestingly, Rothbard is very respectful, even admiring in this essay, and goes to great lengths to show that a reconciliation of individualist anarchism and his own views is easily possible. This stark contrast to his essays on feminism and anarcho-communism alone makes this an interesting read, and a nice insight into Rothbards past and his character.
In Ludwig von Mises and the Paradigm for our Age, Rothbard first describes the theory of science of Thomas S. Kuhn, according to which the evolution of scientific theories is not a matter of continual progress, but rather of paradigm changes. These changes require not just that an alternative paradigm exists, but also that defending the old paradigm has become untenable. Rothbard applies this theory to the history of Austrian economics, to show why Mises, despite his brilliancy and the superiority of his own theory, failed to establish a major paradigm change in economics. This essay shows Rothbards great versatility: He applies the theory of a philosopher that he has nothing in common with in a novel way, touching upon history, positivism and economics in a single essay without ever losing the golden thread. As such, it might be one of the hidden gems of this book.
Why be Libertarian is an essay that appealed to me very much, and on a personal level. The love for justice, Rothbard claims, is what should fuel the libertarian creed. Incidentally, it wasn't the utilitarian aspects of libertarianism that made me accept it; I was very skeptical of those even months after I became an anarchocapitalist. It wasn't egoism, either; having a legal education, I could have a comfortable life working for the state. No, it was exactly my sense of right and wrong that made me an anarchocapitalist. Not just was this essay inspiring, it also tells you the philosophy underlying all reasonable anarchocapitalist strategies. Just like the abolitionists during the time of slavery, we acknowledge that we most likely cannot reach our goal with one single blow, but must focus on intermediate goals. However, just like them, we also acknowledge that if it were possible to instantly abolish the institution we despise, we would do so. Strategically, we are gradualists, but philosophically, we are strict abolitionists. If you want to know whether anarchocapitalists are utopians or revolutionaries, then read this essay.
The last essay is Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism, and the Division of Labor, an arrow against the romanticists and the primitivists that despise modern civilization and want us to return to a more simple, tribal stage of development. What most impressed me was the anthropological evidence he cited, that the supposed noble savages don't live in harmony with each other, but rather that their relations are marked by greed, envy and paranoia. This is a very interesting notion, and something I have to research further.
So, what is my final verdict of this collection? I found it less brilliant than For a New Liberty and The Ethics of Liberty, but would still give it 4.5 stars if I could. If you're an anarchocapitalist or libertarian who wants to improve his knowledge of anarchocapitalism, then this is an excellent book for you, especially if you still have some misconceptions about the philosophy. Just don't take it as a systematic treatise, it isn't and doesn't pretend to be one. I benefitted greatly from reading this, and would award it 4.5 stars if that were possible. Alas, I can't, but I think five stars would be less of an injustice than just four.
October 15, 2017
I've read several of these essays either as standalones or in "Economics Controversies." But, a couple of these essays were both new to me and very good: "Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature" & "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty."
In "Egalitarianism...", in addition to some very nice quotes, Rothbard early on tears down the economists who sneak the doctrine into their writings, and then later explains why: "This means, of course, that equality of all men—the egalitarian ideal—can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction—a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity." Good stuff.
In "Left and Right", he gives a really neat history of the old left and how their pessimism led them to blend in with the conservatives in opposition to the new left. It's a history that I find fascinating because the ideas that went into these movements are interesting in and of themselves.
In "Egalitarianism...", in addition to some very nice quotes, Rothbard early on tears down the economists who sneak the doctrine into their writings, and then later explains why: "This means, of course, that equality of all men—the egalitarian ideal—can only be achieved if all men are precisely uniform, precisely identical with respect to all of their attributes. The egalitarian world would necessarily be a world of horror fiction—a world of faceless and identical creatures, devoid of all individuality, variety, or special creativity." Good stuff.
In "Left and Right", he gives a really neat history of the old left and how their pessimism led them to blend in with the conservatives in opposition to the new left. It's a history that I find fascinating because the ideas that went into these movements are interesting in and of themselves.
May 22, 2018
I am quite surprised to see that I read this one only two years ago. In my memory it seemed to be in a much more distant past, which kind of shows how much my political/philosophical ideas have changed in the last years. But so has the world, populism was not known to be a threat back then - no Trump, no Brexit, no M5s, no Le Pen, etc.
If I were to read this book today probably I would rate it lower, but because to be sure I would have to read it again, I will not downgrade it, just review it. Rothbard was an Austrian Economist and defender of free-markets who developed the concept of Anarcho-capitalism. This book, however, is more about libertarianism, and collects a series of essays in which Rothbard presents the libertarian view in several different issues such as ethics, women liberation, egalitarianism, kid liberation, what the state really is, etc.
I remember that there were a couple of essays that were very interesting. One was about how the libertarian would deal with environmental problems. Rothbard says that these are only a problem because private property laws are not properly defined in these and that air pollution for example, is a violation of my property right because I am breathing that air. It is undoubtedly a very interesting and radical view but it seems to lack all practicality. Another interesting essay is one where he discusses the historical position of libertarianism in the right-left axis and how libertarianism lost itself by supporting war and joining the conservative right (more on this in the next paragraph).
I don't think I ever was a true libertarian, I flirted with some of its ideas because of the importance I give to individual self-overcoming, in an almost Nietzschean sense. Pure libertarianism can allow self-development of humans but it does not try to promote it at all. It fails to understand the importance of education for one to enlarge the scope of its vision of the world. My love of individualism is born of a belief in the power of humans to construct and destroy their circumstances and with it improve the world, but that requires trying to give everyone an opportunity to transcend itself and requires us to understand how much the circumstances in which one grows matter for that. Libertarianism is pragmatic to the point of flirting with social darwinism and is not based in a humanism, but rather in a "rational egoism" in the style of Ayn Rand. To me it seems clear that sometimes all argumentation is created ad hoc to reinforce specific ideas. True libertarianism would have to value subjectivity and individual desires and yet in some of these essays, Rothbard sounds as a traditional conservative, defending traditional ideas about women, race, etc. He did go on to be a founder of paleolibertarianism, which explicitly defended very conservative ideals, which to me showed his true colors.
In Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Rothbard discusses how trying to level everyone up would make the world disgustingly dark, as More's Utopia, everyone looking the same. I could not agree more, the beauty of humanity is in its diversity, the fact that we have had both Newton and Bach, Thomas Mann and Henri Lebesgue. But still, all of these have only reached the level they did because they were lucky to have had the opportunity to reach those levels, egalitarianism may be too much of a revolt against nature, but libertarianism does not revolt against nature enough and the history of human progress has always been a revolt against nature, as Camus brilliantly observed.
If I were to read this book today probably I would rate it lower, but because to be sure I would have to read it again, I will not downgrade it, just review it. Rothbard was an Austrian Economist and defender of free-markets who developed the concept of Anarcho-capitalism. This book, however, is more about libertarianism, and collects a series of essays in which Rothbard presents the libertarian view in several different issues such as ethics, women liberation, egalitarianism, kid liberation, what the state really is, etc.
I remember that there were a couple of essays that were very interesting. One was about how the libertarian would deal with environmental problems. Rothbard says that these are only a problem because private property laws are not properly defined in these and that air pollution for example, is a violation of my property right because I am breathing that air. It is undoubtedly a very interesting and radical view but it seems to lack all practicality. Another interesting essay is one where he discusses the historical position of libertarianism in the right-left axis and how libertarianism lost itself by supporting war and joining the conservative right (more on this in the next paragraph).
I don't think I ever was a true libertarian, I flirted with some of its ideas because of the importance I give to individual self-overcoming, in an almost Nietzschean sense. Pure libertarianism can allow self-development of humans but it does not try to promote it at all. It fails to understand the importance of education for one to enlarge the scope of its vision of the world. My love of individualism is born of a belief in the power of humans to construct and destroy their circumstances and with it improve the world, but that requires trying to give everyone an opportunity to transcend itself and requires us to understand how much the circumstances in which one grows matter for that. Libertarianism is pragmatic to the point of flirting with social darwinism and is not based in a humanism, but rather in a "rational egoism" in the style of Ayn Rand. To me it seems clear that sometimes all argumentation is created ad hoc to reinforce specific ideas. True libertarianism would have to value subjectivity and individual desires and yet in some of these essays, Rothbard sounds as a traditional conservative, defending traditional ideas about women, race, etc. He did go on to be a founder of paleolibertarianism, which explicitly defended very conservative ideals, which to me showed his true colors.
In Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature, Rothbard discusses how trying to level everyone up would make the world disgustingly dark, as More's Utopia, everyone looking the same. I could not agree more, the beauty of humanity is in its diversity, the fact that we have had both Newton and Bach, Thomas Mann and Henri Lebesgue. But still, all of these have only reached the level they did because they were lucky to have had the opportunity to reach those levels, egalitarianism may be too much of a revolt against nature, but libertarianism does not revolt against nature enough and the history of human progress has always been a revolt against nature, as Camus brilliantly observed.
January 31, 2012
Its a mixed bag. The first (title) essay is meh. Unnecessarily alienating to the left, and doesn't even really sink the opposing position.
The second and third essays were "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" http://mises.org/daily/910
and "Anatomy of the State" http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
I enjoyed them most of all. Left and Right first is a great outline of the libertarian "revisionist" take on intellectual and material history and should really be its own book.
"Justice and Property Rights" is meh, War, "Peace and the State" is good, as are a few others.
There are a rare couple like "National Liberation" which don't really say anything worthwhile at all.
And then there are the ones where he lays out the ugliest parts of his philosophy, namely the one ons on childs rigths and feminism.
Not the first Rothbard title I'd recommend, but it has some winners in it.
The second and third essays were "Left and Right: The Prospects for Liberty" http://mises.org/daily/910
and "Anatomy of the State" http://mises.org/easaran/chap3.asp
I enjoyed them most of all. Left and Right first is a great outline of the libertarian "revisionist" take on intellectual and material history and should really be its own book.
"Justice and Property Rights" is meh, War, "Peace and the State" is good, as are a few others.
There are a rare couple like "National Liberation" which don't really say anything worthwhile at all.
And then there are the ones where he lays out the ugliest parts of his philosophy, namely the one ons on childs rigths and feminism.
Not the first Rothbard title I'd recommend, but it has some winners in it.
March 28, 2025
Very fascinating set of essays. A couple of highlights were the titular essay, "Justice and Property Rights," and of course the brilliant "Anatomy of the State":
"Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles."
You could tell me this was written by any old New Left anarchist, and I'd believe you. Another great passage:
"For while the seeming independence of the federal judiciary has played a vital part in making its actions virtual Holy Writ for the bulk of the people, it is also and ever true that the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus and appointed by the executive and legislative branches."
"Since the land area of the globe has been parceled out among particular States, one of the basic doctrines of the State was to identify itself with the territory it governed. Since most men tend to love their homeland, the identification of that land and its people with the State was a means of making natural patriotism work to the State’s advantage. If “Ruritania” was being attacked by “Walldavia,” the first task of the State and its intellectuals was to convince the people of Ruritania that the attack was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. In this way, a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples, with each people coming to the defense of its rulers in the erroneous belief that the rulers were defending them. This device of “nationalism” has only been successful, in Western civilization, in recent centuries; it was not too long ago that the mass of subjects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets of nobles."
You could tell me this was written by any old New Left anarchist, and I'd believe you. Another great passage:
"For while the seeming independence of the federal judiciary has played a vital part in making its actions virtual Holy Writ for the bulk of the people, it is also and ever true that the judiciary is part and parcel of the government apparatus and appointed by the executive and legislative branches."
May 11, 2017
Definitely mixed thoughts about this. Well written articles, though I don't find that they convinced me of anything I didn't already agree with. It could have benefited from editing into a more cohesive book, instead of repetitious separate articles.
Read
September 23, 2010Egalitarianism as a Revolt Against Nature and Other Essays by Murray N. Rothbard (2000)
February 11, 2014
A sharp critique of wide variety of subjects including income equality, statism, public sector, women's liberation, conservation. Amazing clarity of thought.
August 11, 2016
War, Peace and the State is reason enough to buy this whole book. Once you read that you will never look at the whole the same way again
April 11, 2016
Basic deconstruction of anti-hierarchical leftist psychology, but does not go to the Nietzschean length of it.
June 7, 2017
Textbook libertarian dogma.
June 10, 2020
this should be in elementary schools
August 15, 2021
The father of anarcho-capitalism has no peers.
April 5, 2024
Gavurların deyimi ile "Mixed Bag". Yarısı gülünç derecede kötü, diğer yarısı ise üstüne düşünülmeye değer eleştiriler veya fikirler içeriyor.
July 10, 2025
Murray Rothbard is always incredibly enjoyable to read and is also refreshingly easy to read. The ideas he shares are not "dumbed down," but instead he writes so plainly and so clearly in his own voice, that it becomes easier to absorb the ideas. This book as a collection of essays certainly does not deviate from his routine.
It's a very sturdy and surprisingly still relevant collection of essays; very much of their time, from the 1970s, but of course pretty clearly connecting to the continuing issues of today. The Libertarian movement is still fairly undirected, the economic departments of academia and governments are woefully misrun, and there's still a massive push for egalitarianism (equity) in mass society. While I'm sure Rothbard felt he was responding to the issues of his time, I have no doubt that he anticipated these issues to continue on.
While the specific topics covered are broad (economics, colonialism, history, gender, etc.), there are some concurrent themes that run through most of the essays. As the title suggests, the pursuit of egalitarianism as an ideology for those on the Left is fairly relevant to each of the essays and is touched upon specifically in a few of them. I probably enjoyed his economic and historical analyses above the cultural criticism, despite how funny he could be.
Essays that come to the top of my mind upon finishing include: "The Anatomy of the State," "War, Peace, and the State," "The Great Women's Liberation Issue," and "Conservation in the Free Market." Really though each of these essays has something to offer.
It's a very sturdy and surprisingly still relevant collection of essays; very much of their time, from the 1970s, but of course pretty clearly connecting to the continuing issues of today. The Libertarian movement is still fairly undirected, the economic departments of academia and governments are woefully misrun, and there's still a massive push for egalitarianism (equity) in mass society. While I'm sure Rothbard felt he was responding to the issues of his time, I have no doubt that he anticipated these issues to continue on.
While the specific topics covered are broad (economics, colonialism, history, gender, etc.), there are some concurrent themes that run through most of the essays. As the title suggests, the pursuit of egalitarianism as an ideology for those on the Left is fairly relevant to each of the essays and is touched upon specifically in a few of them. I probably enjoyed his economic and historical analyses above the cultural criticism, despite how funny he could be.
Essays that come to the top of my mind upon finishing include: "The Anatomy of the State," "War, Peace, and the State," "The Great Women's Liberation Issue," and "Conservation in the Free Market." Really though each of these essays has something to offer.
November 8, 2021
A wonderful collection of Murray Rothbard's more polemic essays, chief of which being the one whose namesake holds the title of this book. Looking back in retrospect, Rothbard being immersed in academia makes him seem almost like a prophet speaking forwards in time regarding a lot of the social issues regarding the insanity of fringe authoritarian leftist ideologies that at the time was confined to college campuses now being brought into the mainstream.
These essays act as a precursor to what Libertarians refer to as the "90s Rothbard" phase, which acted as a heavy influence on Hans-Hermann Hoppe's particular brand of Anarcho-Capitalism.
These essays act as a precursor to what Libertarians refer to as the "90s Rothbard" phase, which acted as a heavy influence on Hans-Hermann Hoppe's particular brand of Anarcho-Capitalism.
July 9, 2020
I didn't realize this was an essay book until I came to goodreads. Initially, I came here looking for his arguments against utilitarians and equality but the book went on very odd tangents that seemed off-topic. Anyway, the best part is the anatomy of a state section, and the rest just seemed rather poorly argued. I think he is ultimately right on a lot of issues, but I don't think the way he framed things is very convincing;
December 15, 2021
This collection of essays is a wonderful takedown of the principles that are at the core of leftism. It challenges the idea that egalitarianism is something not only desirable, but a goal that is worthy of working toward. The main essay should be read if anyone wants to hear what the egalitarians have to say and why their principles break natural law and will undermine all of society.
Rothbard is absolutely masterful at breaking down ideas, while having a clear and concise prose. His writing is fresh, sharing unique ideas and it is amazing that he can make the uninteresting actually interesting! He takes tough, but consistent positions and defends them not in a milquetoast, bland, utilitarian fashion, but takes the even harder route of defending them from a perspective by which he believes is just.
Although first published in 1974, this holds up extremely well, feels fresh, and I recommend everyone give this read.
Rothbard is absolutely masterful at breaking down ideas, while having a clear and concise prose. His writing is fresh, sharing unique ideas and it is amazing that he can make the uninteresting actually interesting! He takes tough, but consistent positions and defends them not in a milquetoast, bland, utilitarian fashion, but takes the even harder route of defending them from a perspective by which he believes is just.
Although first published in 1974, this holds up extremely well, feels fresh, and I recommend everyone give this read.
January 15, 2025
Very silly work, attacks a complete strawman and doesn't actually engage with any egalitarian thinkers. Notice that Rothbard doesn't actually quote any egalitarians at any point. This is probably because there aren't many actual thinkers who subscribe to his inane strawman position. Maybe there are valid critiques of egalitarianism out there, but none of them are to be found here.
June 5, 2023
Refreshing and weirdly insightful about current politics, almost prophetic.
August 12, 2025
I wish I would have read this sooner. Its amazing how much rothbard predicted in the 70s that is true today.
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews