01 Mar 2019

Why Rothbardian Institutions Would Become Nonviolent

Bob Murphy Show, Pacifism 4 Comments

Set aside 90 minutes and listen to this one, folks.

4 Responses to “Why Rothbardian Institutions Would Become Nonviolent”

  1. JH says:

    This was a great episode, I think the episodes where you solo lecture are some of the best. I am relatively new to all this an I am not very deep in the literature yet, so if there is an obvious literature source that answers my question, please point it out.

    My main question is how you are defining violence. Your non-violent society allows for physical removal of criminals and foreign invaders, but it was unclear to me where the line between violence and non-violent physical removal lies. So I was wondering what definition of violence you are working with, what specifically informs this definition (is it Biblical, Rothbardian, or how did you arrive at it?), and is this definition of violence part of the explicit framework for your debate with Tom?

    Thanks for another great episode!

    • Michael says:

      Building on JH’s comment about your solo episodes being among your best, I’d like to make a suggestion for a future episode: How you would explain basic economics to a typical millenial/Gen-X opponent of free markets – i.e. someone who isn’t even aware that there is a reasoned argument beyond the typical misunderstandings.

      I recently had an opportunity to introduce someone who was totally willing to sit down and watch an hour-long video with me, but its actually really hard to think of which video or lecture to choose. There are lots of great ones – many of your mises.org lectures are excellent – but I can’t really find one that offers a brief, concise explanation that starts at square 1 and methodically works its way up to how prices coordinate society, or the austrian business cycle, starting with human action.

      Not to say there arent lectures of yours that cover this, but not in a brief, comprehensive and methodical way. I know that is a lot to ask, but your best 60-90 minute introduction to all of this would be really great – especially if it was primarily aimed at people who strongly disagree or are coming from a strong bias. I find that most of the existing content is to educate people who are at least sympathetic, and so the approach is different.

  2. Jason Bray says:

    I liked this podcast quite a bit. I think it makes one of the most cogent arguments for true pacificm I’ve heard.

    However, I think I was confused a bit early on because when you said “non-violent” it seemed as though you were saying no action that would be perceived as violating the non-aggression principle under other circumstances. You give the example of a bouncer throwing someone out of a bar. Initially I thought this was what you were arguing against, as it would not be acceptable to manhandle someone physically out of a location if it weren’t your own.

    Some clarifying language to that effect in your debate with Tom (which I sadly will not see) might help you out.

Leave a Reply