The Essential Rothbard - Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Essential Rothbard - Ludwig von Mises Institute
The Essential Rothbard - Ludwig von Mises Institute
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>The</strong> <strong>Essential</strong> <strong>Rothbard</strong> 115<br />
Neither are John Pocock and his followers convincing in trying<br />
to posit an artificial distinction and clash between the libertarian<br />
concerns of Locke or his later followers on the one<br />
hand, and devotion to “classical virtue” on the other . . . why<br />
can’t libertarians and opposers of government intervention<br />
also oppose government “corruption” and extravagance?<br />
Indeed, the two generally go together. 303<br />
<strong>Rothbard</strong> firmly opposes the Whig view of the history of economics,<br />
in which “later” is inevitably “better,” thus rendering the<br />
study of the past unnecessary. In his view, much of the history of<br />
economics consists of wrong turnings; and volume I ends with a<br />
tale of decline. Yet, paradoxically, <strong>Rothbard</strong>’s own method is in<br />
another way Whiggish itself. He has his own firmly held positions<br />
on correct economic theory, based on his adherence to the tenets<br />
of the Austrian School. He accordingly is anxious to see how various<br />
figures anticipate key Austrian views or, on the contrary, pursue<br />
blind alleys.<br />
<strong>The</strong> dominant theme in <strong>Rothbard</strong>’s appraisal of economics is<br />
the nature of value. Economic actors, endeavoring to better their<br />
own positions, guide themselves by their subjective appraisals of<br />
goods and services. <strong>The</strong> pursuit of an “objective” measure of value<br />
is futile; what influence can such an alleged criterion have, unless<br />
it is reflected in the minds of economic agents?<br />
<strong>Rothbard</strong> especially emphasizes, in this connection, the socalled<br />
paradox of value. How can it be that water costs little or<br />
nothing while diamonds are extraordinarily expensive? Life cannot<br />
exist without the former, while the latter are the merest luxuries.<br />
Does not this paradox show that goods do not exchange according<br />
to their subjective values? <strong>The</strong> answer, fully developed by the Austrian<br />
School, depends on the fact that subjective appraisals of particular<br />
units of a good, not the supposed value of the whole stock<br />
of the good, determine price. Since water is abundant and diamonds<br />
are scarce, there is no anomaly at all in the greater price of<br />
the latter.<br />
303 Ibid., p. 314.