Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

west Political Science Convention, Chicago, April 26 to
\1ay 1, 1976 ... Sar.gent's assertion that "the most thoroughly
unexplained assumptIons" of libertarians "are
those that state that capitalism will produce sufficient
goods and will remain a reasonably open system,
and that "capitalism is simply placed with God, Motherhood,
and the Flag and not examined," (p. 6) is completely
inexplicable to me. Sargent gives no evidence
to support this charge, and libertarians in general are
more often criticized for spending too much time dealing
with economics. Included among Rothbard's economic
w r i tin gsis Man, E con om y and S tate, a 9 8 5 page t r eatise
on economics. Other libertarian economists, to
name just a few, include James Buchanan, Israel
Kirzner, Walter Block, Walter Grinder,D. T. Armantano,
and Don Lavoie. One may disagree with their economics,
and man y do. But toeh a rae t e r i ze the e con om i cposit ion
of libertarians as based on "thoroughly unexamined
assumptions" IS simply untrue.
( 57 ) See Rot h bar d, ME S, p p. 560 - 660; Ro t h ba r d ,
Power and Market, pp. 28-33,43-47,58-59. Also see
D. T. Armantano, The Myths of Antitrust (New
Rochelle: Arlingt.on House, 1972); and John Sanders,
The Ethical Argument Against Government (Washington,
D. C.: Un i ve r sit Y Pre s s 0 f Am e rican 19 8 0 ), pp. 1 3 3 - 54 •
(58)lt should be pointed out that the Rothbardian
or individualist anarchist monopoly theory is, as Frech
says, "a novel one," and one that is not, it must be
noted, shared by many other economists. Even von
Mises, "whom Rothbard claims as his mentor," comments
Frech, argues in Human Action that "monopoly .prices
are an important market phenomenon," that "some world
cartels would exist even in the absence of any government
interference," and that the consumer "is not so
well served under monopoly prices as under competitive
prices." Frech, pp. 150-51. Whether or not the Rothbardian
monopoly theory is correct is difficult to say.
I t has been largely ignored by economists. Other than
the v e r y b r i e f F r e cher i t i que, the 0 n 1y e conom i cana 1y ­
sis that I have been able to find was by Walter Block.
Block supports the Rothbardian position. See his
"Austrian Monopoly Theory -- A Critique," The Journal
of Libertarian StUdies (Fall 1977), pp. 271-79. For
empirical support for this position see the works cited
in Chapter III, footnote 59, p. 114.
( 5 9 ) Man cur 0 Ison, The Log i c 0 f ColIec t i ve Act ion
(New York: Shocken Books, 1968).
(60)Rothbard, Power and Market, pp. 126-28.
( 6 1 ) I bid ., p. 6,; A ] s 0 see \1 u r ray Rot h bar d ,
'TToward a Reconstruction of Utility and Welfare Econo-
269