Libertarian philosopher Loren Lomasky looks like an anarchist, with his beard and all, but is not. He is in favor of the state. Hes made this clear repeatedly, back in his attacks on anarchist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and in recent writings. I just recalled an interesting/amusing exchange between them back in the 1980s. In Nov. 1988 Hoppe published his argumentation ethics defense of libertarian rights (which implies anarchy) in Liberty magazine (libertyunbound/node/294; I discuss argumentation ethics in mises.org/daily/5322/ ). This resulted in a outpouring of alarums from ensconced libertarians, frightened at the possibility of a truly solid and unique defense of rights that they had not themselves discovered. As Rothbard noted in Hoppephobia lewrockwell/1970/01/murray-n-rothbard/hoppephobia/: The Lomasky review is an interesting example of what is getting to be a fairly common phenomenon: Hoppephobia. Although he is an amiable man personally, Hoppe’s written work seems to have the remarkable capacity to send some readers up the wall, blood pressure soaring, muttering and chewing the carpet. It is not impolite attacks on critics that does it. Perhaps the answer is Hoppe’s logical and deductive mode of thought and writing, demonstrating the truth of his propositions and showing that those who differ are often trapped in self-contradiction and self-refutation. Re Lomasky himself, as Rothbard notes: Lomasky’s second charge against Hoppe is lack of scholarship, for which not spending time on Nozick is a typical – and irrelevant – charge. But what of Lomasky’s own scholarship, as evidenced by his review? First, he is shocked and stunned that Hoppe is not simply a defender of existing capitalism; his book is “no less than a manifesto for untrammeled anarchism.” Well, heavens to Betsy! Anarchism! One wonders where Lomasky has been for the last 20 years! Perhaps the knowledge has not yet penetrated to the fastnesses of Minnesota, but anarchism has been a vibrant part of the libertarian dialogue for a long time, as most readers of Liberty well know. And as Hoppe notes: Loren Lomasky was intimidated and angered by my book A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism. For one, because the book is more ambitious than its title indicates. “It is,” he laments, “no less than a manifesto for untrammeled anarchism.” So be it. But so what? As explained in my book but conveniently left unmentioned by Lomasky, untrammeled anarchism is nothing but the name for a social order of untrammeled private property rights, i.e., of the absolute right of selfownership and the absolute right to homestead unowned resources, of employing them for whatever purpose one sees fit so long as this does not affect the physical integrity of others’ likewise appropriated resources, and of entering into any contractual agreement with other property owners that is deemed mutually beneficial. What is so horrifying about this idea? Empirically speaking, this property theory constitutes the hard core of most people’s intuitive sense of justice and so can hardly be called revolutionary. Only someone advocating the trammeling of private property rights would take offense, as does Lomasky, with my attempt to justify a pure private-property economy. Anyway, back to the funny interchange. In his critique of Hoppe, Lomasky had written, in an attempt to be acerbic and witty: Although libertarians may have been perplexed by this book, we Minnesotans are uniquely well equipped to peg it. Sports fans everywhere know my adopted state as the site of the Hubert H. Humphrey Metrodome. Its dome is truly an engineering marvel, supported only by blowers. Here in the northland we like to joke that the roof stays up because of the hot air left behind by the late senator. If so, he has no monopoly on the commodity; the gusts of the coacronymous Mr. Hoppe are equally warm, windy, and wildly overblown. libertyunbound/node/356 In Hoppes reply, he concluded as following, giving better than he got: Philosophic and economic theorizing is indeed serious work, as Lomasky notes. His reaction to my book, however, demonstrates that he is not up to such a task. Following the style of controversy precedented by him, one might say that while the clearing of ones throat may complete the job for his co-acronyrnous Linda Lovelace, in the case of Mr. Loren Lomasky it wont quite do.
Posted on: Tue, 08 Jul 2014 21:59:38 +0000