I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
I have read, much, much more of Rothbard than I like, which is why I despise him personally with an incandescent fury, the lying hypocrite and diseased builder of a rotten foundation.
His only enjoyable work was The Betrayal of the American Right, because I enjoy watching a fool recount the way the people who would become the neoliberals ate his stupid face, the way actual libertarians had warned him would happen from the start.
You know, using the word “neoliberals” just spoils your message due to this word meaning technically literally nothing. Empirically the least fuzzy description of it is “something that leftists don’t like”. It’s literally leftist slang.
I don’t think there’s anything more “actually libertarian” than Rothbard, but one can disagree with any particular thing (and I do with many). It seems you are pushing your ancoms from an unexpected orifice again.
But, of course, Chesterton’s and others’ distributism is even better, but one just can’t agree on such a thing with people without a certain cultural component.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
I mean, you can just read the sources, Rothbard’s most known books, Ayn Rand’s Atlas and other stuff, and make your own opinion. The only common thing between them is disdain for state regulation and leftism. But the root of Rothbard’s ideology is simply incompatible with the root of Rand’s ideology.
The former builds on natural right and non-aggression. The latter builds on people not being equal, and some being shit under the boot of others, better and more useful. These are in direct conflict.
I mean, explaining something to a tankie is similar to trying to teach a pig fly.
I have read, much, much more of Rothbard than I like, which is why I despise him personally with an incandescent fury, the lying hypocrite and diseased builder of a rotten foundation.
His only enjoyable work was The Betrayal of the American Right, because I enjoy watching a fool recount the way the people who would become the neoliberals ate his stupid face, the way actual libertarians had warned him would happen from the start.
You know, using the word “neoliberals” just spoils your message due to this word meaning technically literally nothing. Empirically the least fuzzy description of it is “something that leftists don’t like”. It’s literally leftist slang.
I don’t think there’s anything more “actually libertarian” than Rothbard, but one can disagree with any particular thing (and I do with many). It seems you are pushing your ancoms from an unexpected orifice again.
But, of course, Chesterton’s and others’ distributism is even better, but one just can’t agree on such a thing with people without a certain cultural component.
Ok brainlet