tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post116939049485535433..comments2024-03-15T19:54:18.063+00:00Comments on Darwinian Conservatism by Larry Arnhart: Herbert Spencer's Utopian AnarchismLarry Arnharthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1170010899377128892007-01-28T19:01:00.000+00:002007-01-28T19:01:00.000+00:00While I appreciate David Gordon's defense of Rothb...While I appreciate David Gordon's defense of Rothbard, I think you are basically correct about the utopian nature of Rothbardian anarchism. But his utopianism does not have the quite the evolutionary angle of Spencer's.<BR/><BR/>In the final section of FOR A NEW LIBERTY, "Why Liberty Will Win", he outlines his theory of concentric circles: liberty will win because it alone is compatible with human nature, it alone is compatible with industrial society, and because statism entered a permanent crisis in 1973. <BR/><BR/>As someone said in another connection, "Maybe, maybe not."<BR/><BR/>Rothbard's view seems strikingly similar to Fukuyama's. It is a true "end of history" thesis -- without any element of the Last Man. The coming of liberty will mean the end of political life as we know it and political history as we know it. The Unitversal Homogeneous Non-State.<BR/><BR/>If I understand DNR and Darwinian Conservatism, this could be considered utopian because it goes against certain features of man's evolved nature, mostly having to do with thumos. Political life will always be pretty much what we have seen before -- states, political hierarchy, imperfect peace, the pursuit of glory and the rest of it. <BR/><BR/>Despite the advantages of liberty so convincingly described by classical liberals, it is utopian to think the triumph of even pre-Rothbardian liberty is inevitable, much less imminent. Not to mention the triumph of Rothbardian anarchism.<BR/><BR/>The DNR view is more like Aristotle -- any regime can change into any other regime if the conditions are right. Cultures can change, and could change toward liberty, free markets, consent of the governed, and more peace. But political life will always be pretty much what it has always been. To think otherwise is utopian.<BR/><BR/>Best regards,<BR/>Kent GuidaKent Guidahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00119882444127499607noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1169473376974523442007-01-22T13:42:00.000+00:002007-01-22T13:42:00.000+00:00David,Yes, I see your point. Although Rothbard ag...David,<BR/><BR/>Yes, I see your point. Although Rothbard agreed with Spencer's anarchism, Rothbard did not think that anarchy could be based on "permanent peace," as claimed by Spencer. In Rothbard's anarchy, people would still be inclined to war, but their military protection would come from private, voluntary agencies rather than the state.<BR/><BR/>And yet, it seems to me that Rothbard's dream of an anarchist society without coercion would require a utopian transformation in human nature.Larry Arnharthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14619785331100785170noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16355954.post-1169401923459524912007-01-21T17:52:00.000+00:002007-01-21T17:52:00.000+00:00Murray Rothbard didn't base his anarchism on the v...Murray Rothbard didn't base his anarchism on the view that human nature can be changed for the better. He thought that the state violates rights and that protection and justice can be provided better by the market. You think that anarchism presupposes a utopian view of human nature, but this position shouldn't be imputed to Rothbard.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com