Rothbard's Delusional Mafia-Worship

[Starbuckle]

Following is the text of a recent email about anarchism. I'm tired of the anarchism-v.-minarchism wars, so not inclined to debate any criticisms of my little piece. I post it mainly because Rothbard's defense of the Mafia as portrayed in the "Godfather" is new to me and quite interesting. Perhaps others will find it so too.

* * *

I agree that the issue of anarchism versus limited government is somewhat academic given how far present-day governments exceed any libertarian's ideal. But some anarchists take such a nihilistic and cynical view of government and anybody in government that it does affect their analysis of current issues and whether and how reform can be undertaken. The differing approaches can sometimes be seen in the opposing sensibilities of Mises Institute or LewRockwell.com writers who tend to be anarchistic and Cato Institute writers.

Anarchism isn't about just restructuring government into cantons or reinvigorating federalism or radically downsizing government. It's about junking government altogether; being able to secede/opt out of any government's authority and "compete" by patronizing another "defense agency" or by developing one's own, all within the same geographic area. This applies as much to courts and codes of justice as it does to hiring security guards, which of course anybody can do under the present system. The anarchists say that government per se constitutes an immoral violation of rights, an unjustified monopoly on the use of force.

Rand pointed out that civil war is an example of anarchism in action, of competing views of justice and the proper use of force. It is not an ideal social circumstance. Rothbard and other anarchists reply that it would be "in the interest" of defense agencies in a full market economy to submit themselves to arbitration in the case of certain fundamental conflicts. But the values of individuals and their notions of their fundamental interest often clash. This isn't going to change any time in the next million years or so.

There is no way to get around the fact that the coercive punishment and restraint of a person who doesn't want to be punished and restrained constitutes a "monopolistic" use of force against that person. If I'm a criminal in the view of some defense agency, I and my lawyer and my gang probably want to say that we decline to patronize the defense agency that captured me and plans to jail me. If I'm the guy caught and being prosecuted, may I "secede" from the final ruling of the arbitration if I disagree with it? If I "compete" by shooting at my captors and the bailiffs, is that a legitimate and welcome exercise of market competition in force from the anarchist perspective, or not?

If it's not, it means that the function of government cannot be treated as if competition in its delivery may appropriately be allowed at every level, including the level of determining what is the notion of justice that a government may enforce and what defines a crime. There can be competition and delegation with respect to many aspects of governance, but only so long as there is some means of final arbitration to resolve otherwise irresolvable disputes.

I used to think that the "justice"-dealing of an outfit like the Mafia was a good counterexample to anarchist assumptions. But then, not long ago, I came across Rothbard's review of mob movies, in which he declared that "The Godfather" was not really about the moral downfall of Michael Corleone, as "the left" would have it, but a wonderful dramatization of the effective protection agency and system of justice the Corleones have got going. To make his case, Rothbard has to ignore a number of key scenes in the movie, including the famous early one in which a movie producer wakes up to that severed horse's head.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard114.html

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm

* * *

Robert Bidinotto wrote a series of articles critiquing anarchism in the process of debating a couple anarchists, and I agree pretty much with his take. I don't know if the later essays are available on the net. They were at one time housed at his Journalspace blog, now defunct; Journalspace blew up a few years back. This is from the mid-90s:

http://mol.redbarn.org/objectivism/writing/RobertBidinotto/ContradictionInAnarchism.html

Edited January 23, 2011 by Starbuckle

[Greybird]

Characterizing Murray Rothbard's ethical-political theory by looking in detail, not at the careful and thorough formulations of his Power and Market or Ethics of Liberty, but at his affection for virtues that he saw displayed in (some of!) the genre of Mafia movies ...

... is like judging Ayn Rand's ethical-political theory by poring over, not her Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal and Virtue of Selfishness, but her commentary about "Perry Mason" or "2001," and her gyrations "About a Woman President."

In other words, it's too much of a silly emphasis on nonessentials — bound up with favorite artworks or personal sticking points as to applied theory. This isn't really worth the discussion you've already said you don't want.

And the title's misrepresentation — the only thing Rothbard "worships" in that far-from-delusional essay is artistic craftsmanship — verges on being a smear. One worthy of comparison with any socialist's asseverations of Rand supposedly wanting "mass deaths" or "gas chambers."

[Robert Campbell]

I don't see the point of giving this thread a title worthy of Lindsay Perigo.

I'm also surprised to find that Murray Rothbard's reaction to The Godfather trilogy isn't more widely known.

I read his review of the first Godfather movie in Libertarian Forum, many many years ago. I haven't seen that review since, but the 1990 piece on Lew Rockwell's site seems to be making the same points.

Here is Rothbard's central case:

The key to The Godfathers and to success in the Mafia genre is the realization and dramatic portrayal of the fact that the Mafia, although leading a life outside the law, is, at its best, simply entrepreneurs and businessmen supplying the consumers with goods and services of which they have been unaccountably deprived by a Puritan WASP culture. The unforgettable images of mob violence juxtaposed with solemn Church rites were not meant, as left-liberals would have it, to show the hypocrisy of evil men. For these Mafiosi, as mainly Italian Catholics, are indeed deeply religious; they represent one important way in which Italian Catholics were able to cope with, and make their way in, a totally alien world dominated by WASP Puritan insistence that a whole range of products eagerly sought by consumers be outlawed.

Hence the systemic violence of Mafia life. Violence, in The Godfather films, is never engaged in for the Hell of it, or for random kicks; the point is that since the government police and courts will not enforce contracts they deem to be illegal, debts incurred in the Mafia world have to be enforced by violence, by the secular arm. But the violence simply enforces the Mafia equivalent of the law: the codes of honor and loyalty without which the whole enterprise would simply be random and pointless violence.

In many cases, especially where "syndicates" are allowed to form and are not broken-up by government terror, the various organized syndicates will mediate and arbitrate disputes, and thereby reduce violence to a minimum. Just as governments in the Lockean paradigm are supposed to be enforcers of commonly-agreed-on rules and property rights, so "organized crime," when working properly, does the same. Except that in its state of illegality it operates in an atmosphere charged with difficulty and danger.

It is interesting to observe the contrasting attitudes of our left-liberal culture to the two kinds of crime, organized versus unorganized. Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive. Unorganized, or street, crime, in contrast, is random, punkish, viciously aggressive against the innocent, and has no redeeming social feature. Wouldn't you know, then, that our leftist culture hates and reviles the Mafia and organized crime, while it lovingly excuses, and apologizes for, chaotic and random street punks violence which amounts to "anarchy" in the bad, or common meaning. In a sense, street violence embodies the ideal of left-anarchism: since it constitutes an assault on the rights of person and property, and on the rule of law that codifies such rights.

I don't believe that this is nearly so incidental to Murray Rothbard's intellectual legacy as the "no woman should be President" essay was to Ayn Rand's. (For context, as readers of this site know, I have no patience with those who try to write off or ignore anything that Rand said because it is "not Objectivism.")

I don't recommend having a cow over it, nor do I recommend pretending that it doesn't say what it says. But a sober examination of Rothbard's response might be worthwhile.

Robert Campbell

[Starbuckle]

"I don't see the point of giving this thread a title worthy of Lindsay Perigo."

I don't see the point of comparing me to the likes of Perigo. I think anarchism is delusional to begin with, and that Rothbard's attempt to paper over the nature of the mafia is also delusional.

[william.scherk]

Characterizing Murray Rothbard's ethical-political theory by looking in detail, not at the careful and thorough formulations of his Power and Market or Ethics of Liberty, but at his affection for virtues that he saw displayed in (some of!) the genre of Mafia movies ...

... is like judging Ayn Rand's ethical-political theory by poring over, not her Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal and Virtue of Selfishness, but her commentary about "Perry Mason" or "2001," and her gyrations "About a Woman President."

Rand's views on women leaders was consistent with her views on sexuality, love and 'femininity' -- "the essence of femininity is hero worship - the desire to look up to man." "By the nature of her duties and daily activities," a female president ". . . would become the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch."

She really believed that a woman president was wrong wrong wrong, and she fit it into her philosophical system.

I presume that Rothbard was equally consistent in his views. So, when he writes of the mafia, "Organized crime is essentially anarcho-capitalist, a productive industry struggling to govern itself; apart from attempts to monopolize and injure competitors, it is productive and non-aggressive," what should we the readers think about Rothbard? A first-class thinker, an astute observer, a rational analyst?

A productive and non-aggressive industry? Yikes.

This kind of flabby thought invites ridicule, and rightly so.

[sjw]

Following is the text of a recent email about anarchism. I'm tired of the anarchism-v.-minarchism wars, so not inclined to debate any criticisms of my little piece.

...

I agree that the issue of anarchism versus limited government is somewhat academic given how far present-day governments exceed any libertarian's ideal.

It's not academic at all, it's a crucially important issue, for if you cannot give a coherent story to your fellow man concerning your ideas and how they might manifest in reality, you'll have little hope in convincing the more reasonable of them. On the contrary, you'll appeal more to the gullible zealots and the cranks. Which, interestingly enough, pretty much sums up both the anarcho-capitalist and Objectivist movements.

(Incidentally, your argument against anarchism is at least as bad as Rothbard's argument for it).

Shayne

[skrzprst]

I think he's naively misunderstanding what the Mafia are actually like. However, that doesn't have any bearing on polycentric law as a concept.

[kiaer.ts]

Kind of like the fact that L. Ron Hubbard was a child molester doesn't refute belief in aliens?

[skrzprst]

Kind of like the fact that L. Ron Hubbard was a child molester doesn't refute belief in aliens?

Kinda... wait, he was?