Quantcast Murray N. Rothbard


Philosophy against Misosophy



Creative Thinker

Generous Teacher

Courageous Revisionist

Effervescent Friend


Essays by Me

Essays by Others

MNR with Howie Rich

With Roger Garrison


From Whose Togas I Dangle

Murray Newton Rothbard

March 2, 1926-January 7, 1995

Murray N. Rothbard and James A. Sadowsky, S.J., ages 41 and 43 respectively, friends of each other long before they were my friends,  relaxing at the Scottish Games, Stamford, Connecticut, July 4, 1967.  Scanned from a snapshot given me by the late JoAnn Rothbard in 1998. -- A.F.

I may be described as (among other things) road-kill along the way to the definitive biography of Murray Rothbard.  In 1997 (two years after his passing) I sought and gained the cooperation of his widow, Joann, and Lew Rockwell to organize that project.  All I managed to accomplish, however, was to fulfill the prediction, made more than once in my hearing, that this effort would overwhelm me.  My enthusiasm for the idea of telling Murray’s story and expounding his ideas blinded me to the fact, obvious to everyone but me and perhaps my mother, that I was simply not up to the task.  The life of Rothbard awaits its Hülsmann.  And if the interval between the death of Ludwig von Mises and the birth of Mises: Last Knight of Liberalism is any guide, the wait is far from even half over.

Links to drafts of two unfinished essays of mine dating from 1998 are offered below. 

(1) One consists of barely refined ore mined from secondary sources but, more importantly, from interviews conducted with people who knew Murray, in the first place JoAnn Rothbard, but also Leonard Liggio, Ralph Raico, George Resch, John McCarthy, and James Sadowsky.  Readers who have profited from Justin Raimondo’s An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard and Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement as well as Murray’s own monograph, The Betrayal of the American Right will discover a minor fact or two not related in those indispensable works, which I highly recommend to everyone else. 

(2) The other opus interruptus is the bare beginning of an exposition of Murray’s philosophy of liberty.

Anthony Flood

Posted July 1, 2008 

(1) Murray Newton Rothbard: Notes toward a Biography

(2) Murray Newton Rothbard: An Introduction to His Thought


Also on this Site:


For all things Rothbard, go to Chris Brown's marvelous MurrayRothbard.com

The State is almost universally considered an institution of social service.  Some theorists venerate the State as the apotheosis of society. Others regard it as an amiable, though often inefficient, organiza-tion for achieving social ends.  But almost all regard it as a necessary means for achieving the goals of mankind, a means to be ranged against the “private sector” and often winning in this competition of resources. 

With the rise of democracy, the identification of the State with society has been redoubled, until it is common to hear sentiments expressed which violate virtually every tenet of reason and common sense such as, “we are the government.” 

The useful collective term “we” has enabled an ideological camouflage to be thrown over the reality of political life. 

If “we are the government,” then anything a government does to an individual is not only just and untyrannical but also “voluntary” on the part of the individual concerned. 

If the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by taxing one group for the benefit of another, this reality of burden is obscured by saying that “we owe it to ourselves.”

If the government conscripts a man, or throws him into jail for dissident opinion, then he is “doing it to himself” and, therefore, nothing untoward has occurred. 

Under this reasoning, any Jews murdered by the Nazi government were not murdered; instead, they must have “committed suicide,” since they were the government (which was democratically chosen), and, therefore, anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. . .

If, then, the State is not “us,” if it is not “the human family” getting together to decide mutual problems, if it is not a lodge meeting or country club, what is it? 

Briefly, the State is that organization in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly of the use of force and violence in a given territorial area. 

In particular, it is the only organization in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment for services rendered but by coercion. 

While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production of goods and services and by the peaceful and voluntary sale of these goods and services to others, the State obtains its revenue by the use of compulsion; that is, by the use and the threat of the jailhouse and the bayonet. 

Having used force and violence to obtain its revenue, the State generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions of its individual subjects. 

One would think that simple observation of all States through history and over the globe would be proof enough of this assertion; but the miasma of myth has lain so long over State activity that elaboration is necessary.


From “The Anatomy of the State,” Ramparts, Summer 1965, reprinted in Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, and Other Essays, Auburn, AL: The Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000. 

[Original punctuation altered—Anthony Flood

June 30, 2006]


“Tony, you’re a great fellow, but there are two kinds of intellectuals in this world, the Seekers and the Finders, and I am afraid that you are an unregen-erate Seeker.”  Murray Rothbard, letter to Anthony Flood, August 11, 1984.