Murray Rothbard had been a frequent visitor at discussion parties at Ayn Rand's apartment. Eventually, he was asked not to return. One narrative is that Ayn Rand was displeased because Rothbard's wife would not give up her Episcopalian religion. In fact, the easiest story to believe is explained by this:

recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there. -- "The Nature of Government by Ayn Rand" cited online in The Ayn Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarch...)

In truth, both private security and private arbitration have strong historical evidence.

Private international law - resolution of personal conflicts such as adoptions and divorces among people protected by different government - is called "the fourth book of law" after the Reforms of Justinian in the 6th Century. In the Middle Ages "lawe marchaunt" was how disputes were settled at Troyez and the great international fairs. The Hague Convention of 1899 modernized private international law.

However, Rothbard was wholly incapable of articulating any of this. As a Kantian idealist he simply made up what he regarded as a consistent theory independent of empirical facts. Among the facts for Ayn Rand was the Russian Civil War: she experienced "competing governments."

Allowing for the cultural context of the 1950s, a salient problem for Rothbard (as for Rand) would have been to explain why the "soldiers" of warring Mafia families fought each other, while the company police of Ford and GM did not. Granted that Ayn Rand may have had other things on her mind, Rothbard claimed not to. He simply argued against government per se and let that cover for any missing facts.

Interesting conversation and Mike thanks for sharing your blog posts for an informative read. I look forward to reading "Good Money". Nice resources at the ANA website too, thanks!

Very enlightening. Thank you1

I met the guy. Brilliant, charming, charismatic. So apparently self-assured that it was no wonder so many admired him, until a little delving found that he was a movie set. A great front but completely empty .

Mike, could your summarize? I am very interested in your points on Rothbard, but what is your major disagreement or what was Rothbard's major error? Thanks db