# Rothbardian Pro-Wrestler wins election **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 3, 2018, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055 "2018-08-03T17:02:57Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Lamoral](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lamoral/32/16078_2.png) [@Lamoral](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamoral)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/61 "2018-08-06T16:20:17Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > So is he going to use pyro at all his political events? > > In all seriousness though, pro wrestlers make really good politicians. Good at public speaking and the absurdities necessary to be a politician don’t bother them. Comedians too. Pro wrestling is no shit. They’re entertainers, but they’re also athletes. Yes, they _are_ athletes, they have to throw themselves around the ring as much as any gymnast or stuntman, it’s still athleticism even if it’s choreographed. But they also have to build a persona and communicate with the audience in a way that other athletes don’t. Coming up in the wrestling world is very tough and it takes intelligence to navigate through the politics of it. Of course, some of them burn out or worse - the drama and physical rigors of it can combine to create major psychological problems, as we see many times. But the ones that can successfully make it and keep themselves together, are pretty admirable to me. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/62 "2018-08-06T18:26:14Z")
Is this the same Rothbard revered by far-right Quiverful families for his abusive child-rearing theories, or is that someone different? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/63 "2018-08-06T18:53:08Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Is this the same Rothbard revered by far-right Quiverful families for his abusive child-rearing theories, or is that someone different? Rothbard held that children do not have a positive right to parental support, so it could be possible that these folks have picked up on Rothbard’s thought in that respect. They would have to be highly selective as Rothbard was largely anti-Protestant and pro-abortion. “Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die.2 The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive.3 (Again, whether or not a parent has a moral rather than a legally enforceable obligation to keep his child alive is a completely separate question.) ” -Rothbard Clearly there is a difference between whether something is legal or moral, at least there should be. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 7:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/64 "2018-08-06T19:02:48Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Is this the same Rothbard revered by far-right Quiverful families for his abusive child-rearing theories, or is that someone different? I don’t know how the Quiverfulls feel about his theories but I’ll agree Rothbard has some very strange ideas on children. He has said that children should be regarded as their parents’ property and that parents should have the same rights over their children that they have over any their other property and should be allowed to sell their children to other people. He has stated that he would like to liberate children from the government restrictions which prohibit them from working. And he has stated that while he believes it’s wrong to directly harm a child, his opposition to positive rights means that parents should not be compelled to provide their children with any care. He has stated that if a parent chooses to stop feeding their child, that’s within their rights and nobody else should be able to interfere. Some people are surely about to protest that I’m misconstruing Rothbard’s words. So here are his actual statements on the subject: > [@](#): > > The rights of children, even more than those of parents, have been systematically invaded by the state… Supposedly “humanitarian” child labor laws have systematically forcibly prevented children from entering the labor force, thereby privileging their adult competitors. > [@](#): > > Now if a parent may own his child (within the framework of non-aggression and runaway freedom), then he may also transfer that ownership to someone else. He may give the child out for adoption, or he may sell the rights to the child in a voluntary contract. In short, we must face the fact that the purely free society will have a flourishing free market in children. Superficially, this sounds monstrous and inhuman. But closer thought will reveal the superior humanism of such a market. For we must realize that there is a market for children now, but that since the government prohibits sale of children at a price, the parents may now only give their children away to a licensed adoption agency free of charge. > [@](#): > > Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights. The parent therefore may not murder or mutilate his child, and the law properly outlaws a parent from doing so. But the parent should have the legal right not to feed the child, i.e., to allow it to die. The law, therefore, may not properly compel the parent to feed a child or to keep it alive. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/65 "2018-08-06T19:14:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I don’t know how the Quiverfulls feel about his theories but I’ll agree Rothbard has some very strange ideas on children. He has said that children should be regarded as their parents’ property and that parents should have the same rights over their children that they have over any their other property and should be allowed to sell their children to other people. He has stated that he would like to liberate children from the government restrictions which prohibit them from working. And he has stated that while he believes it’s wrong to directly harm a child, his opposition to positive rights means that parents should not be compelled to provide their children with any care. He has stated that if a parent chooses to stop feeding their child, that’s within their rights and nobody else should be able to interfere. > > Some people are surely about to protest that I’m misconstruing Rothbard’s words. So here are his actual statements on the subject: Where among those quotes does he state that “nobody should be able to interfere” if a parent is not caring for their child? If a child is neglected, he states the parents cannot be compelled to nourish the child, but he does not say that someone could not step in to care for the child. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/66 "2018-08-06T19:28:24Z")
I’ll add that plenty of Rothbardian libertarians have challenged Rothbard on his child rights stuff, as well as many other aspects of his thought. He wrote an enormous amount of stuff. This is like .001% of what he wrote about. He could have ignored the question altogether, but understanding children would need to be addressed at some point, he gave it a go. This in comparison to someone like John Rawls who avoided tough questions and handwaved away legitimate criticism. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/67 "2018-08-06T20:37:11Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’ll add that plenty of Rothbardian libertarians have challenged Rothbard on his child rights stuff, as well as many other aspects of his thought. He wrote an enormous amount of stuff. This is like .001% of what he wrote about. He could have ignored the question altogether, but understanding children would need to be addressed at some point, he gave it a go. This in comparison to someone like John Rawls who avoided tough questions and handwaved away legitimate criticism. If you can point to 0.001% of a person’s writings that are absolute batshit insanity, then chances are that much more than 0.001% of what that person wrote is also absolute batshit insanity. People are either batshit insane or they’re not. They’re not generally just 0.001% batshit insane and normal in everything else. If they’re 0.001% batshit insane then the other 99.999% is probably also batshit insane, you just haven’t read it yet. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/68 "2018-08-06T20:41:38Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > I’ll add that plenty of Rothbardian libertarians have challenged Rothbard on his child rights stuff, as well as many other aspects of his thought. He wrote an enormous amount of stuff. This is like .001% of what he wrote about. He could have ignored the question altogether, but understanding children would need to be addressed at some point, he gave it a go. This in comparison to someone like John Rawls who avoided tough questions and handwaved away legitimate criticism. Well, as long as he was trying, I hope he got his participation prize from NAMBLA. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/69 "2018-08-06T21:03:28Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **WillFarnaby** : > > What is Robert Reich’s solution for external costs? Maybe Econ Marvel Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, over whom you were fawning, has a solution. In fact, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does have a solution to the problem of external costs. The solution, as all sane economists have recognized, is government regulation. In fact, government ends up being the solution to a lot of problems. > [@](#): > > If a child is neglected, he states the parents cannot be compelled to nourish the child, but he does not say that someone could not step in to care for the child. “Step in”, where, precisely? Do you mean that people are literally allowed to step into the parents’ house to rescue a child? What if you don’t know if the residents of a home have a child in there they’re starving-- Are you allowed to go in to check? ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/70 "2018-08-06T21:08:01Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > “Step in”, where, precisely? Do you mean that people are literally allowed to step into the parents’ house to rescue a child? What if you don’t know if the residents of a home have a child in there they’re starving-- Are you allowed to go in to check? What, and violate their property rights? ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/71 "2018-08-06T21:20:29Z")
> [@Lamoral](#): > > Pro wrestling is no shit. They’re entertainers, but they’re also athletes. Yes, they _are_ athletes, they have to throw themselves around the ring as much as any gymnast or stuntman, it’s still athleticism even if it’s choreographed. But they also have to build a persona and communicate with the audience in a way that other athletes don’t. Coming up in the wrestling world is very tough and it takes intelligence to navigate through the politics of it. Of course, some of them burn out or worse - the drama and physical rigors of it can combine to create major psychological problems, as we see many times. But the ones that can successfully make it and keep themselves together, are pretty admirable to me. Yes, they have to connect with an audience. They also have to lie with a completely straight face. It’s surprising more wrestlers haven’t gone into politics. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Well, as long as he was trying, I hope he got his participation prize from NAMBLA. One of the quotes said (referring to Rothbard’s theories) that a parent shouldn’t have the right to aggress against his children, and presumably non-parents wouldn’t, either. I don’t know if Rothbard addressed whether forced sex with a child would count as an aggression. Just from the few bits about him in this thread I wouldn’t be surprised either way. Probably appalled, but not surprised. And it may be another matter of theory versus practice. Even if such things were prohibited in a theoretical Rothbardian world, how, in practice, would they be discovered? Earlier in this thread it was said that Austrian economics eschewed mathematical models for a theory constructed on purposeful human action. If Rothbard is part of the Austrian School it would seem their model of human behavior is to be amoral, self-obsessed assholes. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/72 "2018-08-06T21:34:56Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In fact, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez does have a solution to the problem of external costs. The solution, as all sane economists have recognized, is government regulation. In fact, government ends up being the solution to a lot of problems. How does regulation “solve” external costs? If your fictional company contributes .07% to your emphysema case, as long as they are below the legal threshold, they are absolved from guilt. Problem not solved there buddy! > [@](#): > > “Step in”, where, precisely? Do you mean that people are literally allowed to step into the parents’ house to rescue a child? What if you don’t know if the residents of a home have a child in there they’re starving-- Are you allowed to go in to check? That same problem happens in our current government environment. A free society is not a utopia either. If someone rescued a child, and the parents didn’t like it, let them bring suit against the rescuer and the courts can decide this. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/73 "2018-08-06T21:45:55Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > Yes, they have to connect with an audience. They also have to lie with a completely straight face. It’s surprising more wrestlers haven’t gone into politics. > > One of the quotes said (referring to Rothbard’s theories) that a parent shouldn’t have the right to aggress against his children, and presumably non-parents wouldn’t, either. I don’t know if Rothbard addressed whether forced sex with a child would count as an aggression. Just from the few bits about him in this thread I wouldn’t be surprised either way. Probably appalled, but not surprised. And it may be another matter of theory versus practice. Even if such things were prohibited in a theoretical Rothbardian world, how, in practice, would they be discovered? > > Earlier in this thread it was said that Austrian economics eschewed mathematical models for a theory constructed on purposeful human action. If Rothbard is part of the Austrian School it would seem their model of human behavior is to be amoral, self-obsessed assholes. Economics describes the causes and effects of human action. In fact Austrian economics is distinguished from other mainstream schools because it rejects utility measure in “utils” or whatever nonsense. There is no homo Economicus. Humans have an ordinal ranking of preferences which will express the individual’s moral beliefs and ethical considerations. You should look at mainstream economics if you want to find people who turn a blind eye to humans acting as humans. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/74 "2018-08-06T21:48:40Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If you can point to 0.001% of a person’s writings that are absolute batshit insanity, then chances are that much more than 0.001% of what that person wrote is also absolute batshit insanity. People are either batshit insane or they’re not. They’re not generally just 0.001% batshit insane and normal in everything else. If they’re 0.001% batshit insane then the other 99.999% is probably also batshit insane, you just haven’t read it yet. Ok. You’re a Bernie supporter, right? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/75 "2018-08-06T21:50:05Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Economics describes the causes and effects of human action. I thought economics was concerned about the scarcity and transfer of wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/76 "2018-08-06T21:51:01Z")
Oh, and… > [@](#): > > Quoth **WillFarnaby** : > > Clearly there is a difference between whether something is legal or moral, at least there should be. No, there _shouldn’t_ be. The point of laws is to prevent people from doing wrong, and to get them to do what is right. Lawmakers, like all humans, are imperfect, so this doesn’t always work, but it _should_. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/77 "2018-08-06T21:54:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Oh, and… > > No, there _shouldn’t_ be. The point of laws is to prevent people from doing wrong, and to get them to do what is right. Lawmakers, like all humans, are imperfect, so this doesn’t always work, but it _should_. Pound that pulpit a little harder next time. I didn’t quite catch the Holy Ghost. This is, quite frankly, one of the most pernicious ideas in society today. Something should be illegal if it harms someone, not if it’s “evil” ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/78 "2018-08-06T22:09:10Z")
Just what do you think “evil” is? ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/79 "2018-08-06T22:33:09Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Economics describes the causes and effects of human action. In fact Austrian economics is distinguished from other mainstream schools because it rejects utility measure in “utils” or whatever nonsense. There is no homo Economicus. Humans have an ordinal ranking of preferences which will express the individual’s moral beliefs and ethical considerations. In standard economic theory, agents have an ordinal ranking of preferences. This ranking is described with “utility”, but it’s still ordinal. Calling it by the name of utility does not make it any less ordinal. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > “The subject matter of economics, in the Austrian view, is the causes of economic events, not the correlations existing between them. The study of those correlations is the subject matter of economic history, and will never reveal fundamental laws of economics, since, as Mises points out, “No… constant relations exist in the field of human action…” Rothbardian analysis cannot guarantee a downward sloping demand curve in the market for any particular good. There aren’t many “fundamental laws of economics” if he can’t guarantee downward sloping demand or upward sloping supply as deductively inevitable. And he can’t. (To be fair, though, no one else can either.) ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2018, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055/80 "2018-08-06T22:37:29Z")
> [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Where among those quotes does he state that “nobody should be able to interfere” if a parent is not caring for their child? If a child is neglected, he states the parents cannot be compelled to nourish the child, but he does not say that someone could not step in to care for the child. “Step in”? What precisely are you suggesting here? The most obvious interpretation is you’re saying somebody should abduct the child. I can’t think of any other way in which you’d be able to feed a child in the face of the parents’ opposition. Rothbard explicitly states the government shouldn’t get involved. So that rules out calling the police or child welfare. You know, the kind of thing that people living in a sane world do when the neighbors are starving a child to death. I suppose Rothbard’s plan would be to offer to buy the child - something which he says should be legal. But that’s assuming the parents are willing to sell. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/rothbardian-pro-wrestler-wins-election/819055.md?page=5)