“To be great is to be misunderstood.”

-Ralph Waldo Emerson, Self-Reliance

A Clash of Libertarian Titans

I’ve just been reading Samuel Edward Konkin III’s response to Murray Rothbard’s critique of his seminal New Libertarian Manifesto. It’s interesting to see the volley of friendly flaming arrows exchanged between the two, as both are such highly respected figures in anarchist circles, whose works and ideas have impacted countless individuals on their journey to the philosophical and practical rectitude of recognizing self-ownership and freedom.

What strikes me most is that the back and forth between Konkin and Rothbard is almost a perfect representation of a heated misunderstanding and disagreement that much more broadly continues to plague libertarian discussion as a whole — and always has. That undeniable and ultimately irreconcilable philosophical bifurcation between two parties: those who eschew politics for direct action, and those who, in some form or another, view politics as necessary.

The second thing that strikes me is that Konkin and Rothbard do seem to be after the same ostensible goals, but semantics and misunderstanding often derail things. Still, if one party is to come out more logical, right, and the “winner” of this particular battle, it is most certainly Konkin. What follows is my rationale for this conclusion.

White Market Slavery

In his critique of Konkin’s New Libertarian Manifesto, Rothbard notes that the black market “is enormously dwarfed in importance by the legal, white market. So the Konkinian vision of black-market institutions growing, defending themselves, and thus becoming the free-market anarchist society of the future collapses on this ground alone.”

Standing up for his “collapsed vision,” Konkin clarifies in his rebuttal to Rothbard’s critique:

“The agorist imperative is to transform the White into Black. Nothing could be clearer. To do so is to create a libertarian society. What else can a libertarian society mean in economic terms but removing market activity from the control of the State? Market activity not under control of the State is black market. Market activity under the control of the State is white market and we are against it.”

Konkin then goes on to list the myriad activities — including mainstream economic institutions, industry, and other common occupations — which deal at least in part in transactions outside the purview of the state, thus calling into question Rothbard’s implied assumptions that the black market Konkin speaks of is only one of small-time transactions and drugs.

It’s easy to see the semantic slippage going on here. Rothbard views the issue as trying to make what he sees as one relatively small market (black) impossibly succeed against a massive one (white). Konkin sees the issue simply as taking all markets away from the state.

In short, Rothbard’s definition of a white market is the colloquial one, understood to mean those transactions that are legal in the eyes of the state. Konkin correctly understands that even these “legal” activities, when removed from state control, by default become “the black market.” He then understandably wonders why any self-professing libertarian would be opposed to such a shift. Rothbard seems to conversely wish to make the illegal non-violent activities of the black market into “white market” acceptable activities, via political strategy.

And don’t forget, Harriet also carried a firearm. Source.

Harriet Tubman, or Vote Your Way Out?

On the topic of political action Konkin writes: “Can you imagine slaves on a plantation sitting around voting for masters and spending their energy on campaigning and candidates when they could be heading for the ‘underground railway?’ Surely they would choose the counter-economic alternative; surely Dr. Rothbard would urge them to do so and not be seduced into remaining on the plantation until the Abolitionist Slavemasters’ Party is elected.”

Dr. Rothbard had elicited this response from Konkin when he wrote: “I see no other conceivable strategy for the achievement of liberty than political action.” To Rothbard’s thinking, the state was too powerful to be faced with a flimsy philosophical revolution. Oddly, Rothbard here ignores the fact that if such a renaissance did take place, critical masses would naturally drop their participation in the state — in the same way a cult member quits once they see the real score — thus weakening it immensely.

Rothbard insists: “Religious or philosophical conversion of each man and woman is simply not going to work; that strategy ignores the problem of power, the fact that millions of people have a vested interest in statism and are not likely to give it up. Violent revolution will not work in a democratic political system. Konkinian agorism is no answer, as I have shown above.”

It is interesting that the recent sophistry of the so-called “post-libertarian” movement attempts to denigrate much of Rothbard’s thought as purist idealism, while they are busy railing on about the exact same things Murray was here.

Perhaps Rothbard’s strongest point in his critique of the New Libertarian Manifesto by Konkin, is when he asks why we as liberty advocates should “cut ourselves off” from the opportunity to repeal unjust laws. Though some would say this is coercion against those who wish to keep the laws, Rothbard could understandably care less. Here I think he somewhat misses Konkin’s overall aim, however. It is not that the repealing of unjust state laws via the mechanism of the state hurts other statists, but that it hurts non-violent individuals who wish to achieve real freedom. As Konkin so concisely retorts:

“No, I don’t agree with LeFevre that it is immoral to repeal the draft (assuming LeFevre would say precisely that) but it is immoral to support politicians to oppress us because they might relieve one oppression. For all the money, time and energy that needs to go into electing a politician good on one or a few issues, how many could be directly freed…?”

He drives his point home: “There has never been a single repeal of taxation or significant cut (save a few minor ones in recent years for purposes of Keynesian tinkering and now Lafferite ‘less gets more’) that did not result from mass refusal to pay or the threat of such disobedience. Furthermore, political action has resulted in shifts in the tax base and higher total plunder—such as the famously spectacular debacle of Proposition 13 here in California.”

Indeed, I often want to ask the party-archists and LP members — including those in league with that little slimy pustule attached to it, called the “Mises Caucus,” how their beloved politicians would be paid. As another great voice of liberty once elaborated, you can hack at the leaves on the tree of tyranny here and there, but to bring about real, lasting change, principles must be followed, and the evil tree completely uprooted in the psychology of individuals all over. First in mind (the un-kill-able idea, which is the headstone, and is paramount) then in non-participation in the state extensive from said understanding, and then (or simultaneously) the building of new, and better systems.

All the political crusader has to say seems to me to echo this weird illogical position of Rothbard: “I am going to assume for the moment that a libertarian political party (or for that matter, other forms of political action, such as lobbying) are not evil per se.” Well, that is certainly a convenient assumption, as it is the entire deciding lynchpin of the whole debate.

Think for Yourself

At the end of the day, much as you may try to fight it, no great luminary of liberty from the past, present, or future, is going to save you. No Hans-Hermann Hoppe. No Rothbard. No Konkin. No Block. No Friedman. No Paul. No podcaster or “influencer” who wants to be popular head of the gulag more than they actually want to see people set free. No nobody. You’re on your own to fight the battle of the mind and choose how you will take action, and that is a beautiful thing.

So why can’t the political mind understand Konkin’s simple vision? Well, this may be a bit of a cop-out (especially since it is the central theme of this article), but I am not exactly sure. The closest thing I can come up with — and this thanks in part to some input from respected friends — is quite simply something like fear of the unknown. Politics being a kind of security blanket for some individuals.

As for my own personal thoughts on the back and forth between Konkin and Rothbard, I hope this short video might be illustrative. Thank you for reading. And good luck!

-GS