Disparaging Rothbard

by Stephan Kinsella on January 14, 2026

Most of us principled, anti-state libertarians are deed admirers of Rothbard. Hoppe has written glowingly of Rothbard’s singular genius, assessment I share. As Hoppe has written,

And there was a certain amount of, I would say, jealousy, because, I mean, Rothbard was enormously bright. I’ve met bright people in my life, but the only person I’ve met whom I would consider to be a genius was Rothbard. He could tell you the the content of every book in his library. And that wasan enormous library. Whenever you would ask him about any strange subject, he could give you some suggestions on what to read. You felt like a little, urn, uneducated person if you talked to him. So jealousy played a big role in explaining why it was that he was not treated like a genius, as he should have been treated.

… There are certain purely theoretical points, like the foundation of private property rights and so forth, where I think I did make some breakthroughs, which Murray endorsed. I’m very proud of that. But since I’m now 75, if I had to assess my general impact that I hadon the world, I think it would make me most proud if people would say Hoppe is, in a way, the most important successor of Rothbard in the present age. It would make me enormously proud if that became the general view, even though I admit I’m not in the same league as Mises and Rothbard. Those two were geniuses. I’m a pretty bright guy. I contributed quite a bit to libertarian thought. But I would never, ever put myself in the same league as them. But since there is nobody in sight who is in the same league as they are for the time being, I’m a pretty good substitute for these two giants. ¹

Many others feel the same, as evidenced by tributes to him both before and after his death. See Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (forthcoming 2026); Murray N. Rothbard: In Memoriam (Auburn, Ala.: Mises Institute, 1995) (various authors); “Rothbard Remembered,” Liberty (March 1995; pdf): 20–26 (various authors); Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, Walter Block and Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr., eds. (Mises Institute, 1988).

But not everyone appreciates him the same way. The Randians hate him because he didn’t footnote them properly, or something petty like that. ² Some neo-cons, like William Buckley, Jr., for the obvious, usual reasons; Buckley infamously and classessly besmirched him upon his death, writing:

his problem ought not to be thought of as tracing to the seamless integrity of libertarian principles. In Murray’s case, much of what drove him was a contrarian spirit, the deranging scrupulosity that caused him to disdain such as Herbert Hoover, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and — yes — Newt Gingrich, while huffing and puffing in the little cloister whose walls he labored so strenuously to contract, leaving him, in the end, not as the father of a swelling movement that “rous[ed] the masses from their slumber,” as he once stated his ambition, but with about as many disciples as David Koresh had in his little redoubt in Waco. Yes, Murray Rothbard believed in freedom, and yes, David Koresh believed in God. ³

To which Lew Rockwell responded, upon Buckley’s death:

The CIA agent, founder of the modern conservative movement, enforcer of warfare-state discipline on the right, brilliant writer and editor, transoceanic sailor, harpsichordist, TV star, charming aristocrat, founder of National Review and Young Americans for Freedom, enabler of neoconservatism, expeller of heretics from Birchers to Rothbardians, and thoroughly bad ideological influence in general, is dead at 82. ⁴

And minarchists and utilitarians disdain him because he was anti-state, and a principled individual-rights property-rights libertarian. I remember Ed Feser, bizarrely invited to the Mises Institute many years ago to deliver the Rothbard Lecture (as I recall), who proceeded to reject and criticize Rothbard for a hodgedge of reasons. ⁵ And others were just jealous of his achievements and stature, as Hoppe notes. Some of them snidely repeat this old canard, with snickers: that he was viewed as a great economist, a historian, and philosopher, but not by those specialized in those fields. For example, Liberty editor R.W. Bradford wrote, in the Nov. 1995 Liberty:

Short Cuts — A famous libertarian once told me a story, which he swore
was true. It seemed that an economist, a historian, and a philosopher were
talking about Murray Rothbard, all expressing great admiration for the
great libertarian. The historian said, “The breadth and genius of his work is
truly mind-boggling. Except, of course, for his history, which is fraught with
error.”

The philosopher responded, “Surely you are mistaken. I have nearly read all
of Rothbard’s works, and found them invaluable—except for his philosophy,
which is puerile and nugatory. But his history and his economics are simply
brilliant.”

They turned to the economist. “Well, I agree with both of you, up to a
point. Rothbard certainly was a genius whose work is tremendously admirable. Indeed, it is hard to believe that one man could accomplish so much. But you have misidentified his Achilles heel. His philosophy and history are nothing short of brilliant. But his economics …” ⁶

This was a bit odd, coming from Bradford, just a few months after his tribute to Rothbard upon his death, where he wrote:

Along with Ayn Rand, he was the most influential figure in the rebirth of the libertarian movement that occurred in the 1960s and 1970s. ⁷ He adopted the core of Rand’s political theory, ⁸ applied it vigorously, and defended it brilliantly. ⁹ Like Rand, he attracted many fervent acolytes; unlike Rand, he was a man of great wit and personal charm, warm and outgoing to his friends. He was the most delightful person with whom I ever spent an evening in a bar.

In the end, his influence on libertarians waned, partly because of his apparent retreat ‘toward his old nemesis, the political Right; partly because of his increasing relish for ideological infighting; and partly because a new generation of libertarian intellectuals found his brand of libertarianism too simplistic.

He was a founding editor of this magazine, contributing generously his enthusiasm, advice, and writing. He left Liberty in 1990, as a part of his turn toward the Right. ¹⁰ During the last few years of his life, when he devoted his intellectual energy to the support of such conservatives as Patrick Buchanan, Oliver North, and George Bush, his conservative friends embraced him as much as his libertarian friends missed him.

Murray Rothbard was a great man, and a very engaging one. His passing leaves the world much poorer. ¹¹

As a lawyer and legal theorist, I have actually been in awe of how good he was on law and legal theory. For a non-specialist, he actually pioneered a path-breaking theory of contract that I rely on to this day. ¹² Sure, he made a few minor errors, as can be expected when one pioneers an innovative new theory that is not even in one’s own field—this is to be admired and applauded, not sneered at.

Finally, I am reminded of a similar event in the late 1990s. As I have recounted elsewhere, I met Rothbard, Hoppe, et al. for the first time in Nov. 1994, just before Rothbard died in January 1995. ¹³

The next year, 1995, saw the first in a series of annual Austrian Scholars Conferences, held every Spring (I believe it was a revival of a formal ASC series, and has since been replaced by the joint Libertarian Scholars Conference and awkwardly-named Austrian Economics Research Conference). I attended and presented at almost all of these and recall and early one, perhaps in 1996 or 1997, where Pete Boettke was speaking in the large auditorium at the Auburn Hotel and Conference Center (where the event was held; this was before the Mises Institute building had been completed). In his talk, Pete said something to the effect that Rothbard was just a popularizer, and the brilliant innovators were people like Israel Kirzner and Ludwig Lachmann. This was, naturally, taken as a “backhanded compliment” by many of us in the audience, and insult to him and a failure to recognize what a towering innovator and genius he was in many fields.