I don’t see a place for that in the libertarian portion of the Nolan Chart.

The way Rothbard is described, it is kind of like arguing for freedom for me (and my group), but not for thee.

You are correct, and I apologize. My speed reading fails again!
🙂

Yes, I know he’s called one of the fathers of libertarianism.

But my point is that libertarianism as we know it is a far far cry from what Rothbard advocated. Calling him a libertarian is like calling Stalin a liberal.

Seriously.

Libertarianism is a big big tent, which segues into anarchism of various kinds. And anarchism is where anarchism of the right and left blur together, although they are different.

I wrote a post about that once.

By the way, I keep wanting to spell his name with a “t” on the end instead of a “d.” With a “t” it’s the name of the evil wizard in “Swan Lake.”

I had passing familiarity with his name, and his association with libertarianism, but didn’t know that much about him or his ideas. I presumed it was the same as other “mainstream” libertarian views.

This election I found it rather confusing that some libertarians were early supporters of trump.

Now I get it!

If Rothbard thinks like this, then they may well be followers of his view.

There is something about ends justifies the means in that kind of thinking. Too bad, because now “libertarian” may not mean what I think it means (i.e. kind of like “liberal” used to mean something different) and I have to ensure a distinction. I knew about “anarcho capitalism” (I think one of Reagan’s sons advocates that, IIRC, or maybe that is Milton Friedman’s son, or both?).

France was an original member, withdrew from the integrated military command in 1966 to pursue an independent defense system but returned to full participation on 3 April 2009.

Get your facts straight. France was never part of NATO, never, has been. France has pursued it’s own view and own strategic interests irrespective of the US or our allies in NATO.

Now, I suspect that some in Europe wouldn’t view a closer alliance with Russia as a threat– unless you happen to be one of the eastern European countries, who’s memories of the Russian bear is still fresh. But then they’re spending closer at or above the required minimum.

It’s those freeloaders like France and Germany that need to pony up.

Of course, we could keep borrowing the money from China to provide for Europe’s defense.

Of course Libertarianism covers quite a span of beliefs. The small l libertarians are primarily focused on smaller government, fiscal conservatism, and freedom of association and speech. Over at the other end you have those who want no government at all, laissez faire capitalism, and no borders. I hadn’t seen much in the way of racism among libertarians I’m familiar with and I didn’t think the Paulistas were racists. But Rothbard’s brand of Libertarianism had a racial component to it.

In later years Rothbard began calling himself a Paleolibertarian.
From Wiki:
“Paleolibertarianism sought to appeal to disaffected working class whites through a synthesis of cultural conservatism and libertarian economics. According to Reason, Rothbard advocated right-wing populism in part because he was frustrated that mainstream thinkers were not adopting the libertarian view and suggested that former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke and Wisconsin U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy were models for an “Outreach to the Rednecks” effort that could be used by a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition. Working together, the paleo coalition would expose the “unholy alliance of ‘corporate liberal’ Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass.” Rothbard blamed this “Underclass” for “looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America.”[123] Rothbard noted that David Duke’s substantive political program in a Louisiana governor’s race had “nothing” in it that “could not also be embraced by paleoconservatives or paleo-libertarians; lower taxes, dismantling the bureaucracy, slashing the welfare system, attacking affirmative action and racial set-asides, calling for equal rights for all Americans, including whites.”[125]

This sounds a lot like the alt-right to me.

But the whole purpose of NATO is that we have agreed to help protect those countries. If they provide for their whole defense, what’s the purpose of NATO?

We’re not doing this because we’re selfless and generous. The idea behind NATO is Russia is a superpower and the countries of Europe need a superpower in their corner. Plus we weren’t real keen on all those countries building up huge armies (NATO was born a lot closer to the end of WWII than we are now. Memories were fresh of Germany’s build up before both WWs).

Maybe NATO is a bad agreement now. Fine. But what you DO NOT DO is signal to the countries currently under NATO that you are this way-that way about protecting them if Putin decides to steamroll over them. That is very destabilizing.

Trump treats everything like one of his Casino deals. It’s like he doesn’t understand the significance. By all means, have talks with our NATO partners about the terms of the treaty. By all means, if it’s deemed important enough, hold their feet to the fire. But we are bound by honor (a trait unbeknownst to Trump) to adhere to the treaty.

The alternative is military build-up everywhere in Europe and destabilization.