Would you be as protective of Murray Rothbard if you hadn’t actually met him?
So asks Michael Malice of Tom Woods, at a little after the 45 minute mark of this podcast. Woods responds:
Yeah, I would.
Woods goes on to describe the vast body of work produced by Rothbard. For Woods, purely on a scholarly level, this is sufficient reason to be protective of Rothbard’s legacy.
After offering several personal experiences, Woods continues with a story of Neil McCaffrey and his relationship with Rothbard. To make a long story short, he and Rothbard didn’t see eye to eye on many political and religious subjects. According to Woods:
McCaffrey deviated from [Rothbard] quite a bit.
Yet Rothbard and McCaffrey remained really close. Wood’s reaction?
That’s the kind of guy we should all try to be.
Yes, I think so too.
I have been browbeaten recently and publicly regarding my relationship with Rothbard; for some reason it is found lacking – not based on my expectations but perhaps for expectations others have of me.
Yet I don’t think Rothbard would have taken this as seriously. Of course, I never met Rothbard so I can’t say this from any firsthand experience. But Woods has met him, and Woods has said it.
This reaction has me weighing the possibility of altering the focus of this blog. Maybe, more so, refining it. Because I don’t feel I have a beef with Rothbard, and I doubt he would have one with me.
But I don’t want there to be any confusion about this. So I am thinking to ensure nothing like this comes up again.