Two libertarian camps, why?

Rothbard is on fire in his article, Do You Hate the State?, where is urges libertarians to join forces in their fight against the State:

Many people have wondered: Why should there be any important political disputes between anarcho-capitalists and minarchists now? In this world of statism, where there is so much common ground, why can’t the two groups work in complete harmony until we shall have reached a Cobdenite world, after which we can air our disagreements? Why quarrel over courts, etc. now? The answer to this excellent question is that we could and would march hand-in-hand in this way if the minarchists were radicals, as they were from the birth of classical liberalism down to the 1940s. Give us back the antistatist radicals, and harmony would indeed reign triumphant within the movement.

By "radical", Rothbard means the following:

To the radical libertarian, we must take any and every opportunity to chop away at the State, whether it’s to reduce or abolish a tax, a budget appropriation, or a regulatory power. And the radical libertarian is insatiable in this appetite until the State has been abolished, or – for minarchists – dwindled down to a tiny, laissez-faire role.

I urge all libertarians to think about this. We have a lot of common ground, whether we are anarchists or minarchists. Let us join forces. A final remark: "If libertarians refuse to hold aloft the banner of the pure principle, of the ultimate goal, who will? The answer is no one, hence another major source of defection from the ranks in recent years has been the erroneous path of opportunism." (Rothbard, The Case for Radical Idealism)

Central bank fallacy

At the heart of the stabilizationist ideal is a misunderstanding of the nature of money. Money is considered either a mere numeraire or a grandiose measure of values. Forgotten is the truth that money is desired and demanded as a useful commodity, even when this use is only as a medium of exchange. When a man holds money in his cash balance, he is deriving utility from it. Those who neglect this fact scoff at the gold standard as a primi­tive anachronism and fail to realize that “hoarding” performs a useful social function.

... says Rothbard in Man, Economy and State (chapter 11). Now you know.

Unions: An economic evil

Consequently, at best, a union can achieve a higher, restric­tionist wage rate for its members only at the expense of lower­ing the wage rates of all other workers in the economy. Produc­tion efforts in the economy are also distorted. But, in addition, the wider the scope of union activity and restrictionism in the economy, the more difficult it will be for workers to shift their locations and occupations to find nonunionized havens in which to work. And more and more the tendency will be for the dis­placed workers to remain permanently or quasi-permanently un­employed, eager to work but unable to find nonrestricted op­portunities for employment. The greater the scope of unionism, the more a permanent mass of unemployment will tend to develop.

... says Rothbard in Man, Economy and State (chapter 10). Now you know.

Socialism social-democratic style

[C]ontrary to the impression which socialism social-democratic style is intended to generate among the public, the difference between [socialism social-democratic style and traditional Marxist-style socialism] is not of a categorical nature. Rather, it is only a matter of degree.

... says Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Theory of Socialism and Capitalism (page 62). Remember this, next time you argue with a "social-democrat" about the difference between the "welfare state" and the Soviet Union. The two are of the same category, differing only in a matter of degree of socialism.

Money, what is it good for?

An increase in the supply of a producers’ good increases, ceteris paribus, the supply of a consumers’ good. An increase in the supply of a consumers’ good (when there has been no decrease in the supply of another good) is demonstrably a clear social benefit; for someone’s “real income” has increased and no one’s has decreased.

Money, on the contrary, is solely useful for exchange purposes. Money, per se, cannot be consumed and cannot be used directly as a producers’ good in the productive process. Money per se is therefore unproductive; it is dead stock and produces nothing. Land or capital is always in the form of some specific good, some specific productive instrument. Money always remains in some­one’s cash balance.

... says Rothbard in Man, Economy and State (chapter 11). Also, earlier in the same chapter:

At any one time there is a given total stock of the money com­modity. This stock will, at any time, be owned by someone. It is therefore dangerously misleading to adopt the custom of Amer­ican economists since Irving Fisher’s day of treating money as somehow “circulating,” or worse still, as divided into “circulat­ing money” and “idle money.” This concept conjures up the image of the former as moving somewhere at all times, while the latter sits idly in “hoards.” This is a grave error. There is, actually, no such thing as “circulation,” and there is no mysterious arena where money “moves.” At any one time all the money is owned by someone, i.e., rests in someone’s cash balance. Whatever the stock of money, therefore, people’s actions must bring it into accord with the total demand for money to hold, i.e., the total demand for money that we have just discussed. For even pre­-income money acquired in exchange must be held at least momentarily in one’s cash balance before being transferred to some­one else’s balance.

There are many things in "modern" economics which are basically wrong or false or misleading. Rothbard cuts through the fat and brings us the meat.

Patents: An unwanted State coercion

The most popular argument for patents among economists is the utilitarian one that a patent for a certain number of years is necessary to encourage a sufficient amount of research expen­diture for inventions and innovations in processes and products. This is a curious argument, because the question immediately arises: By what standard do you judge that research expenditures are “too much,” “too little,” or just about enough? This is a problem faced by every governmental intervention in the mar­ket’s production. Resources—the better lands, laborers, capital goods, time—in society are limited, and they may be used for countless alternative ends. By what standard does someone assert that certain uses are “excessive,” that certain uses are “insuffi­cient,” etc.?

Also:

Many advocates of patents believe that the ordinary competi­tive conditions of the market do not sufficiently encourage the adoption of new processes and that therefore innovations must be coercively promoted by the government. But the market de­cides on the rate of introduction of new processes just as it decides on the rate of industrialization of a new geographic area. In fact, this argument for patents is very similar to the infant-industry argument for tariffs—that market processes are not suf­ficient to permit the introduction of worthwhile new processes. And the answer to both these arguments is the same: that peo­ple must balance the superior productivity of the new processes against the cost of installing them, i.e., against the advantage pos­sessed by the old process in being already built and in existence. Coercively privileging innovation would needlessly scrap valuable plants already in existence and impose an excessive burden upon consumers. For consumers’ desires would not be satisfied in the most economic manner.

Both quotes from Rothbard in Man, Economy and State (chapter 10: Monopoly and Competition). The entire chapter is very interesting, especially for those of us who are raised up to believe such ideas that the State can "prevent monopolies" and "protect consumers" from "cartels" and other such monsters. "Anti-trust" laws are anti-market laws. That about sums it up.

Libertarianism and economics - a relation?

Many from the Left think that libertarians are "obsessed with money" and think only of "material values" and leave out the "human values". The Left is fascinated with spending (other peoples) money, and Leftists don't really care where the money comes from. For them, State spending on whatever is simply less spending for the "rich" on some "selfish" consumption. But libertarians are not "obsessed with money". However, they understand that freedom and economic prosperity are linked. Says Rothbard (in Man, Economy and State, chapter 12):

Di­rectly, voluntary action—free exchange—leads to the mutual ben­efit of both parties to the exchange. Indirectly, as our investiga­tions have shown, the network of these free exchanges in so­ciety—known as the “free market”—creates a delicate and even awe-inspiring mechanism of harmony, adjustment, and precision in allocating productive resources, deciding upon prices, and gently but swiftly guiding the economic system toward the great­est possible satisfaction of the desires of all the consumers. In short, not only does the free market directly benefit all parties and leave them free and uncoerced; it also creates a mighty and efficient instrument of social order. Proudhon, indeed, wrote bet­ter than he knew when he called “Liberty, the Mother, not the Daughter, of Order.”

Ludwig von Mises was also on point when he said:

Economic knowledge necessarily leads to liberalism.

Also, the following can be said:

Since liberalism is based on the recognition of the self-regulating capacity of civil society (i.e., the social order minus the state), any social theory that centers on that capacity furnishes powerful support to the liberal position.

Libertarians are "obsessed" with freedom from coercion. By understanding economics, this "obsession" is strengthened (since freedom and economic prosperity are strongly linked). And that is why many libertarians are also very interested in economic policy, protest taxation, defend property rights, advocate freedom of choice, etc.