I was just having a conversation with a visiting political philosopher from Northern Italy. He asked about a sense he has picked up from American political philosphy literature and culture. He said, and he was cautious in saying so, that he sensed that “Rothbard seems to be somehow ostracized by the profession.” He meant that mainstream books and articles do not typical deal with Rothbard’s contributons as a libertarian who hammered out a property-rights-based case for stateless society. He wondered how to account for this.
Bemused that he would wonder why—American libertarians are rather used to this fact—I asked whether it is any different in Italy. He was surprised that I was taken aback to find out that it is completely different there. No political philosopher, he said, can write broadly in his or her main field without treating Rothbard as an important thinker whose contribution must be acknowledged and grappled with. Writing about Rothbard and having knowledge of his main works—he is well translated into Italian—is a sign of academic erudition and sophistication.
How to account for this? The prophets-in-their-own-land effect? The domination of the field by Nozick? Fear of anarchism? The dearth of Rothbardian political philosophers working and teaching? Will this change in the future? All interesting questions.
