Rothbard and mises are pretty easy to ‘put down’. It doesn’t mean that they didn

Rothbard and mises are pretty easy to ‘put down’. It doesn’t mean that they didn’t make contributions. But that those contributions are a fractional part of their works, and that their greater ambitions: mises to cast economics as a branch of logic rather than the science of cooperation; and Rothbard to cast low trust intersubjectively verifiable property rights of ghettos, bazaars and borderlands tolerated by empires as sufficient for the construction of a condition of liberty in their absence.

I think what we are seeing is the ‘abandonment of hope’ that any ideology can obtain consensus by consensus, and instead that any model must be obtained by force.

(_ Including those models of: authoritarian utopian universalist jews (socialists), authoritarian utopian universalist jews (necons), authoritarian universalist Christians (progressives), particularist classical liberals (American contractualism/constitutionalists), particularist authoritarian familialists (social conservatives), highly particularist reactionary conservatives ( hard right ), reactionary separatist jews and Christians (libertarians), and utopian reactionary separatists (left libertarians). _)

The corporate model failed. The real problem we face is that we will appeal to Ceasars unless we find an institutional solution to heterogeneous polities, and leave behind the monopoly majoritarianism of small homogenous and capital constrained polities which has clearly failed to scale.