In Defense of Sane Thinking

Since Charles Peralo's indignant attack on Rothbard yesterday, my social media feed has scarcely spoken about anything else - and since my Australian losertarians keep saying I'm a leftie, here are my two cents:

I'm probably in the midst of this Rothbard cult Peralo is referring to, especially considering my involvement with the Mises Institute and my deep passion for hardcore Austrian Economics. I have most certainly heard vague rumours about people who genuinely hates Rothbard - for reasons I have never quite understood. Charles Peralo over at BeingLibertarian.com clarified the issue for me; Rothbard sucks, because he
a) sometimes associated with terrible people - even racist people, or far-left people; and
b) never had a big impact on public policy.

I was honestly surprised by somebody labelling himself libertarian to resort to such politician-worshipping, SJW-style guilt-by-association and guilt-by-thought-crime. Considering that Peralo no less than a week ago literally called for libertarians to join cause with Black Lives Matter, we shouldn't be surprised that his reasoning has been so greatly impaired by this new favourite crowd of his, that his unjustified hatred for Rothbard finally spilled over. Maybe, however, Peralo discovered the foundations of a new ethics?

I present to you Politico-consequentialism: the ethics according to which the moral worth of an act (or a person's life, as it may be) lies in how much it influences political processes.

What if the rest of us sane, serious, non-racist libertarians don't agree with such a metric?
Maybe academic achievement isn't judged by a show of hands?
Maybe intellectual endeavours aren't valued by how many presidential administrations paid attention to them?
Maybe the problem in society is this childish compulsion to spend time, money and effort on politics, playing the game of statists?

Instead, Peralo spends his time chastising Rothbard for not being involved enough in politics, and not playing by PC rules to achieve political fame (and as David Gordon recently showed, Rothbard was also criticized Krugman-style for being too involved in politics; which one is it, critics?). Anybody not embracing this garbage ethical philosophy of Peralo would value somebody's academic contributions - by their academic contributions. So. Let's list a couple of Rothbard's intellectual achievements off the top of my head:

• An excellent and mind-blowing two-volume history of economic thought; an absolutely indispensable work, turning most of our belief about past economists on the its head. 
• Refining and coherently incorporating Austrian subjectivity into monopoly theory; a point on which even the brilliant mind of Mises was doubtful.
• A complete overthrow of welfare economics, worthy of attention much beyond Austrian circles.
• Convincingly overturning the standard Keynes demand-deficiency/animal spirit fairy-tale of the Great Depression - and preempt Peralo's hero Friedman & Schwartz in their attempt of blaming the Fed for not inflating enough?!

And I'm sure that's not even a fraction of all his achievements.  

Peralo's post is surely the most senseless piece of indignant garbage produced in half a decade.