asolorio02's review against another edition
5.0
Rather interesting short read. Definitely gave me some food for thought as I began my day. This is a short examination of what the state is and how it is. It's rather short, so you can easily finish it within an hour.
etopiei's review against another edition
4.0
This was an enjoyable essay - well structured and contained an interesting way of framing things.
lucy_bellknight's review against another edition
1.0
let me just show you what I just had to read: "The increasing use of scientific jargon has permitted the State’s intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia for State rule that would have only
met with derision by the populace of a simpler age."
what on earth!! how useless an argument to make without any supporting evidence. This entire opinion piece is filled to the brim with the most KEN-like understanding of the world, utterly juvenile and narrow-minded.
first, off the bat, Rothbard ONLY and I mean ONLY mentions MEN. that's it. men do this and men do that. Of course, there is no consideration of how intersectionalities experience the state apparatus, and how it works against race, and gender in every way. there is too much distraction created from the fear-mongering over free markets, with 0 government intervention because state bureaucracy can not be trusted. the author forgets to mention the reason the electoral pool doesn't reflect the majority, minority or whoever votes for the "ruling dynasty of the state" is BECAUSE of the private sector: the rich, wealthy, and powerful (semantics).
secondly, Rothbard treats states as if they exist in isolation. in isolation from other states and ignores the fact that the state anatomy of the United States does not apply anywhere else. Not to mention, the rise of community and welfare, and social history that has reframed intellectual thoughts/theories. In 'Anatomy of the State', this version of historical teleology claims science evolved from Church-State interdependency to show how authority manifests. This is the oldest fable in the book, simply put, whiggish history (now frowned upon). Where is the discussion about social history, 'history from below' that has influenced everything, including how states are defined in international law. Why not start there?
This was not a critical analysis of a state's innerworkings, but an unhappy tirade on the uselessness of states without acknowledging its potential or indeed how states could improve. All I got was the underpinnings of "I want a tax-free state" *shakes fist*, with a hint of the conspiratory 'states are the great betrayers and manipulators of our times'.
I should be clear, this is not some fun conspiracy to work against the states, the land, or the relationship we have with taxes. This is a dangerous oversimplification of how states work and dismisses many things I've only briefly touched on. If this is how the Anatomy of the United States of America still looks like, there is a lot of work to do. Good luck.
met with derision by the populace of a simpler age."
what on earth!! how useless an argument to make without any supporting evidence. This entire opinion piece is filled to the brim with the most KEN-like understanding of the world, utterly juvenile and narrow-minded.
first, off the bat, Rothbard ONLY and I mean ONLY mentions MEN. that's it. men do this and men do that. Of course, there is no consideration of how intersectionalities experience the state apparatus, and how it works against race, and gender in every way. there is too much distraction created from the fear-mongering over free markets, with 0 government intervention because state bureaucracy can not be trusted. the author forgets to mention the reason the electoral pool doesn't reflect the majority, minority or whoever votes for the "ruling dynasty of the state" is BECAUSE of the private sector: the rich, wealthy, and powerful (semantics).
secondly, Rothbard treats states as if they exist in isolation. in isolation from other states and ignores the fact that the state anatomy of the United States does not apply anywhere else. Not to mention, the rise of community and welfare, and social history that has reframed intellectual thoughts/theories. In 'Anatomy of the State', this version of historical teleology claims science evolved from Church-State interdependency to show how authority manifests. This is the oldest fable in the book, simply put, whiggish history (now frowned upon). Where is the discussion about social history, 'history from below' that has influenced everything, including how states are defined in international law. Why not start there?
This was not a critical analysis of a state's innerworkings, but an unhappy tirade on the uselessness of states without acknowledging its potential or indeed how states could improve. All I got was the underpinnings of "I want a tax-free state" *shakes fist*, with a hint of the conspiratory 'states are the great betrayers and manipulators of our times'.
I should be clear, this is not some fun conspiracy to work against the states, the land, or the relationship we have with taxes. This is a dangerous oversimplification of how states work and dismisses many things I've only briefly touched on. If this is how the Anatomy of the United States of America still looks like, there is a lot of work to do. Good luck.
ostrava's review against another edition
1.0
Rereading some parts of the book made me despise it even more. Austrian economics is just plain moronic. This is what I have in mind when conservative libertarians talk about their "solutions": https://youtu.be/TZVy1PPQOhU.
andredias164's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.5
tybo's review against another edition
5.0
While I dont agree with every point made in this text, I more than appreciate the explicit candor of the author and the radical perspective he illustrates. Includes great points for anarchist leaning folks and excellent historical context for people who are trapped in a 'true believer' political mindset.
alexmomo's review against another edition
reflective
medium-paced
2.5
Seems to simply unilaterally think that the State is bad. It's likely a pretty libertarian book…