>>75772
>Does one give a shit about the opinions of ants while they walk down the street wearing boots?
Well said.
>>75774
>At least we make an effort to understand /pol/ and /leftypol/ ideologies.
Fucking this. So far, I have found only one critic of Rothbard who showed any indepth knowledge of his ideology, Edward Feser, and his arguments weren't even intended to debunk anarchocapitalism, only show that Rothbard was bad as a philosopher. It was petty, but not lazy: Feser read three different sources for the proof that Rothbard gave of self-ownership. Maybe Curt Doolittle also did his work, but what I read of him didn't impress me. Bryan Caplan, who ought to know better, wrote a critique of Austrianism in which this entire board detected glaring errors.
The great majority of other critics that I know of don't seem to have read either Mises or Rothbard, or they have limited themselves to such works as The Anticapitalistic Mentality which don't pretend to make a positive case for libertarianism. That was the case with Galbraith, for example. My favorite is still in Towards a New Socialism, where the calculation-problem is discussed, but not a single primary source on it is to be found in the bibliography.
That's the kind of "scholarship" I've seen in professional critics of Austrianism or Anarchocapitalism. Unsurprisingly, chinese cartoon fans on 8chin don't have a better record than them. The opposite isn't the case; Mises, Rothbard, Hoppe, Murphy and many other libertarians had great insight into the theories of others. Many of us on this board try to understand Marxism or National Socialism, too, as do libertarians in other communities I've met.
What I've disregarded here are the economics or philosophy professors that have read Friedman, Rand or Nozick and then called it a day. They obviously picked the most accomodating targets, not the most relevant or powerful ones, so that's still a case of being a lazy faggot.