The Conspiracy Theory of History, Revisited

Murray Rothbard, one of the main intellectual progenitors of modern libertarianism and a major influence on the thinking of congressman Ron Paul, wrote an article in 1977 that appeared in Reason magazine entitled "The Conspiracy Theory of History Revisited," which can be read here.  Rothbard notes that:

"Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a 'conspiracy theory of history,' 'paranoid,' 'economic determinist,' and even 'Marxist'."  

For example, the idea that the war in Iraq was initiated for reasons other than those publicly promoted, such as for control of the supply of oil, was called "conspiracy theory."  Even British Prime Minister Tony Blair used that term in the run-up to the war.

Yet we were lied to---the much feared "Weapons of Mass Destruction" were nothing more than a propaganda ploy to build public support for the war.  A good article on this was written by Michael Rivero of whatreallyhappened.com, "The Lie of the Century"---a must read, must follow-the-links-piece.  Is it irrational or unreasonable, especially in view of the thousands of US dead and several tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians dead, to ask "WHY?"


"Conspiracy Theory" is often a term put to a type of propaganda use, to shut down critical thinking at the outset (although more recently we are seeing "conspiracy theorists" themselves using the term perhaps as a marketing move, such as former Governor Jesse Ventura using it as the title of his TV show exploring possible cases of government and media deception).


Back to Rothbard.  In his article he offers this piece of insight:


"It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various 'extremists' who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the 'public good.' Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse."

Thus we can see why "conspiracy theories" are seen as dangerous.  Cass Sunstein, who is now President Obama's regulatory czar, wrote a Harvard law paper in 2008 (which is gone over in a piece over at WorldNetDaily) in which he asks, "What can government do about conspiracy theories?"

Says Sunstein:  

"We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories."

However, he and his co-author explain their favorite option as follows:

"We suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity."

 A report recently published in Britain by a leading think tank made a similar recommendation.

Back to Rothbard once more:

Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of 'conspiracy' analysis who profess to believe that all events – at least in government – are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.

So a good conspiracy theorist begins by asking, "Who benefits?" and from there attempts to see if there was a real connection with the beneficiary and the event or process in question.  It is the same methodology used normally in the attempt to solve crimes---you look at means, motive, and opportunity. If you can establish all three criteria, you have a case against the alleged criminal. 


Rothbard concludes his article thusly:


"I submit that the naïfs who stubbornly refuse to examine the interplay of political and economic interest in government are tossing away an essential tool for analyzing the world in which we live."