Murray Rothbard is well known as an opponent of warfare perpetrated by states. This includes acts of war by states against other states, as well as acts of war by states against non-state organizations and individuals. Consequently, Rothbard’s historical scholarship and his political commentary is characterized by consistent opposition to aggressive warfare and imperialism as practiced by states in general, and by the United States government in particular. 

Rothbard’s normative analysis of foreign policy and international relations is quite clear in his many prescriptive statements calling for fewer wars, smaller wars, and more limited warfare in general. In this, Rothbard follows a long tradition of libertarian or radical “classical liberal” theorists. 

But did Rothbard provide us with a positive or descriptive analysis of international relations? That is, did Rothbard have a value-free theory of international relations describing the structure of the international system? The answer is yes if we extrapolate from his analysis of the nature of the state and how states interact with each other. 

The Fundamental Characteristics of Rothbard’s International System 

Rothbard’s description of international relations is characterized by four key tenets of states and their foreign policy: 

The international system is anarchic. 

States are controlled by an oligarchic ruling elite insulated from non-state actors, and a state’s foreign policy is primarily determined by the state’s elites who seek to preserve the system. 

Above all else, states seek to preserve themselves, and they seek to expand their own power, relative to other states, when possible. 

War can be a tool of domestic policy. In some cases, states tend toward war because wars offer an opportunity for states to expand the state’s power over the domestic population. 

In his essay “War, Peace, and the State,” Rothbard writes: 

In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of “anarchy” exists between the several States. 

In the modern world, each land area is ruled over by a State organization, but there are a number of States scattered over the earth, each with a monopoly of violence over its own territory. No super-State exists with a monopoly of violence over the entire world; and so a state of “anarchy” exists between the several States. 

This observation is hardly unique to Rothbard, and has been employed by international relations scholars from several different schools for many decades. Scholars differ on what they believe to be the implications and outcomes of the anarchic system, however. For Rothbard, the international system is characterized by violence partly because it is dominated by states—which are institutions founded on coercion. Rothbard recognizes, of course, that not all states are equally aggressive all the time. Some states are revisionist states and others are defensive, status quo states. This varies with the state of the international system at various times.  Moreover, state violence is often traced back to previous acts of state violence, as in the case of the post-World War I revisionist states which were reacting to the harsh provisions imposed by the victorious allies. Because states are focused on their own interests and preservation, states will only engage in international cooperation when it is of benefit to the state itself. What is of benefit to the ordinary people of each state—i.e., peace, freedom, and free trade—is rarely of primary importance to those who decide foreign policy.  

States Are Ruled by a Small Minority 

Central to Rothbard’s view of the state is the fact that “’we’ are not the government; the government is not ‘us.’ The government does not in any accurate sense........

© Eurasia Review