Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes the libertarian theory for peace and war exposed by Murray Rothbard in his famous article: «War, Peace and the State» included in the chapter 2 of Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book: The Myth of National Defense. This paper argues that the methodology used for the making of the theory wasn’t the most accurate one to approach a very complex subject like this one which always comes to the light of the discussion about the oppressive state intervention. It is analyzed in extenso the implications of the path chosen by the author, proposing an alternative methodology and exposing a series of seminal ideas for the further development of a more consistent and complete libertarian theory of peace.
 Key words: Rothbard, Libertarian Theory of Peace, War, Methodology.
 JEL Classification: B25
 Resumen: Este artículo analiza la teoría libertaria de la paz y la guerra ex - puesta por Murray Rothbard en su famoso escrito: «War, Peace and the State» incluido como capítulo 2 de la sección 1 del libro recopilatorio de Hans-Hermann Hoppe: The Myth of National Defense. Se argumenta en el mismo que la metodología utilizada para la elaboración de la teoría no fue del todo la más adecuada para poder abordar un tema tan complejo como este, que siempre salta a la luz del debate a la hora de criticar el agobiante interven-cionismo estatal. Se analizan in extenso las implicaciones del camino esco - gido por el autor, proponiendo una metodología alternativa y exponiendo una serie de ideas seminales que sirvan para un posterior desarrollo de una teoría libertaria de la paz más completa y mejor integrada.
 Palabras clave: Rothbard, Teoría Libertaria de la Paz, Guerra, Metodología.
 Clasificación JEL: B25.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".