Thame - "we are all carying aids virus" HIV injected with polio vaccices. Haha my kind of guy. Wonder if he knows the whole aids/hiv thing was and still is a scam ? :D
With this appearance, Murray Rothbard appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the LP. But only 3 months after this speech, Murray Rothbard left the LP, claiming that the LP was filled with unwashed hippies. How did things change so radically in only 3 months?
If you want to expose a conservative hiding behind the term "Anarchist", just remind them Rothbard advocated seizing the unutilized property of the rich. It makes them very upset indeed.
@tonygmilan7 Read Rothbard's work on land reform. Wealth that is distributed in our current system is illegitimate; it is "ill gotten gains". It was distributed by a monopoly facilitating State. For Rothbard, unutilized resources are fair game for the poor.
@Dunbar0740. but there's a difference between having property and not using it, and having unoccupied land and someone working on it, thus becoming his property. im sure thats what rothbard was referring to
@tonygmilan7 Rothbard was not talking about homesteading "unoccupied" land. He was talking about taking the unutilized property of the rich; specifically if their wealth was acquired in an unjust economic system, like the one we have today. He made a good case for it.
@Dunbar0740. can u post the link to wear he said that? i know he said once that if a private company receives more than 50% of their wealth from gov't welfare, the workers rightfully own the company, so this might be something similar.
Tonygmilan7 has it right. Rothbard did not believe in the whole anti-landlordism of leftists and Georgists. When he means unoccupied, he does not mean unutilized but owned property of anyone, rich or poor.
LoL! Capitalism can't survive without a state! If you think Anarcho-capitalism will free you, think again! It's anarchism for the rich! And large amounts of oppression for normal people!
" Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is tyranny" -Mikhail Bakunin (Anarchist philosopher)
All anarchists are socialists, or not an anarchist
@safeinsuburbia He was talking about the "balance of trade deficit" not federal budget deficits. He actually specifically makes this distinction in his answer
Thats not correct. Rothbard did believe in a very narrow sense that federal deficits did not matter. i.e. because once a person becomes an an-cap, he sees it as a statist's problem... hence does not matter. If anything it will bring down the state even faster, so it might be good in the long run.
While I don't agree with Rothbard's ideas (I am a left wing libertarian), I admire his commitment to rationality and his hard-headed approach to economics. He was determined to follow his worldview wherever it led, even if it meant shocking the status quo. Respect.
@oJKBo Sorry, whenever someone mentions libertarianism I keep thinking of the original definition of the word. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first self-described libertarian, and he happened to be a socialist anarchist. Only in America does libertarianism mean laissez-faire minarchist capitalism. Everywhere else it means one who advocates a stateless society free of all forms of unjustified authority. Look up "libertarian socialism" in Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
@mojorhythm Leave it to a Socialist to use a word such as Libertarian to describe something that is the complete opposite of the word it's based on. Property Right's are sort of essential to have Liberty. How else do you expect to live if everyone else has the right to eat the food you are growing before you get to eat yourself?
@Joe11Blue Well socialism does not necessarily mean that all private property is abolished. In a socialist society, all the means of producing the wealth are run democratically by the workers rather then a CEO, business manager or bureaucratic government for profit. All the labyrinthine details of property rights law would also have be worked out democratically in a free society. The runaway accumulation of private property by the 1% is dangerously inhibiting to the freedom of the many.
@mojorhythm Meh, in a Libertarian style system, as in American, the Government would be severely limited to scope and it's role would be of collective defense organization. That's it essentially. Corporations are hardly a Libertarian idea, and follow more with the Statist Socialism model's and Communism. Same with Government for profit, though that's more of the Fascist twist of Socialism based on Siral.
The runaway of of private property is caused by the Fiat currency system, and unsound money
@Joe11Blue Yeah, the extremely inequitable distribution of private property has many causes, but the first one that comes to mind is the state capitalist system adopted by many first world governments. They bail out corporations, give them subsidies, intervene on their behalf with favorable policies, impose duties on competing products and the like, creating a corporatist rather then capitalist system. The Fiat currency system, as you mentioned, is also to blame.
@mojorhythm That so called state capitalism could not occur without the Fiat monetary system. They get away with it by simply printing up the money to cover the BS that they wish to do.
The monster corporations could not exist in a free-market, because the state would not have the power to create such an entity that could absorb such a large amount of capital into a singular organization without investor's pulling back and crippling the ability for it to exist in the first place.
@Joe11Blue *shrugs* who knows? In this era of globalization, corporations can flee to another country if their home location is shafting them with taxes, tariffs and the like. Corporations will also flee if the home base is in-conducive to foreign investment. Central government has to be used in this respect to revoke corporate charters and break them up, replacing them with more libertarian means of producing goods and services. The state brought them into existence, it can take them out.
@mojorhythm Corporations can move their aggregate assets to another country, yes. They can not however mover their headquarters to another country without starting another corporate branch. This is part of how Corporate law works.
A Centralized Government would never give up the power of the Corporation, that is how they maintain their power over the populace. It's subjugation through the premise of force. The state will always support the Corporation, because their relationship is symbiotic.
@Joe11Blue That's why we need to take action. There needs to be an uprising that of which the likes have never been seen. Corporations need to be held accountable, and the government will be forced to do so given enough public pressure. There may be only a pseudo-democratic system in place, but the government is at least partially swayed by the general public, unlike corporations.
@mojorhythm While I agree that the people need to get off their nullified asses. I disagree with any sort of violence, and any sort of abject revolution. I also do not agree with the implementation of Democracy in our Constitutional Republic. That's the biggest problem is that the rule of law has been abdicated and dragged down into abject discourse of Democracy. Corporations are heavily swayed by people. Stop spending money on them, and you will see the relationship between the two dissolve.
@Joe11Blue The biggest problem is that corporations have mastered the art of manufacturing consent, i.e. swaying public opinion in their favor, no matter what their track record of past crime and behavior might be. Direct action is the way to go IMO. Argentina has had multiple instances over the past decade of workers literally taking over the corporate-owned factories. They were sick and tired of being treated like chattel so they fought back hard and won. I respect that.
@mojorhythm That does not abdicate the responsibility of the Individual to spend their Fiat wisely. If you educate enough on the way that they are being defrauded thing's will change quicker than through direct action.
How did the worker's resolve that they were treating the investor's many of whom would be foreigners in the same manner that the corrupt managers of said corporation were treating them? Honestly is sound's like Marxist class-warfare to me. Look at how they are doing now....
@Joe11Blue The pain was not being reciprocated equally. First-off, most of the factories were bankrupt anyway. Secondly, even if the factories were not about to go bankrupt, the workers were. Unfortunately force is sometimes needed to get out of a jam. I side with the bold working class men and women who used direct action to lift themselves out of poverty and desolation to introduce a third way of economic production; free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management.
@mojorhythm You said that, "the working class could introduce a third way of economic production free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management." No top-down yet who is going to organize everything? No exploitation, yet you just exploited the Share holders investment through theft. No Fascist management, but the company that organizes the economy of the region is acting like the government, that is fascism by definition.
@Joe11Blue First, the workers manage themselves, so everyone helps run the show. Secondly, most of the factories were bankrupt. Thirdly, even if the factories were not bankrupt the counter-exploitation was perfectly moral and justified because the workers were being treated like dog shit, subject to third world working conditions and being paid starvation wages. Finally, workers self-management abolishes top-down fascist management by definition so I don't see the contradiction.
@mojorhythm So you are saying the welder of the shop get's to manage the design of the electronics department? The factories were bankrupt, do you know what happens for shareholders during a bankruptcy? Now they get nothing of their investment. Your morality has no bearing on this discussion. The workers were being treated purely, were you there to see this first hand?
Fascism is Government and Corporate merger. You really think there's no top-down management, go talk to the president.
@Joe11Blue Workers self management boils down to this: Major decisions affecting everyone in the workplace are put to a vote. Small decisions are made by the people deciding them. Even if shareholders get nothing of their investment, this is collateral damage. I don't have any sympathy for rich investors who have to lose out a bit of cash in order for oppressed workers to get the freedoms and rights they deserve. It most certainly is a moral issue.
@mojorhythm That's the problem, you are making this a Moral issue without even giving a moment's notice to the greater ethical impact's you are presenting. It won't be long before someone is taking you mate and sharing their disease with you as well. Share and share alike, right?
@mojorhythm Just to further this, Globalization is a myth. Companies and Government's have been dealing with each other for centuries. All this talk about Globalization is nonsense. It's just another method for those that control the banking interest's to subjugate further population's through debt. I believe the proper term would be Global Communism. In the end the people lose, and the banks win.
@mojorhythm Honestly, I don't have an opinion. I see what's going on, and the logical conclusion is something I work to obtain, rather than to form an opinion based on something that is not rational.
I honestly don't care either. For me, it's more of a conversation in light of hypothetical. I know the only way this will ever change is if people start to actually use that grey matter in their head's, rather than going with the flow.
Oh yeah, you are right about corporations being a state creation. Corporations were originally commissioned by the state to do public services, such as provide railway freight services, steel industry, banking and so on. Corporate lawyers then got opportunistic and used the Fourteenth Amendment to grant corporations the right of person-hood. Now extricated from the government which made them, bear witness to the monstrosities we have today!
@mojorhythm This concept of requiring sound monetary policy, removing the unsound fiat debt based currency is the essential backstop behind Libertarianism. This is the key issue to allowing personal Liberty.
Mises.org is making the audiobook of Man, Economy, and State, at last! Visited the site last night and they already have the first chapter up. Spread the word.
@antichrist1909589 The wonderful Jeff Riggenbach who does most of Rothbard's books. I do love the sonorous voice of Riggenbach, but I do agree with you that Rothbard would have been my preferred choice if he were still alive. Most people complain that Murray's voice is too grating, but after listening to the majority of his recorded lectures I've become accustomed to his voice like a student to his mentor. The sound of Rothbard is one of wisdom and hope.
@PoetsLight I'm halfway through downloading the mp3 files. That book is a MUST for anyone interested in economics and liberty. Rothbard's writing is so simple, yet thorough and decisive.
@UBSCARED Yes the housing bubble had nothing to do with the Federal reserve, fanny mae, freddy mac or the Community Reinvestment Act. It was caused by too much freedom. And you are correct about the Austrian school. If a doctrine isn't popular it obviously must be wrong. There are very few cases in the history of academia where an established theory was replaced by a fringe theory.
Good Government is small Government and the best Government is the smallest
Government.
The Federal Government was originally designed to be small weak and functionary and the states had most of the power but look at that same Government today.
@TheDano1947 Friedman laid the foundation of modern theories of consumption.Keynes had posited that as income rose, so would the proportion that was saved. Economic data bore this out only up to a point: though the rich had higher saving rates than the poor, aggregate saving rates did not rise as countries became richer.It´s effect the price.Friedman resolved this apparent paradox with a theory known as the permanent income hypothesis, set forth in 1957.Rothbard rejected that view.
@TheDano1947 Friedman said people,did not spend on the basis of what their income happened to be that year,but according to their "permanent income"—what they expected to have year in and year out.In a bad year,therefore,they might dip into their savings;when they had a windfall, they would not spend the lot.He called the hypothesis "obvious";as the best ideas are.His work on monetary analysis and stabilisation policy,gave him a Nobel Prize,Rothbard didn´t even manage to get a professor´s chair
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" Our goal then is not this government over that one. I have come to understand the problem is not government, it's us. "If all men were angles we wouldn't need government" If you accept all men aren't angels, how is giving some men mandatory authority over others better? Building order only to have it crash in chaos. If you don't fix the root, you cant expect the branches to follow. Ask yourself, how does a baby who cares only for a warm bottle
''Libertarianism defends liberty, the rule of law, or the Constitution but advocates for the status entitlements of the rich; prestige privilege & property.'' Where do they do this? So far I've never seen someone of your ilk properly define Libertarianism before snottily proceeding to attempting to refute it with these silly misinterpreted arguments
''this ruling white status quo behind ''
Liberal rhetoric never grows out of these childiish dichotomies and cheap sloganeering.
@ItsAllAboutGuitar I was thinking the same thing. All this time and all he says still holds true from the ineffectiveness of the drug war to "too big to fail".
@ItsAllAboutGuitar The laws of economics will never change, and therefore the work of the Austrian School will always be relevant. No matter what hair-brained scheme future economists try and devise, the heterodox economists of the Austrian School who defy the mainstream will always be timeless.
Libertarianism defends liberty, the rule of law, or the Constitution but advocates for the status entitlements of the rich; prestige privilege & property. These "rights" to which white wealth believes itself to be entitled constitute a system of control over those who reproduce them. Libertarians are at pains to explain how the majority of Americans who do not own property health insurance or a living wage benefit from supporting this ruling white status quo behind "Liberty"?
@jazzbo66zz Can you really explain the last 75 years of corporate take-over of America as an advancement of libertarian principals? Can you really argue that we have become more capitalistic in the past century? Or, can you argue that the corporations are less powerful now than they were at the beginning of the progressive era? NO! I do not believe you can honestly argue that way.
I am convinced that the Libertarian party is a coalition of self made misanthropes with no credible political aim. Libertarians seek to promote anti-government sentiment as a political program but an oxymoron rather than an achievable goal is the result. Identity politics of this kind is a dead end which may actually be the point of the exercise; simply to express the discomfiture of being trapped at an earlier stage via arrested social development.
I am convinced that the Libertarian party is a coalition of self made miscreants with no credible political aim. Libertarians seek to promote anti-government sentiment as a political program but an oxymoron rather than an achievable goal is the result. Identity politics of this kind is a dead end which may actually be the point of the exercise; simply to express the discomfiture of being trapped at an earlier stage via arrested social development.
Economics is being used here as cover for a right wing political ideology that is half race science and half status politics. Anyone who has studied Economics knows that it was never intended to produce any useful knowledge. Austrian Economics is a bait and switch. The bottom line is that these people are trained to maintain a capitalist division of property that is ultimately unsustainable.
@jazzbo66zz in a bait and switch you usually have to use some kind of bait. The statists use welfare as their bait but what are libertarians using? They aren't pretending that it's going to bring some kind of utopia. I dont agree with all of these ideas but i think they are being far more genuine than statists or any orther party you care to mention. All parties are operating in their self interest, libertarians are the only ones to admit it.
Libertarians beguile with the notion that "Economics" is a frame of reference that transcends politics. The term "statism" is drawn from this same bait & switch Austrian vocabulary as an expression of resentment on the part of the business elite for The New Deal. I consider this kind of substitution a bait & switch, & as devious a gambit as offering "values" in place of politics. This is a one party system, the capitalist party representing a failed 19th century Utopia & slave market.
@jazzbo66zz Are you trying to say that an economy can be centrally controlled? If you know how to do this i'm sure ben Bernanke will write you out a fat check for sharing your wisdom with him. Libertarians simply suggest denying large corporations the power of the government (giant bailouts, favourable regulations etc) and put the onus of responsibility on the people. I agree it is a slave market but as long as we think a benevolent state will protect us from slavery slaves we will remain .
Liberty is a rhetorical device that trades on a conception of power embodied in class, accessible only to those in possession of property. Liberty is slang for caste system. Libertarianism enshrines property as the medium of power under white minority rule. Libertarianism is the latest in a long succession of race science derived ideologies. Libertarianism offers an empty package as its conception of "liberty" being that which exists in the absence of government or a political vacuum.
@jazzbo66zz It sounds like you are suggesting that colored people cannot prosper or accumulate savings and property under a free market system - and as such need the state apparatus to forcefully confiscate wealth from white people to give to colored people - a new kind of slavery. In the absence of the welfare state a 'caste' system emerges where white people end up at the top and colored people are helpless. Thats your theory. And you call freedom advocates 'racist'. RETARD = YOU. :D
Capitalism is a power structure embodied in a culture and preserved in a body of law. Past history on the other hand is not a script that libertarians can rewrite to rehabilitate a failed theory. Blame Keynes, government, liberals, communists witches, UFO's the devil or corporations, it seems to me you are still stuck with a past that does not work and a future that will not bend. Forfeiting democracy for the political imaginary of Capitalism is a dumb trade in my judgement.
@jazzbo66zz Ok. Wheres youre proof? Oh...you probably dont have any. Ultimately unsustainable? How could you even know that when a truly capitalist society has NEVER existed?
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
@jazzbo66zz The conditions you describe are indeed true; all these things you describe are happening. You fail to make clear, however, how exactly all this is due to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be a failure in places where it does not exist. The economic system in the United States is much closer to - in fact, I would say IS - fascism. It is a joke to claim that any economy in which a single organization (the State) exerts a coercive monopoly over the issuance of a medium of exchange is free.
Running out of alibis? Capitalism extols competition but cannot face social reality as a competitor. It remains to those wishing to prolong the past to pretend that history does not exist. Capitalism has reached a terminal stage of make believe where it now must repackage its empty dogma as a Utopia to come. The predatory power of accumulated capital now rules an empire of fear violence, guile, dispossession & poverty Take away the guns & Capitalism is a failed Utopia
@jazzbo66zz Alibis for what? If your abilities in debate were half of what they are in rhetoric, you'd be formidabe, but as it stands, that spiel was was an exercise in vacuity. I hope you don't expect me to treat that as though there was a point there. I'll repeat what I've said before since you've so blithely ignored it in favor of high-minded shibboleths: How does an economic system founded on voluntary exchange lead to the shameful mess we see today? Do you understand basic casue and effect?
Claiming that capitalism does not exist is an alibi that seeks to place that system elsewhere but at the scene of its own history. Many of your persuasion are also convinced that Germany was innocent of the Holocaust by insisting that the known history of those events never occurred. Capitalism is another system of make believe and make believe is the essence of its Utopia. History on the other hand can be a treacherous adversary.
@jazzbo66zz For someone who claims to know more about my own beliefs than I do, you're oddly short on substance. You still haven't answered my original question, but by now, I've gathered you have no intention of doing so since - alas! - you have no arguments to present. But who needs discursive reasoning when you have invective and mystic mumbo-jumbo, right? The burden of proof is on you to show how property rights and an absolute prohibition on the initiation of violence can erupt into chaos.
Libertarianism is permanently associated with the tradition of liberalism from which it's name derives . Preserving the structure of a class pyramid based on property ownership is ultimately dependent on both the threat of & the selective application of force or a, "prohibition on the initiation of violence". You find it convenient to pretend you have no idea what I am talking about but you are keeping a loaded weapon handy on the outside chance that I just might be right?
@jazzbo66zz I don't think the distinction between "gun" and "no gun" is a difficult one to understand, but for reasons I confess to be unable to see, you and your ilk seem incapable of assimilating it. To be clear I'm not a small government libertarian; I'm an anarchist. I think the state is antithetical to the market and an evil institution besides, for the simple reason that it thrives on violence. Your rhetorical mudslinging fails: I have no guns; the state "kindly" monopolizes that function.
@jazzbo66zz (pt. 2 of response) In all seriousness though, you're really starting to bore me now. I have tried on multiple occasions to induce you to adduce an argument for your position, but all I've been treated to thus far is a cavalcade of canards, invective and palaver. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; it's aren't saying anything. If you wish to debate me, that's fine; but I heartily recomend your read a book or two on logic first and familiarize yourself with fallacies.
@IvanTheHeathen I would suggest that the "my own beliefs" you profess to are actually not yours, although you might like to think of them that way. To the extent you identify with Libertarianism what this represents is yet another failed attempt at reviving the tradition of white male "individualism" originally invented by the 18th century imagination. You are not so much guilty of "belief"as of simply regurgitating what you have been told by ideologues like the repetitious Mr Rothbard.
@jazzbo66zz Ah, the god 'ol chimera of the collective mind again! There's no doubt that people may be influenced in their views and opinions by those of others, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, but it's lunacy to conclude from this bland truism that no one's ideas are really theirs. Though your comment on "regurgitation" is interesting and makes clear your aversion to discursive reasoning. It seems you don't think such a thing exists and that everyone is really a thoughtless recepticle.
@jazzbo66zz (this is pt.2 of a response to your beliefs comment) Is it really so astonishing to think that I hold the views I hold because I thought them out and believe them to be true? If all is just class-interested ideology, then how does one explain your views? Were they imbibed from such ideologues as the ponderous Mr. Marx? By your self-refuting "logic," no view can be "correct" and thus no truth exists. But even if you were right about me, that does nothing to prove "my views" wrong.
...spoken like a true liberal. It's almost like....like...life isn't fair (*sniff sniff*). And it's up to the State to forge an equal-outcome "social reality" via a Utopian dogma that veers so sharply to the left in Communism, it touches on the far-right of the spectrum simultaneously. Take all to redistribute all in the glorious name of the State!
...and why the crack would you take away the guns?? That alone creates the "predatory power" of the armed, against the unarmed...
@katrudy7 Free market liberalism is a failed theory of government rationalized as economics rationalized as ethics. Capitalism rules by legitimizing an ownership oligarchy built on a doctrine of expansion. Like a communist state, the capitalist state can be represented by a body of documents legitimizing a two class model of society. Both Utopias promise to liberate while imposing the social economic and political conditions of servitude. Everything about America is fake but the guns are real.
"Free market liberalism" rationalizes government as economics, and by proxy as ethics, and the "capitalist state" creates a "two class model of society"? That's so misguided that the most worthy retort is, "Sixty percent of the time, it works every time." I'm gonna guess that you're a college freshman trying to make sense of the political economy, but not quite yet getting it. Maybe that's why you included an over-generalization as ignorant as, "Everything about America is fake."
Love your posts! The tension they express comes out of the confusion inherent to identity politics in general. A conflict exists for you between the anti intellectual idiom of southern white "individualism" in collision with the political necessity of offering some plausible rationalization for the continuing disaster of deregulated markets. Although primarily driven by resentment your hostility & expressions of contempt present you as a sympathetic character caught in a bind.
"the political necessity of offering some plausible rationalization for the continuing disaster of deregulated markets"?? Although I admire you taking the liberty of putting words in my mouth that are antithetical to my personal political philosophy, and I laud you for your failed psycho-analysis in an attempt to tell me who I am (in pure liberal tradition) based on 2 YouTube posts, I'm gonna stick with the axiom, "Your life isn't my fault, and my life isn't your business." Thanx
Now you assume the pose of an anarchist then immediately proceed to wag a bourgeois finger at the lynch mob of rightists you are affiliated with? If transported to a parallel universe where your party might conceivably seize power, prisons would quickly be filled with capitalisms political prisoners. Without guns how do you propose to preserve the booming US market in weapons? W/out threat of starvation or other means of coercion how do you intend to conduct a "free" market at all?
1) I never claimed to be or otherwise "assumed the position of" being an anarchist; 2) The ONLY claim I made as to my affiliations are that I'm NOT affiliated with liberals; 3) I never claimed any association with any party; 4) I never said to get rid of guns.
It would appear your debate strategy relies on arguing about your own lies, which isn't worth the time it takes me to hear the chime of a new email on my smart phone.
Guy, you're a lost cause. I'm done acknowledging you.
Ever felt like the victim of a highly organized international conspiracy of Jewish bankers? It seems more likely that you were destined from the get go to end up like every other liberal (Libertarian) wus, hiding under the bed clutching your smart phone, Hayek, (or the new testament maybe?) w/ your gun praying for deliverance from the virtues of individualism that reduced you to a stammering hapless commodity in the market place? This blog is getting to be a tough house to play, no?
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
This is almost 12 years ago. He basically sounds like Ron Paul today. However, nothing collapsed then. How is today any different? How is debt less valuable today? Look at the bond prices despite all this "printing". I also found a video interview with Ron Paul from about this time on Youtube, dooming then as well. How is Ron Paul correct now yet wrong then? Answer my question, but don't use Gold in your response. I will not use Housing or Internet stocks, either.
@truthislibertyus The dollar value is half of what it was in 2000. When the dollar becomes valueless, its going to look the Weimar Republic did in post-WWI Germany-worth more as wallpaper than currency. And since the US dollar is most traded currency in the world, the world economy will go under as a result. Also when the debt-to-gdp ratio passes 100% in the US, the government will go bankrupt and drastic cuts will have to be made to entitlements, which will result in violence (look at Greece)
It is such a tragedy that Rothbard died so young. The Libertarian awakening, the Ron Paul Revolution, the Free State Project, the State Sovereignty movements, the successes of the Mises Institute in reaching a wide audience and the equally encouraging reception of its message, and the campaigns of Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh were, in a large degree, made possible by this great man. Western Civilization will one day look back on Rothbard's contribution with an unrivaled gratitude.
@CuchulainSaoirse1916 Nonscence.Rothbard falsely accused neoclassical utility theory of assuming cardinality. It does not. There is nothing actually wrong with Rothbard's value scale approach, but because the neoclassical assumptions are in some ways less restrictive than Rothbard's, neoclassicals made the important discovery that price changes have both income and substitution effects - a discovery Rothbard was unable to grasp.Milton Friedman was the master of freemarket economists.
@CuchulainSaoirse1916 The people you mentioned are generally considered kooks. Ron Paul held a hearing on the effectiveness of monetary policy and the "experts" were two clowns from the Austrian school. One was exposed as a racist and the other a fool. Search the video, it's on youtube and it's comedy gold. Ron Paul doesn't even understand inflation. He's a clown as is everyone who subscribes to this simplistic rubbish.
@worldnewsbbc1 I would recommend you follow the listed links which are Tom Dilorenzo's response to Congressman Clay's attack on him. Responses which the honorable Mr. Clay didn't offer a chance for Tom to rebut conveniently. lewrockwelldotcom/dilorenzo/dilorenzo201.html lewrockwelldotcom/dilorenzo/dilorenzo202.html
I wish we could elect people the media doesn't love for a change. Brain washing media give us choices between new world order puppets. Re pukes and demorats.
What a genuinely modest and intelligent man. There are so many great intellectuals that I wish were still alive to defend the silent Americans against the tide of big government. Rand, Rothbard, Friedman, etc.
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are the only Americans vocal about Austrian School fundamentals at the moment, but even they are marginalized by the mainstream media.
No. Rothbard didn't even support a "nightwatchman" state, but the elimination of the state all together. However from a minarchist perspective the "nightwatchman" state would be very small, and it's all government would do. The only war's would be defensive. A state this small could easily be funded with small taxes on just luxury items that could be easily avoided(such as alcohol).
It's depressing that we haven't advanced anywhere beyond the topics Rothbard runs through here. We're still fighting the same battles against the drug war, bank bailouts (worse than ever), runaway spending, neoconservatism (and how), anti-development environmentalism, protectionism Why does it have to be the same fallacies over and over, always as popular as ever?
@headcrabzombie I have the same question. I did a search for Hoppe's work sorted by publication date. Given that this lecture was given in May 1989, I would think that the book he was referring to was A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (Ludwig Von Mises Institute's Studies in Austrian Economics) Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (December 31, 1988). If someone knows for sure, please let us know.
Ron Paul voted against the swine flu vaccinations back in '76. The government initiated a HC plan to innoculate people against the swine flu. More than twelve times as many people died from the vaccination than from the flu itself.
I adore the writings of Rothbard, but since my primary exposure to him has been through audiobooks, it's difficult for me to recognize him without the mellifluous voice of Jeff Riggenbach. His real voice kind of reminds me of Dr. Marvin Monroe on The Simpsons.
@highonhayek do intellectuals live longer? I've no idea but I can see the logic to that. Intellectuality is sort of like having the will to live. And philosophy is like trying to come to the greatest understanding that you possibly can.
more people need to see this, it shocking to see the date of this speech. Its over 2yrs ago and we are still dealing with the false choice that is the 2 party system.
it goes to say, good policies are timeless and so are the bad ones
RON PAUL
ElJefer 2 weeks ago
Man how far it's come with the Ron Paul campaign
dubified89 2 weeks ago
I love this dude's laugh, he's such a dork (in a good way)
dubified89 2 weeks ago
"caribou love the pipe" made me post xD
pipem4n 1 month ago
Thame - "we are all carying aids virus" HIV injected with polio vaccices. Haha my kind of guy. Wonder if he knows the whole aids/hiv thing was and still is a scam ? :D
pipem4n 1 month ago
With this appearance, Murray Rothbard appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the LP. But only 3 months after this speech, Murray Rothbard left the LP, claiming that the LP was filled with unwashed hippies. How did things change so radically in only 3 months?
davehoe3000 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Great, fantastic speech by Murray. Too bad he died at such a "young" age.
karas89 3 months ago
Comment removed
karas89 3 months ago
check out a channel called Stefbot
ykui1 3 months ago
Murray is outstanding, as always. I love his descriptions of corruption. He had a wonderful sense of the insidious byways of human nature.
tabletalk33 4 months ago
Close your eyes.....
He sounds like Jay Leno, doesn't he?
Sorry.
Meccabites1 4 months ago
@Meccabites1
yes, but murray is actually funny.
dayvidiot 2 months ago
If you want to expose a conservative hiding behind the term "Anarchist", just remind them Rothbard advocated seizing the unutilized property of the rich. It makes them very upset indeed.
Dunbar0740 7 months ago
@Dunbar0740. when did he ever say that?
tonygmilan7 7 months ago
@tonygmilan7 Read Rothbard's work on land reform. Wealth that is distributed in our current system is illegitimate; it is "ill gotten gains". It was distributed by a monopoly facilitating State. For Rothbard, unutilized resources are fair game for the poor.
Dunbar0740 7 months ago
@Dunbar0740. but there's a difference between having property and not using it, and having unoccupied land and someone working on it, thus becoming his property. im sure thats what rothbard was referring to
tonygmilan7 7 months ago
@tonygmilan7 Rothbard was not talking about homesteading "unoccupied" land. He was talking about taking the unutilized property of the rich; specifically if their wealth was acquired in an unjust economic system, like the one we have today. He made a good case for it.
Dunbar0740 7 months ago
@Dunbar0740. can u post the link to wear he said that? i know he said once that if a private company receives more than 50% of their wealth from gov't welfare, the workers rightfully own the company, so this might be something similar.
tonygmilan7 7 months ago
@Dunbar0740
Tonygmilan7 has it right. Rothbard did not believe in the whole anti-landlordism of leftists and Georgists. When he means unoccupied, he does not mean unutilized but owned property of anyone, rich or poor.
utubehayter 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
LoL! Capitalism can't survive without a state! If you think Anarcho-capitalism will free you, think again! It's anarchism for the rich! And large amounts of oppression for normal people!
" Freedom without socialism is privilege and injustice... Socialism without freedom is tyranny" -Mikhail Bakunin (Anarchist philosopher)
All anarchists are socialists, or not an anarchist
4500jas 8 months ago
I wasn't expecting to hear him say "defecits don't matter."
safeinsuburbia 8 months ago
@safeinsuburbia He was talking about the "balance of trade deficit" not federal budget deficits. He actually specifically makes this distinction in his answer
caffeine69x 7 months ago
@caffeine69x
Thats not correct. Rothbard did believe in a very narrow sense that federal deficits did not matter. i.e. because once a person becomes an an-cap, he sees it as a statist's problem... hence does not matter. If anything it will bring down the state even faster, so it might be good in the long run.
utubehayter 7 months ago
The greatest genius of the twentieth century.
thecommaking 8 months ago
Dagnabbit, Murray.
syadasti 9 months ago
While I don't agree with Rothbard's ideas (I am a left wing libertarian), I admire his commitment to rationality and his hard-headed approach to economics. He was determined to follow his worldview wherever it led, even if it meant shocking the status quo. Respect.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
rothbards fuckin anarchist, not libertarian. people should stop grouping in these fuckbag anarchists with libertarianism
oJKBo 10 months ago
@oJKBo Libertarians are anarchists. Libertarians value freedom. Anarchism is the pure ideal of freedom.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm anarchy is no government...without ruler...? how are libertarians who want a government anarchists?
oJKBo 9 months ago
@oJKBo Sorry, whenever someone mentions libertarianism I keep thinking of the original definition of the word. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first self-described libertarian, and he happened to be a socialist anarchist. Only in America does libertarianism mean laissez-faire minarchist capitalism. Everywhere else it means one who advocates a stateless society free of all forms of unjustified authority. Look up "libertarian socialism" in Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm Leave it to a Socialist to use a word such as Libertarian to describe something that is the complete opposite of the word it's based on. Property Right's are sort of essential to have Liberty. How else do you expect to live if everyone else has the right to eat the food you are growing before you get to eat yourself?
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue Well socialism does not necessarily mean that all private property is abolished. In a socialist society, all the means of producing the wealth are run democratically by the workers rather then a CEO, business manager or bureaucratic government for profit. All the labyrinthine details of property rights law would also have be worked out democratically in a free society. The runaway accumulation of private property by the 1% is dangerously inhibiting to the freedom of the many.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm Meh, in a Libertarian style system, as in American, the Government would be severely limited to scope and it's role would be of collective defense organization. That's it essentially. Corporations are hardly a Libertarian idea, and follow more with the Statist Socialism model's and Communism. Same with Government for profit, though that's more of the Fascist twist of Socialism based on Siral.
The runaway of of private property is caused by the Fiat currency system, and unsound money
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue Yeah, the extremely inequitable distribution of private property has many causes, but the first one that comes to mind is the state capitalist system adopted by many first world governments. They bail out corporations, give them subsidies, intervene on their behalf with favorable policies, impose duties on competing products and the like, creating a corporatist rather then capitalist system. The Fiat currency system, as you mentioned, is also to blame.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm That so called state capitalism could not occur without the Fiat monetary system. They get away with it by simply printing up the money to cover the BS that they wish to do.
The monster corporations could not exist in a free-market, because the state would not have the power to create such an entity that could absorb such a large amount of capital into a singular organization without investor's pulling back and crippling the ability for it to exist in the first place.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue *shrugs* who knows? In this era of globalization, corporations can flee to another country if their home location is shafting them with taxes, tariffs and the like. Corporations will also flee if the home base is in-conducive to foreign investment. Central government has to be used in this respect to revoke corporate charters and break them up, replacing them with more libertarian means of producing goods and services. The state brought them into existence, it can take them out.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm Corporations can move their aggregate assets to another country, yes. They can not however mover their headquarters to another country without starting another corporate branch. This is part of how Corporate law works.
A Centralized Government would never give up the power of the Corporation, that is how they maintain their power over the populace. It's subjugation through the premise of force. The state will always support the Corporation, because their relationship is symbiotic.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue That's why we need to take action. There needs to be an uprising that of which the likes have never been seen. Corporations need to be held accountable, and the government will be forced to do so given enough public pressure. There may be only a pseudo-democratic system in place, but the government is at least partially swayed by the general public, unlike corporations.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm While I agree that the people need to get off their nullified asses. I disagree with any sort of violence, and any sort of abject revolution. I also do not agree with the implementation of Democracy in our Constitutional Republic. That's the biggest problem is that the rule of law has been abdicated and dragged down into abject discourse of Democracy. Corporations are heavily swayed by people. Stop spending money on them, and you will see the relationship between the two dissolve.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue The biggest problem is that corporations have mastered the art of manufacturing consent, i.e. swaying public opinion in their favor, no matter what their track record of past crime and behavior might be. Direct action is the way to go IMO. Argentina has had multiple instances over the past decade of workers literally taking over the corporate-owned factories. They were sick and tired of being treated like chattel so they fought back hard and won. I respect that.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm That does not abdicate the responsibility of the Individual to spend their Fiat wisely. If you educate enough on the way that they are being defrauded thing's will change quicker than through direct action.
How did the worker's resolve that they were treating the investor's many of whom would be foreigners in the same manner that the corrupt managers of said corporation were treating them? Honestly is sound's like Marxist class-warfare to me. Look at how they are doing now....
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue The pain was not being reciprocated equally. First-off, most of the factories were bankrupt anyway. Secondly, even if the factories were not about to go bankrupt, the workers were. Unfortunately force is sometimes needed to get out of a jam. I side with the bold working class men and women who used direct action to lift themselves out of poverty and desolation to introduce a third way of economic production; free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm You do realize that you just contradicted yourself, right?
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue How?
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm You said that, "the working class could introduce a third way of economic production free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management." No top-down yet who is going to organize everything? No exploitation, yet you just exploited the Share holders investment through theft. No Fascist management, but the company that organizes the economy of the region is acting like the government, that is fascism by definition.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue First, the workers manage themselves, so everyone helps run the show. Secondly, most of the factories were bankrupt. Thirdly, even if the factories were not bankrupt the counter-exploitation was perfectly moral and justified because the workers were being treated like dog shit, subject to third world working conditions and being paid starvation wages. Finally, workers self-management abolishes top-down fascist management by definition so I don't see the contradiction.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm So you are saying the welder of the shop get's to manage the design of the electronics department? The factories were bankrupt, do you know what happens for shareholders during a bankruptcy? Now they get nothing of their investment. Your morality has no bearing on this discussion. The workers were being treated purely, were you there to see this first hand?
Fascism is Government and Corporate merger. You really think there's no top-down management, go talk to the president.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue Workers self management boils down to this: Major decisions affecting everyone in the workplace are put to a vote. Small decisions are made by the people deciding them. Even if shareholders get nothing of their investment, this is collateral damage. I don't have any sympathy for rich investors who have to lose out a bit of cash in order for oppressed workers to get the freedoms and rights they deserve. It most certainly is a moral issue.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm That's the problem, you are making this a Moral issue without even giving a moment's notice to the greater ethical impact's you are presenting. It won't be long before someone is taking you mate and sharing their disease with you as well. Share and share alike, right?
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@mojorhythm Just to further this, Globalization is a myth. Companies and Government's have been dealing with each other for centuries. All this talk about Globalization is nonsense. It's just another method for those that control the banking interest's to subjugate further population's through debt. I believe the proper term would be Global Communism. In the end the people lose, and the banks win.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
@Joe11Blue Well, I wouldn't go that far, but its good to know you have an opinion and care about the issues.
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm Honestly, I don't have an opinion. I see what's going on, and the logical conclusion is something I work to obtain, rather than to form an opinion based on something that is not rational.
I honestly don't care either. For me, it's more of a conversation in light of hypothetical. I know the only way this will ever change is if people start to actually use that grey matter in their head's, rather than going with the flow.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
Oh yeah, you are right about corporations being a state creation. Corporations were originally commissioned by the state to do public services, such as provide railway freight services, steel industry, banking and so on. Corporate lawyers then got opportunistic and used the Fourteenth Amendment to grant corporations the right of person-hood. Now extricated from the government which made them, bear witness to the monstrosities we have today!
mojorhythm 9 months ago
@mojorhythm This concept of requiring sound monetary policy, removing the unsound fiat debt based currency is the essential backstop behind Libertarianism. This is the key issue to allowing personal Liberty.
Joe11Blue 9 months ago
Mises.org is making the audiobook of Man, Economy, and State, at last! Visited the site last night and they already have the first chapter up. Spread the word.
PoetsLight 10 months ago 32
@PoetsLight know who the reader will be? too bad rothbard is dead, would have loved to hear him read it.
antichrist1909589 8 months ago
@antichrist1909589 The wonderful Jeff Riggenbach who does most of Rothbard's books. I do love the sonorous voice of Riggenbach, but I do agree with you that Rothbard would have been my preferred choice if he were still alive. Most people complain that Murray's voice is too grating, but after listening to the majority of his recorded lectures I've become accustomed to his voice like a student to his mentor. The sound of Rothbard is one of wisdom and hope.
PoetsLight 8 months ago
@PoetsLight I'm halfway through downloading the mp3 files. That book is a MUST for anyone interested in economics and liberty. Rothbard's writing is so simple, yet thorough and decisive.
AussieAustrianBlog 5 months ago
@PoetsLight
With any luck, if they start recording now they will be finished by 2046 ;)
Awesome news!
JDPatriot 2 months ago
@JDPatriot
lol, actually they're almost finished.
PoetsLight 2 months ago
@UBSCARED Yes the housing bubble had nothing to do with the Federal reserve, fanny mae, freddy mac or the Community Reinvestment Act. It was caused by too much freedom. And you are correct about the Austrian school. If a doctrine isn't popular it obviously must be wrong. There are very few cases in the history of academia where an established theory was replaced by a fringe theory.
gazz12345a 10 months ago
@zombiefitnezz zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZ
gazz12345a 10 months ago
Comment removed
dershope 10 months ago
"insuring the S&L's, it's like insuring the Titanic after it hit the iceburg."
Great line!
TreachMarkets 11 months ago
@UBSCARED ZZZZzzzzzzzzz............Oh, I'm sorry, was Charlie Browns teacher saying something?
straydoglogic 11 months ago
@UBSCARED Dumb.
straydoglogic 11 months ago
@UBSCARED
your mom rolls my blunts!
Prsnhoot 11 months ago
I reiterate, "government is essentially the negation of liberty".
TuNuCedeMalis 1 year ago
Good Government is small Government and the best Government is the smallest
Government.
The Federal Government was originally designed to be small weak and functionary and the states had most of the power but look at that same Government today.
Taxation is slavery
TheDano1947 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheDano1947 Friedman laid the foundation of modern theories of consumption.Keynes had posited that as income rose, so would the proportion that was saved. Economic data bore this out only up to a point: though the rich had higher saving rates than the poor, aggregate saving rates did not rise as countries became richer.It´s effect the price.Friedman resolved this apparent paradox with a theory known as the permanent income hypothesis, set forth in 1957.Rothbard rejected that view.
treddas851 11 months ago
@TheDano1947 Friedman said people,did not spend on the basis of what their income happened to be that year,but according to their "permanent income"—what they expected to have year in and year out.In a bad year,therefore,they might dip into their savings;when they had a windfall, they would not spend the lot.He called the hypothesis "obvious";as the best ideas are.His work on monetary analysis and stabilisation policy,gave him a Nobel Prize,Rothbard didn´t even manage to get a professor´s chair
treddas851 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and mother turn into a murderer, thief, and liar? I'm not interested in the what, I'm interested in the why. Only then will you find an answer.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
and mother turn into a murderer, thief, and liar? I'm not interested in the what, I'm interested in the why. Only then will you find an answer.
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
Comment removed
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
"Government is essentially the negation of liberty" Our goal then is not this government over that one. I have come to understand the problem is not government, it's us. "If all men were angles we wouldn't need government" If you accept all men aren't angels, how is giving some men mandatory authority over others better? Building order only to have it crash in chaos. If you don't fix the root, you cant expect the branches to follow. Ask yourself, how does a baby who cares only for a warm bottle
Unity0Is0Power 1 year ago
I like Murray's style. He was not dry or clinical in the way he gave his speeches. Nice to listen to.
Mackingster 1 year ago
''Libertarianism defends liberty, the rule of law, or the Constitution but advocates for the status entitlements of the rich; prestige privilege & property.'' Where do they do this? So far I've never seen someone of your ilk properly define Libertarianism before snottily proceeding to attempting to refute it with these silly misinterpreted arguments
''this ruling white status quo behind ''
Liberal rhetoric never grows out of these childiish dichotomies and cheap sloganeering.
Underground906 1 year ago
22 years later and this is still relevant. Not much has changed.
ItsAllAboutGuitar 1 year ago 28
@ItsAllAboutGuitar I was thinking the same thing. All this time and all he says still holds true from the ineffectiveness of the drug war to "too big to fail".
mangoswiss 1 year ago
@ItsAllAboutGuitar The laws of economics will never change, and therefore the work of the Austrian School will always be relevant. No matter what hair-brained scheme future economists try and devise, the heterodox economists of the Austrian School who defy the mainstream will always be timeless.
PoetsLight 8 months ago 9
Libertarianism defends liberty, the rule of law, or the Constitution but advocates for the status entitlements of the rich; prestige privilege & property. These "rights" to which white wealth believes itself to be entitled constitute a system of control over those who reproduce them. Libertarians are at pains to explain how the majority of Americans who do not own property health insurance or a living wage benefit from supporting this ruling white status quo behind "Liberty"?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Can you really explain the last 75 years of corporate take-over of America as an advancement of libertarian principals? Can you really argue that we have become more capitalistic in the past century? Or, can you argue that the corporations are less powerful now than they were at the beginning of the progressive era? NO! I do not believe you can honestly argue that way.
kingcherub 1 year ago
I am convinced that the Libertarian party is a coalition of self made misanthropes with no credible political aim. Libertarians seek to promote anti-government sentiment as a political program but an oxymoron rather than an achievable goal is the result. Identity politics of this kind is a dead end which may actually be the point of the exercise; simply to express the discomfiture of being trapped at an earlier stage via arrested social development.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
I am convinced that the Libertarian party is a coalition of self made miscreants with no credible political aim. Libertarians seek to promote anti-government sentiment as a political program but an oxymoron rather than an achievable goal is the result. Identity politics of this kind is a dead end which may actually be the point of the exercise; simply to express the discomfiture of being trapped at an earlier stage via arrested social development.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
My absolute favorite political thinker of the modern era. Was there anything regarding the political that he was not right about??
WorshipInTruth 1 year ago 2
Economics is being used here as cover for a right wing political ideology that is half race science and half status politics. Anyone who has studied Economics knows that it was never intended to produce any useful knowledge. Austrian Economics is a bait and switch. The bottom line is that these people are trained to maintain a capitalist division of property that is ultimately unsustainable.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz in a bait and switch you usually have to use some kind of bait. The statists use welfare as their bait but what are libertarians using? They aren't pretending that it's going to bring some kind of utopia. I dont agree with all of these ideas but i think they are being far more genuine than statists or any orther party you care to mention. All parties are operating in their self interest, libertarians are the only ones to admit it.
jimberkt 1 year ago
Comment removed
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jimberkt
Libertarians beguile with the notion that "Economics" is a frame of reference that transcends politics. The term "statism" is drawn from this same bait & switch Austrian vocabulary as an expression of resentment on the part of the business elite for The New Deal. I consider this kind of substitution a bait & switch, & as devious a gambit as offering "values" in place of politics. This is a one party system, the capitalist party representing a failed 19th century Utopia & slave market.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Are you trying to say that an economy can be centrally controlled? If you know how to do this i'm sure ben Bernanke will write you out a fat check for sharing your wisdom with him. Libertarians simply suggest denying large corporations the power of the government (giant bailouts, favourable regulations etc) and put the onus of responsibility on the people. I agree it is a slave market but as long as we think a benevolent state will protect us from slavery slaves we will remain .
jimberkt 1 year ago
@jimberkt
Liberty is a rhetorical device that trades on a conception of power embodied in class, accessible only to those in possession of property. Liberty is slang for caste system. Libertarianism enshrines property as the medium of power under white minority rule. Libertarianism is the latest in a long succession of race science derived ideologies. Libertarianism offers an empty package as its conception of "liberty" being that which exists in the absence of government or a political vacuum.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz It sounds like you are suggesting that colored people cannot prosper or accumulate savings and property under a free market system - and as such need the state apparatus to forcefully confiscate wealth from white people to give to colored people - a new kind of slavery. In the absence of the welfare state a 'caste' system emerges where white people end up at the top and colored people are helpless. Thats your theory. And you call freedom advocates 'racist'. RETARD = YOU. :D
gazz12345a 10 months ago
@jimberkt
Capitalism is a power structure embodied in a culture and preserved in a body of law. Past history on the other hand is not a script that libertarians can rewrite to rehabilitate a failed theory. Blame Keynes, government, liberals, communists witches, UFO's the devil or corporations, it seems to me you are still stuck with a past that does not work and a future that will not bend. Forfeiting democracy for the political imaginary of Capitalism is a dumb trade in my judgement.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Ok. Wheres youre proof? Oh...you probably dont have any. Ultimately unsustainable? How could you even know that when a truly capitalist society has NEVER existed?
chaset51 1 year ago
@chaset51
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@chaset51
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz The conditions you describe are indeed true; all these things you describe are happening. You fail to make clear, however, how exactly all this is due to capitalism. Capitalism cannot be a failure in places where it does not exist. The economic system in the United States is much closer to - in fact, I would say IS - fascism. It is a joke to claim that any economy in which a single organization (the State) exerts a coercive monopoly over the issuance of a medium of exchange is free.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago 2
@IvanTheHeathen
Running out of alibis? Capitalism extols competition but cannot face social reality as a competitor. It remains to those wishing to prolong the past to pretend that history does not exist. Capitalism has reached a terminal stage of make believe where it now must repackage its empty dogma as a Utopia to come. The predatory power of accumulated capital now rules an empire of fear violence, guile, dispossession & poverty Take away the guns & Capitalism is a failed Utopia
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Alibis for what? If your abilities in debate were half of what they are in rhetoric, you'd be formidabe, but as it stands, that spiel was was an exercise in vacuity. I hope you don't expect me to treat that as though there was a point there. I'll repeat what I've said before since you've so blithely ignored it in favor of high-minded shibboleths: How does an economic system founded on voluntary exchange lead to the shameful mess we see today? Do you understand basic casue and effect?
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@IvanTheHeathen
Claiming that capitalism does not exist is an alibi that seeks to place that system elsewhere but at the scene of its own history. Many of your persuasion are also convinced that Germany was innocent of the Holocaust by insisting that the known history of those events never occurred. Capitalism is another system of make believe and make believe is the essence of its Utopia. History on the other hand can be a treacherous adversary.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz For someone who claims to know more about my own beliefs than I do, you're oddly short on substance. You still haven't answered my original question, but by now, I've gathered you have no intention of doing so since - alas! - you have no arguments to present. But who needs discursive reasoning when you have invective and mystic mumbo-jumbo, right? The burden of proof is on you to show how property rights and an absolute prohibition on the initiation of violence can erupt into chaos.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@IvanTheHeathen
Libertarianism is permanently associated with the tradition of liberalism from which it's name derives . Preserving the structure of a class pyramid based on property ownership is ultimately dependent on both the threat of & the selective application of force or a, "prohibition on the initiation of violence". You find it convenient to pretend you have no idea what I am talking about but you are keeping a loaded weapon handy on the outside chance that I just might be right?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz I don't think the distinction between "gun" and "no gun" is a difficult one to understand, but for reasons I confess to be unable to see, you and your ilk seem incapable of assimilating it. To be clear I'm not a small government libertarian; I'm an anarchist. I think the state is antithetical to the market and an evil institution besides, for the simple reason that it thrives on violence. Your rhetorical mudslinging fails: I have no guns; the state "kindly" monopolizes that function.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz (pt. 2 of response) In all seriousness though, you're really starting to bore me now. I have tried on multiple occasions to induce you to adduce an argument for your position, but all I've been treated to thus far is a cavalcade of canards, invective and palaver. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying; it's aren't saying anything. If you wish to debate me, that's fine; but I heartily recomend your read a book or two on logic first and familiarize yourself with fallacies.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@IvanTheHeathen I would suggest that the "my own beliefs" you profess to are actually not yours, although you might like to think of them that way. To the extent you identify with Libertarianism what this represents is yet another failed attempt at reviving the tradition of white male "individualism" originally invented by the 18th century imagination. You are not so much guilty of "belief"as of simply regurgitating what you have been told by ideologues like the repetitious Mr Rothbard.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz Ah, the god 'ol chimera of the collective mind again! There's no doubt that people may be influenced in their views and opinions by those of others, and so on and so forth ad infinitum, but it's lunacy to conclude from this bland truism that no one's ideas are really theirs. Though your comment on "regurgitation" is interesting and makes clear your aversion to discursive reasoning. It seems you don't think such a thing exists and that everyone is really a thoughtless recepticle.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz (this is pt.2 of a response to your beliefs comment) Is it really so astonishing to think that I hold the views I hold because I thought them out and believe them to be true? If all is just class-interested ideology, then how does one explain your views? Were they imbibed from such ideologues as the ponderous Mr. Marx? By your self-refuting "logic," no view can be "correct" and thus no truth exists. But even if you were right about me, that does nothing to prove "my views" wrong.
IvanTheHeathen 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
...spoken like a true liberal. It's almost like....like...life isn't fair (*sniff sniff*). And it's up to the State to forge an equal-outcome "social reality" via a Utopian dogma that veers so sharply to the left in Communism, it touches on the far-right of the spectrum simultaneously. Take all to redistribute all in the glorious name of the State!
...and why the crack would you take away the guns?? That alone creates the "predatory power" of the armed, against the unarmed...
katrudy7 1 year ago
@katrudy7 Free market liberalism is a failed theory of government rationalized as economics rationalized as ethics. Capitalism rules by legitimizing an ownership oligarchy built on a doctrine of expansion. Like a communist state, the capitalist state can be represented by a body of documents legitimizing a two class model of society. Both Utopias promise to liberate while imposing the social economic and political conditions of servitude. Everything about America is fake but the guns are real.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
"Free market liberalism" rationalizes government as economics, and by proxy as ethics, and the "capitalist state" creates a "two class model of society"? That's so misguided that the most worthy retort is, "Sixty percent of the time, it works every time." I'm gonna guess that you're a college freshman trying to make sense of the political economy, but not quite yet getting it. Maybe that's why you included an over-generalization as ignorant as, "Everything about America is fake."
katrudy7 1 year ago
@katrudy7
Love your posts! The tension they express comes out of the confusion inherent to identity politics in general. A conflict exists for you between the anti intellectual idiom of southern white "individualism" in collision with the political necessity of offering some plausible rationalization for the continuing disaster of deregulated markets. Although primarily driven by resentment your hostility & expressions of contempt present you as a sympathetic character caught in a bind.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
"the political necessity of offering some plausible rationalization for the continuing disaster of deregulated markets"?? Although I admire you taking the liberty of putting words in my mouth that are antithetical to my personal political philosophy, and I laud you for your failed psycho-analysis in an attempt to tell me who I am (in pure liberal tradition) based on 2 YouTube posts, I'm gonna stick with the axiom, "Your life isn't my fault, and my life isn't your business." Thanx
katrudy7 1 year ago
@katrudy7
Now you assume the pose of an anarchist then immediately proceed to wag a bourgeois finger at the lynch mob of rightists you are affiliated with? If transported to a parallel universe where your party might conceivably seize power, prisons would quickly be filled with capitalisms political prisoners. Without guns how do you propose to preserve the booming US market in weapons? W/out threat of starvation or other means of coercion how do you intend to conduct a "free" market at all?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
@jazzbo66zz
1) I never claimed to be or otherwise "assumed the position of" being an anarchist; 2) The ONLY claim I made as to my affiliations are that I'm NOT affiliated with liberals; 3) I never claimed any association with any party; 4) I never said to get rid of guns.
It would appear your debate strategy relies on arguing about your own lies, which isn't worth the time it takes me to hear the chime of a new email on my smart phone.
Guy, you're a lost cause. I'm done acknowledging you.
katrudy7 1 year ago
@katrudy7
Ever felt like the victim of a highly organized international conspiracy of Jewish bankers? It seems more likely that you were destined from the get go to end up like every other liberal (Libertarian) wus, hiding under the bed clutching your smart phone, Hayek, (or the new testament maybe?) w/ your gun praying for deliverance from the virtues of individualism that reduced you to a stammering hapless commodity in the market place? This blog is getting to be a tough house to play, no?
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chaset51
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chaset51
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chaset51
I am not advocating an alternative to empire, I am making the observation that capitalism is a failure and this failure is unfolding on a time line parallel that of Soviet Communism. Conditions in many quarters of the US today are eerily similar to those in the USSR circa the early 1980's before its collapse; massive unemployment, environmental degradation, news media monopoly, extremely high incarceration rates, an astronomical military budget plus a failed middle east occupation.
jazzbo66zz 1 year ago
This is almost 12 years ago. He basically sounds like Ron Paul today. However, nothing collapsed then. How is today any different? How is debt less valuable today? Look at the bond prices despite all this "printing". I also found a video interview with Ron Paul from about this time on Youtube, dooming then as well. How is Ron Paul correct now yet wrong then? Answer my question, but don't use Gold in your response. I will not use Housing or Internet stocks, either.
truthislibertyus 1 year ago
@truthislibertyus bond prices just went up. Do you want to re-evaluate your comment?
jimberkt 1 year ago
@truthislibertyus The dollar value is half of what it was in 2000. When the dollar becomes valueless, its going to look the Weimar Republic did in post-WWI Germany-worth more as wallpaper than currency. And since the US dollar is most traded currency in the world, the world economy will go under as a result. Also when the debt-to-gdp ratio passes 100% in the US, the government will go bankrupt and drastic cuts will have to be made to entitlements, which will result in violence (look at Greece)
chaset51 1 year ago
*sigh* I hate the conspiracy theorist retards that hijack educated libertarian movements.
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
Murray is such an ass kicker.
jtropeano 1 year ago
my jaw dropped when he mentioned the swine flu caper.
lack76 1 year ago
@lack76 Scams always reappear and not always in different packages. Just give it a few years!
CircleBastiat 1 year ago
Libertarian is going to be a dominant party in the United States. Some smart, reasonable mother fuckers man. Keep up the good work.
AbjectConformity 1 year ago 2
@AbjectConformity i have to disagree. ron paul is republican. but i wish, i wish.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Murray Rothbard is my hero. For a New Liberty changed my life and I recommend it to everyone.
MrBlakskwrl 1 year ago
@MrBlakskwrl just about to buy it. :)
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
@MrBlakskwrl
I would like to agree, but his bit on privatizing roads and oceans was quite a strech. However, people have refined these arguments now.
PlasmaSnake 1 year ago
I read his book, "Man, Economy, and State"; it changed my entire way of thinking.
xhypn0tiiqx 1 year ago 3
No clear answer for pollution, except to say it is not real!
tonybonez 1 year ago
Murray was one of a kind. I think his intellect is impressive, but I love his sense of humor most of all.
pretorious700 1 year ago 2
what year was this?
brotherbongo 1 year ago
@brotherbongo
In the description, 1989.
xhypn0tiiqx 1 year ago
wow a new video! AWESOME!
SlickExecutiveType 1 year ago
It is such a tragedy that Rothbard died so young. The Libertarian awakening, the Ron Paul Revolution, the Free State Project, the State Sovereignty movements, the successes of the Mises Institute in reaching a wide audience and the equally encouraging reception of its message, and the campaigns of Rand Paul, Peter Schiff, and Adam Kokesh were, in a large degree, made possible by this great man. Western Civilization will one day look back on Rothbard's contribution with an unrivaled gratitude.
CuchulainSaoirse1916 1 year ago 27
@CuchulainSaoirse1916 Nonscence.Rothbard falsely accused neoclassical utility theory of assuming cardinality. It does not. There is nothing actually wrong with Rothbard's value scale approach, but because the neoclassical assumptions are in some ways less restrictive than Rothbard's, neoclassicals made the important discovery that price changes have both income and substitution effects - a discovery Rothbard was unable to grasp.Milton Friedman was the master of freemarket economists.
treddas851 11 months ago
@CuchulainSaoirse1916 The people you mentioned are generally considered kooks. Ron Paul held a hearing on the effectiveness of monetary policy and the "experts" were two clowns from the Austrian school. One was exposed as a racist and the other a fool. Search the video, it's on youtube and it's comedy gold. Ron Paul doesn't even understand inflation. He's a clown as is everyone who subscribes to this simplistic rubbish.
worldnewsbbc1 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@worldnewsbbc1 I would recommend you follow the listed links which are Tom Dilorenzo's response to Congressman Clay's attack on him. Responses which the honorable Mr. Clay didn't offer a chance for Tom to rebut conveniently. lewrockwelldotcom/dilorenzo/dilorenzo201.html lewrockwelldotcom/dilorenzo/dilorenzo202.html
dershope 10 months ago
@worldnewsbbc1 Looks like he's got a good shot of being the Republican nominee. Care to change your tune yet?
Madfoot713 2 months ago
Rothbard rocks!!!
Gurigonzalez 1 year ago 14
36:00, I here that
puremilkgenius 1 year ago
Since that time the LP has become a thorn in the side of liberty. It threatens to devalue the very term "libertarian."
nicmart 1 year ago
I wish we could elect people the media doesn't love for a change. Brain washing media give us choices between new world order puppets. Re pukes and demorats.
bulllover88 1 year ago 3
What a genuinely modest and intelligent man. There are so many great intellectuals that I wish were still alive to defend the silent Americans against the tide of big government. Rand, Rothbard, Friedman, etc.
Peter Schiff and Ron Paul are the only Americans vocal about Austrian School fundamentals at the moment, but even they are marginalized by the mainstream media.
HapaLife 1 year ago 8
Isn't the vast majority of big government spending part of the "nightwatchmen" function of the state, that conservatives support?
marxotube 1 year ago
@marxotube
Rothbard is far from a conservative.
breakingthe4thwall 1 year ago 2
@marxotube
No. Rothbard didn't even support a "nightwatchman" state, but the elimination of the state all together. However from a minarchist perspective the "nightwatchman" state would be very small, and it's all government would do. The only war's would be defensive. A state this small could easily be funded with small taxes on just luxury items that could be easily avoided(such as alcohol).
MrBlakskwrl 1 year ago
It's depressing that we haven't advanced anywhere beyond the topics Rothbard runs through here. We're still fighting the same battles against the drug war, bank bailouts (worse than ever), runaway spending, neoconservatism (and how), anti-development environmentalism, protectionism Why does it have to be the same fallacies over and over, always as popular as ever?
cheesechoker 1 year ago 7
What book is he talking about when someone asks about Hans Hermann Hoppe's work?
headcrabzombie 2 years ago
@headcrabzombie I have the same question. I did a search for Hoppe's work sorted by publication date. Given that this lecture was given in May 1989, I would think that the book he was referring to was A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism: Economics, Politics, and Ethics (Ludwig Von Mises Institute's Studies in Austrian Economics) Publisher: Springer; 1 edition (December 31, 1988). If someone knows for sure, please let us know.
RubyNuby01 1 month ago
@RubyNuby01 thanks!
headcrabzombie 1 month ago
@headcrabzombie Oh..it also could have been Praxeology and Economic Science [Paperback] Publisher: Ludwig Von Mises (January 1, 1988)
Hans-Hermann Hoppe. but I think it was the other book that I posted.
RubyNuby01 1 month ago
audience are so annoying...
tomheppy 2 years ago
It's Dr. Marvin Monroe!
VanDoodah 2 years ago
Comment removed
HuxleyWasRight 2 years ago 2
WOW !!!!! check out 50:50
Swine flu/ Gov. connection back in the late 70's and that the vaccines were killing people including a mob boss!!!!!
WOW.... chills
joeymackaroni 2 years ago 2
Ron Paul voted against the swine flu vaccinations back in '76. The government initiated a HC plan to innoculate people against the swine flu. More than twelve times as many people died from the vaccination than from the flu itself.
thomaserossi 2 years ago 6
20:35
Cool he mention Ron Paul back in '89!
joeymackaroni 2 years ago 8
I adore the writings of Rothbard, but since my primary exposure to him has been through audiobooks, it's difficult for me to recognize him without the mellifluous voice of Jeff Riggenbach. His real voice kind of reminds me of Dr. Marvin Monroe on The Simpsons.
RationalDischarge 2 years ago 6
NIce one. Thanks for this vid.
DrLyxal 2 years ago 5
It sucks so bad that he died relatively young. Yes, 69 is young for an intellectual.
highonhayek 2 years ago 48
Intellectuals tend to live even shorter than that, because they go through a lot of trauma during their lifetimes. Look at Orwell.
InMooseWeTrust 2 years ago 5
@highonhayek ...for a mind like Rothbard, anything short of forever was too short!
pen1018 1 year ago
@highonhayek young for anybody
herzogsbuick 1 year ago
@highonhayek do intellectuals live longer? I've no idea but I can see the logic to that. Intellectuality is sort of like having the will to live. And philosophy is like trying to come to the greatest understanding that you possibly can.
alistairproductions 1 year ago
Rothbard is amazing.
Blackjack555 2 years ago 10
more people need to see this, it shocking to see the date of this speech. Its over 2yrs ago and we are still dealing with the false choice that is the 2 party system.
it goes to say, good policies are timeless and so are the bad ones
uche007us 2 years ago 7