Murray Rothbard: The Decline of Laissez-Faire (American Economy Lecture #3)

[AussieAustrianBlog]

@deficithawker You cannot be serious?

[KevZen2000]

Murray Rothbard was a great economist, and he exposed the superstition of Statism.

[geehuckwow]

We need a "blowjob girl economic lecture"! Actually, until taxation is eliminated the USA life is going to be useless, and the blowjob girl is going to do more good. Sad but true. The banks have supported porno/prostitution since day two, because they want to entertain/distract/demoralize while they steal your money. No secret.

[Muthsera80]

Rarely have I seen a lecture which is more structured to give a personal point of view. I cannot state more forcefully how bad I think this lecture was. It's inherently illogical and at odds with itself. In the hole period the economy was developing into or was an oligarchy. It's not until the depression and ww2 that this cycle is broken. Any idea that laissez faire policies was a stable and positive form of growth is not supported by complete evidence.

[Audiofalcon7]

@Muthsera80 Provide evidence or don't bother replying.

[Muthsera80]

@Audiofalcon7

Provide evidence that he propagate a personal point of view among his facts or provide evidence for the notion laissez faire economy is not stable? The first should not be hard, just listen to Rothbard's lecture, and take note to the times he inject a personal opinion. The second I advice you to read David Harvey. One can easily see factual evidence where a more freely exposed laissez faire system exacerbates the cycle of crises. This evidence is not hard to come by.

[smithwicktom]

@Muthsera80 Hey there, I appreciate you exposing me to David Harvey. I do think that Harvy's points, and Rothbards, lay criticism on the same state empowered oligopolies, and the tendency for this 'elite' group to use state monopoly on violence and force to systematically pull property (or cumulative time/value) and time from the majority. They are on the same side, but explain their critiques of elitist through different lenses; Rothbard through libertarianism, and Harvey through Marxism.

[Muthsera80]

@smithwicktom

You have to take both views with a bit of skepticism. I personally think Harvey jumps to a few conclusions which the facts he brings in does not support. But it's very hard to argue about the findings themselves. Also, I think your missing the point slightly in what Harvey means about the post ww2 era. That the freeroam the market had in late 1800 and early 1900 created an economic system where a few managed to create syndicates, which they then used to corrupt the system further.

[efrem1]

One thing for sure. You have to keep on your toes to understand Mr. Rothbard. Once you catch on, you will glean some great nuggets.

[pretorious700]

brilliant man....368 views..."blowjob girl" has 500,000 or something...speaks volumes about American stupidity

[79eXistenZ]

I'm sure that of the 368 (ow 823) views, only about half of them are Americans :).

[michaelpshipley1]

@pretorious700 LOL

[eulercircles]

@pretorious700 I wonder if there is any overlap of viewership.

[truevoice08]

greatest intellectual of the social sciences to have graced the earth!!!

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 Rand was greater, Murray ripped off a lot of her ideas

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 I won't assume that your one those stubborn randroids, so I kindly ask you to read the article 'the sociology of the Ayn Rand cult' and 'Rothbard vindicated'. Both in LRC.

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 I've read the "Sociology" article. What is fascinating to me is that an article written by Murray in '72 should be taken as a final argument when there are many counter-articles written against it. Personally I think the Brandens were over-zealous but a handful of oddballs doesn't characterize Objectivism as a philosophy. Leonard Pekoff has a huge collection of Mozart and Beethoven, which Rand hated but he is her heir. I think that counters the claim that she was a dogmatist

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 Just finished reading "vindicated" The argument that Murray didn't take Rand's ideas is false. He made the idea of "freedom" safe for his followers, many of whom (including Rockwell and Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc) remained very religious. He made it easier for them to think that they could hold on to their barbaric faiths and not give up the cause of liberty

Rand knew better, but cowards clung to Murray for a more safe and compromising approach

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 Here is an article that counters many of Rothbard's claims about Rand's supposed cult. I read your article, so I won't assume that you're a "Rothbardroid" and that you will read this one as well.

h t t p : / / w w w . noblesoul . com / orc / essays / obj_cult1 . html

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 Give me the title of the essay. I can't access it (already removed spaces)

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 @Sam26100 I finished reading the essay. It didn't show how Rothbard plagiarized Rand but how he plagiarized Barbara Branden, and that part is not even convincing. The argument is that Rothbard's writing style was objectivist and on a topic related Branden's paper. It's not a surprise since objectivists are IP nazis. They want to apply IP to everything. With regards to Objectivism being a cult, maybe it's not, but an interest group that embraces blind dogma in the face of solid...

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 It's at w w w . noblesoul . com

The title is "Is Objectivism a Cult?"

There is also an article on rebirthofreason . com just search for: Rothbard sociology ayn rand cult

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 ... rebuttals are clearly not worth talking to. On the subject of religion, I don't know why this is relevant. Freedom and religion are not mutually exclusive. Ironically, Rand formed what she called an anti-concept when she force-packaged atheism and freedom. If you do force-package them then I could just easily argue that the rise of democracy has ushered in greater secularism while monarchist societies are religious, and since democracy is more statist so atheism is statist...

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 I think freedom and religion ARE mutually exclusive. There is no such thing as religious tollerance, it's a myth. whatever tollerance is possessed by western religious folk, was aquired because of the tremendous advancements in technology and other secular sciences. It wasn't because of what the Bible preaches. The Bible allows all kinds of things, and even if some people want to practice it peacefully, others won't. A religious morality isn't anchored into reality

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 ... don't you know this? or do you still buy the idea that democracy means freedom since Ayn Rand supported the democratic process. If this is so then you are exactly what I speculated you to be: a randroid who shuns any deviance from objectivism like anarchism and the fact that monarchy>democracy. If this is true then we should end this conversation. I don't want to talk to a fool.

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08

It's funny how a tern which is really a confession of your own intellectual tunnel vision such as "randroid" is supposed to make me feel bad

The democratic process is fine as long as it doesn't affect laws, but only the choice of one law enforcer over another.

And how exactly will anarchy prevent a democratic takeover of freedom? with no LAW, what's to stop a socialist group from gaining power? ideology is always dangerous, how is it different in an anarchy?

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 You don't seem to realize that there can be no such thing as a market without a commonly recognized and enforced LAW. A primitive barter economy maybe, but not a market

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 Hah! Just as I expected from a randroid. You equate lawlessness with anarchism. You reject it by misunderstanding it. It's shocking to me how you still reject it after so many vehicles for education like FreedomainRadio. Maybe your WILLINGLY rejecting the truth to hold on to that decrepit religion of Objectivism??? This is why I label objectivists as 'rational retards'.

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 I'm willing rejecting the truth? you're just throwing insults trying to troll me, I've listened to over 200 podcasts from freedomain radio. Would I have done that If I didn't want to explore ideas other than Objectivism?

Explain how there would be law in an anarchy, Stefan Molyneux couldn't do it, but maybe you can

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 Explain to you why there would be law in anarchy? I think a more important question is why we need INITIATION of violence for there to be law. Why we need an organization to violate natural law for there to be law? Please enlighten me, after all, you are a follower of the source of all truths, Ayatollah Rand. But wait a minute, you don't believe in taxation, don't you? You still refuse to call your system anarchism even if it's logically the same. You are too ARROGANT to deviate from..

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 No, a voluntary funded government is NOT the same as Anarcho-Capitalism

/sigh

The level of insults you're throwing at me is a confession of your own blindness I hope you realize that much at least. I didn't say you were a dogmatist, but just because I disagree with you doesn't make me one either.

There are heaps of articles written by Objectivists which adress this point of contestation between AC, and Obj. Have you read any of them?

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 Well sorry if I insulted you. I developed a very bad impression of objectivists from personal interactions with them. It's like talking to a wall. What a waste of time! But if you are different then I'm sorry. How shall we chat?

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 don't know if you're aware, I sent you a PM about how we can do a chat, if you want to go on

[Bigturns33]

im and objectivist what specifically do you have a problem with when talking to them?

[phroto13]

@Sam26100 well the fact that there is a voluntarily funded government i would say denotes it different from a statist government entirely and turns it into a business. i have often heard people refer to the market as the voluntary sector and the public sector as the coercive sector for that very reason. this i would say is possible for defence resolution organizations that are funded in the same way that your "government" would be. personally molyneux has convinced me that AC is possible

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 Well then if you're so smart and I'm so retarded, I'm sure it would be easy for you to educate me no? after all I know when I am smarter about a subject than somebody else I find compelled to show them the error of their ways.

Explain to me how there would be law in an anarchy.

/listens closely

[truevoice08]

@Sam26100 cont.... Rand even when everybody else calls a system with no initiation of force as anarchy. Again you prove your blind dogmatism.

[Sam26100]

@truevoice08 If you want to actually have a discussion rather than this post-based bickering, I invite you to do a live chat or a voice chat if you prefer. PM me if you're interested