 So thank you everyone for being here. So the title of my talk is Murder Rothbard in the 21st Century, and one thing I'll just note, sort of tie in with Peter's discussion was that Rothbard, if you didn't know, was a very low-tech person. So he always used the typewriter, even till the very end, he sort of clinged to his old-fashioned typewriter, and I can only imagine if he was giving this, if he was giving Peter's talk, you would have a little bit more emphasis because not only are these companies very anti-free market, but I still can't imagine Rothbard with an iPhone or going on Facebook or something. I could see him still around. He would type up a Mises daily on a typewriter and he would give it to someone here and they would have to type it up. So at least that's an interesting point. So in this talk, we all know where Rothbard, enormously influential Austrian economist, libertarian scholar, he wrote in the 1950s, the 1960s, all the way up into his untimely death in the mid-1990s, 1995. And really talk about one, the 21st century, how is it author who wrote a lot of his work 30, 60 years ago, how is he still relevant? Why is he still relevant? Why should people still read Rothbard and how does work still have this timeless message? And I'll be talking a little bit how this relates to the works I discussed earlier, the Progressive Era and the fifth volume of Conceived and Liberty. As I said, I don't wanna give too much information about those, because then no one will buy the works. So I have to keep everyone just always wanting a little bit more. So one of the things I'll first do is talk about some of his work that is actually still cited, not only by, you might say, Austrian economist or libertarians, but even sort of mainstream scholars. So a lot of people sort of poo poo Rothbard, they say, oh, yeah, he was very smart, but he made choices and then none of his work, it didn't have the impact and it sort of sunk into oblivion. And while it is true that he hasn't been given his sort of his just rewards and properly cited, some of his work actually still is very influential and is very significant. One of them that I'll mention is actually his dissertation, which is the Panic of 1819, Reactions and Policy. So he wrote this dissertation in the 50s. He got his PhD at Columbia University. He defended in 56 and the book was published in 62. And this is still, it's actually quite remarkable. It's still sort of an undisputed reference book on the Panic of 1819. So if you look at authoritative works on history or economic history and they're talking about the Panic, nine times out of 10 Rothbard is always cited. So whenever I look, I look in the bibliography at the back and I see Rothbard, Panic of 1819, I go, all right, there we go, we gotta win. And so just as at least a couple of examples, the Oxford history of the United States, sort of a multi-volume series, one of the works on Jacksonian America by Daniel Walker Ho, what a half God wrought, which came out in 2007, uses Rothbard's book, so it cites Rothbard's book, a book more on monetary history by two economic historians, Charles Calomiris and Stephen Hopper, Fragile by Design, came out in 2014 and they cite Rothbard's book on the Panic of 1819. And actually recently someone just contacted the Mises Institute, they have a podcast on Jacksonian America, it's sort of affiliated with Stanford University and they asked if someone could speak about it and I'll be speaking about the dissertation, hopefully in a week or two, it's called The Age of Jackson. And I mean, it's actually quite remarkable someone's dissertation written 50 plus years ago is still, people still wanna talk about it and people still actually read it. I have enough trouble getting people to read my dissertation and I wrote mine three years ago. So actually when I teach class on my syllabi I say if I catch students cheating, I don't fail them, I just have to make the right a book review on my dissertation and no one cheats in my class. I gave a copy to my dad and I asked him if he's ready, he says he keeps it right by his bedstand so if he has trouble going to sleep, he opens it up, knocks them right out. He's on page three right now and I gave him two years ago. So anyway, I mean, it's a side point. I mean, it's actually very interesting that his dissertation is still read and it's still used. I mean, that really shows and you look, he was very influential in the primary sources, he was a true historian in that sense and to do that for your first work into something that you didn't even really use that much before, it really just shows how much of a polymath and how skilled he was. The second work just briefly sort of mentioned that it still gets occasional references might not be as approving, but it's still cited as sort of the Austrian reference on the episode was America's Great Depression, which he wrote really in the mid fifties, about 56 to 57, and then it came out in 1963 and the much more famous Freeman in Schwartz volume, a monetary history of the United States came out the same year, was certainly more influential, but it's still heartening to know that occasionally Rothbard gets citations by mainstream scholars on sort of the Austrian discussion of the issue and sometimes even approvingly when they have a pro-credit expansion causing the initial cause of the Great Depression. So as an example, there was an article that came out in the Journal of Macroeconomics just two years ago on a new history of banking panics in the United States by Andrew Jalil and he cites Rothbard as sort of the authoritative analysis, just a brief mention, but I mean, you'll take it when you can get it, getting Rothbard in the Journal of Macroeconomics and then for any of you who know Barry Eichengreen, who wrote a famous book, Golden Fedders, sort of a well-known Keynesian economist, he had an article that was published in an economic history volume with Chris Michener on credit expansions as a, the Great Depression, excuse me, as a credit boom gone wrong and he actually takes sort of a pro, the Federal Reserve had easy monetary policy in the 1920s and that contributed to the Great Depression. He takes a very sort of Keynesian view of the Great Depression, but again, still cites Rothbard and it's still, at least for the 1920s bubble and it's still heartening to know again in the 21st century, not only by Austrians or libertarians, but also by mainstream scholars, Rothbard's work that was cited, that was written 50 plus years ago is still cited. So it's still good to know and it just shows the significance of him as an author. So sort of moving on aside from those, listing some of his work that's been important, what is actually sort of the importance of his writing? So why should people still read his work and people still do read his work just from laymen, just getting into economics or political philosophy or even scholars later on? I mean, this is something that's important because especially now science is becoming increasingly, at least economics, where an article is written five or 10 years ago, it's out of date. It's no longer got the most up-to-date literature citations or methodology, so it's just put it in the dustbin. But why should people, why do people still read Rothbard? Well, the first thing is that Rothbard was a great writer. He was very clear, he was concise. Most academics are terrible writers. Reading a lot of academic work is kind of like passing a kidney stone. It's very painful, you sort of force yourself to do, you go, oh, it's just this bad process. And on the other hand, Rothbard, he can really make the most uninteresting subject interesting where he can make it funny. He can emphasize the points he can drive it home. He uses italics, which is great. So he knows how to emphasize points. He's entertaining. And it's someone that regardless of the work that you read of him, a layman can understand it. A young scholar can understand it as well as a technical scholar. So, for example, we'll talk about a little bit, man economy and state has this importance. As an example, Rothbard also just as ports of a writing, I mean, just if you read it, you'll learn all these great phrases and great illustrative ways to describe things. One of my favorite Rothbardian phrases is architectonic edifice, sort of this structural systematic building block for something. I've always tried to use architectonic edifice when I write or just, I encourage you to try in your daily life to even use architectonic edifice one time. You say, let's say you make breakfast. I went to the buffet today at the hotel and I had this architectonic edifice of breakfast. I had sausage and bacon and eggs and toast and cereal and strawberries. And the best part was I didn't have to clean any of it up, which is great for me. Another great word for him is scintillating. He says something scintillating and I remember presenting a paper one time and someone commented, because I had a block quote from Rothbard and I said, Rothbard scintillatingly described something and blah, blah, blah. And someone said, well, you really shouldn't, something not scintillating, blah, blah, blah. And I immediately interject and I say, how is it not scintillating? It's brilliant. And then everyone laughed and I said, I'm gonna use the word, it's very illuminating. There's nothing wrong with using sort of value late in terms when it's, you wanna emphasize something and that's something Rothbard did and that's again, it's just help you be a better writer and it's still very important conveying ideas. Talk more about the ideas. So with man economy in state at least, it truly is an architectonic edifice of economics and I did use it once. And it is something that again, a layman can read it as well as a person, I've man economy in state one most influential books, probably the most influential book I've read. I still open it up and I still find gems of insight and I still deal with all of Rothbard's books. And again, it's an economic book. It was written in the 1950s and the fact that still people read it, again, most economics books, most papers, no one reads them. You look at the account, it goes into a journal and then maybe you're lucky if you get 10, oh my God, someone downloaded my paper. All right, well, that's two for this year. That's how bad it gets sometimes. At least turning to the economic history, sort of talk a little about the influence the two books I mentioned from before, why are they still important? So you think of the progressive era, it's about period roughly over 100 years ago, Rothbard wrote it in the 1970s. Why is it still important? Is it just history for its own sake or does it actually have lessons about today? Well, as Peter described, Rothbard really sort of goes into the emergence of the modern, sort of what's known as the alliance of throne and altar. So you have the alliance basically of big government, big business, big intellectuals and big unions. So if you think today, and Peter went through this with a lot of the tech companies, sort of these very sort of favored businesses and also various Wall Street firms, they donate heavily to sort of various political parties. They always seem to have the appropriate, they're so large they can handle the regulations, the compliance costs don't hit them as well. You have the big intellectuals, so the Ivy Leagues, the favored news networks that people consider reliable. So CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, MSNBC, where if you disagree with those, where you're just biased, et cetera, they're the ones really conveying the truth. And then big government where you have the Democrats and the Republicans, just sort of the whole Beltway, which is really protective of its power and sort of the pelf it has over. That's another great Rothbard word, pelf. You want to describe the government taking something. They take the power and pelf, they're just a bunch of looters basically. Gang of thieves are at large. And Rothbard sort of goes into this, how this developed, how this sort of modern corporatism came into being, it just didn't happen out of nowhere. It didn't begin with the Reagan tax cuts in the 1980s, despite what Piketty says or something about that. It was around for a lot longer before then. And at least to go briefly into sort of, conceived in Liberty Vol. 5, so then you go, okay, even farther back, why does something about the 1780s still have relevance today? So at least from one perspective, Rothbard tells a story about the founding of America's Constitution. And it's something I mentioned before, he really tries to hammer home the point that a lot of people today still, they find it very uncomfortable to believe, but that the state is a coercive entity. It's not a social contract. It's not a unanimous social contract where outside of its anarchy, and then people sort of voluntarily sacrifice some of their rights. It really is sort of a coercive theory and states emerge through conquest. And he goes through the process of basically how the United States, how the Constitution was formed and how a lot of the state ratifying conventions, really a majority of the people didn't want it, to do the various reasons, sort of delegate switching sides, media propaganda, which I'll get into more, or even in cases outright coercion, the states sort of joined the union. One of the most fascinating cases, this sort of gets, we talk about trade retaliation yesterday, Lou Rockwell, Ron Paul talked about this, was that after George Washington became president, two states were still holding out. It was North Carolina, it was Rhode Island. And Little Rhode Island was the last state. It held out until the very bitter end. And it just so, the government, the United States said, well, we might just have to take them over if they don't join. And at one point when the ratifying convention was going on in Rhode Island, in the Senate, a bill basically was passed that was going to enact retaliatory trade legislation against Rhode Island. If they didn't join, they wouldn't be allowed to become a free trade zone. So total basically embargo, shut them down, and it was really just sort of a threat. And even then, despite that, Rhode Island barely ratified by two delegate votes, 34 to 32, it was just really out into the bitter end they're gonna hold on, which is, as Rothbard would say, it was heroic. It was a last stand. It's great force is a liberalism. So again, just Little Rhode Island had that tenacity. One other thing that we can sort of learn from the period that Rothbard goes through that I was sort of heartened to find, to read when Rothbard's work is that, this isn't the only time the media has been very biased in favor of big government. One of the advantages of the federalist forces during the ratification of the Constitution is that they really had control of the press. They had control of the press, and more importantly, despite really knowing using it now, they had control of the post office, which is very important. Where a lot of the postmaster generals were heavily federalists, and so the federalists had greater communication. They were able to propagandize much more. They would sometimes only list pro-federalist articles and newspapers. If newspapers issued anti-federal articles, people would stop their subscriptions. They'd get threats. Sometimes the newspaper buildings would be ransacked. I mean, that's one way of persuading them to stop basically. And to really sort of drive that point home, it wasn't sort of a fair match. And it's quite interesting. If you look at, just coincidentally, some federalist mail was delivered in the span of one to two weeks while anti-federalist mail took months to deliver. So you go like, oh, okay, maybe something's going on. Yeah, and so in a sense, with Google or other, okay, having favored searches, or when you type something in to favored website, oh, you get a totally different perspective, at least now it's a lot easier to convey information. Before, you only had newspapers or pamphlets, and it was a lot harder. So it's interesting to note that the media, has always been an instrument, basically, of propaganda for big government. It's always been basically pushing that. It was something sort of a theme, you sort of read in Rothbard. He was talking about that. The deck has always sort of been somewhat stacked against us in that interesting view. One last point that I'll mention is sort of another project involving the Rothbard archives working on with Joe Salerno. Sort of there was a book that came out a couple years ago called Strictly Confidential and had some of Rothbard's writings on, when he was for the Volcker Fund about economics, political philosophy, but political science history. We're working on sort of another volume that sort of has more of Rothbard's economic writings. A lot of the stuff that he would work, he would write reviews of essays or books and some of these, even book reviews, and it'd be very lengthy, and he'd have citations, everything in there, you know, very in-depth. I was sort of a true scholar in that sense. And that one, even though these articles might be 50 plus years old, 60 years old, there's still, you know, he's talking about something of business, you know, some guy writing an article on predatory pricing or monopoly. And it's still the same themes that you see today. That oh, okay, you know, this is why this person's right or this is why this person's wrong. And again, he has, he has such a way of writing that you actually want to read these articles if you haven't already read them, you know, even though they're 60 plus years old, just because you say, wow, you know, he's talking about all this stuff or I want to look at the footnotes, et cetera. So, you know, really, you know, in conclusion, you know, Rothbard, despite, you know, again, he died over 20 years ago, most of his writing, you know, again, 30, 60 years old, it's still extremely relevant. It still shows, you know, a great writer. He still gets some citations, obviously by Austrians and libertarians, but also by mainstream scholars. And he still, the ideas he talks about has enormous influence in there. You know, they're very inspirational. And so this is basically why you should all read Rothbard. Thank you very much.