45 votes

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve

10 Things That Every American Should Know About The Federal Reserve

#1 The Federal Reserve System Is A Privately Owned Banking Cartel
#2 The Federal Reserve System Is A Perpetual Debt Machine
#3 The Federal Reserve Has Destroyed More Than 96% Of The Value Of The U.S. Dollar
#4 The Federal Reserve Can Bail Out Whoever It Wants To With No Accountability
#5 The Federal Reserve Is Paying Banks Not To Lend Money
#6 The Federal Reserve Creates Artificial Economic Bubbles That Are Extremely Damaging
#7 The Federal Reserve System Is Dominated By The Big Wall Street Banks
#8 It Is Not An Accident That We Saw The Personal Income Tax And The Federal Reserve System Both Come Into Existence In 1913
#9 The Current Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben Bernanke, Has A Nightmarish Track Record Of Incompetence
#10 The Federal Reserve Has Become Way Too Powerful

Read The Full Article At:
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-09/wall_street/3...




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

If it's true that the Fed is

If it's true that the Fed is private, then I'm going to buy it.

Please do. By the time you

Please do. By the time you do, every person on the planet will be using the medium of exchange of his choice or no medium of exchange. Have a nice time playing house with your new old building.

Still waiting for your second set of 35 rules of economic freedom. Most of the ones on your first list fit freedom. That work was good work.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Edit #1

Change "whoever" to "whomever."

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

SteveMT's picture

By this rule, it looks to be correct as is.Not easy either way.

http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/whoever.asp
Whoever vs. Whomever
Rule 1

To determine whether to use whoever or whomever, here is the rule:
him + he = whoever
him + him = whomever

Examples:
Give it to whoever/whomever asks for it first.
Give it to him. He asks for it first.
Therefore, Give it to whoever asks for it first.
We will hire whoever/whomever you recommend.
We will hire him. You recommend him.
him + him = whomever
We will hire whoever/whomever is most qualified.
We will hire him. He is most qualified.
him + he = whoever
Rule 2

When the entire whoever/whomever clause is the subject of the verb that follows the clause, look inside the clause to determine whether to use whoever or whomever.

Examples:
Whoever is elected will serve a four-year term.
Whoever is elected is the subject of will serve.
Whoever is the subject of is.
Whomever you elect will serve a four-year term.
Whomever you elect is the subject of will serve. Whomever is the object of you elect.

Who, Whom

subject, verb, object

whoever, the subject, is before the verb

whomever, the object, after the verb

subject: the doer
object: the receiver of what the doer does; the one acted on

Example:
Whoever is elected will serve a 4-year term.
[verb: serve] so, whoever is used

Note: Numerical form of a number is used regarding year(s). That's what I learned, anyway.

Thanks for the rundown, Steve. It's always good to know the DP has editors. Learning what is right and good is, well, right and good. lol. The DP is a place to learn at! Happy Independence Day to you, Steve!

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

SteveMT's picture

Amendment #2

The establishment of the Federal Reserve is one of the ten planks of communism.

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/10planks.htm

Amendment

Strike #1 and insert, "The Federal Reserve System is a conglomeration of government agencies and banks that transfers wealth from the legitimate owners of money, large and small, to the banks, brokerages, and other politically powerful enterprises."

The Fed is not private. Congress created the Federal Reserve System. The Board of Governors and the Federal Open Market Committee are federal agencies. The Fed Head is appointed by the president and approved by the Senate, as though he were a cabinet secretary.

Ĵīɣȩ Ɖåđşŏń

"Fully half the quotations found on the internet are either mis-attributed, or outright fabrications." - Abraham Lincoln

Knowledgeable commentary,

Knowledgeable commentary, Jive. Very good. Thank you for it.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Criminals plain and simple

They create money from thin air to loan to other criminals at little or no interest and these criminals in turn steal our money to pay back the sham loans. Hang them. Waterboard them first.

Share this:

http://youtu.be/yuC_4mGTs98

I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility to every form of tyranny over the mind of man.

And that is just the start of it!

:P

Lord Acton, Lord Chief Justice of England, 1875 - "The issue which has swept down the centuries and which will have to be fought sooner or later is the People v. The Banks."

I wish the "Fed is private" complaint would at least

be coupled with the truth that it essentially wouldn't exist without the government, and that it is a government chartered bank - given advantages that cripples any competitor like legal tender laws and the like. I am happy when people realize how destructive the Federal Reserve is, but get nervous when they blame it on the fact that our central bank is "private." As if they are saying that if there was just more government regulation and control it would be soo much better. I truly hope the greenbackism movement does not take over the End the Fed movement, though unfortunately, I predict it will.

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

Precisely. Government is

Precisely.

Government is cover for the source that created and runs the Fed. If the Fed was private without a front, it wouldn't require audit to prove it, thereby allowing Americans and people worldwide long ago to see who is doing what. The scam known as the Fed (and any other central bank, for that matter) would've folded long ago had it been naked.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Exactly.

Saying it's "private" is not only wrong, but it's a confused ploy to score political points.

RP supporters claim to be free marketeers. So they conclude that markets work, but markets also create central banks? This is ridiculous, contradictory, and confused.

Why do people say this? They want to score points with leftists. Plain and simple, they want to champion free enterprise on one hand, and take advantage of its vilification on the other. Political doublespeak. "Privatization is good, but also bad, very bad."

RP supporters are themselves confused. They claim that government sucks at everything, and free markets are better. So they relegate the incompetent state to what functions? Only the most important, namely protection and arbitration. Because that makes sense....

They are too attached to the the nationalistic flag-waving and other "A-myrrh-kin" traditions that comes with it to give up on the state entirely. Emotion reigns triumphant over reason.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

I agree with everything

I agree with everything except So they relegate the incompetent state to what functions? Only the most important, namely protection and arbitration.

Why do you think those two functions would be correct if ran privately?

In my argument, I say without those two function, country is nothing, there would be no country. What is a country without laws that perform the basics -- protection (military against invasion) and arbitration (to ferret out truth and, if applicable, administer justice to the transgressor because that transgressor had been unwilling to right his wrong)?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I could explain it...

...but I'm not as smart as Friedman, and can't write nearly as well.
Here's a recipe for getting your answers in 10 minutes or less.

Download his free book here:
http://daviddfriedman.com/The_Machinery_of_Freedom_.pdf

Go to page 58, where it says: "Anarchy is Not Chaos."

Read from 58-64 and stop at "The Stability Problem."

That roughly 6 pages is probably the most intelligent (and concise) answer to your questions that has ever been written.

For roads, see pages 40-41.

Let me know what you think of it. I would be happy to explain any part of it if it doesn't make sense. Honestly, the whole book is incredible and worth reading, but if I had to choose 8 pages or so....

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

Thank, ResisttheRing. I'll

Thanks, ResisttheRing. I'll check that book out. :) But what are your arguments for not needing a government-ran military and government court system?

If you had to choose eight pages, then?

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

"But what are your arguments

"But what are your arguments for not needing a government-ran military and government court system?"
--> First of all, we can dispose of the term "need". We don't "need" government courts/military, we don't "need" market-run courts or military. Now, it might seem like I'm being a jerk or a nit-pick for doing this, but there's a good reason for it. As the question is phrased, it implies that since government run military and courts are the status quo, that somehow it's a position that we should defend as the default. As someone with a libertarian meaning, you know damn well that is not a good practice. At the same time, I understand how a lot of the burden is on me to present alternatives, and that's fine, but we should try to look at it as neutrally as possible if we're going to do a comparison.

Now that I've gotten that out of the way, let's get started. There are many reasons we shouldn't WANT the government to run the courts. First of all, have you ever tried to use them? The fact that you're defending them probably means you haven't (hint: it's not easy). In fact, it's so out of control, that TONS of arbitration is settled in private courts. Yes, that's right, businesses get robbed to pay for courts that they can't even use, and it's so bad that they're willing to pay even more for a private option. This is pretty easy to understand for contract law. For starters, when deciding whether to contract with someone, you must decide whether they are trustworthy. People have contract ratings (kind of like credit scores). This shows whether people have made contracts in the past, and shows whether they upheld their end, or if they obeyed the court orders in event of dispute. If they violate their contracts and ignore the court ruling, they get a bad rating, and you (and everyone else) stop doing business with them. So behaving lawfully is pretty much required.

Who would maintain credit ratings? Perhaps an independent company, perhaps the arbitration company, it's hard to predict. That's a side note. If you try to predict in detail exactly what will happen in the future, you can fall into the trap of thinking that you know exactly what is the most efficient business model. It's pretty arrogant, and something I will try to avoid doing. But at the same time, my goal isn't to say that my idea is the BEST market solution, I'm simply pointing out that the IDEA of a market solution is not completely ludicrous.

When writing a contract, you specify in advance with the other party who would arbitrate in the event of a dispute. Since the government sucks, people choose Company X (yes, this already happens in real life). If they don't go to court, the contract rating gets adjusted accordingly, and we go on as usual. If one party needs to file suit, they go to court, and they act according to the findings of the judge. If the losing party obeys, his score isn't hurt so much, since he's willing to cooperate, and he can continue doing business.

At this point, people usually ask why the judge gets to decide. And it's a good question. I don't know if it would be one judge, or a team of researchers. But the ruling of the company would prevail. And this is actually VERY important if you want to understand what I'm talking about (if you've made it this far and are still reading, I applaud you). This is why law is polycentric. The law itself is a good, and it's not the same for everyone. Before you panic and think that's not fair, note that we don't all have the same law now (state, local, national all vary from location to location). You look at the history of rulings from different courts, and you judge what type of law you WANT to live under, and only contract with people who have similar preferences. We, the people, make law on the market. We are not subjected to the will of the majority in the same way we are with democracy. If 10% of people want one type of law, they can have it amongst themselves. If 10% of people are libertarians, they accomplish nothing in the political system.

Now the next thing you're probably thinking is "that's great and all, but what about cases where people don't contract in advance? What about criminal and tort law?"
Most market anarchists expect that we would have private defense companies. In a way, this topic overlaps with your question about the military. You see, tort and criminal law would also be decided on a market, and possibly a different market, but it's free market nonetheless. I can subscribe to private defense company Y (note: they're sometimes called dispute resolution organizations, or DROs, which I'll use as a shorthand).

I subscribe to a company that promises to protect me from criminals and threats, and that probably serves as a type of insurance company as well. You can go to DRO Z if you want. They don't have monopolies over geographic areas, so the law is polycentric. They compete with one another, and we try to get the best protection at the lowest price.

"But then what about when a person in one DRO attacks a person from another DRO? We'll have chaos!"
Well, that isn't in anyone's interests. These businesses have much to lose by starting wars with one another. Political rulers today don't have to bear the costs of their decisions, but businesses do. They don't have tax bases and central banks to finance these types of destructive behavior. All peaceful solutions will be sought first. Most DROs will have contracts with one another, to choose tort/criminal courts. So again, by choosing a DRO, you are in essence voting on the law on the market. You will want a DRO that has a reputation of using courts with rulings that you favor. You get to buy the type of law you want. Obviously there are a lot more details I could get into, but I'm already practically writing a novel here.

There are also questions you could ask about what if the DROs team up and make a government, or what about invading governments, and I could go on and on for another 2000 words, but I'll stop here for now. Hopefully at this point you can at least accept the POSSIBILITY of a market for law and defense. Hopefully I've intrigued you to read into the people who have written more on the subject. If you have any specific questions, I'd be happy to address them. Just not right now, my fingers hurt from writing this.

"If you had to choose eight pages, then?"
^ ??? I gave a list of 8 pages to read in my first response to you.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

I wrote a long reply to you,

I wrote a long reply to you, RtR, but somehow a finger of mine hit a button on my mouse that turned this page, the reply page, backward. That caused me to lose my reply. Good grief, that's highly irritating.

To be brief:

-I didn't take offense to you being a jerk.... LOL. JK, I didn't think you were a jerk. You didn't nitpick. You homed in on a word and used it to promote your position. If you used a word to defeat your opponent, that's fine too. Extracting a word and using it is part of debating and it's almost always for clarity, not for gamesmanship because debate is the exercise to attain comprehension. I expect nothing less in debate. May the best argument win. Every word matters when conversing intellectually because to get issues right in practice is to implement their best form in life.

-I'll have to look into what you promote about the court system replacement dispute resolution organizations, or DROs. On this process' face, I dislike it. I'll give my reasons some other time. A couple of those reasons were in that erased reply. Succinctly, because it looks vigilante and rogue, I oppose it. I want a law whose foundation is fair and equal for all people. That foundation is defense of freedom while attaining truth and issuing fair justice. Again, that's the foundation, and I understand and acknowledge there are differences in law among regions -- states, cities and counties. Perhaps no court system is best. This way, manners would get to correct right quick. lol. Paradoxically, that void would breed chaos, but I think the opposite would be produced, a respectful, courteous, pleasant society where mistakes are, yes, tolerated and where then and there time can be given to explain why the mistake is a mistake.

Quick: What do you think about gov't military?

Lastly, oh, I inferred eight pages was an addition, a comment in sequence, not a repetition. I noticed the elipsis ("...") and thought you were leading me to believe you had more to say there.

OK, RtR, you have a good night and rest of the week. Talk with you later. Happy "Independence" Day.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

"On this process' face, I

"On this process' face, I dislike it....Succinctly, because it looks vigilante and rogue, I oppose it. I want a law whose foundation is fair and equal for all people. That foundation is defense of freedom while attaining truth and issuing fair justice."
^And that's natural. Everyone feels that way the first time they see it. But think about it deeper. What does fair mean? The truth is that the type of law that is fair, and just, and best, is not something that can be decided and then remain static forever. In the past, law has developed over time. Whaling and fishing laws developed (anarchically) in ways that were most efficient for the types of whales being hunted. Look up "fast-fish/loose-fish vs iron holds the whale." Then government came in and the fisheries get depleted. What is just and fair isn't the same across time, we can agree there. So if we accept that change has to occur, how should it be decided? Should we aggregate all of our preferences on the market, or should we have a political system as an intermediate player, where not everyone's opinion counts? I think it would be better if we had a legal system that could quickly and fluidly adjust to take our preferences into account. Markets provide that. There's nothing "rogue" about the marketplace. No one centrally plans what types of gadgets we can buy on the free market, but that doesn't mean chaos, it means CHOICE, efficiency, and speed.

You hit the nail on the head when you said:
"Perhaps no court system is best."
^This is true. It depends on many factors. And only a market system can take all of our preferences into account, and provide the law according to that.

"Quick: What do you think about gov't military?"
^ I think government military is an excellent example of why we can't trust government to protect us. The actions of the military were the cause of 9/11. The military makes us less safe. Government rulers don't bear the costs of their decisions when it comes to waging war, but they can manufacture political points. Heads they win, tails we lose. Private businesses don't get to play games with our lives, without paying the price. In fact, I'll posit that war (on any scale worthy of being called "war") is impossible without taxation or central banking.

Look forward to talking with you later.

'The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats. They believe that “the best government is that which governs least,” and that which governs least is no government at all.'
-Benjamin Tucker

If you don't mind

I'm gonna chime in with some specific resources on the topic. Of course voluntarists don't argue for a land without fundamental law, we just say that it is dangerous and immoral to leave this critical human need to a monopoly, namely the State. I define the "state" as "a group of people which purports to hold a monopoly over legitimate coercion", which implies that it purports to hold a monopoly over the legitimate settling of disputes. If a group of people is forcibly preventing others from seeking out alternative arrangements, then ceteris paribus I consider that group to be committing unjust aggression. Therefore, employing systematic aggression is an essential feature of the State.

The difference between the state and any other aggressor (like the mafia) is that the state enjoys widespread legitimacy while any other aggressor doesn't.

I will give you some videos and other recourses that succinctly demonstrate pure market law and arbitration.

Law Without Government by Graham P. Wright (be sure not to miss part two and three)
http://youtu.be/khRkBEdSDDo

And my favorite economist (you might need a few minutes to get used to his accent, but you will grow to love him for his vigorous logic, dry humor, and genius) 'Protection and the Market for Security' by Hans-Hermann Hoppe - you can also download the lecture for free from itunes to listen on your Ipod (59 minutes) http://youtu.be/zmSCh_w0B3A

See also the chapter on police and courts in "Mr. Libertarian" Murray Rothbard's "For A New Liberty":
http://mises.org/rothbard/foranewlb.pdf

Freedom as Defense Against Tyranny!:
http://youtu.be/uPiU69WX30M

Foreign Aggression:
http://mises.org/daily/4021

But Wouldn't Warlords Take Over?:
http://mises.org/daily/1855

How Could A Voluntary Society Function?:
http://youtu.be/tE9dZATrFak

Arbitration of Disputes:
http://mises.org/daily/5404

The book "The Market For Liberty," from which the last link comes from, can be found here:
http://libertyactivism.info/wiki/The_Market_for_Liberty

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

You described the government

You described the government well, to a T, I think. I agree with what you wrote, every sentence of it. I'll look at the videos another time, though. I will do it, trust me. I enjoy learning about freedom from people who I think comprehend it because at least I won't waste time.

I bet I'll agree with most of the sources you cited, but because time is of the essence and that my interest is what you think, would you mind explaining your argument, whoops, ResisttheRing's argument (if you side with him) that government protection and arbitration is wrong rather than only describing government?

I can see that because you define your terms and phrases, you care about communication, about conveying what you mean to say and omitting implication. Same here. :) What a breath of fresh air your writing is.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Re: You described the government

Well thank you! I'm glad that you have an active mind, and wish more people did as well.

So why it is wrong, or unjust, was explained after I defined the State: "If a group of people is forcibly preventing others from seeking out alternative arrangements, then ceteris paribus I consider that group to be committing unjust aggression."

I adhere to the non-agression principle: that it is only just to use violence defensively. Jacob Huebert elaborates in Libertarianism Today:

"This is the basic libertarian idea: That people should be free to do 'anything that's peaceful,' as libertarian thinker Leonard E. Read put it. That means, in the words of libertarian theorist and economist Murray Rothbard, that 'no man or group of men may aggress against the person or property of anyone else.' Or, to rephrase it one more time, anyone should be free to do anything he or she wants, as long as he or she does not commit acts of force or fraud against any other peaceful person. Libertarians call this the 'non-aggression principle.'

In everyday life, people understand and follow this basic libertarian rule. If you want something and it belongs to someone else, you have to persuade him or her to give or sell it to you - you cannot just steal it or threaten to hit the other person over the head if they refuse to part with it. If you do not like the books that your neighbor is reading, or the religion he is practicing, or most anything else he is doing in the privacy of his home, too bad - you cannot go force other people to do what you want them to do.

Libertarians extend this rule to the political realm. If one person cannot steal money from another, then the government (which is made up only of individual people) should not be allowed to forcibly take money from people, even if it is called taxation. If one person cannot kidnap another person and force him into slavery, the government should not be allowed to do it, either, even if it is called a draft (or 'national service'). If one person cannot go into his neighbor's house and force him to give up bad personal habits, then the government should not be allowed to do it, even if it is called a war on drugs. And so on."

Mr. Libertarian Walter Block responds to some criticisms of the non-aggression principle:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/block/block26.html

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/block1.html

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

Looking for Gov't Protection/Milit. and Arbitration Arguments

Once again, I agree with everything you wrote, but still I'm wondering what your explanations of being against these two functions are: military, which in two comments above I referred to as protection, and the courts for arbitration when parties in conflict have been unable to come to resolution on their own.

So that you know my position on the military, I'm for the individual entering it voluntarily. Perhaps exiting it should be voluntary too?

On arbitration, the judicial system should be mediator of last resort, which I thought was its function from the court system's beginning. Today, it's a State builder through tax collection and unjust court decisions instead of a freedom defender.
_______________

In everyday life, people understand and follow this basic libertarian rule.

Yep. The behavior of this basic libertarian rule, a subconscious behavior probably, is what astounds me about people who hear Ron's message but reject Ron. Compounding my astonishment is people's unwillingness to look up Ron's record or, worse, know his record but stilllll reject Ron. On top of that rejection is that those people pay attention to politics. Argh.

Pertaining to the average person, the one who doesn't pay attention to politics, I disbelieve enough of them to continue this country's course are dumb. I think the average person would take to Ron if he paid attention to politics. I think he'd support Ron immediately because his, the average man's, history is without political theater, that theater being the media spinning the freedom candidate's stance into a thousand variations with each variation less closer to the stance.

Oh, and, hey, happy "Independence" Day. lol.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

I'm against

the government run military because of how it is funded through taxation which is theft. Because the military gets its money through confiscation rather than voluntary payment for services rendered, it is able start unnecessary and unjustified wars that it wouldn't be able to start otherwise since they wouldn't find enough support from people to pay out of pocket for the senseless wars.

For example, Smedley Butler was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps and received 16 medals, five for heroism. He is one of 19 men to twice receive the Medal of Honor. After his over 33 years of service he said:

"I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents."

And you are right, all military organizations should be voluntary, whether it is joining them or leaving them. Anything less is slavery.

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

Interesting point

on the reasoning for why some people pull the "it's private" card - being because they want to score points with liberals. They should just remember what Paul says about it - end the Fed so competing currencies can be used instead. It's important not to be dishonest or compromise principles to score points.

I realize Murray Rotbard was speaking to anarchists specifically, but I think his point in this quote pertains to whatever political stance you have:

“The effective centrist avoids the pitfalls of “opportunism” by keeping the objective firmly in view, and, in particular, by never acting in a manner, or speaking in a manner, inconsistent with the full libertarian position. In the name of practicality, the opportunist not only loses any chance of advancing others toward the ultimate goal, but he himself gradually loses sight of that goal—as happens with any “sellout” of principle. "

Rothbard continues...

"Thus, suppose that one is writing about taxation. It is not incumbent on the libertarian to always proclaim his full “anarchist” position in whatever he writes; but it is incumbent upon him in no way to praise taxation or condone it; he should simply leave this perhaps glaring vacuum, and wait for the eager reader to begin to question and perhaps come to you for further enlightenment. But if the libertarian says, “Of course, some taxes must be levied,” or something of the sort, he has betrayed the cause.”
~ Murray N. Rothbard

I think he has two very important points in saying no one needs to, and shouldn't, go around declaring they are an anarchist or libertarian everywhere they go, as well as don't sell out on principles to try and score points either.

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

+1

And I like your tag line.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

Thanks!

I like yours too. It kinda reminds me of what Murray Rothbard said about education.

“It is clearly absurd to limit the term 'education' to a person's formal schooling.”
― Murray N. Rothbard

Forgive me for using all these Rothbard quotes tonight, but I can't help it - he just has so many good ones!

No one can find a safe way out if society is sweeping towards destruction. Everyone,in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. - LvM

You're welcome, Heathie. I

You're welcome, Heathie.

I know little, very little, about Rothbard, but knowing the title of one of his books and hearing reports of what he espoused are enough info for me to believe I would agree with him often. That book: Man, State and Economy. I think I got that title correct. lol.

School's fine. Just don't let it get in the way of thinking. -Me

Study nature, not books. -Walton F. Dutton

egapele's picture

Great

article, thanks for posting!