-15 votes

Rothbard and Menger Trustworthy?

My reasoning for starting this topic can be reported by me, and anyone else can do with that information as they please.

Ron Paul will not be leading the fight for Liberty here in this former Republic forever and when another person takes over the collective power of every lover of Liberty every Friend of Liberty, to one degree or another: what will be done with that power then?

Wolves in Sheep's clothing are possible, and this is not NEWS, for anyone who is a Friend of Liberty to warn anyone else, beware of Greeks bearing gifts like Trojan Horses.

If the new leaders of the Liberty Movement can't enumerate specific goals as well as Ron Paul, then which ones are let go?

I know of three vital ones.

End the National Level Enforcement of a Single Legal Money Monopoly Power (Legal Fraud) or otherwise known as End The Fed, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will then allow a new age of Competition in Legal Currencies whereby the force of many people making choices (that nebulous Free Market PROCESS) will result in a steady increase, over time, in the quality of money (POWER) as that cost of that best money goes down (Interest).

End the National Level Enforcement of Direct Taxation (Legal Extortion) upon The People directly or otherwise known as End the IRS, and do so because that lack of abuse of that power will return the duty of paying a true Federal government to the elected officials who are hired to run the State governments and then any State can then force the Federal employees in line by either paying for what a State wants the Federal government to do or not paying for what a State wants the Federal government to stop doing - NOW.

End the ordering of our best and brightest on missions that go against The Universal Code of Military Justice, unlawful orders, and instead of ordering our best and brightest to commit crimes against humanity, bring them home, since the two other things on this long laundry list will not be seen as a good thing by all those people who are paid so well to commit legal fraud and legal extortion, legal torture, and legal mass murder, and we sure may need our best and brightest here in the battle against enemies domestic.

Knowing that Ron Paul will someday stop being the best man for the job of defending Liberty, and do so wisely, efficiently, honestly, openly, and in good time, know that his power to do the right thing for everyone else will someday be lesser than today, knowing that, in advance, aught to clue the rest of us in on getting our own acts together concerning the many vital things that must be done sooner, and done before it is too late.

The reason for my question on Karl Menger and Murray Rothbard has to do with those 3 things on that laundry list above, as to who will pick up the sword that stands in between those criminals (made legal) and those targeted victims made victims, and if that sword will be used to stop those crimes or further those crimes (made legal) in progress.

What clues may be known to potential victims in case the newer generations of Friends of Liberty rise in power to a level such as Ron Paul has skyrocketed in only 30 or so years?

If the new leaders speak with forked tongues will the targeted victims hear the contradictions, the duplicity, and thereby understand the hidden agendas in time to pull the plug of support as we provide the means by which we will suffer?

My reasons are mine, and you can certainly offer competitive reasons, for doing whatever you do, but if the negative votes were to speak their mind, would they speak lies, libel, and falsehood as a rule?

Comment viewing options

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

To me ...

a lottery is not a true tax because it is not imposed by the rule of law.

However, it is about as near to a voluntary tax as you could get, but still the state has to fool people into paying. Consumers of lotto tickets - by their own choice - dream of hitting the jackpot and week after week waste their money. In this case, though, at least the government offers a tangible product and the opportunity for a small adrenaline rush.

In a true free market, however, this product that the government offers to the public would directly compete with similar products that were available. For instance, there may be a private lotto that exists - in a free market this would not be forbidden. Since the government naturally will always have more overhead involved in any operation, they would be easily out-competed and the initiative to raise money would fail. In a libertarian society, that option of to collect revenue would be unworkable.

In any case, the lottery is still not completely voluntary because it competes for the purchase of other goods. Producers are losing money from it's very existence. They just don't realize it.

A voluntary form of taxation, as described by the wiki page you referenced, would be a tax that everyone could choose or choose not to pay. I would point you back to my example regarding a hypothetical interaction with my sister.

I can voluntarily give the money to the government with reassurance that they will do what they said they would do that convinced me to pay voluntarily in the first place. As long as the government carries out those plans without spending any of the money elsewhere, then I would agree that this exchange would be voluntary. Now, give me a practical example where government holds true to its intentions in spending only where it said it was.

I could care regardless about your age. It doesn't give you any authority over me, although I try to remain respectful. Why pull out the age card? Really?

How am I hounding people about Gary Johnson. Did I mention him at all during this conversation? NO... YOU brought him up.

If your intentions were to make me look like an uneducated fool, you have failed. Maybe your intentions aren't so benign after all.

There ARE other people that come to this website that DO want to discuss GJ and don't necessarily agree with your opinion. For example, this thread - http://www.dailypaul.com/246510/perhaps-the-best-campaign-ad...

- has over 30 up votes - http://www.dailypaul.com/most-contentious

Are you so intolerant of those other 30 people's opinions that you feel you should censor them? Your opinion is so much more important that others' speech should be restrained - even when the topic is relevant.

I am trying to have a rational discussion about taxation. Why did you bring up Gary Johnson? You hate him so much it is the only thing occupying your thoughts and motivating you?

I'm not sure you really learned much compassion and acceptance from Ron Paul. Maybe he failed on that account with you. I guess you were just pretending to be tolerant in a conniving effort hoping I would later stumble. If so, you chose the wrong stooge, ma'am.

Minding My Own Business

I am going to let you and Josf hammer out your discussion on taxes.

I don't hate GJ at all. I was just saying it makes a lot of people mad to talk about him right now. I was only tyring to say I think you would get more traction after Tampa shows its cards. I only brought up GJ here because it had been on my mind to bring up with you and I was talking to you. Nothing rude intended, just unwanted and unrequested advice, and I am Sorry about that. I should be minding my own business. I have stepped way over my bounds.

No conniving intentions or pretenses to cause anyone to stumble, not even a "stooge,” of which I don’t consider anyone to be for my use.


I appreciate your honesty.

You're a good person. Sometimes, words on a screen don't convey a person's intentions well. I'm sure it happens with my comments as well.

I wish you well.

Regards :)

Regards :)

Not if the force of law...

is used to impose the tax.

Step by step - please.

"where tax in a representative form of government is voluntary that I can concoct."

You and what army?

Do you think this is a joke?

When criminals take over government they decide who concocts what and the victims obey.

When criminals are not connected to their victims in that way, that exact way, in reality, no supposed fantasy land or concoction, then people pay or don't pay at will.

Why reduce the facts down to some imaginary theory?

We are among the Legal Criminals now, here in U.S.A. Inc. (LLC), and there is only one way to get out from under this hell on earth that is only not hellish to you, or me, as much as it is hellish to the weaker, or less fortunate, because the target is not yet on us as much, and if you continue to insist on targeting other people with your concoctions, your involuntary taxes, then you are one of them.

You are one of the legal criminals, as you support your concoctions whereby you collect from your many victims as you and your army please.

I know better, your name isn't Ben Bernanke, you are one of the lower dupes, or one of the mercenaries, or just another minion, to be consumed at whatever rate your slave masters are pleased to consume you.

Sit next to good ole' Ben, please, and help him maintain his, and your, involuntary taxes.

Lick those boots.


I can no longer stomach the remaining text you publish here in this fine network of Friends of Liberty, not until you explain your support for involuntary taxation.

Why do you support involuntary taxation of me?

If I had voluntary government, an army of Friends of Liberty behind me, I'd tell you a thing or two, about you and your Fellow Friends of Involuntary Taxation, your lies, your double speak, your duplicity, your bias, and your pretense of high title over me.

Where is that relevant quote?

Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, Sam, what would we do without your kind?

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
― Samuel Adams


It seems to me...

that by you arguing that taxes can be completely voluntary, you are trying to leave room for some moral form of government that exists in some idealistic fantasy - as if government will someday evolve into a perfectly unoffensive player in humanity.

I don't have any such illusions.

All forms of taxation are offensive to me. No matter who the tax collectors, they did not work for my money. I could care less about their philanthropy or good intentions. I have better things to do with my money, and I respect other people's lives and property enough that I could live independently of the government. However, that's not a practical reality immediately due to the fact that there are others that don't yet have enough respect for human rights.

Therefore, I must involuntarily give my money to a damn representative government that I don't always - hardly ever - agree with.

I hope one day we can have an anarcho-capitalist society, but until then, I'll likely be forced by law to involuntarily pay taxes.

How am I on the wrong side of this?

"Say What?!?" - He says bewildered,

How am I licking the boots of Ben Bernanke? Taxes would exist independently of the FED. You are way off base with your slurs, sir.

The way I took the argument was that you were arguing taxes in a representative form of government could be voluntary. I argued that taxes in a representative form of government could, for practical purposes, never be voluntary.

I urge you to reread the the entire discussion. I don't see where you think I'm arguing in favor of the FED - implied by the snide Ben remarks.

I gave an honest answer to your earlier question about Menger and Rothbard. You gave academic sources, and I analyzed it from an academic angle. I believe my judgment was fair.

If you can plainly state your disagreements with whatever I have said - and do so logically without calling names - I will happily do my best address those concerns.

But nothing that I have said goes against the teaching of the Austrian school. If you think so, maybe we have a fundamental disagreement somewhere.

Why should I condemn Rothbard - a man that has made significant contributions to the Austrian School - on behalf of your opinions - especially when I don't necessarily agree with your implications?

Please stop moving

The goal post

If you cannot explain your support for involuntary taxes (crime made legal) then please do not continue to pretend to discuss the topic to me.

I could be inspired to read your replies but not while your claims of authority remain so ambiguous.

I read this far:

"How am I licking the boots of Ben Bernanke? Taxes would exist independently of the FED. You are way off base with your slurs, sir."

What is the point of reading anything from someone who refuses to explain pretensions of authority concerning the supposed need to enforce taxation - or whatever it is you claim so ambiguously?

What is the point?



when a representative form government is in place in any sizable population.

Government cannot exist without taxation - to say otherwise would be dishonest. So, unless we can abolish government altogether - which realistically is a ways off - taxation will be part of our lives, unfortunately. Like I reasoned, no form of taxation is voluntary.

Define to me what you would consider a voluntary tax? I would be happy to consider your response fairly and respond honestly.

Even in a truly Republican system where the States could withdraw funding, the States would necessarily increase taxes to compensate for the lack of direct tax from the federal government. As I admitted previously, this would curtail wasteful government spending in a hurry, but nonetheless, the tax the States would impose are still involuntary.

Therefore, you endorse involuntary taxation, and I can't stomach to consider your opinions any longer - This is the argument you seem to have chosen against me. Is it fair?

We both agree that government spending is a problem. No matter what happens, in order to avoid a monetary collapse, the spending of the the federal government and the lending of the FED must both end.

If I could have my way, I would urge all states to put in place a consumption tax - like Texas and Florida. From those taxes, 10% - or some rate agreed upon by the States - would go to the federal government.

I think that system would solve most of the problems we face today.

But... I can't wave a magic wand.

I improvise and make the most out of every situation. My ultimate goals are philosophically pure, but my actions are based in my reasonable perception of reality - a melding of academic reasoning and practical understanding of the world.

That's what I strive to do.

Please get to the point.

I'm not going past the dictates that you publish.

You dictate:


Because you say so.

That dictate wouldn't be so bad if it were true.

Since it is not true, then what possible motive could I have to read anything else you may care to publish on a forum?

There is the possibility that English is failing to connect the meaning you intend to convey to anyone, including me, and all that is needed, from this point, so as to accomplish that task, is for us to use English in a more inventive way, to sharpen the dull tool - so to speak.

What is the intended meaning of the word TAX in the context of the message you intend to convey accurately?

The only other thing I can imagine at this time, since it is so common, is that your intention is to convey a half truth, so as to reach some other, mysterious, goal.

So, before I waste any more time reading words that make no sense, help me make those words make sense, please, and define exactly what you mean by your use of the word TAX.

This effort is taxing me to no end.


This was Murray Rothbard's

This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

By the state.

Rothbard was not always strictly an anarchist. He was an Old Right Republican for many years, and he had realigned himself with different groups on the both the right and the left over the years, due to his deep commitment to anti-imperialism and non interventionism--this was always a key issue for Murray. Read "Betrayal of the American Right" -- it's about as close as there is to an autobiography, and Murray explains how his beliefs changed over the years, and why.


Discussions can be a free market example of competition between forms of currency, mediums of exchange, intended meanings conveyed through words, intending to inspire competitive action or inaction.

In my opinion Murray Rothbard worked to falsify specific competitive forms of currency, mediums of exchange, a resort to deceit as a means of "competing".

Why he demonized competitive currency, and the people who offer it, is interesting to me too. Do you know if there is information on why Rothbard resorted to deceit in the effort to discredit competitive forms of currency in the recommended book?

In my opinion Murray Rothbard worked to create a false perception of class divisions between employers and "workers" whereby the employers were by some nebulous measure above the "workers" and therefore certain things done are somehow justified because "workers" are below employees, and if those "workers" claim that they are unjustly treated, well, it is their own fault, since they are "workers" after all.

Why that was done by Rothbard, in his own words, is interesting to me too, so I'm asking if the book recommended includes his reasons for working toward the goal of creating or maintaining those class distinctions in that way that he did, in his own words, in the book I linked.

I can recommend any book by Rothbard to anyone. I've read up to the point at which I found the work he does on Spooner, Tucker, and "workers", and then I stopped buying books by Rothbard.

Rothbard did a very good hit piece on Washington, but unlike Rothbard's hit piece on Spooner and Tucker, in the case of Washington the hit piece was reasonable, not uncharacteristically vague, misleading, unreasonable, and so obviously false, or self contradictory.

When the subject of competitive currencies is plopped on the table, like a torture victim writhing, no one wants to touch the tar baby?


In what way do you think he

In what way do you think he demonized competitive forms of currency, or demonized workers? I read the article you quote from, and he doesn't seem to be saying other currency systems wouldn't exist, or that a libertarian society wouldn't be completely free to create whatever kind of currency it wanted, absent a state in a totally free banking system... But making a case why commodity money would be more likely to be widely adopted and accepted, in such a scenario.

Two angles of attack

In the effort to be competitive I can answer two ways:

Limit the answer to the scope of the text written by Rothbard only.

Expand the text written by Rothbard and add context.

In the first case:

In the second paragraph page 205 and 206 of my copy.

these words:

"pointing the way to an ideal society"



That is demonization, discredit, and it is false, and the proof is (stepping into some context but by necessity) to ask and then get the accurate answer: Does Rothbard confess that he points "the way to an ideal society" and they he too is one of the "utopians"?

page 207

"I have certain difference. Politically, these differences are minor, and therefore the system that I advocate is very close to theirs; but economically, the differences are substantial, and this means that my view of the consequences of putting our more or less common system into practice is very far from theirs."

Skipping past a reasoned argument over the options of choosing trial by random jury and trial by precedent or non-random authority, justice, and property rights, which are comparatively reasoned, not "ad hoc" or "ad hominem"
(and skipping past a very likely misrepresentation of both Spooner's and Tucker's published works on land "ownership") to this:

"Some of their fallacies..."

That is dictatorial. That is couched in such a way as to dictate the fact that a competitive measure of an existing reality is a fallacy, and having established that fact, by fiat, "we" can move on.

Moving on to set the fallacy in parenthesis:

"Some of their fallacies (for example,the "law of cost," the labor theory of value) were embedded in much of classical economics; and it was their adoption of the labor theory of value that convinced them..."

Here is the false horse's mouth speaking for the real horse, the Man of Straw.

Had Rothbard offered text explaining this "Labor Theory of Value" thing, explained by the false horse's mouth or by direct quotes, but no such thing as I've seen exists from the actual horses in question (a "labor theory of value: whatever that means), then I could quote that, but it appears to be the stuff of vapor.

Avoiding context and moving on:

"The mechanism for this peaceful abolition Spooner and Tucker found-and here they unfortunately ignored the teachings of classical economics and substituted instead their own fallacies-in the sphere of money."

Couched as dictates, convicting the Man of Straw created by Rothbard, and ushering in real people to stand in place of the show trial that is no trial, a process that completely bypasses a presumption of innocence and goes right to the punishment phase.

"The two basic interrelated fallacies of Spoonerite theory (and the theory of all schools of writers who have unkindly been labelled by economists as "money-cranks") are a failure to understand the nature of money and the nature of interest. 4 [footnote]"

Note (before quoting the footnote) how Rothbard finds a way to be as unkind as anyone else who was unkind, according to Rothbard, since these Spoonerites are, by close association, and again by fiat, money-cranks.

"4 For the sake of simplicity, we will here continue the practice of the classical economists of lumping "interest" and "profits" together. Actually, the rate of profit on the market tends, in the long-run, to equal the rate of interest. Short-run profits (and losses) would continue to exist on the market even if Spooner had his way and the rate of interest (and of long-run profits) fell to zero. The true nature of the distinction between interest and profit was not discovered until the work of Frank H. Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (Boston, Mass: Houghton Mifflin, 1921)."

I could have left that out of this since it is mere context, but it is very difficult to get away from context and to that end my Second angle of view may refer back here.

That above was page 211 and 212 of my copy.

"Money-crankism assumes...

So here is the backhanded unkind word aimed at the Man of Straw with Spooner (and Tucker's) name on it.

Skipping past some name dropping.

"Actually, within these narrow limits,the statists are far better economists than the anarchists: for while the State can wreak havoc by inflating enormously and by temporarily lowering the rate of interest, the anarchist society would, contrary to anarchist notions, lead to much "harder" money that we have now."

So, naturally, there are very bad people, called Statists, but the NEWS bulletin here is that things can be worse!

That is as far as needed to let the horse speak and confess as he chose to do, and further reading appears to be more of the same Man of Straw being constructed so as to have an easy thing to take apart while the actual work done by Spooner is ignored for some reason.

Expand the text written by Rothbard and add context.

Here is where the victims of libel, miss-association, misdirection, discredit, and counterfeit, by executive fiat, and false authority, a bad color of law, in defense, can speak, since they did:



Rothbard dropped the name Greene so the following may also speak in defense of their actual perceptions of reality:


It is odd in my view, very odd, that Rothbard picks Spooner and Tucker as targets in any case.

Spooner's A New System of Paper Currency, as far as I know, follows all the rules dictated by all the capitalists, so where is the beef? Where is the supposed "Labor Theory of Value" nonsense associated with Spooner's work?

As to the choice of targeting Benjamin Tucker there is another mystery. Tucker was publisher as far as I know, publishing a magazine called Liberty. I just checked the Wikipedia link and for some reason the link between Benjamin Tucker and Josiah Warren was severed. My understanding of history is such that Tucker was very much inspired by the work of Josiah Warren if anyone is to pin the tail on that donkey.

If Rothbard wanted to fight, and defeat, a so called economic anarchist then why did Rothbard side step Josiah Warren altogether?


I can elaborate on the context if requested, and please consider commenting on my viewpoint concerning what Rothbard actually published in the hit piece on Spooner and Tucker.

Such as:

False association with money cranks
Those (imaginary) people are worse than Statists
Those people are utopians

What is missing?

Conspiracy Theorist?




Well Rothbard appears to have

Well Rothbard appears to have believed Spooner shared Tucker's views on rents. I'm not sure why, as there is some debate whether he did not--and there are quotes suggesting he did not. He has written a lot of kind words on Spooner, nonetheless, so I don't think Rothbard felt the economic difference was as big of an obstacle, in the big picture.

Rothbard doesn't mince words with his criticism, but I think you misunderstand his intent in writing the Spooner-Tucker Doctrine article, as being more negative than it actually was. He is suggesting that their currency theories, if carried out, would naturally lead to hard money anyway.... In other words, I think he was, quite possibly, justifying a political alliance between individual anarchists/left libertarians (a political alliance of which he took part), and showing how individual anarchism synthesized with Austrian economics. One would lead to the other. That is what I think is meant by Statists being 'better' economists--they can prevent the system from collapse for a longer period of time (and keep up the monopoly of force). So if you want a to get to hard money, and a collapsed state, the individual anarchists are who you might want to ally with.

Is that demonization? Selling out? I don't know.

It is consistent with his view of the right/left political spectrum, where he saw libertarianism as on the classical left, and Marxism as a confused centrist idelogolgy--using conservative means to achieve liberal ends via state force. It is also consistent with the fact that Rothbard believed the war buildup to fight the soviets was unnecessarily, because he believed strongly that communism would inevitably collapse, if left alone.


Rather than feeling stuck in neutral here I can respond by saying that I will continue to look for any valid criticisms of Equitable Commerce (Benjamin Tucker's apparent stand on principle), A New System of Paper Currency by Lysander Spooner, Mutual Banking by W.B. Green, other historical examples of theoretical or actual working currencies, current examples of competitive currencies, or my own ideas concerning competitive legal currencies.

Restating too:

Rothbard wrote a hit piece on Spooner and Tucker, calling them names, constructing a Man of Straw, tearing apart the Man of Straw, slapping Spooner and Tuckers name on the Man of Straw, and then moving on to promote his utopian system where workers have their place and employers have their place and the former is well kept under the later by obvious means, if not honest and open means.


Well, he *did* want to

Well, he *did* want to replace their economic theory with his own--his idea was to blend their political ideas with his economic ideas...he thought they were on the right track, philosohically, but not quite there yet on economics.


(So…Guess What…)

Are Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises opposites? Are they both Austrians?

A. Yes, the are both Austrians

1. One advocates true austrianism

2. The other is a counterfeit

B. No, they are not both Austrians

1. One advocates austrianism

2. The other is something else

C. They are opposites.

Sewing buttons

"Are Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises opposites? Are they both Austrians?"

I think that Rothbard sold out, like Rand Paul. Not the worst of the worst, far from it, but having made a deal with the devil (employing deceit against the innocent).

A. Yes, the are both Austrians

Yes, they both claim to be Austrian Economists, but Mises was the "Founding Father".

1. One advocates true austrianism

Both advocate a whole lot of factual information, Murray is very good at that, a lot of very valuable and very accurate information, but one, as far as I know, does not resort to deceit targeting the innocent.

2. The other is a counterfeit

I'm not sure that this is true, since we all lie and there may be much justification behind Rothbard's lies, he may even believe them, but in the limited amount of reading I've done on Mises there are no lies.

B. No, they are not both Austrians

I don't know where Rothbard was born and it is a guess for me to guess that Mises was from Austria.

2. The other is something else

Gary North explains one division in detail.

C. They are opposites.

One invented, produced, and maintained deceptions targeting the innocent and the other did not as far as I know so far.

No one is confessing, no one is talking, no one is discussing, no one touches this with a ten foot pole, and if it is touched it is touched with lies, libel, personal attacks, stabs from the darkness (negative votes), etc., with very few exceptions.

You may not yet fully realize exactly how exceptional you are in fact.


Rothbard was American, from

Rothbard was American, from the Bronx, New York. He came to believe Mises did not quite go far enough, and that the idea of liassez faire ought not just apply to economics...believing that the only way to truly prevent the aggressive over-growth of the state, was by abolishing the state altogether. He targeted Spooner and Tucker, specifically, I think because he wanted to combine their political philosophy with Austrian economics. He specifically wanted to blend their ideas with his economic theory. That's why Spooner and Tucker. His goal was to marry individual anarchism with Austrian economics, and Spooner/Tucker were his influence.