11 votes

Murray Rothbard Down The Memory Hole?

With the explosion of the liberty movement over the past five or six years there has likewise been a surge in interest in libertarian ideas as well as Austrian economics. And slowly, references to these ideas are leaking into the mainstream, as evidenced most recently by the mentioning of Austrian economics on an episode of “The Simpsons”.

Even one of America’s great CEO’s has been “coming out of the closet” lately. Whole Foods founder John Mackey, who has recently received both scorn and praise for comparing Obamacare to fascism, was recently interviewed by Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. At one point during this interesting interview, Mackey describes how he began to read the works of many free market economists such as Ludwig Von Mises, FA Hayek and the subject of this weekly column Murray Rothbard, all associated with the Austrian School of Economics. The reference can be found around the 3:25 mark in the video here.

Any references to the Austrian School and Austrian economists in the mainstream media are of course great for the liberty movement. Sometimes all it takes is one Google search of ”Austrian economics” or “Murray Rothbard” to send someone down the liberty rabbit hole from whence they shall return as a full-fledged freedom fighter.

However, in the case of Mr. Mackey’s interview on Fox News, something odd seems to have occurred. On the transcript of the interview, it seems that the reference to Murray Rothbard has been eliminated completely:

But once I did — once we did start whole foods and I did have a meet a payroll, I was having trouble. I mean, we had our team members wanted higher pay and our customers saw our prices were too high and suppliers, we were small and they didn’t want to give them discounts. So we lost half of the capital. We had $45,000 to start with and we lost $23,000 of it the first year. Renee and I only got paid $200 a month and people were saying I was, you know, kind of a bad guy now because I was a business person.

So, I threw out that philosophy, didn’t work, and I began to read widely and I read a number of free market economists like Frederick Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises and I discovered these explanations of the world worked a lot better than the philosophy I had previously. I learned the business is the greatest value creator in the world. We create value for customers, for employees, for suppliers, for investors, the communities we’re part of. Business people are heroic. We’re not the bad guys. We’re the good guys.

The reference to Murray Rothbard is very clear in the video, yet has completely disappeared from the transcript of the interview. But are the corporate fascists at Fox News the only ones sending Rothbard down the memory hole? Maybe not.

Continue Reading



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

It's obviously a marketing

It's obviously a marketing decision to set LFB apart from the Mises Institute (that is effectively the Rothbard Institute).

LOL @ saying that Jeff is only promoting authors that aren't anti state. Way to just make somethying up randomly and run with it. Here's a suggestion: READ some of Tuckers suggestions (hint: start with #4)

Henry Hazlitt has gone down the memory hole... sadly

Economics in One Lesson... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24nVarM20KQ

Treg

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

That's the problem with going down holes.

You don't know what's at the bottom, and if you look too hard, you're sure to fall in.

Did Murray Rothbard send you down a rabbit hole, or a memory hole?

I see him as a kind of David Icke Character who offers people a lot of great information and then slips in one AWFUL idea like Reptoids (Anarchism), an idea SO bad that it discredits EVERYTHING he connects himself with.

You should make some money with that idea of yours...

"Anarchism, An Idea So Bad" by freedomsreigning.

Break it down for us anarcho-capitalists, chapter by chapter...and I promise, we'll buy your book.

Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Comparing Rothbard To Icke

Is like comparing Von Mises to Paul Krugman.

It's an absurd comparison.

So the idea of not having a society based upon a monopoly coercive force is akin to believing the reptilians rule the world?

Got it!

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

Comparing Rothbard to Icke isn't really fair.

You're right. Murray Rothbard is worse. At least David Icke admits that he sees you as a mindless repeater here to peddle his snake oil.

I don't see you as a mindless person or a repeater, and I don't want you to get taken in by the likes of Murray Rothbard EVER again. I don't want you to get memory holed. You deserve better. You deserve liberty, but you'll have to win the debate within government and use collective force to defend individual liberty.

"Freedom, liberty, and their common defense."

You'll need to keep on winning the debate for as long as you can, and in a world filled with covetous people, it won't be easy, but it IS possible.

There's NO WAY to win in Anarchism. Supporting Anarchism is like throwing in the towel and trying to use collective force to take what you unjustly want without debate, representation, or consent. You want power, but you know you don't have the right to it, and should you ever win, those who have the biggest wallets will claim that might makes right.

Ancaps want their WALLETS to win the debate in a free market of collective force. They want to use coercion and the principle of self interest to control society but all that gets served is injustice. The only thing that gets served are those with the biggest wallets and the greediest souls. The most self interested Anarchists win, those who want to buy privilege through collective force, so they try and destroy what's standing in their way; government.

It's not going to happen, and all you'll get for your efforts is used and destroyed. (memory holed)

Funding evil force

Ancaps want their WALLETS to win the debate in a free market of collective force.

The wallets of the Ancaps are finite. They will run out of money eventually, whereas the wallets of the state are for all practical purposes, infinite.

The state's wallet gets filled through the violence of taxation and forcing people to accept their counterfeit money, whereas, the Ancaps' wallets can only be refilled if they serve society and earn the money through peaceful and voluntary interactions.

If you don't like supporting evil force, then you must oppose the state.

This was more likely just a

This was more likely just a transposition error, not a legitamate attempt to censor Rothbard's name. Who actually reads these transcripts? I would guess that the number is miniscule compared to the number who watched the video interview. The names of Mises and Hayek are still there, so the point which calls the absence of Rothbard's name an intentional exclusion is not really sensible. And, upon a comparison of the transcript with theI actual interview, it is apparent that the exclusion of Rothbard's name is one error amongst many.

This is much ado about nothing in my opinion.

Perhaps

In fact they may be simple oversights in both situations. But many self-professed "libertarian" organizations (CATO for one) have "memory-holed" Rothbard in the past, and it certainly wouldn't shock me if it was happening with currently mainstream or hoping-to-become mainstream outlets were doing the same now.

Discussing the Austrian Business Cycle theory is great, but it probably doesn't frighten the establishment like "Smash The State!"

"more transparency at the Fed" isnt' scary, but "End The Fed!" is.

Frankly throughout more journey nobody - including Ron Paul - has helped me to fully flesh out the ideas of liberty more than Murray Rothbard.

I intend to make sure his works and his message don't get memory-holed, intentionally or not.

http://lionsofliberty.com/
*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

You are bat shit insane to

You are bat shit insane to even imply that Jeff Tucker, Stephan Kinsella et al are even remotly like Stato.

...or just speaking out of ignorance.

You should familarize yourself with LFB. They're as hardcore anti-state as LvMI/LRC, they are just running a deliberatly different marketing strategy.

Sent to my

friend who thinks Fox News tells the truth.

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign: that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. ~J. Swift

This comment -- "Business

This comment -- "Business people are heroic." -- is sad. C'mon. Let's stop the hero talk and birthing perceptions about men as man-gods.

If freedom, everyone is a business person or can become one. Merely creating for one's self involves purchasing and selling. Business in freedom would be largely different than how it is, and happiness, because business would be (self) personalized therefore absent compulsion to work outside measuring fulfilling an interest, would be ubiquitous.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

Correction

In freedom.... I meant to say In, not If.

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

Study nature, not books. -Walton Forest Dutton, MD, in his 1916 book whose subject is origin (therefore what all healing methods involve and count on), simple and powerful.

That is all true.

Maybe heroic is an over-statement.

But starting a business involves making an investment of time and labor in hopes of return on investment.

In one case, an author spent 40 hours a week for two years, and hired services (proofreaders, technical experts, etc). Gross revenues a few year later topped a million dollars.

That is a long time to hold one's breath.

Perhaps not a heroically long time.

The market provides the reward, the flowery language is superfluous, indeed!

Don't applaud just throw money. Then one knows it's serious.

Free includes debt-free!

How deep is the memory hole?

Murray Rothbard threw Lysander Spooner down the memory hole with his hit piece titled:

http://www.amazon.com/Egalitarianism-Revolt-against-Nature-e...

As with taking a step back from Total Crime made legal to The Constitution so is it a step back from Total Crime made legal to Gold and Silver as "government" money.

Rothbard was freedom light, or legal banking monopoly power (so long as it is Gold monopoly power), according to Gary North.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north512.html

______________________________________________________________
WHAT IS THE SOLUTION?

In theory, there are two possible solutions, neither of which has any possibility of being implemented in my lifetime or yours.

One solution is free banking. This was Ludwig von Mises' suggestion. There would be no bank regulation, no central bank monopolies, no bank licensing, and no legal barriers to entry. Let the most efficient banks win! In other words, the solution is a free market in money.

Another solution is 100% reserve banking. Banks would not be allowed to issue more receipts for gold or silver than they have on deposit. Anything else is fraud. There would be regulation and supervision to make sure deposits matched loans. This was Murray Rothbard's solution. The question is: Regulation by whom? With what authority?

There would be no government-issued money. There would be no government mint. There would be no legal tender laws. There would be no barriers to entry into coin production.

There would also be no free services. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

Anything other than free banking or 100% reserve banking is a pseudo-gold standard or silver standard. It is just one more invitation to confiscation.

There is no organized movement today to establish either free banking or 100% reserve banking. There has never been a movement to impose 100% reserve banking. It has been well over a century since a handful of economists and pamphlet writers recommended free banking.

Anyone who tells you that it would be easy to switch over to a gold standard has either no understanding of the politics of money and banking or else has been smoking some funny-smelling leaves.
________________________________________________________

1. Gold can (or cannot) monopolize money markets without crimes made legal ("government" monopoly).

2. Gold is a niche market for purchasing power storage (hedging).

3. Competition (true free market) forces the cost of money down and the quality of money up.

Discussions concerning The Constitution (Law Power) and Gold as Money (Economic Power) can't really start until the lies are all stripped away.

Joe

Fractional Reserve banking is fine if it is transparent.

In a free banking system, a Full Reserve banks could exist beside a Fractional Reserve Bank.

The former is low risk and lower return on investment than the latter, by definition.

The owner of a bank, who can cover the banknotes issued, might risk fractional Reserve banking.

Free competition balances greed with risk.

Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M). That is stamp it with the Congressional brand. The government's Coin can be used by people. But in a free market, money competes, like everything else.

In a free market no one needs a proposal for debate.

Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it. If correct the market will use the service. If it is mutually beneficial it can continue until it is not.

Evolution is the way of business if not for creatures. Provide mutual benefit or become extinct.

Free includes debt-free!

Anti-Transparent?

I think the word is fraud.

Joe

If investors are informed.

Say One buys a 5 year certificate of deposit. It's due in five years.

It is a fraud if depositors or holders of banknotes are promised redemption on demand.

Free includes debt-free!

False fronts

I started out my economic study with Mises, then I went on my own autodidact path through other competitive viewpoints.

I found Equitable Commerce, Trial by Jury, A New Paper Currency, Mutual Banking, The Science of Society, and what made the most (still makes the most) sense was Equitable Commerce.

I went back to the Austrians to figure out how they had missed the work in Equitable Commerce, so I went to Murray Rothbard and found his hit piece on Lysander Spooner.

Noticing some of the garbage above in this thread, there is a hit piece on Rothbard comparing Rothbard with David Icke, and a two with one stone hit piece on anarchism.

Is that three hits with one stone?

1.
David Icke
2.
Murray Rothbard
3.
Anarchism

The concept of Rothbard being anarchist is not well supported if Rothbard is the source of the information.

Rothbard was the government monopoly of force guy. If you read Egalitarianism as a Revolt against Nature, and other Essays, by Rothbard, the obvious becomes true: Rothbard is not a representative of anarchism.

Anarchism is bad to who?

Who decides what anarchism is, or anything else for that matter?

Why play words games?

"It is a fraud if depositors or holders of banknotes are promised redemption on demand."

I can guess what you are saying, and I can guess that your words are accurate, but that requires that I guess.

It is fraud if the fraud is inventing, producing, and employing deception so as to cause injury to the targeted victims.

"It is a fraud if depositors or holders of banknotes are promised redemption on demand."

I can guess that you intend to mean that a criminal will use fraud to injure an innocent victim. I think that guessing is hazardous.

Going back:

"Fractional Reserve Banking is fine if it is transparent."

My response was to call crime by the name crime and then leave no room for guess work.

Anti-transparent banking?

Frauds are not in the banking business. Frauds are criminals. If frauds take over the banking business, then the word Banking no longer applies, the word Banking is now a false front.

If the sign on the building says Fraud instead of Banking, then how many customers will buy into the Fraud?

Many?

All the frauds?

If that is the only game in town, or the biggest game in town, my point is to point out how accurate words may help reduce the injuries to the innocent ones.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkwjtbTjTsE

"In a free banking system, a Full Reserve banks could exist beside a Fractional Reserve Bank."

Since these words were replying to my words I think it may be a good idea for me to now response sentence by sentence so as to remove a lot of the guess work that may be current or future guess work.

Free banking does not exist while people are currently victims to a very powerful fraud where the very powerful fraud is denominated in dollars. If there is an example of free banking then my point about how free banking works is that the force of all the people who pick competitive bank A over competitive bank B, C, or D, is a force that forces those people in those competitive banks to increase quality, as judged by the customers, and lower costs, as judged by the customers.

When quality plummets, as judged by the customers, and costs rise, as judged by the customers, the obvious creation and maintenance of a monopoly (competition is crushed) exists in accurately measurable ways.

Quality goes down in monopoly, as judged by the customers who have one choice which is blind obedience.

Costs go up in monopoly, as judged by the customers who have one choice which is blind obedience.

The frauds learn how to play the fraud game.

Monopoly is the free market of victims, as plenty of victims are dumped onto that free market.

"In a free banking system, a Full Reserve banks could exist beside a Fractional Reserve Bank."

If a Fractional Reserve Bank existed then one could be studied, measured accurately, evaluated, even chosen by consumers: I guess.

If the concept is to look at a fraud in progress that exists behind the false front of a Fractional Reserve Bank, then that sounds like bait and switch to me, or a shell game.

Enie, menie, minie, moe, which bank is Fractional Reserve and which bank is fraud hiding behind Fractional Reserve?

If they are all denominated in dollars then they are all fraudulent when there is one "license" to counterfeit "legal tender".

My point: Imagine handing out the one license to produce fire.

Only Brand X is legally allowed to produce fire and any other producer of fire is guilty of a federal felony crime punishable by torture and whatever else may happen on a trip called Extraordinary Rendition.

So I have to cook today, or heat the house, and there once was a move toward electricity for cooking and heating but now there is one license for electricity too. I still use fire, so I go to my local fire bank and have a fire bank employee tend to the fire as I cook the food and heat the house.

It is a "Free Market" of course, since I have the "choice" of picking Bank A to tend fire for cooking and heating, or Bank B to tend fire for cooking and heating.

I have the "choice" of rubbing my hands together too, and the choice of eating cold food.

"In a free banking system, a Full Reserve banks could exist beside a Fractional Reserve Bank."

Where, and under what conditions?

I prefer to point out that the criminals are running the False Fronts they call government, and the funny thing is that the victims are obeying the orders to use those false front names: without question.

"Free competition balances greed with risk."

Why use the word "greed"? Much of modern technology has been investments made in the scientific study of statistics and the fruits of this labor, these risks, include the removal of a lot of uncertainty associated with investments.

Case in point:

Imagine a Democratic Federated Republic somewhere on some planet where human beings live, not a false front where criminals are perpetrating very serious crimes behind what their victims are calling "government" but an actual voluntary, anarchistic, competitive, non-monopoly, government system and on this planet and within this Democratic Federated Republic there was a free market of Despotism Insurance offered to the human beings, called The People, therein.

Texas (the hired employees running the government of Texas) may offer the voters who vote with their earnings, or their feet, a policy that covers any person against any loss by any government employee of any kind, a bonding type of thing, and the price (cost) charged to the customer for this service is X, and the benefits (quality) realized by this service is Y in case the investment does pay off since the risk of being alive among criminals who hide behind badges does exist.

Call it a Tax or call it Put Options, the force of competition between Free Market Government A (Texas), and Free Market Government B, C, D, (Arizona), (Nevada), (Arkansas), can be chosen competitively by the voters who vote with their so called taxes, or their so called feet, shopping around for the best bang for the best buck, or not.

What is the best buck?

"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M)."

Here is where my brain is supposed to fall into line, and again I am guessing.

Congress, so called, is a usurpation that occurred in 1788, and an ongoing crime in progress since then, despite the efforts to chain those criminals down with advice such as The Bill of Rights. So my brain does not do what it is supposed to do with that sentence.

This sentence:

"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M)."

"Free market in money" can't exist as one denomination that is an ongoing fraud hidden behind a thin veil (or thick sculls) of legitimacy.

Example:

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amend...

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M)."

I don't mix up crime with other things, why would I?

"Free market in money. Only Congress can coin Money(big M). That is stamp it with the Congressional brand. The government's Coin can be used by people. But in a free market, money competes, like everything else."

When the criminals take over it is then a free market of victims as all the targets are dumped in that way onto that free market and the traders are all cutting each others throats for access to the bountiful supply of victims.

Competition can get ugly. Turf battles. Call it war, so as to keep the victims powerless, stupefied, and going all in: "voluntarily".

Yeha!

"In a free market no one needs a proposal for debate."

My guess is that the above sentence means something to the writer. To me that sentence is troublesome. A potential trader in a free market has to find out if there is anyone, anywhere, willing to trade something for something. I don't know the meaning of the word "proposal" in that context. I don't know the meaning of the word "debate" in that context.

"In a free market no one needs a proposal for debate."

People need power. Not having power is powerless, resulting in death.

One person alone, with no help, or no harm, from anyone, has to produce everything one way or the other, alone.

One person with help is a connection from one person to another person, in some way, a medium of exchange.

If one person proposes something to another person, it seems to me then there are things traveling through the medium of exchange, words, now called a "proposal".

I suppose.

Then the recipient, or the target, of the "proposal" encounters those things traveling through the medium of exchange, and that, at that point, is a one way transfer of things, a "proposal" sent, and a "proposal" received.

Like this:

"The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Debate is a word, it is 6 symbols arranged in an orderly way.

Does the word suggest a two way connection of things going from one source to another place and then from that place, a new source, traveling back to another place?

I have to guess.

I'm guessing. I don't speak falsehood, at least I'm trying to avoid speaking falsehood as much as possible.

"In a free market no one needs a proposal for debate."

If a free market can be exemplified, somewhere on earth, then it can be measured accurately, if there is a will to do so, then there is a way to do so, it seems to me.

"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it."

Someone observes targets, and then someone targets those targets, and then the targets are hit with things, lies, false advertizements, and then the targets respond to those things, conditioned to respond to those things, in such a way that transfers power from the targets to the person who targets the targets, invents the lies, produces the lies, and hits the targets with the lies, conditioning the response, and the power flows one way, as the power flows from the targets to the person targeting the targets.

Or, something entirely different.

"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it. If correct the market will use the service."

What is "the market"?

"Someone who sees a way to provide a service that they think the can earn a profit, simply provides it. If correct the market will use the service. If it is mutually beneficial it can continue until it is not."

Cutthroat A and cutthroat B are working the High School. A is on the north end, B is on the south end. The targets are observed, targeted, and hit with an abundant supply of opium products for free, for a little while, and then the supply dries up, so as to then start charging a return on the investment.

Cutthroat A and cutthroat B agree that it is a free market: mutually beneficial. It continues.

"Evolution is the way of business if not for creatures. Provide mutual benefit or become extinct."

Cutthroat A farms the targets called consumers of money.

Here is the score:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The Free Market of Victims has evolved into things called derivatives which is a neat way to increase the flow of power from those who produce that power to those who steal it, it is like, in English phrases (rather than with math as the medium of exchange), like, it is like The Business Psycho on Steroids.

False Fronts exist.

Crime exists.

Confusing the two is not a crime perpetrated by those who are confused?

Joe

Yes, suffering crimes and cons is part of the human condition.

In 1913, the US 'Con'gress institutionalized crony capitalism, aka mercantilism, aka political Fascism.

The First Bank of the US was created in 1791 as demanded by foreign creditors. (using Alexander Hamilton).

From 1860 to 1913 was the National Bank Era.

From 1913 to present is the Central Reserve Era.

Andrew Jackson paid the foreign debt in 1835 and let the charter of the Second Bank of the US lapse.

From 1836 though 1861 was the Free Banking Era.

For 192 of 222 years (86%) since the Ratification of the Constitution the people have been afflicted by the plague of a Central banking authority.

For 30 years only has the possibility of banking without government competition existed.

I concede that fraud in banking has been rampant.

In a free market, where voluntary exchange and contracts were the rule rather than the exception, such frauds would have been minimized by the threat of bankruptcy and brand disgrace.

Have I missed anything?

In later episodes we can discuss Free Banking: Full vs Fractional Reserve.

Free includes debt-free!

Speaking of cons

"In 1913, the US 'Con'gress institutionalized crony capitalism, aka mercantilism, aka political Fascism."

I think you are conning me.

I checked into history and found a lot of evidence supporting the competitive (free market) viewpoint that mercantilism/monarchism/nationalism/false Federalism/consolidated "government" is "political Fascism" under another name (false front).

I think the con at the time (1787) was called a Con-vention.

http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Proceedings-Debates-Constitutio...

1913 was a change of the name, it seems to me, another con-job.

"The First Bank of the US was created in 1791 as demanded by foreign creditors. (using Alexander Hamilton)."

Al is quoted in the reference offered.

"Andrew Jackson paid the foreign debt in 1835 and let the charter of the Second Bank of the US lapse."

I don't like to use fraudspeak, so I invent (free market) ways around it.

Example:

"Andrew Jackson paid the foreign debt in 1835 and let the charter of the Second Bank of the US lapse."

Old Hickory was a criminal, well renowned as one, and his ill gotten gains may have included transfers from him to other people.

I prefer to see honest productive people producing more valuable things during the day than the valuable things they had at the start of the day, then that POWER is stolen, by fraud and extortion (tools = "weapons of mass destruction" = but don't blame the weapon), and then those ill gotten gains are employed in the work required to keep stealing.

Old Hickory left a paper trail - follow the money.

What is money, if it is not powerful, and current?

Just before the Obamanation called The Civil War (false front) those times were interesting. It was Wild Cat Banking, or Free Banking Era, and the emerging inventions that became known as Socialism and Capitalism and in that mess was Equitable Commerce, here and there, so the topic of a Memory Hole my uncover some very interesting things thrown down it.

War is good for the economy, just don't call it crime?

"For 192 of 222 years (86%) since the Ratification of the Constitution the people have been afflicted by the plague of a Central banking authority."

I could be wrong but my understanding is such that The Whiskey Rebellion was the end of competition and the beginning of "our" current "central banking" era.

In order to write that last sentence I have to dive way down into the abyss of falsehood so I use quotes to make sure that I, an individual, do not sign onto the concept of crime made legal, as in The Constitution usurpation, and this Admiralty Law fraud in progress.

The people, or the targets, whichever actual members of the specific group are connected by the same connection, Money Monopoly Fraud, Nation State Extortion Racket, whatever, those people, those targets, have been effectively victimized since 1788, in so may accurately measurable ways - if anyone cares to look.

"For 30 years only has the possibility of banking without government competition existed."

How about some counter points to ponder in competition (free market) with that sentence above?

http://www.lietaer.com/2010/03/the-worgl-experiment/

http://www.depressionscrip.com/

http://utopianist.com/2011/01/stimulus-writ-small-tiny-calif...

The Point being: To earn enough to pay the extortion fee (IRS) the victims are now required to pay with the the one fraud money (The FED), so the point is basically this:

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol3/...

"Mr. GEORGE MASON. Mr. Chairman, whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause clearly discovers that it is a national government, and no longer a Confederation. I mean that clause which gives the first hint of the general government laying direct taxes. The assumption of this power of laying direct taxes does, of itself, entirely change the confederation of the states into one consolidated government. This power, being at discretion, unconfined, and without any kind of control, must carry every thing before it. The very idea of converting what was formerly a confederation to a consolidated government, is totally subversive of every principle which has hitherto governed us. This power is calculated to annihilate totally the state governments. Will the people of this great community submit to be individually taxed by two different and distinct powers? Will they suffer themselves to be doubly harassed? These two concurrent powers cannot exist long together; the one will destroy the other: the general government being paramount to, and in every respect more powerful than the state governments, the latter must give way to the former. Is it to be supposed that one national government will suit so extensive a country, embracing so many climates, and containing inhabitants so very different in manners, habits, and customs? It is ascertained, by history, that there never was a government over a very extensive country without destroying the liberties of the people: history also, supported by the opinions of the best writers, shows us that monarchy may suit a large territory, and despotic governments ever so extensive a country, but that popular governments can only exist in small territories. Is there a single example, on the face of the earth, to support a contrary opinion? Where is there one exception to this general rule? Was there ever an instance of a general national government extending over so extensive a country, abounding in such a variety of climates, &c., where the people retained their liberty? I solemnly declare that no man is a greater friend to a firm union of the American states than I am; but, sir, if this great end can be obtained without hazarding the rights of the people, why should we recur to such dangerous principles? Requisitions have been often refused, sometimes from an impossibility of complying with them; often from that great variety of circumstances which retards the collection of moneys; and perhaps sometimes from a wilful design of procrastinating. But why shall we give up to the national government this power, so dangerous in its nature, and for which its members will not have sufficient information? Is it not well known that what would be a proper tax in one state would be grievous in another? The gentleman who hath favored us with a eulogium in favor of this system, must, after all the encomiums he has been pleased to bestow upon it, acknowledge that our federal representatives must be unacquainted with the situation of their constituents. Sixty-five members cannot possibly know the situation and circumstances of all the inhabitants of this immense continent. When a certain sum comes to be taxed, and the mode of levying to be fixed, they will lay the tax on that article which will be most productive and easiest in the collection, without consulting the real circumstances or convenience of a country, with which, in fact, they cannot be sufficiently acquainted."

"I concede that fraud in banking has been rampant."

I don't know about such a concession, frauds are not in banking, they are in the process of perpetrating the crime of fraud.

Here is the score:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The frauds hire "debt collectors", who may soon be dressed up in "Chinese" uniforms.

Extortionists are not in government either, in my opinion, based upon actual evidence, they are in the business of extortion, which is crime, and if the crime is in progress, then it is extortion, not government.

"In a free market, where voluntary exchange and contracts were the rule rather than the exception, such frauds would have been minimized by the threat of bankruptcy and brand disgrace."

A means by which the criminals are accounted as criminals may include a means by which earnings are accounted to those who earn.

The time between 1776 and 1788 may serve to instruct.

"Have I missed anything?"

I don't know. I did not miss Equitable Commerce, and until I figured out an easier way to condense the concept of political economy that competitive viewpoint (Equitable Commerce) worked the best.

I think that political economy can be condensed down into one sentence as such:

Power produced into oversupply reduces the price of power while purchasing power increases because power reduces the cost of production.

"In later episodes we can discuss Free Banking: Full vs Fractional Reserve."

I think it may be productive to offer anyone a competitive answer to the following question:

What is ideal money?

Joe

What is ideal money?

Here's some history of coins to consider.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gn55fTRXZw

The definition you gave a political economy made me laugh and think of this:.

“Truth is our most valuable commodity – let us economise.” ~Mark Twain “

I will have to think about the political economy you describe. The notion intrigues me.

Free includes debt-free!

Thanks, I've heard that angle.

I tried clicking on the link.

Your link is a link to the Mises gang. There is a split among them.

I can agree to listen to the speaker, having already found on my own the principles behind half of the Austrians. I can agree to redo that path if you agree to read this:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/labadie/2916966.0001.001/3?rgn=f...

In particular there is a part in that work where the writer speaks of a 3 sided fence: food for thought and a competitive angle of view.

The writer was an active autonomous citizen in America during that Wild Cat Banking time, or Free Banking Era, which is a very interesting time.

If you take the deal, tit for tat, comparing notes, competing in the free market of viewpoints, then I'll listen to the whole speech about coins.

If you care to know I've had run ins with the Austrians. They removed me from their Forum, by resort to lies. When I pay to go to their conferences they ignore my questions, and they lie about answering them "tomorrow", and their answers are indirect, as if creating "plausible deniability", and "limited liability", and keeping their trade secrets secreted away in patents pending.

I can elaborate in great detail on at least 4 occasions, the latest one having to do with the Liberty Conference in Reno Nevada. I paid extra to have extra access to an Economic Speaker where the lure (bait) for the higher pay was one on one discussion time with the authorities on economy, but alas it was switched with the bums rush instead.

The speaker told the audience factoids that were marginally true and demonstrably inaccurate, leaving no time for a word in edgewise in response, the bell rang, and the well wishers were ushered off into their own worlds to earn more for easy plucking.

You can turn my Political Economy sentence any which way and find an angle from which you can shoot it down, or improve it, add a word, take one out, but find fault, without resort to willful deceit, please, do your best - it is a competitive world and we have it by its tail.

Joe

I'm here in Michigan at the center of the Wild Cat Banking fraud

Many banks at that time were famous for creating banknotes without specie available for redemption. Buildings were erected in the wilderness of the next county north. To return their banknotes was a two week journey, if you could find the Bank, so-called.

It is not my purpose to peddle ideas, but to lay them on the table. May the best ideas win or be found wanting as the case may be.

Thanks for the link, Joe. I will review it.

Free includes debt-free!

God bank

The bank temple idea has gained currency and I can't be held to account for that fact, I'm just reporting it, and I do not sign onto, or believe it.

How does the lie go, how does the lie read, how does the lie work, exactly?

Banks are temples of God.

No, Joe, no one says that, you are mistaken.

Yes, naysayer, it is a true lie.

No

Yes

Where is the ref?

Where is the judge when you need one?

Ok, how about this angle:

Guy is sent out to get some food for the family. Buys the food at the food store and feeds the family, they all die.

The family is dead.

Come to find out that everyone buying food at that food store dies as soon as they eat the food at that food store.

Is it a food store?

Under closer scrutiny there is a partition dividing the front of the "food store" with the back of that same building. Go down the street, make two left turns, and you are at the front of the other half of the "food store".

Funeral Parlor

Business is booming.

Joe

"Life and Times of Joe Kelley"

--a competitive look at political economy

I quickly, very quickly, perused your conversation here and while doing some chores that title came to me.

Anyways, I don’t know how much I will add to discussion today. I am doing housework which I didn’t get finished on Monday. Had to take the Baton Widow to the emergency room and didn’t get home til midnight. Yesterday was a wash. So today I am back at it.

I wanted to say thank you again for the history lessons. I used them here http://www.dailypaul.com/271446/max-keiser-interviews-alex-j...

...

Reff

Judge

Impartial?

At hand is discussion once again. I think it is akin to circling dragons. The concept is also illustrated by creative imagination.

Now 3 people standing at a cross road in the dark. The ways we all traveled to reach this point are the same path in the sense that it is the past and none of us can go back the same way. Time is a monopoly, dumping all of us here in the present and forcing all of us on the same path into the future. But 3 are assembled currently at a junction point in reality, and the point can be illustrated figuratively. Each arrived from a different path, a competitive one, each will move on a different path, relative to this point.

Which is the more powerful path?

Each can resort to deception upon the other, consuming each measure of power that can be consumed from the other.

Threats and violence figuratively speaking.

Draining the will to survive as an individual, and in turn, or in harmony draining the will to perpetuate the species.

On one path ahead the road sign says leap blinding into nirvana, and it adds that the act must be executed immediately or failure is certain.

My perspective offers an alternative translation of the sign, and a more accurate measure of what happens on that path.

I think that it may be a good idea to begin counting upon each other, doing so accurately, so as to reach a goal by a specific date in the future, and on that day we are ready, and we do as we say we will do on the day, because we do as we say we will do as we approach that day, and on that day we stop aiding and abetting the criminals who took over the so called Federal government.

In unison, we say, now, no more of it, but not until fair warning has been given, generously, and hazardously, to those unwilling to stop being criminals, on our dimes, and so hazarding the announcement, we begin to hold each other to account, counting up our numbers, and when our numbers are accounted for, we then realize our power, and we then exert our power, on that day in the future.

1.
End the FED (do so competitively by having competitive money ready and in use by a specific date in the future)
2.
End the IRS (do so competitively by having competitive government, city, county, state, whatever, a Despotism Insurance Policy, bonding claims made on the criminals with badges, whatever works, work it out, have it in use by the day we will work out of crime made legal)
3.
Bring the Troops Home (do so competitively, be one of the troops, give yourself license, hire yourself to defend yourself, and stop joining, and stop sending your kids, to the criminals who then abuse the power they steal by fraud, by threats, and by violence that includes legalized torture and legalized serial killing or mass murder)

The question of what is ideal money is specific in the sense of having the best money in your wallet, but it is specific also in the sense of having the best information in your memory, money is currency, it is information, it is power, or it is not money.

Joe

Comic Relief

was provided at lunch by Jeff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6TcpfBHlbs after I had him watch the Chinese Survivor of Tiananmen Square Control Speach on front page of DP.

Rothbard...his best days are ahead!

The attempts to marginalize the freedom movement have failed! They failed with Mises, they failed with Ron Paul, and they are failing with Mr. Libertarian himself, Murray N. Rothbard!

What Pox News, what the CATO Institute, or what NR, Weakly Standard, Commentary, or any other neocon rag says, or fails to say, about Rothbard doesn't matter! WE are the ones spreading the word, and WE aren't letting him disappear through any memory hole, hoever much William Kristol, Karl Rove, or Rupert Murdoch may wish otherwise.

Mises Institute, and LewRockwell.com, two far more honest and reliable sources about Rothbard, say that interest in his writings and speeches has never been higher. Support for his ideas among students coming to study at Mises Institute is at an all time high as well. They are the future of the freedom movement, as our hero reminds us daily, not the warmongering, fascistic neocon slobs whose only ideas of "liberty" are a miniscule 5% tax cut over ten years for the topmost 2% income, along with NDAA, warrentless searches and seizures, arresting little schoolchildren for toy guns, and FEMA camps!

Rothbard,with our help, will live and thrive, long after the neocons who tried to bury him are all obscure reference notes in a future "Decline and Fall of the American Empire".

PEACE AND FREEDOM!!

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is not to be attacked successfully, it is to be defended badly". F. Bastiat

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, finally they attack you, and then you win"! Mohandas Gandhi

alex jones should carry

alex jones should carry murray rothbard on infowars store

lawrence