17 votes

Murray Rothbard on the Future Prospects for Liberty

This week we turn to Murray Rothbard to see how he felt about the prospects for the future of Austrian economics.  After you take in the awesome '80's mullets and staches in the audience, Rothbard's thoughts should excite everyone with an interest in Austrian economics, and by logical extension the liberty movement as a whole.


http://youtu.be/MPViIBgHVys

Rothbard was always a long term optimist and advocated that libertarians should be optimistic in the long run, and present themselves as such. While Rothbard's long term optimism is nothing new here, what I found interesting is the example he cites. According to Rothbard, within economists in Eastern Europe Austrian economics like Ludwig Von Mises and F.A. Hayek are revered figures. This is in stark contrast to the U.S., where Keynesians such as Paul Krugman are looked at as all-knowing economic wizards.

Rothbard goes on to say that "nobody reveres Keynes and Galbraith over there. They've had it with socialism and statism". This points to the unique position of post-Soviet Union attitudes in Eastern Europe. They have seen first-hand the disastrous effects of central planning.  There is no question to people who have lived through bread lines that central planning cannot provide food. These people have seen the effects of Keynesian economics, and they have rejected it.

Continue Reading

Comment viewing options

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

I'd LOVE to hear him say that.

I'd LOVE to hear him tell people what's wrong with Anarchism and what it is that threatens our liberty, and how defending liberty with force is to justice.

If not, I'm not backing down an inch and will tear these Anarchists to pieces.

"But I tell you that anyone

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment ... "

"You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you ... "

If you want to do or be evil that is your business. Keep on bitchin on!

I Think You're Missing My Point

So I'll be very clear:

1. Ron Paul and the vast majority of the liberty movement are NOT anarchist, they are in favor of a constitutionally limited government, as envisioned by the founders of the US. This is a mainstream, patriotic, and populist point of view.

2. The only reason others want to characterize the liberty movement as anarchists, is because they believe that by doing so, they can turn the public against the liberty movement.

3. Even though the public can easily be swayed against anarchism, in reality, it is actually nothing more than an extension of the idea that "the government which governs least governs best" (taken to it's logical extreme).

In summary, very few people in the movement are anarchists (I am NOT one), but I see no reason to exclude a group which has a similar goal of reducing the size of government.

It's "easy" to sway the public against it. They already are.

"Ron Paul and the vast majority of the liberty movement are NOT anarchist"

Ron Paul is an Anarchist, and the vast majority in the liberty movement ARE NOT. He's a Voluntarist and promoter of Anarchism who's using people. I didn't make Ron Paul what he is, but I'm NOT going to live my life with my eyes closed.

"I see no reason to exclude a group which has a similar goal of reducing the size of government."

That's not THEIR goal whatsoever.

Their goals and my goals have NOTHING in common. An Anarchist condemns justice. They call all politicians and governments "statists" and "statism".

Their goal is to destroy government. My goal is to restore a Constitutional Republic. Their goal is to secede. My goal is to nullify. Their goal is to create chaos. My goal is to create peace.

Their goal is to run people down and make them feel small and stupid. My goal is to give people strength and build them back up.

This is their goal:

Lew Rockwell founder and Chairman of the Mises Institute and executor of Murray Rothbard's estate: "It would be a great thing to break up the US, just like it would be a great thing to break up the European Union."

These people KNOW the power the US could exert in the world to defend our liberty, and if they can break up the US, they'll try. Even worse than that, if they can, they'll divide and conquer humanity itself turning it into a world filled with "sovereign rulers" who can rule and protect NOTHING, least of all their own liberty.

Pure Fearmongering

You have no idea what you're talking about, but you clearly have a beef with Dr. Paul.

I am pretty sure tht Ron Paul advocates competition in money

I think that is what I learned in some of the Fed Hearings I watched last year. Alexander Hamilton is the one that wanted a central bank from what I understand. He is the one that pushed the constitution. Am I wrong about that? That is what I have learned this year anyways.

Competition in money.

I'm glad he did. Murray Rothbard had a lot of great ideas too, but that still doesn't mean Anarchism works nor change the objective reality of what we face.

Getting rid of the fed is a beginning, not an end, and I suspect Ron Paul knows how it ends. People will bow down praising the government for "saving us" when they force a new form of fiat money into circulation, one controlled by a central bank.

Ya, Hamilton's no friend of mine. The Federal Government shouldn't be able to take out credit in our name. That means we're their property (livestock), but when we gave them that right it was tied to using gold and silver as money. Now they've turned us all into fiat debt slaves. I say serve justice. Slavery is a crime, and none of us have been convicted of any crime.

"Anarchism doesn't work"

What, exactly, do you base this contention on?

Moreover, how do you define "work"?

It certainly doesn't work for those who make a living leaching off others, or the crony phony capitalists who live large thanks to protectionist regulation and deals.

It certainly does work for those who wish to live peacefully, without initiating violence against others.

And it certainly has "worked" and functioned many times over throughout history.

http://austrianaddiction.rationalmind.net/2007/06/case-studi...

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

Anarchy is a temporary state

Anarchy is a temporary state that gets replaced by government.

For you to not know that, you'd have to ignore the entire world and our history. If you're standing alone in the desert, Anarchism work just fine. If you put 300 million people in a desert, you're going to need a government or some system to keep the peace and defend liberty. You're going to have to serve justice or else that society is going to be destroyed.

If you don't, somebody else will, and when they do your system of Anarchy will be no more. People want justice, and that's about all a Libertarian can offer people, because we understand the foundation that justice is built on.

What kind of government do you REALLY envision Anarchist? I say Anarchists are Communists who think labor wins in a free market of collective force.

exactly, well said.

exactly, well said. I will say that there was an anarcho-communist tribe in africa that lasted until 1900.

Ventura 2012

Well, I am pretty sure that Ron Paul is NOT an anarchist

or a Communist. His voting record is Constitutionalist. As a matter of fact he is one of the few that uphold the Constitution. How much have you listened to Ron Paul? Can you prove your words??

"Getting rid of the fed is a beginning, not an end, and I suspect Ron Paul knows how it ends. People will bow down praising the government for "saving us" when they force a new form of fiat money into circulation, one controlled by a central bank."

The point is to have an end before the beginning of the end. The point is to have competition along side the Fed so that if it does belly up or if there are other strong arm tactics the people already have sound money. Ron Paul advocates a Gold standard without fractional reserve banking. I do not think that is fiat.

I am not an expert though. I have only been supporting Ron Paul for a year. Everything I hear is on the up and up from Ron Paul. Liberty is a big umbrella and there are those under it that may have other ideas...I don't know, but that is a concern to me. Not Ron Paul.

...

Again.

Are you an Anarchist? Do you see anything wrong with Anarchism?

No

I never even heard of Anarchism until last year. I bearly know what it is. I think I am a Classical Libertarian. At least one time I read about that and thought yah, that sounds about right. But I don't think you should call Dr. Paul an Anarchist. I think Anarchists say they don't want any government and Dr. Paul worked for the government and followed the Constitution. I am pretty sure Dr. Paul Advocates following the United States Constitution. I have never heard the kinds of words being attributed to Dr. Paul as you are saying.

Aren't

Aren't these the guys who destroyed the Austrian economy and then fled to America for their lives?

http://www.totalfascism.com/burying-the-austrian-school-jew-...

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

Clever

Are not you the same guy who thinks about the Jew day and night, then posts links to National Socialism (Nazi) or other populist websites out of desperation and mental anxiety. I understand that sheer mental dependency on the Jew for a grown up man is an embarrassment whether you live in UK or Ukraine. But the fact that you cannot sleep well is a sad thingy. If you like collectivist hate ideology, why are you here at individualist website? Yes, we have a good number of anti-Semites who drifted here by mistake. But under free-market capitalism, anti-Semites will wither away or switch to collectivists like it was in the past when USA had capitalism.

You should'nt

Shoot your bolt so early. You know nothing of me and the truth never fears scrutiny.

If you hadn't noticed we don't live under a free market system. We live under a Jewish owned central bank.

“The clever Russian is almost always a Jew or has Jewish blood in him. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation.” ~ Lenin

Gun control anyone....

As for your collectivist Libertarian mentality, try looking up the root of the word.

2 Corinthians 3:17
Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is LIBERTY.

Luke 3:38
Isaiah 43:3-5

"Collectivist Libertarian"

Sorry...doesn't quite register conceptually.

"Sorry...doesn't quite register conceptually."

What threatens your liberty has NO PROBLEM using collective force and collectivism to take it. Your only hope is to use collective force to defend liberty; to serve justice.

"Freedom, liberty and their common defense."

Anarchists are WORTHLESS to liberty and victims of causality who blame injustice on government(collective force) rather than mans covetous nature, and condemn anyone defending liberty with collective force; serving justice.

People talk about "divide and conquer", and if you outright reject the concept of a collective defending liberty, what you'll be left with is an entire world ripe for the taking. (NWO ANYONE?)

What you'll get is a world filled with sovereign wannabe kings who can rule and protect nothing, least of all their own liberty, since what comes to take it will have them outnumbered and outgunned.

'to serve justice'? Be wary of those who seek to serve justice.

'When law and force keep a man within the bounds of justice, they impose nothing on him but a mere negation. They only oblige him to abstain from doing harm. They violate neither his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They only guard the personality, the liberty, the property of others. They hold themselves on the defensive; they defend the equal right of all. They fulfill a mission whose harmlessness is evident, whose utility is palpable, and whose legitimacy is not to be disputed. This is so true that, as a friend of mine once remarked to me, to say that the aim of the law is to cause justice to reign, is to use an expression that is not rigorously exact. It ought to be said, the aim of the law is to prevent injustice from reigning. In fact, it is not justice that has an existence of its own, it is injustice. The one results from the absence of the other.'

Frederic Bastiat 'The law' pg19

Your title and the quote contradict each other.

He completely agrees with me.

He's not saying justice is unjust. He's saying justice is to impose a mere negation.

Anarchists are the ones who need to pretend serving justice is unjust. They're nihilists.

Read it again because you clearly don't understand

Either you didn't take the time to let it soak in or you skimmed over it and focused on a few words to make completely irrelevant remarks.

What part do you think I missed?

I suggest you read it again.

the words are right there in front of you

and for anyone else to read...clearly you have no idea what it says...that's embarrassing.

So you can't back up your words?

Explain to me why I should "be wary of those who seek to serve justice", and what is it in that quote that backs up your claim?

I'm fully aware that you're incapable of it. I say you're an Anarchist, and being an Anarchist requires a total commitment to denying objective reality.

Don't cut and paste quotes when you have no idea what they mean.

I have the book right next to me

I am not an anarchist, and you are ignorant for thinking so

ok I will explain it to you since to you since you cannot seem to grasp what is being said.

the paragraph that I quoted is about the purpose of laws and the application of justice.

you have stated many times, not just here, about serving justice as if that is the goal of law. you have it completely backwards...the purpose of law is to prevent injustice!

I think you stopped reading after you saw something that you liked...you didn't read and understand the whole thing.

you stated:
"What threatens your liberty has NO PROBLEM using collective force and collectivism to take it. Your only hope is to use collective force to defend liberty; to serve justice."

and then:
He completely agrees with me.

He's not saying justice is unjust. He's saying justice is to impose a mere negation.

news flash:
he does not agree with you, you are the exact opposite of what a liberty minded person is. you are a collectivist. you believe that rights come from the group and not the individual.

nowhere in that passage does Bastiat say that 'justice is unjust' that is a plain stupid thing to say, I don't even know where you got it from.

in summary, if you want to serve justice first there must be a law to be broken (the injustice) and as he explains in the last line "The one results from the absence of the other"

too bad you couldn't process this abstract thought...it would have saved us both a lot of time.

Sum up? You haven't even started yet.

Like I said, point me towards what part of that passage implies you should be 'wary of those who want to serve justice'. Where is it that he condemns justice as something worrisome. NOWHERE.

The law can serve justice, or the law can serve injustice. It depends on intent. If the principle a law defends is "liberty" (self ownership, the right to live without being ruled), to defend it with force is to impose a negation on injustice.

The injustice exists before the law is written. You don't need government or laws for there to be injustice.

Bastiat: "In fact, it is not justice that has an existence of its own, it is injustice."

Justice is something the law can serve and that's what you fear. You have NO IDEA what you're talking about and can't point to any part of that quote to explain your fear of justice for a reason. It's not there.

"if you want to serve justice first there must be a law to be broken (the injustice) and as he explains in the last line "The one results from the absence of the other"

Your thought implies we can all be free of injustice by getting rid of the law. (Anarchist? nihilist?) I don't need you to tell me you're an Anarchist. Your fear of justice and having no idea where injustice comes from tells me everything I need to know.

the title is mine

that's why it wasn't in quotes...

dude, I won't even address your replies because you are all over the place, and your paranoid obsession over who is(or isn't) an anarchist is really tiring.

I know "the title is yours" duder.

Like I said, you can't back up your title, because you shouldn't be wary of those who hope to serve justice. You should be wary of those who fear justice.

you want to serve justice

Without even defining the law...talk about putting the cart before the horse.

Told ya you couldn't defend that nonsense.

Writing the law is why we create government.

Why are you afraid of people who hope to serve justice, and don't cut and paste some quote you don't understand, just tell me?