I miss him too. When I moved to Las Vegas in 1990, Rothbard being one of my idols, I paid him a visit at his UNLV office. No particular reason other than wanting to meet him personally. Very gracious, humble, and humorous man who had an infectious cackle. You'd have thought we'd been lifelong friends. He joked about being an outcast (along with Hans Hermann-Hoppe) from the economics faculty, but remarked, "I'm best known from my enemies."
this lecture demonstrates why gary johnson is no libertarian, he was talking a 23 percent sales tax, rothbard made a good point about that just creating another arm of the government.
apparently you didn't get it, when murray talked about the misery of creating whole new nightmares like large sales taxes for federal income....that's exactly what gary was proposing...23% also with gingrich clinton actually eliminated the deficit so you don't know what you're talking about i wouldn't vote for either of them
HERE'S A TROLL TEST TROLL: 1. NAME ALL THE CELLS & ORGANS IN THE BODY, THEIR QUANTITIES AND FUNCTIONS. 2. NAME ALL THE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT. 3. DESCRIBE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTH AND ITS ORBIT AROUND THE SUN AND THE SUN'S ORBIT WITHIN THE MILKYWAY AND THE MILKYWAY'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER FEW HUNDRED BILLION GALAXIES IN THE UNIVERSE. 4. EXPLAIN HOW A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT COULD RELATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PERSONAL HEALTH. 5. WHY ARE YOU SUCH A LAME TROLL
@@AshenOne_CR Lysander Spooner was an Individualist-Anarchist and Mutualist favoring usufruct property norms and labor vouchers. While Spooner is a predecessor to Anarcho-Capitalism, he himself is not the first Anarcho-Capitalist. That would be like saying that Bastiat was the first Anarcho-Capitalist.
I remember when I first watched this, getting my way through Rothbard in kind of awe of his genius. I couldn't BELIEVE the questions he had to field after such an interesting lecture.
While I don't agree with Rothbard's ideas (I am a left wing libertarian), I admire his commitment to rationality and his hard-headed approach to economics. He was determined to follow his worldview wherever it led, even if it meant shocking the status quo. Respect.
I miss Murray Rothbard, even though I never had the honor of meeting him. The guy was brilliant; just about all of his analysis was spot-on and still holds up today. I wish we had more people like him around in the Libertarian Party now.
Yes it is really a long shot to accept that humans act purposefully and that they act on their strongest desires/most preferred end. Contrary to what you say, Mises devotes the entire first section of the book critiquing the objections he knew the rest of what he said was going to face. He didn't expect the reader to just accept it. That is why he laid down the case, from an epistemological standing, that his theory is correct.
I adore the writings of Rothbard, but since my primary exposure to him has been through audiobooks, it's difficult for me to recognize him without the mellifluous voice of Jeff Riggenbach. His real voice kind of reminds me of Dr. Marvin Monroe on The Simpsons.
"TV is to the point where all you get is medical news." Ah the good ol days back when the corporate press wasn't talking about "systemic racism" all the time.
How would bank bailouts and other forms of wealth redistribution happen without the glorious state to orchestrate them? Even if you are correct, in a free market, people have to actually offer something to trade to increase their wealth (in money terms). You can't simply go to the gov't or central bank when you are in trouble.
I don't know where you got that from, but Rothbard was 100% anarchist because he supported the notion of a stateless society, and he described himself as an anarchist.
cont. Thomas Jefferson also lived before Austrian economics came about. Menger published his "Principles of Economics" in 1871, so Jefferson was about a century too early to read it.
I wouldn't deny that a sizeable amount of wealthy people became wealthy through coercive means. I was asking you to back up the statistic that most do. And even if they do, they are then the same as anyone else being supported by the production of others. They are having wealth redistributed to them. It is equally as wrong.
Seeing as this Rothbards only online lecture on political action it should have had a lot more views recently. It's brilliant. All the libertarian partisans committed to be permanently sectarian cooks should sit up and listen when Murray endorses Ron Paul in the Q and A. I'd like to think most libertarians are smart enough to realise that Ron is a far more radical libertarian than someone like Gary Johnson (who hasn't even read Mises and Rothbard, let alone Menger and Bohm Bawerk).
Yes, the word "selfish" doesn't have to be wrong by default but that's how it's been used for a long time in our society. That "selfish" stands close in relationship with negative connotations because of how it is being used to describe a behaviour. Of course this word are tilting towards meaning something positive. But still: peoples, in general, doesn't like selfish individuals because it's hard to be able to trust them without worrying about them double-crossing you for whatever reason.
The violence committed by the state or the ruling class is the worst class of violence. Freedom means you can not be coerced you have to be convinced. But that does not mean that if you hurt other people then violence can not be directed against you. You still have the freedom to defend yourshelf with violence but not to attack other people if they mean no harm to you.
@safeinsuburbia He was talking about the "balance of trade deficit" not federal budget deficits. He actually specifically makes this distinction in his answer
@tonygmilan7 Rothbard was not talking about homesteading "unoccupied" land. He was talking about taking the unutilized property of the rich; specifically if their wealth was acquired in an unjust economic system, like the one we have today. He made a good case for it.
The Law's of Economics is like the Law's of Physics, we can not change them. All we can do it try our hardest to interpret them. I know you posted that a year ago, but it's a thought I have often when reading Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard as a Physicist.
@mojorhythm This concept of requiring sound monetary policy, removing the unsound fiat debt based currency is the essential backstop behind Libertarianism. This is the key issue to allowing personal Liberty.
Can you do me a favor? Read Professor Salerno's introduction to Man, Economy, and State. If you have time read Rothbards history of economic thought, read anything by Mises on methodology and epistemology. But above all I'd like to recommend a few lectures on Keynesianism. Salerno's Keynes and the 'New Economics' of Fascism, Gordon's Philosophical Foundations of Keynesians, Murray's Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain?, and/or Herbener's lecture The Persistence of Keynesian Macroeconomics.
Your last sentence is a common argument, and easily dealt with. People make bad choices because the government elects to change their character by forcibly removing the choices which could lead to what they deem undesirable ends. However, even if we assume that one person's view of morality is objectively better than another's, clearly you cannot say that one is of better character because he has been deprived of the opportunity to act in any other way. Slaves to virtue are not virtuous at all.
@mojorhythm Corporations can move their aggregate assets to another country, yes. They can not however mover their headquarters to another country without starting another corporate branch. This is part of how Corporate law works. A Centralized Government would never give up the power of the Corporation, that is how they maintain their power over the populace. It's subjugation through the premise of force. The state will always support the Corporation, because their relationship is symbiotic.
Libertarians understand this point well.We find, when we investigate at all further, that in fact it is impossible for anyone of economic stature to use their "power" in any other way than to please consumers. To whatever extent they do, they lose money to someone who does please consumers. This mechanism can't exist in statist ventures, as they have monopoly force to prop themselves up. It's understandable that nobody immediately understands the reality and effect of this obvious mechanism.
@ItsAllAboutGuitar I was thinking the same thing. All this time and all he says still holds true from the ineffectiveness of the drug war to "too big to fail".
"Lol, letting him starve is equally cruel and taking away all juristical systems leaves the poor completey unprotected." That ignores the point about charity. It also ignores the fact that there were private systems that performed the same function as a social safety net before it was nationalized/socialized.
@tonygmilan7 Read Rothbard's work on land reform. Wealth that is distributed in our current system is illegitimate; it is "ill gotten gains". It was distributed by a monopoly facilitating State. For Rothbard, unutilized resources are fair game for the poor.
@Joe11Blue The biggest problem is that corporations have mastered the art of manufacturing consent, i.e. swaying public opinion in their favor, no matter what their track record of past crime and behavior might be. Direct action is the way to go IMO. Argentina has had multiple instances over the past decade of workers literally taking over the corporate-owned factories. They were sick and tired of being treated like chattel so they fought back hard and won. I respect that.
more people need to see this, it shocking to see the date of this speech. Its over 2yrs ago and we are still dealing with the false choice that is the 2 party system. it goes to say, good policies are timeless and so are the bad ones
When you quote Mises "Fascism was an emergency makeshift" what do you think he's referring too? The inherent confusion of socialism is that it at least pretends to aim at broadly classical liberal ends (left) through conservative/statist means (right). But you belong to a tradition of violent collectivist intolerance where peoples ideas are dismissed on the basis of whatever groups socialists have attributed polylogism. (cont)
Human Action is the book for you. After you read it and see Mises' brilliant defense of his methodology you will see why the modern empirical approach to economics is not only unneeded, but 100% fallacious. You are correct that Adam Smith was not an Austrian. He lived before Menger did. Smith was part of the classical school, and while the classical school did have a more accurate methodology than the modern mainstream, the classical school missed many of the fundamentals Austrians discovered.
@Joe11Blue *shrugs* who knows? In this era of globalization, corporations can flee to another country if their home location is shafting them with taxes, tariffs and the like. Corporations will also flee if the home base is in-conducive to foreign investment. Central government has to be used in this respect to revoke corporate charters and break them up, replacing them with more libertarian means of producing goods and services. The state brought them into existence, it can take them out.
With this appearance, Murray Rothbard appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the LP. But only 3 months after this speech, Murray Rothbard left the LP, claiming that the LP was filled with unwashed hippies. How did things change so radically in only 3 months?
I should also add here that economists understand that there is absolutely no practical need for unions, meaning that if they were to be tried in a completely free market, they would likely fail under the more efficient function of the mechanism of marginal value product and it's competitive nature. This means that since employees would be able to continue or stop working against the cry of unions, and employees would be able to fire or hire in the same respect, unions wouldn't do much at all.
@Joe11Blue Yeah, the extremely inequitable distribution of private property has many causes, but the first one that comes to mind is the state capitalist system adopted by many first world governments. They bail out corporations, give them subsidies, intervene on their behalf with favorable policies, impose duties on competing products and the like, creating a corporatist rather then capitalist system. The Fiat currency system, as you mentioned, is also to blame.
@Joe11Blue Workers self management boils down to this: Major decisions affecting everyone in the workplace are put to a vote. Small decisions are made by the people deciding them. Even if shareholders get nothing of their investment, this is collateral damage. I don't have any sympathy for rich investors who have to lose out a bit of cash in order for oppressed workers to get the freedoms and rights they deserve. It most certainly is a moral issue.
Just reading your comment, I am aware that you haven't read Rothbard, or any other Austrian Economics or, really, libertarian literature at all. This has alredy been quickly flagged so, I don't need to bother too much about that. The reason I write this is in hope that you will do this reading, because you are terribly mistaken. Rothbard was staunchly anti-fascist (anti-corporatist), as are all other Austrian faculty.
The modern establishment economic schools - Keynesian and Monetarist - have also made this same crucial mistake of methodologies. I am not speaking of economics as it is taught and practised today. I am talking about praxeology, or the science of human action; that is the focus of the Austrian school of Economics - the oldest running tradition of economics.
@highonhayek do intellectuals live longer? I've no idea but I can see the logic to that. Intellectuality is sort of like having the will to live. And philosophy is like trying to come to the greatest understanding that you possibly can.
@Joe11Blue Well socialism does not necessarily mean that all private property is abolished. In a socialist society, all the means of producing the wealth are run democratically by the workers rather then a CEO, business manager or bureaucratic government for profit. All the labyrinthine details of property rights law would also have be worked out democratically in a free society. The runaway accumulation of private property by the 1% is dangerously inhibiting to the freedom of the many.
You are confusing right as in "morally right" and "scientifically correct." Which one do you want to talk about? I didn't even make a moral claim but you think I did. Everyone has property. They own themselves and you would have to live in fantasyland to not realize that every single person owns more than just that. Libertarianism cares about the rights of everybody, it just doesn't pretend that people have positive rights to other people's stuff.
Moreover, Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist". Rothbard isn't claiming to be any such thing. He is an anarcho-libertarian. I'll leave it to you to discover what the difference is between the two, but noteably; if either of them could be closely related to fascism it would belibertarian socialism being that it speaks of a system of positive rights guaranteed by government force. Anarcho-libertarianism simply postulates a system of negative rights which do not demand positive coercive enforcement
@Joe11Blue That's why we need to take action. There needs to be an uprising that of which the likes have never been seen. Corporations need to be held accountable, and the government will be forced to do so given enough public pressure. There may be only a pseudo-democratic system in place, but the government is at least partially swayed by the general public, unlike corporations.
This will be my last reply. If a poor and hungry man came to you and stole 10% of your income to go feed himself and his many friends would you consider that immoral and theft? I suspect you would, even if you would have willingly given it to him had he asked. How is it different when the state does it then? Because of the "social contract?" Because I never agreed to the "social contract," and neither did anyone else alive today.
@oJKBo Sorry, whenever someone mentions libertarianism I keep thinking of the original definition of the word. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first self-described libertarian, and he happened to be a socialist anarchist. Only in America does libertarianism mean laissez-faire minarchist capitalism. Everywhere else it means one who advocates a stateless society free of all forms of unjustified authority. Look up "libertarian socialism" in Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
It is not a matter of hatred of government, but delimitation of governmental duty and responsibility. Rothbard is someone I respect a lot and I really believe that his theory are pretty sound. You can not be a libertarian if you pick and choose what is right for other people. Liberty is an absolute and we should all thrive towards that end. Otherwise, you are destroying that concept!
Let's not entangle ourselves on definitions and make irrelevant issues bigger than they ought to be. We, as living being and rational entity are born free. That's a fact of nature! Are those right always respected? Not at all! Therefore we dispose of some of our liberty within the hands of a government to "protect" and enforce those right! The function of government is mainly to defend the right of individuals. No mas! Anything beyond that is an encroachment!
Yes, you really should read Austrian economics. You're right about psychology, you're RIGHT about homo-economicus as an essentially useless concept. You're more right than you know about economics not being like physics. Human action can't be studied using the methods of empirical positivism (what Miises' called pan-physicalism), behaviourism, or relativism because unlike the behaviour of atoms and stones human action is motivated by values. But economic laws exist beyond psychology. (Cont)
No. Employees will have no more power as a freely associate group than they would have as individuals. Their individual bargaining power would simply be more efficient. Employers would still reserve the same right to hire and fire whoever they please whenever they please. Private property is thereby upheld. Rothbard would never have said the words "I support union's rights." He was a voluntarist, he supported whatever adhered philosophically to the non-aggression principle.
Being an anarcho capitalist does not make you any of those descriptions except for being against coercive government. Any Government that involuntarily imposes its will and taxes on people is immoral. Involuntary government is no different than mafia rule and there is no way you can argue that they are different.
Sure I can agree to what you've wrote. But If you go around redefining words you must take into consideration the common understanding of those words and what they usually means to peoples in general. If you don't you'll end up in a pretty solid disagreement because peoples would not agree with you. If she would of done how Sokrates did when he argued for or against something I wouldn't be as rejective of her. She did redefines words without consideration of their common usage and meaning.
I would love to, but I think we should take this somewhere else. This is getting out of hand on this crappy comment system. Send me a personal message on here, or on reddit at ChrisLaforest
Mises IS the best writer on the subject, but some people find his prose difficult so you could also read Rothbard's article mises. org / rothbard /praxeology . pdf Reading the history of economic thought will disabuse you of the notion economics sprang from the Scottish enlightenment. In many ways Adam Smith is a digression from writers like Cantion and Turgot. If you're currently studying economics a great book to read is Huerta de Soto's MONEY, BANK CREDIT, AND ECONOMIC CYCLES.
@mojorhythm Honestly, I don't have an opinion. I see what's going on, and the logical conclusion is something I work to obtain, rather than to form an opinion based on something that is not rational. I honestly don't care either. For me, it's more of a conversation in light of hypothetical. I know the only way this will ever change is if people start to actually use that grey matter in their head's, rather than going with the flow.
"Do property rights trump other people´s right to live?" That is just it, libertarians don't believe you have a positive right to live. You cannot take my food because you are starving. You can ask for some and if I am charitable I will give some to you. You cannot ask the government to do it for you either under libertarianism. "And don't give me evasive rabulistic crap" You're the one quibbling by repeating the same assertion. And I never evaded your points. Read my original reply again.
This is why you REALLY SHOULD read Human Action, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. You're just in a confused tradition right now. I don't know if it's political philosophy that's stopping you, but you don't seem threatened by truth. If you're interested in people's welfare and open minded to learning and change you really should read economics and see how classical liberalism emanates from it. (cont)
Please. It'll effect a person, if they're a hypocrite, when they're arguing for whatever. It's true, though, that being a hypocrite will not transform a negative into a positive and vice versa. But she did change the meaning of words and constructed an entire argument on these changes. This is hardly what I would call intellectually honest, nor scientific - I can change the meaning of the word love and construct an argument of it and still be wrong even if I made a very logically sound argument
@Joe11Blue The pain was not being reciprocated equally. First-off, most of the factories were bankrupt anyway. Secondly, even if the factories were not about to go bankrupt, the workers were. Unfortunately force is sometimes needed to get out of a jam. I side with the bold working class men and women who used direct action to lift themselves out of poverty and desolation to introduce a third way of economic production; free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management.
And defending Rothbard by saying need to read Rothbards 'history of economic thought' completely ignores the criticisms modern capitalist (non free market) theorists lob at Rothbard. Mainly that he doesn't understand economics.
Yes, there's plenty of words that has changed meaning through time. But these changes occurs natural and overtime through and by peoples interaction with each others, just like Sokrates did as an example. So whilst I DO see some valid points in some what Ayn Rand discussed in her books she fails to consider some of the conclusions she argued for. So to defend her opinions/views she forcefully changed important words like selfless and selfish, moral and immoral etc.
I miss him too. When I moved to Las Vegas in 1990, Rothbard being one of my idols, I paid him a visit at his UNLV office. No particular reason other than wanting to meet him personally. Very gracious, humble, and humorous man who had an infectious cackle. You'd have thought we'd been lifelong friends. He joked about being an outcast (along with Hans Hermann-Hoppe) from the economics faculty, but remarked, "I'm best known from my enemies."
Incredibly jealous you got to meet him.
I had the pleasure of meeting him as well, and I agree with what you said about him.
this lecture demonstrates why gary johnson is no libertarian, he was talking a 23 percent sales tax, rothbard made a good point about that just creating another arm of the government.
apparently you didn't get it, when murray talked about the misery of creating whole new nightmares like large sales taxes for federal income....that's exactly what gary was proposing...23% also with gingrich clinton actually eliminated the deficit so you don't know what you're talking about i wouldn't vote for either of them
GOOD GOD WHAT AN IDIOT...MURRAY EXPLAINS RIGHT IN THIS VIDEO WHY GARY SUCKS AND YOU'RE TOO STUPID TO GET IT...FUCK OFF, IDIOT.
FAIL...WHAT A MORON, OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LECTURE ROTHBARD GAVE...WHAT AN IDIOT
HERE'S A TROLL TEST TROLL:
1. NAME ALL THE CELLS & ORGANS IN THE BODY, THEIR QUANTITIES AND FUNCTIONS. 2. NAME ALL THE ECOSYSTEMS IN THE EARTH'S ENVIRONMENT. 3. DESCRIBE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE EARTH AND ITS ORBIT AROUND THE SUN AND THE SUN'S ORBIT WITHIN THE MILKYWAY AND THE MILKYWAY'S RELATIONSHIP TO THE OTHER FEW HUNDRED BILLION GALAXIES IN THE UNIVERSE. 4. EXPLAIN HOW A LIBERTARIAN GOVERNMENT COULD RELATE TO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AND PERSONAL HEALTH. 5. WHY ARE YOU SUCH A LAME TROLL
FAIL
Happy birthday to Murray Rothbard! Watching this one again to celebrate.
Rothbard known to be the first Anarcho-capitalist
@mozak plesa Gustave hypothesized it, but Rothbard really invented it.
Not true, the first one is Lysander Spooner. But Rothbard is still the goat
@@AshenOne_CR Lysander Spooner was an Individualist-Anarchist and Mutualist favoring usufruct property norms and labor vouchers. While Spooner is a predecessor to Anarcho-Capitalism, he himself is not the first Anarcho-Capitalist. That would be like saying that Bastiat was the first Anarcho-Capitalist.
@@elgrandojabro1889 wasn't bastiat an anarchist? If that was the case, then that would be true
@@AshenOne_CR Bastiat was a Classical Liberal of the French Liberal economic school, a predecessor to the Austrian Economic School.
I would just like to say that, it was through reading Murray's works thats turned me into an anarchist.
It's amazing to be able to watch Rothbard in some of these videos. Its a shame they don't have more views.
I remember when I first watched this, getting my way through Rothbard in kind of awe of his genius. I couldn't BELIEVE the questions he had to field after such an interesting lecture.
Murray was one of a kind. I think his intellect is impressive, but I love his sense of humor most of all.
22 years later and this is still relevant. Not much has changed.
While I don't agree with Rothbard's ideas (I am a left wing libertarian), I admire his commitment to rationality and his hard-headed approach to economics. He was determined to follow his worldview wherever it led, even if it meant shocking the status quo. Respect.
I miss Murray Rothbard, even though I never had the honor of meeting him. The guy was brilliant; just about all of his analysis was spot-on and still holds up today. I wish we had more people like him around in the Libertarian Party now.
Yes it is really a long shot to accept that humans act purposefully and that they act on their strongest desires/most preferred end.
Contrary to what you say, Mises devotes the entire first section of the book critiquing the objections he knew the rest of what he said was going to face. He didn't expect the reader to just accept it. That is why he laid down the case, from an epistemological standing, that his theory is correct.
"insuring the S&L's, it's like insuring the Titanic after it hit the iceburg."
Great line!
Rothbard is amazing.
Murray is outstanding, as always. I love his descriptions of corruption. He had a wonderful sense of the insidious byways of human nature.
My absolute favorite political thinker of the modern era. Was there anything regarding the political that he was not right about??
He died 5 and half years to the day I was born, and yet I still miss him. Wish I could’ve talked to him.
I adore the writings of Rothbard, but since my primary exposure to him has been through audiobooks, it's difficult for me to recognize him without the mellifluous voice of Jeff Riggenbach. His real voice kind of reminds me of Dr. Marvin Monroe on The Simpsons.
"TV is to the point where all you get is medical news."
Ah the good ol days back when the corporate press wasn't talking about "systemic racism" all the time.
How would bank bailouts and other forms of wealth redistribution happen without the glorious state to orchestrate them? Even if you are correct, in a free market, people have to actually offer something to trade to increase their wealth (in money terms). You can't simply go to the gov't or central bank when you are in trouble.
I don't know where you got that from, but Rothbard was 100% anarchist because he supported the notion of a stateless society, and he described himself as an anarchist.
cont. Thomas Jefferson also lived before Austrian economics came about. Menger published his "Principles of Economics" in 1871, so Jefferson was about a century too early to read it.
I wouldn't deny that a sizeable amount of wealthy people became wealthy through coercive means. I was asking you to back up the statistic that most do. And even if they do, they are then the same as anyone else being supported by the production of others. They are having wealth redistributed to them. It is equally as wrong.
Many of them became wealthy through government.
Seeing as this Rothbards only online lecture on political action it should have had a lot more views recently. It's brilliant. All the libertarian partisans committed to be permanently sectarian cooks should sit up and listen when Murray endorses Ron Paul in the Q and A. I'd like to think most libertarians are smart enough to realise that Ron is a far more radical libertarian than someone like Gary Johnson (who hasn't even read Mises and Rothbard, let alone Menger and Bohm Bawerk).
Thank you so much for those videos !
Yes, the word "selfish" doesn't have to be wrong by default but that's how it's been used for a long time in our society. That "selfish" stands close in relationship with negative connotations because of how it is being used to describe a behaviour. Of course this word are tilting towards meaning something positive. But still: peoples, in general, doesn't like selfish individuals because it's hard to be able to trust them without worrying about them double-crossing you for whatever reason.
The violence committed by the state or the ruling class is the worst class of violence.
Freedom means you can not be coerced you have to be convinced. But that does not mean that if you hurt other people then violence can not be directed against you.
You still have the freedom to defend yourshelf with violence but not to attack other people if they mean no harm to you.
@safeinsuburbia He was talking about the "balance of trade deficit" not federal budget deficits. He actually specifically makes this distinction in his answer
@tonygmilan7 Rothbard was not talking about homesteading "unoccupied" land. He was talking about taking the unutilized property of the rich; specifically if their wealth was acquired in an unjust economic system, like the one we have today. He made a good case for it.
3:10 My girlfriend says I’m better in bed than all her exes but she still won’t do banal with me
The Law's of Economics is like the Law's of Physics, we can not change them. All we can do it try our hardest to interpret them.
I know you posted that a year ago, but it's a thought I have often when reading Mises, Hayek, and Rothbard as a Physicist.
@mojorhythm This concept of requiring sound monetary policy, removing the unsound fiat debt based currency is the essential backstop behind Libertarianism. This is the key issue to allowing personal Liberty.
do you mean 20 years ago?
Entrepreneurs have to pay the costs of capital and labor before they make profits or USUALLY losses by servicing consumers.
Can you do me a favor? Read Professor Salerno's introduction to Man, Economy, and State. If you have time read Rothbards history of economic thought, read anything by Mises on methodology and epistemology.
But above all I'd like to recommend a few lectures on Keynesianism. Salerno's Keynes and the 'New Economics' of Fascism, Gordon's Philosophical Foundations of Keynesians, Murray's Keynes the Man: Hero or Villain?, and/or Herbener's lecture The Persistence of Keynesian Macroeconomics.
Your last sentence is a common argument, and easily dealt with. People make bad choices because the government elects to change their character by forcibly removing the choices which could lead to what they deem undesirable ends. However, even if we assume that one person's view of morality is objectively better than another's, clearly you cannot say that one is of better character because he has been deprived of the opportunity to act in any other way. Slaves to virtue are not virtuous at all.
@PoetsLight know who the reader will be? too bad rothbard is dead, would have loved to hear him read it.
@mojorhythm Corporations can move their aggregate assets to another country, yes. They can not however mover their headquarters to another country without starting another corporate branch. This is part of how Corporate law works.
A Centralized Government would never give up the power of the Corporation, that is how they maintain their power over the populace. It's subjugation through the premise of force. The state will always support the Corporation, because their relationship is symbiotic.
This is obviously ridiculous. But I have to ask; in what way is Rothbard like Chomsky, and how are they part of the same party?
Libertarians understand this point well.We find, when we investigate at all further, that in fact it is impossible for anyone of economic stature to use their "power" in any other way than to please consumers. To whatever extent they do, they lose money to someone who does please consumers.
This mechanism can't exist in statist ventures, as they have monopoly force to prop themselves up. It's understandable that nobody immediately understands the reality and effect of this obvious mechanism.
@ItsAllAboutGuitar I was thinking the same thing. All this time and all he says still holds true from the ineffectiveness of the drug war to "too big to fail".
"Lol, letting him starve is equally cruel and taking away all juristical systems leaves the poor completey unprotected."
That ignores the point about charity. It also ignores the fact that there were private systems that performed the same function as a social safety net before it was nationalized/socialized.
@tonygmilan7 Read Rothbard's work on land reform. Wealth that is distributed in our current system is illegitimate; it is "ill gotten gains". It was distributed by a monopoly facilitating State. For Rothbard, unutilized resources are fair game for the poor.
The greatest genius of the twentieth century.
@Joe11Blue The biggest problem is that corporations have mastered the art of manufacturing consent, i.e. swaying public opinion in their favor, no matter what their track record of past crime and behavior might be. Direct action is the way to go IMO. Argentina has had multiple instances over the past decade of workers literally taking over the corporate-owned factories. They were sick and tired of being treated like chattel so they fought back hard and won. I respect that.
more people need to see this, it shocking to see the date of this speech. Its over 2yrs ago and we are still dealing with the false choice that is the 2 party system.
it goes to say, good policies are timeless and so are the bad ones
How did you get on?
wow a new video! AWESOME!
When you quote Mises "Fascism was an emergency makeshift" what do you think he's referring too? The inherent confusion of socialism is that it at least pretends to aim at broadly classical liberal ends (left) through conservative/statist means (right). But you belong to a tradition of violent collectivist intolerance where peoples ideas are dismissed on the basis of whatever groups socialists have attributed polylogism. (cont)
Human Action is the book for you. After you read it and see Mises' brilliant defense of his methodology you will see why the modern empirical approach to economics is not only unneeded, but 100% fallacious.
You are correct that Adam Smith was not an Austrian. He lived before Menger did. Smith was part of the classical school, and while the classical school did have a more accurate methodology than the modern mainstream, the classical school missed many of the fundamentals Austrians discovered.
1:03:23 Hoppe mentioned
Wish Murray was around to weigh in on Trump's election. We've missed his perspective so much the past 30 years.
@Joe11Blue How?
@Joe11Blue *shrugs* who knows? In this era of globalization, corporations can flee to another country if their home location is shafting them with taxes, tariffs and the like. Corporations will also flee if the home base is in-conducive to foreign investment. Central government has to be used in this respect to revoke corporate charters and break them up, replacing them with more libertarian means of producing goods and services. The state brought them into existence, it can take them out.
Que?
With this appearance, Murray Rothbard appears to be an enthusiastic supporter of the LP. But only 3 months after this speech, Murray Rothbard left the LP, claiming that the LP was filled with unwashed hippies. How did things change so radically in only 3 months?
I should also add here that economists understand that there is absolutely no practical need for unions, meaning that if they were to be tried in a completely free market, they would likely fail under the more efficient function of the mechanism of marginal value product and it's competitive nature.
This means that since employees would be able to continue or stop working against the cry of unions, and employees would be able to fire or hire in the same respect, unions wouldn't do much at all.
@Joe11Blue Yeah, the extremely inequitable distribution of private property has many causes, but the first one that comes to mind is the state capitalist system adopted by many first world governments. They bail out corporations, give them subsidies, intervene on their behalf with favorable policies, impose duties on competing products and the like, creating a corporatist rather then capitalist system. The Fiat currency system, as you mentioned, is also to blame.
@Joe11Blue Workers self management boils down to this: Major decisions affecting everyone in the workplace are put to a vote. Small decisions are made by the people deciding them. Even if shareholders get nothing of their investment, this is collateral damage. I don't have any sympathy for rich investors who have to lose out a bit of cash in order for oppressed workers to get the freedoms and rights they deserve. It most certainly is a moral issue.
Just reading your comment, I am aware that you haven't read Rothbard, or any other Austrian Economics or, really, libertarian literature at all. This has alredy been quickly flagged so, I don't need to bother too much about that.
The reason I write this is in hope that you will do this reading, because you are terribly mistaken. Rothbard was staunchly anti-fascist (anti-corporatist), as are all other Austrian faculty.
The modern establishment economic schools - Keynesian and Monetarist - have also made this same crucial mistake of methodologies.
I am not speaking of economics as it is taught and practised today. I am talking about praxeology, or the science of human action; that is the focus of the Austrian school of Economics - the oldest running tradition of economics.
@highonhayek do intellectuals live longer? I've no idea but I can see the logic to that. Intellectuality is sort of like having the will to live. And philosophy is like trying to come to the greatest understanding that you possibly can.
@Joe11Blue Well, I wouldn't go that far, but its good to know you have an opinion and care about the issues.
@Joe11Blue Well socialism does not necessarily mean that all private property is abolished. In a socialist society, all the means of producing the wealth are run democratically by the workers rather then a CEO, business manager or bureaucratic government for profit. All the labyrinthine details of property rights law would also have be worked out democratically in a free society. The runaway accumulation of private property by the 1% is dangerously inhibiting to the freedom of the many.
You are confusing right as in "morally right" and "scientifically correct." Which one do you want to talk about? I didn't even make a moral claim but you think I did.
Everyone has property. They own themselves and you would have to live in fantasyland to not realize that every single person owns more than just that. Libertarianism cares about the rights of everybody, it just doesn't pretend that people have positive rights to other people's stuff.
my jaw dropped when he mentioned the swine flu caper.
Moreover, Chomsky is a "libertarian socialist". Rothbard isn't claiming to be any such thing. He is an anarcho-libertarian. I'll leave it to you to discover what the difference is between the two, but noteably; if either of them could be closely related to fascism it would belibertarian socialism being that it speaks of a system of positive rights guaranteed by government force. Anarcho-libertarianism simply postulates a system of negative rights which do not demand positive coercive enforcement
@Joe11Blue That's why we need to take action. There needs to be an uprising that of which the likes have never been seen. Corporations need to be held accountable, and the government will be forced to do so given enough public pressure. There may be only a pseudo-democratic system in place, but the government is at least partially swayed by the general public, unlike corporations.
why is this on my recocmende/.
This will be my last reply.
If a poor and hungry man came to you and stole 10% of your income to go feed himself and his many friends would you consider that immoral and theft? I suspect you would, even if you would have willingly given it to him had he asked.
How is it different when the state does it then? Because of the "social contract?" Because I never agreed to the "social contract," and neither did anyone else alive today.
@oJKBo Sorry, whenever someone mentions libertarianism I keep thinking of the original definition of the word. Pierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first self-described libertarian, and he happened to be a socialist anarchist. Only in America does libertarianism mean laissez-faire minarchist capitalism. Everywhere else it means one who advocates a stateless society free of all forms of unjustified authority. Look up "libertarian socialism" in Wikipedia and you'll see what I mean.
It is not a matter of hatred of government, but delimitation of governmental duty and responsibility. Rothbard is someone I respect a lot and I really believe that his theory are pretty sound. You can not be a libertarian if you pick and choose what is right for other people. Liberty is an absolute and we should all thrive towards that end. Otherwise, you are destroying that concept!
Let's not entangle ourselves on definitions and make irrelevant issues bigger than they ought to be. We, as living being and rational entity are born free. That's a fact of nature! Are those right always respected? Not at all! Therefore we dispose of some of our liberty within the hands of a government to "protect" and enforce those right! The function of government is mainly to defend the right of individuals. No mas! Anything beyond that is an encroachment!
Rothbard wasn't an anarchist and he rightly admitted it.
Yes, you really should read Austrian economics. You're right about psychology, you're RIGHT about homo-economicus as an essentially useless concept. You're more right than you know about economics not being like physics. Human action can't be studied using the methods of empirical positivism (what Miises' called pan-physicalism), behaviourism, or relativism because unlike the behaviour of atoms and stones human action is motivated by values. But economic laws exist beyond psychology. (Cont)
No. Employees will have no more power as a freely associate group than they would have as individuals. Their individual bargaining power would simply be more efficient. Employers would still reserve the same right to hire and fire whoever they please whenever they please. Private property is thereby upheld.
Rothbard would never have said the words "I support union's rights." He was a voluntarist, he supported whatever adhered philosophically to the non-aggression principle.
What do you mean?
Being an anarcho capitalist does not make you any of those descriptions except for being against coercive government. Any Government that involuntarily imposes its will and taxes on people is immoral. Involuntary government is no different than mafia rule and there is no way you can argue that they are different.
@oJKBo Libertarians are anarchists. Libertarians value freedom. Anarchism is the pure ideal of freedom.
Sure I can agree to what you've wrote. But If you go around redefining words you must take into consideration the common understanding of those words and what they usually means to peoples in general. If you don't you'll end up in a pretty solid disagreement because peoples would not agree with you. If she would of done how Sokrates did when he argued for or against something I wouldn't be as rejective of her. She did redefines words without consideration of their common usage and meaning.
I find him extremely intelligent. Even the laugh.
I would love to, but I think we should take this somewhere else. This is getting out of hand on this crappy comment system. Send me a personal message on here, or on reddit at ChrisLaforest
Mises IS the best writer on the subject, but some people find his prose difficult so you could also read Rothbard's article mises. org / rothbard /praxeology . pdf
Reading the history of economic thought will disabuse you of the notion economics sprang from the Scottish enlightenment. In many ways Adam Smith is a digression from writers like Cantion and Turgot.
If you're currently studying economics a great book to read is Huerta de Soto's MONEY, BANK CREDIT, AND ECONOMIC CYCLES.
He was a great writer, but liberty is growing fast.
Trade deficits don't matter. Government debt is an entirely different animal.
@mojorhythm Honestly, I don't have an opinion. I see what's going on, and the logical conclusion is something I work to obtain, rather than to form an opinion based on something that is not rational.
I honestly don't care either. For me, it's more of a conversation in light of hypothetical. I know the only way this will ever change is if people start to actually use that grey matter in their head's, rather than going with the flow.
"Do property rights trump other people´s right to live?"
That is just it, libertarians don't believe you have a positive right to live. You cannot take my food because you are starving. You can ask for some and if I am charitable I will give some to you. You cannot ask the government to do it for you either under libertarianism.
"And don't give me evasive rabulistic crap"
You're the one quibbling by repeating the same assertion. And I never evaded your points. Read my original reply again.
This is why you REALLY SHOULD read Human Action, Theory and History, and The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science. You're just in a confused tradition right now. I don't know if it's political philosophy that's stopping you, but you don't seem threatened by truth. If you're interested in people's welfare and open minded to learning and change you really should read economics and see how classical liberalism emanates from it. (cont)
for sure
Rothbard rocks!!!
It's Dr. Marvin Monroe!
Please. It'll effect a person, if they're a hypocrite, when they're arguing for whatever. It's true, though, that being a hypocrite will not transform a negative into a positive and vice versa. But she did change the meaning of words and constructed an entire argument on these changes. This is hardly what I would call intellectually honest, nor scientific - I can change the meaning of the word love and construct an argument of it and still be wrong even if I made a very logically sound argument
@truthislibertyus bond prices just went up. Do you want to re-evaluate your comment?
🐍🖤💛🇦🇷
@Joe11Blue The pain was not being reciprocated equally. First-off, most of the factories were bankrupt anyway. Secondly, even if the factories were not about to go bankrupt, the workers were. Unfortunately force is sometimes needed to get out of a jam. I side with the bold working class men and women who used direct action to lift themselves out of poverty and desolation to introduce a third way of economic production; free from top-down bureaucracy, exploitation and fascist management.
And defending Rothbard by saying need to read Rothbards 'history of economic thought' completely ignores the criticisms modern capitalist (non free market) theorists lob at Rothbard. Mainly that he doesn't understand economics.
@PoetsLight
With any luck, if they start recording now they will be finished by 2046 ;)
Awesome news!
maczimms: Did you make that decision voluntarily? What a terrible means! It'd've better when you were forced, right?
20:40 exact quote from BLACKBRIAR. RAMMSTEIN. #POW
Yes, there's plenty of words that has changed meaning through time. But these changes occurs natural and overtime through and by peoples interaction with each others, just like Sokrates did as an example. So whilst I DO see some valid points in some what Ayn Rand discussed in her books she fails to consider some of the conclusions she argued for. So to defend her opinions/views she forcefully changed important words like selfless and selfish, moral and immoral etc.