One interesting thing I recently learned while reading his book Conceived in Liberty was that Benjimen Franklin was not the fighter for freedom that almost everyone thinks he was. In fact he was an ambitious political wheeler dealer, who was well connected to many people in power, and he himself sought power and money whatever the cost to liberty. He consistently opposed ideas and policies that would aid the cause of liberty.
And 17 years later, it becomes pretty obvious that already then there was the same shadow gov called deep + state. And that shows us without any doubt that history is written in advance, that the invisible puppetmasters are directing all the strings of their actors whatever the regime is called: monarchy, republic, socialism, liberalism, communism, and thus also that politics doesn't have 2 or more sides... We've learned a lot since then, especially the latest years gave us revelations about the one world dictates.
Murray never ceases to amaze with his insight, even decades later.....he is right, but socialism will never die as long as people as happy letting others do their thinking for them.
The only "timebomb" is a blank check on government power. America was never really a minarchy, but it was vaguely close to the libertarian area for a while.
I also Believe in the great Australian-School of Economics.The great Bruce Foster from University of Canberra with desciples like Prof. Mrs. Mathilda Waltz invented the Micronesian-Economy of Tariff Trading Theory and even predicted 9 of the 5 last recessions,if only Von Mises lived today and seen the great development of his theories.
@cjanne9 NO, he is American. He is an Economist of the Austrian School of Economics as described by Friedrich Von Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises (Austrian Economists.)
It's true the founding father did not believe in anarchism, neither the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard or the traditional anarchism. However it is simply not true that they despised everything Rothbard stood for. They would have agreed on most things. They probably would have been interested in the remaining ideas because the focus of these ideas is liberty, just farther than they went, possibly because the theories were not as advanced at the time.
Your last line by Paine is exactly the reason there isn't much of a "cohesive plan." There is debate on just how necessary that evil is. Which is where Rothbard enters the picture. The only agreed plan is education, although pan-seccesionism, I think, will make more headway as more libertarians realize that some people will never agree to live without a State, at least not until it is proven to be unnecessary by a thriving example.
The state was almost non-existent after the American Revolt (secession). The new world was a 3rd world. It was backward and 90% agricultural. That began to change rapidly under capitalism. There is a "thriving example". It was attacked in the early 1800s by political intellectuals as Rothbard said but earlier by unscrupulous conspiring politicians. A decade after independence Hamilton saw the wealth production and with it an opportunity to get control thru politics. He orchestrated a bloodless coup to replace the A.O.C. with a more authoritarian centralizing authority. The A.O.C. had done little and accomplished more than the Constitution ever would by allowing more freedom. Under the Constitution Hamilton got an extremely oppressive tax imposed on farmers who needed to use whiskey as money for commerce, put down the protest by sending in troops who killed and arrested hundreds who had just won a war against "taxation without representation". The tax unfairly burdened farmers, bankrupting them by the thousands. Jefferson saw this and came out of retirement to make it right. He pardoned all the tax protestors and abolished the tax.
I see the logic of the ideas presented here, yet I see people making comments that often don't sound like they're from someone who examined the vid or the ideas behind them. Some of them even sound like a perposeful attempt to discredit the vid or ideas presented here, and would be effective in that respect only to those who don't use their own minds to process them, and use someone elses summation to save them the trouble of using their minds.
Merriam-Websters Dictionary definition of statist: an advocate of statism definition of statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry What Ron Paul believes in is minarchism or a minimal state.
@SuperSuperfan As you can see, it's pointless in using any of these terms as they've been "redefined" all over. Let's just say that I believe private property is just, moral and the only way how one man cannot destroy all of his fellows. And the state is an evil mob.
...who turned things around? Last I checked, the best "20th century" presidents from the 20's still inflated the currency and engaged in some adventurism in Latin America.
@SuperSuperfan Socialism = means of production are owned by the government. Did you mean libertarian socialism that is incompatible with human nature? Private property is the foundation of our civilization. Rothbard had almost encyclopedic knowledge of history.
"nineteen eighty-four" doesnt work? the book never claims the party every achieves permanent power. it says thats its goal. whether or not a revolution comes in the future is left open.
First of all I didn't say I was a minarchist. I agree that minarchism won't work. I am a believer in anarcho-capitalism. I take issue with people who attack Ron Paul though. Constitutional government is an idea Americans are familiar with and is the correct strategy for educating people about liberty. Ron Paul has made a HUGE contribution to the spread of libertarian ideas and to attack him is simply wrong and un-libertarian in my opinion.
Is this a JAY LENO voice over holy. Capitalism is great until businesses become so large that all competition is absorbed and the result is that they run their own little minisocialisms within the context of the free market. As well its interesting that corporations, with the recent bailouts, exist in a type of corporate socialism, whereby they are so large that no alternatives exist to purchase products from, paralelling a government run mode of production.
Under free market capitalism, large businesses move slow and competitors eat their lunch. Under the system we have, corporatism, large businesses use the power of government to protect their interests
Is this a JAY LENO voice over holy. Capitalism is great until businesses become so large that all competition is absorbed and the result is that they run their own little minisocialisms within the context of the free market. As well its interesting that corporations, with the recent bailouts, exist in a type of corporate socialism, whereby they are so large that no alternatives exist to purchase products from, paralleling a government run mode of production. This guy is a genius.
Most people think people are bad or more able to act out bad morals without big government. Rothbard thinks big socialist governance allows the most psychopathic to act out cruelty, much more than people on the fringes of a free society can. I can understand the fear of mob rule but I don't believe it would be that bad if free trade allows for everybody to meet their basic needs with some hard work. When people feel ground up by taxes and inflation there is much more incentive for turning mob tactics.
Nobodies perfect, and it's unhealthy to idolize people. In that spirit I would like to mention in regards to copyright, Rothbard had a very clumsy argument for copyright which was easily refuted by Kinsella and others. Rothbard was ahead of his time on all sorts things though, IMHO. Ron Paul r3VOLution
I thought he was Libertin from Canberra? Is he Austrian?He talkes pretty good English,to be Austrian.Swarzegger is also Austrian,but talk pretty lousy english i think.
buffalofinancialgrou I think thats a myth that Reagan finished off the Soviet Union. It was their system that did them in, at least partly. I am suspicious of what went on behind the scenes, seeing as how much praise Gorbachev got from the US media and how he is in favor of things like a one world government. Reagan is highly over rated in many conservative circles. He had great rhetoric, but when it came to acting on those statements, he failed to implement anything.
Your hunch is correct sir. I won't bore you with the details, however I too wondered about the actual reasons and chronology of the Demise of the Soviet Union . So little is known . Anyway I inquired about it and I think it took me not long to understand a couple of the Dynamics in play that were contributing factor s
My only problem with this presentation is all the tittering in the background. Even when he isn't making a joke or even being funny, people are giggling.
Im not here to vote in a "beauty pageant of presidents" If you dig deep, the very best Ron Paul included, have problems, or things I disagree with as well. My statement was about a non existent battle plan for Libertarians. I am just shocked at the naivete. I am saddened that people only look at present and dont give a flying fuck about doing the hard work and looking at the long road of teaching and propagandizing freedom. "Government, is but a necessary evil" -Thomas Paine
Thats why I said to a degree. Did my whole comment went right over your head? Looking at how many thumbs down I got, you Libertarians seem to be too naive. I am a Libertarian myself, yet Im a pragmatist, unlike the rest of you. Again, after the country has just done voting for socialism (Obama), you think all of a sudden they will vote for Ron Paul, who represents 100% opposite? (Continues)
Ever the optimist. :)
I love Rothbard he is my hero
'my favorite way of watching revolutions'...
hilarious. i love his humour.
Rip
Murray has a Woody Allen quality to him.
Yeah I wonder what that might be lmao
Yeah, their both jewish.😊
One interesting thing I recently learned while reading his book Conceived in Liberty was that Benjimen Franklin was not the fighter for freedom that almost everyone thinks he was. In fact he was an ambitious political wheeler dealer, who was well connected to many people in power, and he himself sought power and money whatever the cost to liberty. He consistently opposed ideas and policies that would aid the cause of liberty.
Yup spot on.
And 17 years later, it becomes pretty obvious that already then there was the same shadow gov called deep + state. And that shows us without any doubt that history is written in advance, that the invisible puppetmasters are directing all the strings of their actors whatever the regime is called: monarchy, republic, socialism, liberalism, communism, and thus also that politics doesn't have 2 or more sides...
We've learned a lot since then, especially the latest years gave us revelations about the one world dictates.
Murray never ceases to amaze with his insight, even decades later.....he is right, but socialism will never die as long as people as happy letting others do their thinking for them.
The great thing about listening to talks by Rothbard is that in addition to being interesting, they're really damn funny
40:24 good point. Productive people need to be productive. Public "service" is not a service
The only "timebomb" is a blank check on government power. America was never really a minarchy, but it was vaguely close to the libertarian area for a while.
You know what, I apologize, I misunderstood what you said. It's to embarrassing to say what I thought you said! That was a very gracious reply.
I also Believe in the great Australian-School
of Economics.The great Bruce Foster from
University of Canberra with desciples like Prof. Mrs. Mathilda Waltz
invented the Micronesian-Economy of Tariff Trading Theory and even predicted
9 of the 5 last recessions,if only Von Mises lived today and seen the great development of his theories.
@cjanne9 NO, he is American. He is an Economist of the Austrian School of Economics as described by Friedrich Von Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises (Austrian Economists.)
Video is broken for me at 22:51. Can't forward past the broken point.
Aussies are are unbeatable!
yes.
It's true the founding father did not believe in anarchism, neither the anarcho-capitalism of Murray Rothbard or the traditional anarchism. However it is simply not true that they despised everything Rothbard stood for. They would have agreed on most things. They probably would have been interested in the remaining ideas because the focus of these ideas is liberty, just farther than they went, possibly because the theories were not as advanced at the time.
Your last line by Paine is exactly the reason there isn't much of a "cohesive plan." There is debate on just how necessary that evil is. Which is where Rothbard enters the picture. The only agreed plan is education, although pan-seccesionism, I think, will make more headway as more libertarians realize that some people will never agree to live without a State, at least not until it is proven to be unnecessary by a thriving example.
The state was almost non-existent after the American Revolt (secession). The new world was a 3rd world. It was backward and 90% agricultural. That began to change rapidly under capitalism. There is a "thriving example". It was attacked in the early 1800s by political intellectuals as Rothbard said but earlier by unscrupulous conspiring politicians.
A decade after independence Hamilton saw the wealth production and with it an opportunity to get control thru politics. He orchestrated a bloodless coup to replace the A.O.C. with a more authoritarian centralizing authority. The A.O.C. had done little and accomplished more than the Constitution ever would by allowing more freedom. Under the Constitution Hamilton got an extremely oppressive tax imposed on farmers who needed to use whiskey as money for commerce, put down the protest by sending in troops who killed and arrested hundreds who had just won a war against "taxation without representation". The tax unfairly burdened farmers, bankrupting them by the thousands.
Jefferson saw this and came out of retirement to make it right. He pardoned all the tax protestors and abolished the tax.
I see the logic of the ideas presented here, yet I see people making comments that often don't sound like they're from someone who examined the vid or the ideas behind them. Some of them even sound like a perposeful attempt to discredit the vid or ideas presented here, and would be effective in that respect only to those who don't use their own minds to process them, and use someone elses summation to save them the trouble of using their minds.
Merriam-Websters Dictionary definition of statist: an advocate of statism
definition of statism: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry
What Ron Paul believes in is minarchism or a minimal state.
@SuperSuperfan As you can see, it's pointless in using any of these terms as they've been "redefined" all over. Let's just say that I believe private property is just, moral and the only way how one man cannot destroy all of his fellows. And the state is an evil mob.
...who turned things around? Last I checked, the best "20th century" presidents from the 20's still inflated the currency and engaged in some adventurism in Latin America.
Is this a JAY LENO voice over holy.
@SuperSuperfan Socialism = means of production are owned by the government. Did you mean libertarian socialism that is incompatible with human nature? Private property is the foundation of our civilization. Rothbard had almost encyclopedic knowledge of history.
"nineteen eighty-four" doesnt work? the book never claims the party every achieves permanent power. it says thats its goal. whether or not a revolution comes in the future is left open.
the party had already achieved it. also, it had removed any idea of 'revolution' from people's thoughts, by controlling the language.
Every collectivist has his own religion.
sorry for the redundant posting here
gonna get some hate
First of all I didn't say I was a minarchist. I agree that minarchism won't work. I am a believer in anarcho-capitalism.
I take issue with people who attack Ron Paul though. Constitutional government is an idea Americans are familiar with and is the correct strategy for educating people about liberty. Ron Paul has made a HUGE contribution to the spread of libertarian ideas and to attack him is simply wrong and un-libertarian in my opinion.
Is this a JAY LENO voice over holy.
Capitalism is great until businesses become so large that all competition is absorbed and the result is that they run their own little minisocialisms within the context of the free market.
As well its interesting that corporations, with the recent bailouts, exist in a type of corporate socialism, whereby they are so large that no alternatives exist to purchase products from, paralelling a government run mode of production.
Under free market capitalism, large businesses move slow and competitors eat their lunch. Under the system we have, corporatism, large businesses use the power of government to protect their interests
Is this a JAY LENO voice over holy.
Capitalism is great until businesses become so large that all competition is absorbed and the result is that they run their own little minisocialisms within the context of the free market.
As well its interesting that corporations, with the recent bailouts, exist in a type of corporate socialism, whereby they are so large that no alternatives exist to purchase products from, paralleling a government run mode of production.
This guy is a genius.
Boy was he wrong about how the 21st century was going to go. Jesus. I wish he was right.
Are you kidding? You need to go to lewrockwell. com and mises. org.
There you can take Libertarianism 101 and Economics 101.
Are you an anarchist?
Most people think people are bad or more able to act out bad morals without big government. Rothbard thinks big socialist governance allows the most psychopathic to act out cruelty, much more than people on the fringes of a free society can. I can understand the fear of mob rule but I don't believe it would be that bad if free trade allows for everybody to meet their basic needs with some hard work. When people feel ground up by taxes and inflation there is much more incentive for turning mob tactics.
Nobodies perfect, and it's unhealthy to idolize people. In that spirit I would like to mention in regards to copyright, Rothbard had a very clumsy argument for copyright which was easily refuted by Kinsella and others. Rothbard was ahead of his time on all sorts things though, IMHO.
Ron Paul r3VOLution
I thought he was Libertin from Canberra?
Is he Austrian?He talkes pretty good English,to be Austrian.Swarzegger is also Austrian,but talk pretty lousy english i think.
buffalofinancialgrou
I think thats a myth that Reagan finished off the Soviet Union. It was their system that did them in, at least partly. I am suspicious of what went on behind the scenes, seeing as how much praise Gorbachev got from the US media and how he is in favor of things like a one world government.
Reagan is highly over rated in many conservative circles. He had great rhetoric, but when it came to acting on those statements, he failed to implement anything.
Your hunch is correct sir. I won't bore you with the details, however I too wondered about the actual reasons and chronology of the Demise of the Soviet Union . So little is known . Anyway I inquired about it and I think it took me not long to understand a couple of the Dynamics in play that were contributing factor s
dude. you mean AUSTRIAN not australian. lol. mises was from austria.
My only problem with this presentation is all the tittering in the background. Even when he isn't making a joke or even being funny, people are giggling.
Im not here to vote in a "beauty pageant of presidents" If you dig deep, the very best Ron Paul included, have problems, or things I disagree with as well. My statement was about a non existent battle plan for Libertarians. I am just shocked at the naivete. I am saddened that people only look at present and dont give a flying fuck about doing the hard work and looking at the long road of teaching and propagandizing freedom. "Government, is but a necessary evil" -Thomas Paine
oh wait. youre probably talking about something else. university of canberra? okay. i dunno much about that. my bad. lol.
Thats why I said to a degree. Did my whole comment went right over your head? Looking at how many thumbs down I got, you Libertarians seem to be too naive. I am a Libertarian myself, yet Im a pragmatist, unlike the rest of you. Again, after the country has just done voting for socialism (Obama), you think all of a sudden they will vote for Ron Paul, who represents 100% opposite? (Continues)
birds aren't real
I hope you are joking
not so much a prophet,, Ghadaffi has been used as a strawman enemy for decades.
Capitalism needs to be regulated . Screw corporate irresponsibility and George Bush's "dereg" business.
A socialized Capitalism! CANADA!
It's not even good in theory.
socialized capitalism...holy satan, that just might work!
lol communism is great in theory
Karl Marx is a much better economist.