Print
Share
Add to MyMises
Subscribe

The Real Aggressor

Mises Daily by Murray N.=20 Rothbard | Posted on 12/28/2007 12:00:00 AM

[This article originally appeared in the April 1954 issue of = Faith and=20 Freedom.]

3D"Better A sign of our = time is the=20 split-personality of the conservatives. Many to the right of center are = off on a=20 schizophrenic pursuit of both liberty and collectivism.

In domestic affairs this regrettable condition is gradually being = recognized=20 for what it is. But the time is nigh for conservative foreign policy, as = well,=20 to be psychoanalyzed in hope of a cure!

Conservatives call for free trade and free enterprise, yet also = clamor for=20 absolute embargoes on trade with Communist nations. Have they forgotten = that=20 both parties to free exchange benefit from trade? For our government or = any=20 others to prohibit trade is a vicious example of socialistic policy; it = injures=20 the Communist countries to be sure; it also injures us.

Another example: conservatives are calling for lower taxes and less=20 government control, while on the other hand they are calling for a = virtual holy=20 war against Russia and China, with all the costliness, death, and = statism that=20 such a war would necessarily entail. Such a holy war would be immoral,=20 inexpedient, and ill-conceived at best =E2=80=94 in this day of weapons = for mass murder,=20 such a call is near insanity.

Yet while conservatives once preferred peace and "isolationism," in = our day=20 they appeal in vague terms for liberation of foreign nations and hint = that=20 "We've been at war with Communism for years, so let's get it over with." = They=20 bitterly denounce European "allies" for being neutralistic and therefore = "unreliable," while they praise Chiang, Rhee, and Franco for being=20 anti-Communist and therefore "reliable friends of the United States." = They=20 denounce our having entered the Korean War; yet denounce the Korean = Truce and=20 call for programs to carry war ever upward and onward.

The notion =E2=80=94 very widespread =E2=80=94 that we should not = have entered the Korean=20 War, but once in it should have launched a total war against China, = flouts rules=20 of logic. The best preventive of war is to refrain from warring = =E2=80=94 period. If we=20 had agreed to a cease-fire when the Commies suggested it, or had pulled = out of=20 Korea altogether (even better), we would have saved thousands of = American and=20 Korean lives.

A "Blunt" Point

Here I think one point should be made and made bluntly. Some people = may=20 prefer death to Communism; and this is perfectly legitimate for them = =E2=80=94 although=20 death may not often be a solution to any problem. But suppose they also = try to=20 impose their will on other people who might prefer life under Communism = to death=20 in a "free world" cemetery. Is not forcing them into mortal combat a = pure and=20 simple case of murder? And is not anti-Communist murder as evil as = murder=20 committed by Communists?

Many "isolationists," in concerning themselves with the liberation or = security of foreign nations, have in truth become outright = internationalists.=20 Instead of praising European neutralism =E2=80=94 the equivalent of real = American=20 isolationism =E2=80=94 they now demand collective-security organizations = such as NATO.=20

Yet faith in international collectivism has already dragged us into = one=20 disastrous war after another during the present century. And now it is a = faith=20 in world government, supposedly restricted to the enforcement of = so-called world=20 law. This is a fantasy in which the various world states are seen as = resembling=20 a family of policemen taking it upon themselves to enforce a = preservation of the=20 status quo.

The result of this international-collectivistic approach is that the = United=20 States is rapidly going down the classic warpath. And the path has all = the=20 signposts so unerringly pointed out by isolationist writers in the 1930s = concerning the First World War, and in the 1940s concerning the Second = World=20 War: militarism, propaganda of hate, press distortions, atrocity stories = about=20 the enemy (and silence about our own atrocities), chauvinistic vainglory = such as=20 pride that "America has won all its wars" (but with the help of strong = allies=20 badly outnumbering the enemy), and in general, the "emotional complex of = fear=20 and vaunting" noted by Garet Garrett, which Harry Elmer Barnes calls the = "1984=20 pattern."

The tragic part of the whole situation is that it is the erstwhile=20 isolationists, the ones who above all others should know better, who are = leading=20 the war parade.

Many to the right of center are off on a = schizophrenic=20 pursuit of both liberty and collectivism."

Sinking ever deeper into a war psychosis, these conservatives have = failed to=20 perceive that our whole problem today, broadly speaking, is ideological = rather=20 than military! If we carefully examine the facts we will find that the = most=20 commonly feared threat to peace =E2=80=94 the Communist bloc =E2=80=94 = has been fairly=20 scrupulous about not committing military aggression. All the Communist = successes=20 since the end of World War II have been through internal Communist = rebellions.=20 Korea itself was a civil war, and there is even there considerable = evidence that=20 it was begun by the South. Russia did not intervene directly in that = war, and=20 China intervened not only after the United States did, but only when our = troops=20 reached her borders.

Patience, plus sponsoring of Communist parties and philosophy abroad, = seems=20 to be the Soviet plan. In brief, the Russian military menace is for the = most=20 part a bogey; the Commies are probably truthful in their assertion that = their=20 arming is meant in defense. The statement of Defense Secretary Wilson = recently=20 that Russian air production has been concentrated on defensive = jets=20 rather than offensive heavy bombers ( such as we are building) would = tend to=20 bear out this point.

As a long-term threat as well, we should have no fear of military = conquest by=20 the Russians, or by the Chinese either. They began as backward countries = and,=20 since we know Communism to be a relatively inefficient economic system, = we need=20 not worry about their offensive military might =E2=80=94 provided we let = our own=20 industries grow without the hamperings of a garrison state.

What we really have to combat is all statism, and not just = the=20 Communist brand. To take up arms against one set of socialists is not = the way to=20 stop socialism =E2=80=94 indeed it is bound to increase socialism as all = modern wars=20 have done.

The Realm of Battle

The battle can only be waged in the realm of ideas and reason. Man = shall only=20 tighten his chains =E2=80=94 and those holding other men =E2=80=94 if he = takes up arms simply=20 against one foreign statist faction. Even if Russia and China both were = to be=20 wiped out tomorrow, Communism would continue to exist (just as it did = before=20 1917) so long as people continue to give credence to its collectivist = tenets. To=20 attempt to stamp out heresy by force is the method of vindictive = children,=20 rather than the method of rational human beings.

But some conservatives are failing to recognize that the enemy is = statism,=20 rather than simply Communism. And the fundamental reason, obviously, is = that=20 there is still an inadequate understanding of the very nature of the = State.

It is a fundamental libertarian proposition that the State only has = the right=20 to use force to defend the person and property of individuals=20 against force.

Actually, among libertarians and conservatives, there is agreement on = that=20 proposition; but most conservatives usually commit the fatal error of = stopping=20 there. Considering the analysis of the State closed, they conclude, = "Therefore=20 the State should be limited to what is necessary for defense purposes." = Ponder=20 the grave consequences of that reasoning:

Peter is a peaceful citizen, devoted to productive work and minding = his own=20 affairs. By what right does any person or set of persons, in a group = called the=20 State, come to Peter and force him to give up money for the purpose of=20 protecting him against possible future invasions of his person and = property? The=20 ethical answer can only be, no right whatsoever.

Surely we have all heard of and ridiculed the racketeering = "protective=20 syndicates," which force merchants to purchase "protection" at an = exorbitant=20 fee. Yet the State syndicate manages to impose its own "protection," and = to=20 collect from Peter, with nary a single eyebrow being raised against it. =

Not a Self-Respecting Racketeer

What is worse, the State gang does not even leave the scene of crime = after=20 collecting, as any self-respecting racketeer would do. Instead it hangs = around=20 to harass Peter and his kind, insisting on continually higher sums of = money in=20 tribute, pressing the Peters into the State army when competing robber = bands=20 attack, coercing the Peters to salute the State battle flag, to = acknowledge the=20 State as their sovereign, to regard the decrees of State as valid laws = to be=20 obeyed by all righteous persons. What would we think of the State gang, = and what=20 would we think of people who allowed themselves to be duped by the = rulers'=20 propaganda to believe that this is all well and good, natural, and = necessary?=20

"What we really have to combat is all statism, = and not just=20 the Communist brand."

Yet, being duped by State officials is precisely what mankind has = been=20 putting up with for thousands of years.

Some might say that all this has been put to a stop in those nations = which=20 have turned to democracy. But libertarians are surely not so enamored of = the=20 voting process that they fail to perceive the flaws in the democracy = argument.=20 What democracy has done is simply to increase the number of State = groups. The=20 question becomes: Are we much better off now, having several groups (or=20 "parties") of would-be plunderers, each desiring the control of a good = thing? I=20 think the answer must be No.

The only advantage of a democracy is that it provides scope (strictly = limited) for peaceful change of State rulers via ballot boxes, instead = of=20 requiring bloody revolutions, coup d'etats, etc. Instead of having = bloody civil=20 wars over the spoils of State, the robber gangs have their subjects vote = every=20 few years as to which gang will rule them. Never, however, do they so = much as=20 hint that the people may have a choice as to whether they wish to retain = the=20 State system itself.

Caught on the Horns

Thus, conservatives who say that the State should be limited to what = is=20 necessary for defense purposes, are caught from the start on the horns = of a=20 great dilemma. For the State has been conceived in original sin. Any = State, even=20 the best intentioned, subsists by means of coercion. If Henry Thoreau = says: I=20 don't want your protection, so will pay no more taxes; he goes to jail = =E2=80=94 sent=20 there by his "representatives." If he attempts to argue by saying: I = wish to pay=20 for my defense through privately financed police and judiciary=20 companies, which I believe will be cheaper and far better than your = coercive=20 monopoly =E2=80=94 the same punishment is meted out to him, or worse. =

In a libertarian society though, it is the individual, not the State, = which=20 has the primary choice as to whether and how his defenses shall be = maintained.=20 As an individual he has the right to fight in his own or another's = defense; or,=20 if he adjudges it foolhardy or disbelieves in fighting altogether, he = has the=20 right not to fight at all. And similarly, he has the right to subscribe=20 voluntarily to police forces and courts which offer defense, but also = the right=20 not to subscribe. No one has the right to force him to fight or to pay = others to=20 fight for him. If the State forces him to pay tax moneys for = State-conceived=20 defense purposes, the State thereby deprives him of his individual = rights.

To sum up: every State oppresses its subjects and pillages them; = every State=20 functions =E2=80=94 as A.J. Nock put it =E2=80=94 as if having a = "monopoly (or attempted=20 monopoly) of crime" in its territory, asserting its sovereignty over a = certain=20 land area, and exacting compulsory levies on the inhabitants.

Instead of having a group of policemen, we have in actuality a group = of=20 gangster States aggressing against their subject-citizens; forming = alliances,=20 and from time to time fighting to increase their share of the spoils = collected=20 from the various inhabitants of the earth. War is an attack by one = robber band=20 against another.

Surely under these prevailing conditions, the supposed morality of = every=20 State's leaping to the defense of an alleged victim State becomes highly = dubious=20 indeed.

Yet no matter how evil States are, we must accept the fact that they = do=20 exist, and that there is no likely prospect of their imminent = disappearance. In=20 a world of States and statism, then, what should the libertarian = conservatives'=20 attitude be with regard to international discord?

Municipal police have one rather appealing principle: they look the = other way=20 during a gang war. If one set of gangsters "aggresses" against another = set, the=20 police do not participate. Why waste the taxpayers' money protecting one = gangster against another?

The Status Quo Might Not Be Moral

It is a version of that principle, I think, that ought to be applied = to=20 foreign affairs. For if any world police force were to be set up to = punish=20 "aggressors," the only result would be increased bloodshed and real = aggression=20 all over the world in an attempt to freeze the existing status quo, = which might=20 be a status quo no more moral, and perhaps less just, than any other = possible=20 one.

"To attempt to stamp out heresy by force is the = method of=20 vindictive children, rather than the method of rational human = beings."

We could hardly blame those States that came late into the struggle = for=20 territorial influence, if they turned a jaundiced eye on the = hypocritical=20 moralizing of the entrenched aggressor States who would invoke world law = to=20 forestall new depredations. States have always gained their territories = by=20 force, and any given land area has probably been fought over and changed = hands=20 many times. In almost every case of "aggression" each party to the = dispute, and=20 often many parties, have some sort of historical claim to the disputed=20 territory. New territorial wars are no more "aggressive" than the = present=20 continuation of old conquests.

What is more, there always arises the difficulty of spotting the = "real=20 aggressor" in any particular war. When both sides are armed camps, when = there=20 are many provocations, secret treaties, deals and frontier incidents, = the=20 question of unraveling the actual starter of war, let alone who is the = more=20 morally wrong, becomes a matter for the careful research of future = historians.=20

Sad are the few facts which do not remain for historians to reveal. = These=20 facts are that the people who end up conquered are subjected to = the=20 exactions and tyrannies of the master State; while the original = subjects of the conquering State are forced not only to fight the wars = but also=20 to foot the bills. The wider a State attempts to extend its sphere of = influence,=20 indeed, the greater becomes its coercion against all concerned.

Once we clearly understand the ever-coercive nature of States, and = the=20 ever-recurrent warfare between them, we will no longer want to offer = ourselves=20 up unthinkingly before the international-collectivist altar inscribed,=20 "Necessary for Defense." Instead we will keep these three facts in mind: = that=20 each State's jurisdiction is limited, at any given time, to a certain=20 geographical area over which it has assumed the power and=20 responsibility of defense; that within this area the State builds its = defensive=20 power by means of compulsory levies; and that these levies involve = immorality of=20 conduct, because the act of forcing people to pay taxes for military = defense=20 usurps each individual's right to choose how and = whether he=20 will want it.

The basic aim of our foreign policy then will become the greatest = possible=20 reduction of the amount of immorality; in other words, reduction and = limitation=20 of the State's area of assumed defense. Upon our escutcheon will be = inscribed=20 these words: "Let there be peace. Let not the State interfere in the = affairs of=20 other States."

If the people of Korea are being oppressed, we will recognize that = the=20 oppressor State is vicious; but we will at the same time recognize that = it would=20 be immoral for the United States government as such to interfere in any = way. For=20 in so interfering, the American State would commit those of its citizens = who=20 have no wish to be committed, to battle for Korean citizens.

Interference, moreover, would in no way insure that the foreign = people thus=20 "liberated" would be any the better off for it. Had the North won a = quick=20 victory in the recent Korean War, the Koreans might well have been left=20 less unhappy and even economically better off under Communism = than they=20 are now under Rhee. Millions have been slaughtered by the weapons of = both sides,=20 and those remaining have been left to contemplate the utter destruction = of their=20 property.

If some Americans wish to liberate the people of China or Poland, let = them=20 raise a private expeditionary force and private finances to go over and = attempt=20 liberation =E2=80=94 but let them not try to commit the United States, = and as a result,=20 myself, to any such scheme. For a second wrong simply will not make a = right; we=20 should not add to oppression at home in a hope to effect some sort of=20 "liberation" elsewhere.

Hold Down the State

The moral policy for libertarians is to see that the scope of war is = kept as=20 localized as possible. The State must be held to its responsibility to = enter no=20 foreign war =E2=80=94 and to provoke no war via rash and irresponsible = statements,=20 official condemnations of other governments, or inordinate armament = buildups.=20

"We should not add to oppression at home in a = hope to=20 effect some sort of 'liberation' elsewhere."

Even if our nation is directly attacked by another, justice for those = who=20 look askance upon war efforts and levies still requires that the scope = of State=20 action be kept within responsible limits. The goal of all State action = at such=20 times must be a negotiated peace, so that the burden of destruction and = taxes=20 will cease. The State should do its best to put limits and rules on the = war, and=20 to outlaw as many weapons of destruction as possible =E2=80=94 starting = with the worst.=20 Furthermore, so long as the emergency endures, all efforts should be = kept=20 voluntary =E2=80=94 without conscription, economic controls, or = inflation.

No purpose can be served when additional people are caused to lose = their=20 lives anywhere because of war. The fact is, the quarrel in modern = large-scale=20 war is not actually between the subject people, but between their = States. The=20 interest of the subjects is always in peace =E2=80=94 since it is only = in peace that=20 full freedom for self-development can be attained. War decidedly = increases the=20 dangers of losing further individual freedom =E2=80=94 to the "domestic" = enemy, if not=20 to the "foreign" enemy.

In short, the individual subject will want the State to limit its = objectives,=20 to defend the country's territory rather than to attack, to abstain from = a drive=20 to victory and unconditional surrender, and to negotiate peace at the = earliest=20 possible moment. Moreover, if full terms of peace cannot be immediately = decided=20 upon, the most important thing becomes negotiation of a truce to stop = the mutual=20 slaughter.

If Men Are To Forge Fences

Not arms but public opinion must be the basic weapon if men are to = forge=20 fences between themselves and the master States. By force of public = opinion men=20 must resist conscription; must insist on absolute nonintervention in = foreign=20 wars; and, where warfare is in progress, must call for immediate = negotiations=20 and an end to the bloodletting. And most important, there must be a=20 re-establishment of those once-revered rules of war that prevented = innocent=20 civilians from being harmed.

As a corollary, there must be a re-establishment of the = old-fashioned,=20 pre-1914 type of international law, as distinguished from the sort of = world law=20 the present-day internationalists would attempt to impose. The old-time=20 international law, as I understand it, set up rules by means of custom = (and not=20 by force) which carefully defined the difference between neutrality and=20 intervention, and which declared sharply defined areas of neutrals' = rights and=20 belligerents' rights. Old-fashioned international law facilitated the=20 maintenance of neutrality and served the important purpose of greatly = limiting=20 the scope of any wars that arose.

Public opinion could then be educated to impose this type of = international=20 law to limit the scope of State action, just as Americans once used the=20 Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The United Nations, unfortunately, does not afford a good breeding = ground for=20 such constructive principles of international law and order. For it is = the=20 seedling of a world State, a master imperialistic power that = would=20 dominate the citizens of the entire subject world. Furthermore, the UN = is=20 basically committed to collective-security warfare against "aggression" = and is=20 therefore a warmongering organization in its very essence.

The Reds Are Sane

Somebody has rightly said that the choice now is: coexistence or=20 nonexistence. Any sane person prefers coexistence, and I am sure that = the Reds=20 are sane. The issue facing the world, therefore, has to do with = nurturing a will=20 and a way to talk things over =E2=80=94 to negotiate =E2=80=94 and to = find lines of fruitful=20 negotiation. Almost anything that would ease present tensions and = provocations=20 would be welcome.

"To take up arms against one set of socialists is = not the=20 way to stop socialism =E2=80=94 indeed it is bound to increase socialism = as all modern=20 wars have done."

But we must negotiate honestly and sincerely, with our foremost aim = being an=20 agreement for a jointly planned disarmament. There must be no more = secret deals=20 with a Yalta-Potsdam odor, which would arbitrarily hand over territory = and=20 peoples of other countries to Russia. And there must be no idea of = simply=20 bolstering our "allies" by making a mere show of negotiation. = On many=20 issues, such as Korea, Germany, etc., it would be better to just retire=20 completely from the fray.

Yet the nurturing of a new era =E2=80=94 of negotiation, of return to = the pre-1914=20 type of international law, and of public opinion against statism = =E2=80=94 will all take=20 time. Meanwhile, along what lines should our American government take = immediate=20 action?

To begin, the United States should pull out of the United Nations, = and also=20 out of the North Atlantic Treaty Alliance.

Secondly, our government. should repudiate all other foreign = commitments and=20 agreements and foreign aid or "security" endeavors, while withdrawing = the=20 military from foreign bases.

As good a place to start as any is at Trieste. American and British = troops=20 have absolutely no business there. They are the original meddlers and=20 interlopers. Beginning with the mulcting of American and Triestino = citizens=20 alike of funds for occupational expenses, these troops have proceeded to = the=20 shooting down of inhabitants. Clearly the withdrawal of our = foreign-based troops=20 is one of the primary orders of business, leaving interested parties to = settle=20 things for themselves.

Thirdly, the United States government should "recognize" Red China = =E2=80=94 on the=20 basis of the old-fashioned international law principles of recognition. = Prior to=20 the interventionism of Woodrow Wilson, it was always understood that = recognition=20 =E2=80=94 especially by a neutralist state =E2=80=94 does not imply = moral approval. The doctrine=20 that it does has already been responsible for too many wars and = bloodshed (vide=20 the Stimson policy toward Japan). Recognition simply means recognizing = the=20 physical existence of a state =E2=80=94 it is an act of sanity, not an = act of praise.=20 Whether we like it or not, Chiang is now ruler of Formosa alone = =E2=80=94 and no mere=20 recognition or nonrecognition will alter that fact.

Unfetter World Trade

Fourthly, there should be reestablishment of free and unhampered = trade with=20 the Communist countries, by our own nation and by all other nations. = Free world=20 trade would not only help break down the iron curtain, but would benefit = anti-Communist nations as well as Communist. Nothing could be more inane = than=20 the present program of "helping other nations to help themselves" while = at the=20 same time coercively restricting their opportunities to engage in = profitable=20 commerce.

"The fact is, the quarrel in modern large-scale = war is not=20 actually between the subject people, but between their states."

Above all, our foreign policy must not be self-defeating; it must be=20 consistent; it must pursue peace instead of war; and = it must=20 advance individual American freedom.

Murray N. Rothbard = (1926=E2=80=931995)=20 was dean of the Austrian School. See his archive. = Comment on the=20 blog.

Writing as Aubrey Herbert, Rothbard published this in the April 1954 = issue of=20 Faith and Freedom, published by the first libertarian = educational=20 organization in America, Spiritual Mobilization (founded in=20 1936).

You can receive the Mises Dailies in your inbox. = Go here to subscribe or=20 unsubscribe.

User-Contributed Tags: =

War communism=20

What is 2 + 3? =20 (Sign in to turn off = the=20 captcha.)=20

Add a=20 Tag =20 (Ex: Human Action, Inflation)

Print
Share
Add to MyMises
Subscribe

Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Newsvine
StumbleUpon

Search

">Advance= d Search=20 =C2=BB=20

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

rss=20

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Murray N. Rothbard (1926=E2=80=931995) was dean of the Austrian = School. He was an=20 economist, economic historian, and libertarian political philosopher. =

view = archives

Featured

=20

Banking and = the=20 Business Cycle

Author: Phillips = C.A.
$14.00
view = all=E2=80=A6=20

Mises Community

Tech-support hold = music=20 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:48:20 -0600 by Jeffrey = Tucker=20
32. "Gold, the = Golden Rule,=20 and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State," by D.G. White = [Libertarian Papers] Thu, 06 Aug 2009 10:11:00 -0600 by Stephan = Kinsella=20
33. "Reply to Matt = Mortellaro=20 on 'Block's Paradox': Causation, Responsibility, Libertarian Law, = Entrapment,=20 Threats and Blackmail," by Walter Block [Libertarian Papers] = Thu, 06=20 Aug 2009 10:10:58 -0600 by Stephan = Kinsella=20
The Real Right to = Medical=20 Care versus Socialized Medicine Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:54:19 = -0600 by George = Reisman=20
Rereading Our = Enemy, the=20 State Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:51:38 -0600 by Mises.org = Updates=20
Obama and the = Economy=20 Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:46:49 -0600 by Llewellyn H. = Rockwell,=20 Jr.
How Not to Bring = Broadband to=20 All Thu, 06 Aug 2009 07:42:09 -0600 by Mises.org = Updates=20

view all=E2=80=A6 mises blog = rss

I= f you=20 don't like it... 8/5/2009 11:54:00 PM by thedo= =20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 6th, 2009: "Not so fast!" 8/5/2009 = 8:52:00=20 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
a=20 poem 8/5/2009 4:17:00 AM by Solre= yus=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 5th, 2009: An interesting day = 8/4/2009=20 7:29:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
= A View=20 from the Trenches, August 4th, 2009: "Updating the forecast" = 8/4/2009=20 7:55:00 AM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Ask=20 Not... 8/3/2009 3:53:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Obama=20 Proves Tax Cuts Stimulate Economy 8/3/2009 3:33:00 PM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Environmentalism=20 and the Austrian Response 8/2/2009 12:07:00 PM by roma= ntivist=20
M= ore=20 Thoughts on Categorizing Economic Schools 8/1/2009 5:08:00 PM = by zirag= t=20
E= ntrevista=20 6 agosto 2009 como artista pict=C3=B3rico 8/1/2009 2:36:00 PM = by rroop= str=20
Mises=20 Daily Editing Group Newsletter 2 7/31/2009 4:39:38 PM by natma= rcus=20
A=20 Teachable Moment 7/31/2009 10:20:00 AM by Futbo= lGuru=20
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E7=BC=96=E6=A0=A1the proofreading plan for Chinese = translation 7/30/2009=20 9:54:00 PM by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
T= he=20 Importance of Fellow Travelers 7/30/2009 3:39:00 PM by zirag= t=20
= A View=20 from the Trenches, July 30th, 2009: "A quick summary of main = thoughts"=20 7/29/2009 10:26:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Jatropha=20 biofuel, Third World exploitation 7/29/2009 1:41:00 PM by Charl= es=20 Anthony
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E6=A0=A1=E8=AF=91=E4=B9=8B24. The Assault on Saving = (4-1,2) 7/29/2009 3:31:00 AM=20 by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
= A View=20 from the Trenches, July 29th, 2009: "On systemic risk and savings" = 7/28/2009 11:19:00 PM by Tinc= ho=20 Sibileau
Econ= omics=20 in One Lesson=E6=A0=A1=E8=AF=91=E4=B9=8B A NOTE ON BOOKS = 7/28/2009 7:43:00 PM by Dingd= ong=20 Pu
E= jemplos=20 de escasez causada por el control de precios 7/28/2009 3:29:00 = PM by=20 rroop= str=20

view all=E2=80=A6=20 user blogs=20 rss

Mises=20 Blog
User = Blogs
Forums

On the=20 non-optimality of free markets. 8/1/2009 7:43:28 PM by mick= anomics=20
Children's=20 rights 8/1/2009 1:02:38 PM by Indiv= idualist=20
Is = BitCoin the=20 currency of the future? 8/6/2009 1:09:15 PM by ama=20 gi
FEE = audio=20 files 8/6/2009 12:27:46 PM by Giles= Stratton=20
Fractional = Reserve=20 Banking 7/28/2009 7:54:59 PM by adam = knott
Mises.org = Articles=20 Legacy Links 404 8/6/2009 12:58:58 PM by liber= ty=20 student
Open = market=20 operations and inflation 8/6/2009 12:07:50 PM by Esur= ic=20
who are = your=20 favorite economists and why? 7/30/2009 3:26:53 PM by faken= ame=20
How do = natural=20 rights theories cross the is/ought divide? 8/1/2009 8:20:29 PM = by Lilb= urne=20
If ALL = Animals=20 Have Rights... 7/25/2009 2:51:29 PM by Danie= lSanchez=20
Grant Me = The=20 Wisdom and Intelligence 8/5/2009 9:22:26 PM by limit= gov=20
Be = careful on=20 stocks. This is an extremely dangerous time to own stocks. = 8/6/2009=20 10:09:10 AM by billo= tt1=20
Actual = Logical=20 Proof of Natural Law 8/5/2009 6:56:04 AM by Aman= ojack=20
The = Truth about=20 Marriage License: you belong to the State 8/6/2009 9:38:24 AM = by Natal= ie=20
Sourcing = From=20 Thomas Woods' Meltdown 8/5/2009 3:14:36 PM by Moun= tainGoat=20
Critiques of=20 Austrian Economics. 8/4/2009 4:23:43 PM by raze= rfish=20
Help = finding an=20 essay about parallels between Marxism & Libertarianism = 8/5/2009=20 11:50:31 PM by yoshi= mura=20
How much = did the=20 Window cost? And perhaps a new malinvestment? 8/5/2009 = 10:32:30 PM by=20 roma= ntivist=20
Did the = founding=20 fathers believe in anarchy? 8/4/2009 6:15:20 AM by libe= rtyman=20
Cash for = Clunkers 8/5/2009 8:07:48 PM by Anton= =20 Batey

view all=E2=80=A6 forums = rss

Literature

rss=20

= Reply=20 to Matt Mortellaro on "Block=E2=80=99s Paradox": Causation, = Responsibility,=20 Libertarian Law, Entrapment, Threats and Blackmail by Walter=20 Block
Gold, = the Golden=20 Rule, and Government: Civil Society and the End of the State = by D. G.=20 White
History of = American=20 Socialisms by John Humphrey Noyes
The Freeman 1999 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1997 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1996 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
Pro= perty,=20 Freedom, and Society: Essays in Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe by = J=C3=B6rg=20 Guido H=C3=BClsmann
The Freeman 1995 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1986 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Freeman 1985 = by=20 Foundation for Economic Education
The Libertarian = Review December=20 1980 by Libertarian Review
The Libertarian Review = September=20 1980 by Libertarian Review

view all=E2=80=A6

Upcoming Events

rss=20

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009
= =20
Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)
Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009
=20
The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)
Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009
=20
Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)
Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009
=20
The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

view=20 all=E2=80=A6

Ludwig von Mises Institute

The Real Aggressor

A "Blunt" Point

The Realm of Battle

Not a Self-Respecting Racketeer

Caught on the Horns

The Status Quo Might Not Be Moral

Hold Down the State

If Men Are To Forge Fences

The Reds Are Sane

Unfetter World Trade

User-Contributed Tags: =

Search

The = Bailout=20 Reader

Mises Daily Search

About the Author

Murray N. = Rothbard=20

Related

Featured

Banking and = the=20 Business Cycle

Mises Community

Literature

Upcoming Events

San Francisco, California, = Intercontinental Hotel August 29, 2009

Dealing with Economic Depression (Mises Circle sponsored by Mark = L. Hart=20 III)

Seattle, Washington=20 September 12, 2009

The Greatest Depression? (Mises Circle, sponsored by James M.=20 Wolfe)

Greenville, South = Carolina=20 October 3, 2009

Depression, Monetary Destruction, and the Path to Sound Money = (Mises=20 Circle sponsored by Atlantic Bullion and Coin, and Professional = Planning of=20 Easley LLC)

Salamanca, Spain = October=20 21-24, 2009

The Birthplace of Economic Theory: A Trip to Salamanca,=20 Spain

The Quotable = Mises