For courts, some types of speech are more free than others.

J.H. Huebert

Should you be allowed to put a "For Sale" sign on your own car?

Most people would say yes, but some local governments say no -- and the courts approve this because somehow "commercial speech" is deemed less worthy of protection than political speech. Never mind, of course, that political speech about issues typically involves advocating the use of violence against one's neighbors, while political speech about candidates is almost always false advertising. Commercial speech, on the other hand, typically involves nothing more than buyers providing potentially valuable information to consumers. (On this, see Mises.)

I comment on this issue, and a recent U.S. Court of Appeals decision that slightly increases protection for commercial speech, in an op-ed in today's Columbus Dispatch.

For this blog's readers, I should add the caveat that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution should not apply to state and local governments. This point is well covered in The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, which I highly recommend. But that issue is probably a lost cause, and in any event is not before the courts right now. The question is whether "free speech" includes, by definition, the right to speak without limitation about goods you want to sell, using your own private property. And the answer -- which of course the U.S. Supreme Court does not seem to understand -- is yes.

Barron's Likes Murphy

Mises.org Updates

Gene Epstein in Barron's reviews Murphy's Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Capitalism (Regnery, 2007), by economist Robert P. Murphy, contains more economic wisdom in its fewer-than-200 pages than the average principles textbook several times its length. In clear and often irreverent prose, Murphy makes a compelling case for the unfettered free market, or what his intellectual antagonists would call "free-market fundamentalism." The book is one of several "politically incorrect guides" ("P.I.G.") released by the same publisher.

Occasionally I wish Murphy weren't so irreverent. He begins the book with a delightful five-question quiz under the headline, "Are You a Capitalist Pig? Take the Quiz and Find Out!" You might be a capitalist pig -- instead of "bureaucratic swine" -- if, in answer to the question "How much should a worker be paid?" you answered, "c) Just enough to keep him from quitting," rather than "a) On a sliding scale depending on how important his work is to society" or "b) Enough to support his family."

Later discussion in the book makes it fairly clear why answers like "c" make for more humane outcomes. (If employers practiced "a" or "b," the worker might have no job at all.) But the uninitiated could have benefited from more pointed explanations. I hope Murphy provides these explanations in a subsequent edition, along with an expanded list of multiple-choice questions.

Murphy would probably be the first to admit to exceptions to his rule that workers be paid only enough to prevent them from quitting. If dollars paid above that level yield even more dollars of enhanced productivity, it will be in the capitalist's interest to pay the premium.

My New Book on American History

Thomas E. Woods

Today is the release date for my new book, 33 Questions About American History You're Not Supposed to Ask. I have some blurbs here and a brief synposis here.

Sennholz on Europe

Mises.org Updates

How Can Europe Survive, by Hans F. Sennholz (full text pdf), written as a dissertation under the direction of Ludwig von Mises.

Rose Wilder Lane's Manifesto

Mises.org Updates

The Discovery of Freedom, by Rose Wilder Lane (full text PDF)

Two Modern Classics of Anarchist Theory

Mises.org Updates

The Market for Liberty, by Morris and Linda Tannehill (1970)
Society Without Coercion, by Jarret Wollstein (1969)

Both in full text PDF with bookmarks, now in the Study Guide.

The Principle of Sound Money

Thorsten Polleit

Today's national money regimes bear no resemblance to Mises's sound-money principle. The quantity and quality of money is no longer a free-market phenomenon; it is determined by government-controlled central banks. From the Austrian point of view, today's money regimes — even when taking into account the protections against government monetary mismanagement — would be incompatible with Mises's principle of sound money. In fact, Austrians consider today's monetary order a serious threat to the free societal order. FULL ARTICLE

Murphy Interviewed on The Political Cesspool

Robert Murphy

On July 4 I was interviewed on The Political Cesspool, and we basically talked about free trade. I got the standard jibes ("Do you want your job to be outsourced Mr. Professor?" and "Free trade would work in an ideal world but not this one"). I start around 34:30 and go to the end of the hour, but you can listen to them trash me after I leave the show.

China Abandoned Communism and deadly chaos is the result!

Jeffrey Tucker

Ever think that the anti-capitalism of the press is exaggerated or non-existent? Check out this incredible story at MSNBC/Newsweek. You would never know, never even guess, that China was the home to a murderous tyrant only a few decades ago (est. 40 million dead), and you would certainly never guess that China has gone from vast impoverishment to vast economic growth in record time, and certainly the relationship of this to capitalism is completely lost on the reporter. So here we go with the full-scale hysteria blaming the market for all of China's woes:

Far from the disciplined and tightly controlled economy China was thought to have, the ongoing scandals have revealed an often chaotic system with lax standards, where the government's economic authority has been weakened by rapid reforms. This sorry state is not unprecedented… China today resembles nothing so much as the United States a century ago, when robber barons, gangsterism and raw capitalism held sway. Now as then, powerful vested interests are profiting from murky regulations, shoddy enforcement, rampant corruption and a lack of consumer awareness.

Blood on Their Hands

Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.

Every time Bush stands up to speak about the war, how we have to stick it out, how we have to stand up against evil, how our nation is being called to do its historic duty, I have the same thought: and what are you doing besides making this stupid speech? Presidents speak as if they somehow embody the will of the nation, and so the courage shown by the troops is their courage, the determination of the commanders on the ground is their determination too, and the strong will of the people to fork over to fund this ghastly war is their strong will too. They might even believe it. But this has nothing to do with reality. FULL ARTICLE

Tales of Titans and Hobbits

Mises.org Updates

Both Rand and Tolkien passionately tell their tales about freedom, writes Juliusz Jablecki, but they resort to completely different aesthetics, and, in consequence, paint two entirely different pictures of the world, with different heroes and different challenges. Are those differences important? How do they affect the "moral" of the respective tales? Given that it is of utmost importance just what kind of story one tells, it is perhaps worthwhile to reflect upon the different world images depicted in Atlas Shrugged and The Lord of the Rings, comparing the characters of both narratives along with the predicaments they face. FULL ARTICLE

On the IP Question

Jeffrey Tucker

My article here elicited more correspondence than any in memory. Many people are just shocked at the idea that IP is contrary to market economics. The idea strikes people as obviously nuts and yet once people start thinking about it, wondering why precisely they support IP, it becomes more difficult because the rationales don't actually hold up under scrutiny.

I've written the following note so many times that I thought I should just blog it: "I must tell you that I came to accept my present view very reluctantly. It took five years. The first time I heard the idea, I thought it was incorrect, even embarassingly naive. But technological advance and theoretical advance have convinced me in the meantime. In the Austrian lineage, the early Austrians didn't talk much about it. Mises rejected patents but without much in the way of robust theory. Rothbard went further on the patent question but didn't see the problem with copyright. Now in light of all the current controversies, Stephan Kinsella has made the best argument, in my view. I've probably read this article 10 times, and it took years to sink in. But I do encourage you to read it".

Will Elevator Owners be Targeted Next?

Tim Swanson

While you might not be a fan of mellow saxophones playing in various elevators, you may have read about the copyright establishment suing dentist offices over unlicensed use of music in the waiting room.

And you have seen how hosting a Super Bowl party can result in lawsuits for using TVs that are illegally large.

Now this IP regime is targeting coffee shops and have stooped to a new low:

A restaurant owner who doesn't even offer live music was approached for payment for having the TV on while the Monday Night Football theme played.

At least these shrewd lawyers are not conflating piracy with terrorism...

See also: Is Intellectual Property the Key to Success?

Vices, values, and arbitrary standards

Jim Fedako

I picked up a new vice a month ago: homemade espresso. Of course, to enjoy this delight, I first had to purchase an espresso machine. Like almost every product on the market, a wide range of espresso machines is available. A simple online search reveals prices ranging from $29.99 to well over $1000. As a certified cheapo, I spent just a little over 30 bucks and began pouring cups of foamy sunshine.

Now, the connoisseurs out there are going to smirk, "That's not espresso. In order to sip the real stuff, you need a machine that has features x, y, and z." Certainly, my faux espresso is not the same as that served to the Parisian, yet when balanced against other wants that are still chasing scarce resources, my investment suits me just fine.

Now, suppose that you are the connoisseur who believes that espresso must be served to the taste of the sophisticated Frenchman. Anything less is substandard and wasteful, if not immoral. Yet the evil entrepreneur will take advantage of simpletons such as me; those not as wise as the connoisseur. To think, someone is actually selling a machine that does not generate sufficient pressure, produces water outside the preferred temperature, and whose crema (reddish-brown foam) sinks rather than floats.

You as the connoisseur, and I as the cheapo, simply disagree. Our preferences differ yet go satisfied in the free market.

Herein lies the contrast between the free market and interventionism. I simply want to enjoy affordable espresso. Nothing fancy, just a little flavor and lots of kick. Absent regulations, the market is there to satisfy. Add the "expert" into the mix, and now I’m forgoing my morning cup because the product I want to buy, and the product an entrepreneur is willing to produce, do not meet some arbitrary standard.

Arbitrary standards are the product of government. Whether in education or automobiles, the politician and bureaucrat create silly standards that satisfy some political or personal agenda; standards that fail to satisfy the desires of the consumer.

Sure, to the connoisseur, I’ve been ripped off, and to the regulator - the politician and bureaucrat, I'm in need of protection. Yet, I enjoy this fraud every morning, and on the occasional weekend afternoon.

Africans to Bono: "For God's Sake Please Stop!"

Justin Ptak

Jennifer Brea writes:

Africa is a continent of despair and desperation. Here, eight year-olds toting AK-47s massacre whole villages and eccentric dictators feast on the organs of the opposition, believing it'll boost their mojo. Tsetse flies nibble on the eyelids of starving children who sport distended bellies like it's their birthright, not to mention the fact that by the time you finish reading this article, another six Africans will die from malaria, five from AIDS, and seventeen from poverty and hunger. Also, the wildlife is beautiful and the people like to dance and sing.

That's Africa, and it's in desperate need of our help. Luckily, a few enlightened megastars from America and Europe have come to save it.

Curiously, not all the natives are grateful...

We can continue the endless cycle of need and dependency, or you can create jobs, develop indigenous capacity, and build a sustainable future.

Aid not only crowds out local entrepreneurship, it makes governments lazy and deprives countries of the incentive to build effective institutions...Free money builds white elephants and bloated bureaucracies...

The Sciences of Human Action

Weekend Edition

Praxeology and History The Formal and Aprioristic Character of Praxeology The Alleged Logical Heterogeneity of Primitive Man The A Priori and Reality The Principle of Methodological Individualism I and We The Principle of Methodological Singularism

The Individual and Changing Features of Human Action The Scope and the Specific Method of History Conception and Understanding Natural history and Human History On Ideal Types The Procedure of Economics The Limitations on Praxeological Concepts Notes

The relation between reason and experience, wrote Ludwig von Mises, has long been one of the fundamental philosophical problems. Like all other problems of the critique of knowledge, philosophers have approached it only with reference to the natural sciences. They have ignored the sciences of human action. Their contributions have been useless for praxeology. The real thing which is the subject matter of praxeology, human action, stems from the same source as human reasoning. Action and reason may even be called two different aspects of the same thing. That reason has the power to make clear through pure ratiocination the essential features of action is a consequence of the fact that action is an offshoot of reason. FULL ARTICLE

Ambrose Bierce on Politics

Gary Galles

Ambrose Bierce was once described as “the forgotten brother of Mark Twain,” perhaps because he echoed Twain’s view that “Irreverence is the champion of liberty and its one sure defense.” Because of his way with words, “Public figures quaked in fear of his satirical pen.”

Bierce is best remembered for The Devil’s Dictionary, a collection of satirical definitions skewering society. Since political behavior has not exactly improved since he wrote, and American’s are already being bombarded with the earlier than ever start to 2008 campaigns, it is worth revisiting what Bierce’s “classic curmudgeon’s bible” has to say about “the form of government where everyone gets what the majority deserves.”

Adherent: A follower who has not yet obtained all that he expects to get.

Amnesty: The state’s magnanimity to those offenders whom it would be too expensive to punish.

Arena: In politics, an imaginary rat-pit in which the statesman wrestles with his record.

Capitol: The seat of misgovernment.

Conservative: A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from a Liberal who wishes to replace them with others.

Consul: ...a person who having failed to secure an office from the people, is given one by the Administration on condition that he leave the country.

Corsair: A politician of the seas.

Elector: One who enjoys the sacred privilege of voting for the man of another man=s choice.

Executive: An officer of the Government, whose duty it is to enforce the wishes of the legislative power until such time as the judicial department shall be pleased to pronounce them invalid and of no effect.

Incumbent: A person of the liveliest interest to the outcumbents.

Influence: In politics, a visionary quo given in exchange for a substantial quid.

Justice: A commodity which is a more or less adulterated condition the State sells to the citizen as a reward for his allegiance, taxes and personal service.

Lawful: Compatible with the will of a judge having jurisdiction.

Minister: ...an officer sent into a foreign country as the visible embodiment of his sovereign’s hostility.

Nominee: A modest gentleman shrinking from the distraction of private life and diligently seeking the honorable obscurity of public office.

Opposition: ...the party that prevents the Government from running amok by hamstringing it.

Out-of-doors: That part of one’s environment upon which no government has been able to collect taxes.

Plebiscite: A popular vote to ascertain the will of the sovereign.

Politician: An eel in the fundamental mud upon which the superstructure of organized society is reared.

Politics: A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. The conduct of public affairs for private advantage.

Precedent: In law, a previous decision, rule or practice which, with the absence of a definitive statute, has whatever authority a Judge may choose to give it, thereby greatly simplifying his task of doing as he pleases.

President: The leading figure in a small group of men of whom--and of whom only--it is positively known that immense numbers of their countrymen did not want any of them for President.

Quorum: A sufficient number of members of a deliberative body to have their own way...

Referendum: A law for submission of proposed legislation to a popular vote to learn the nonsensus of public opinion.

Reform: A thing that mostly satisfies reformers opposed to reformation.

Representative: In national politics, a member of the Lower House in this world, and without discernible hope of promotion in the next.

Revolution: In politics, an abrupt change in the form of misgovernment...whereby the welfare and happiness of the people were advanced a full half-inch.

Senate: A body of elderly gentlemen charged with high duties and misdemeanors.

Vote: The instrument and symbol of a freeman’s power to make a fool of himself and a wreck of his country.

The election campaigns already in full swing seem poised to make Ambrose Bierce a prophet. And his description of the results seems particularly apt: “We submit to the majority because we have to. But we are not compelled to call our attitude of subjection a posture of respect.”

Available Again: Mises tells the story of the Austrian School

Mises.org Updates

Interesting Timing

B.K. Marcus

Apropos Rothbard on animal "rights," this is from today's edition of Garrison Keillor's radio program, The Writer's Almanac:

It's the birthday of one of the most influential and controversial philosophers of the 20th century, Peter Singer, born in Melbourne, Australia (1946). His book Animal Liberation (1975), which is generally credited with starting the animal rights movement, has sold more than a million copies and is estimated to have converted more people to vegetarianism than any other book ever written.

But Singer has said he is disappointed by the book's impact. He said, "When I wrote it, I really thought the book would change the world. I know it sounds a little grand now, but at the time the '60s still existed for us. It looked as if real changes were possible, and I let myself believe that this would be one of them. All you have to do is walk around the corner to McDonald's to see how successful I have been."

The "Rights" of Animals

Mises.org Updates

The assertion of human rights is not properly a simple emotive one, writes Murray Rothbard. Individuals possess rights not because we "feel" that they should, but because of a rational inquiry into the nature of man and the universe. In short, man has rights because they are natural rights. They are grounded in the nature of man: the individual man's capacity for conscious choice, the necessity for him to use his mind and energy to adopt goals and values, to find out about the world, to pursue his ends in order to survive and prosper, his capacity and need to communicate and interact with other human beings and to participate in the division of labor. ... Natural law is necessarily species-bound. FULL ARTICLE

Barber Anarchy in Alabama

Jeffrey Tucker

The Anniston Star reports a flood of letters to its offices about its editorial that blamed the Mises Institute for the lack of barber regulation in Alabama. But the paper isn't backing down. It says that "regulation and private business aren’t incompatible." Ironically, the paper cites a case a regulated industry, funeral homes, and how those regulations aren't working -- and proposes a solution of ever more regulation.

Less Regulation Through More Central Planning?

Karen De Coster

New Yorkers refuse to believe that they are losing their place as the center of the financial world.

Released last month, the MasterCard Worldwide Centers of Commerce Index, an analysis of the desirability of conducting business in 63 cities, ranks London number one based on six dimensions including the ease of doing business, financial flow – in which it trounces New York in the categories of bond trading and derivatives contracts – and economic stability.

...“This is the central city,” Goldstein said. “Frankfurt and London and Dubai and so forth are suburbs.”

Is this more typical New York arrogance? Sure, in Thomas Friedman language, the world is indeed getting more flat as global markets come into play. But that does not negate the fact that the US regulatory environment and the government's oppressive "war on terror" are turning away business opportunities. In the US, businesses have to bear far too much in the way of hardship and costs due to Sarbanes-Oxley, post-9/11 Homeland Security totalitarianism, iron-fisted securities laws, endless litigation to "protect" the investor, and the stringent and uncooperative system of accounting standards which are rules-based (as opposed to being principles-based).

The suggested "prescriptions" to keep New York the hub of the financial world are, for starters, to establish a National Commission on Financial Services Competitiveness in order to assess what needs to be done to make US markets more competitive. Then Mayor Bloomberg would "establish a public/private joint venture to promote competitiveness" wherein Bloomberg would "collaborate with business interests and appoint a chairman to act as a national and international ambassador on behalf of the local financial services sector."

More central planning from powermongering New York elites is not the answer to unburdening businesses from the regulatory nets that have them gagged and bound. But getting the central planners, their committies, their national commissions, and their corporatist friends on Wall Street out of the picture is a small start if we wish to see the financial markets untethered from the tyrants who have seized control and are strangling economic growth.

WSJ: Lack of Civil Liberties Breeds Terrorism

James W. Fogal

An article in today's Wall Street Journal quotes a Princeton economist discussing the causes of terrorism:
"There is no evidence of a general tendency for impoverished or uneducated people to be more likely to support terrorism or join terrorist organizations than their higher-income, better-educated countrymen," he said. The Sept. 11 attackers were relatively well-off men from a rich country, Saudi Arabia. "When nonviolent means of protest are curtailed," he says, "malcontents appear to be more likely to turn to terrorist tactics."

Is Intellectual Property the Key to Success?

Jeffrey Tucker

The repeal of intellectual property legislation would do nothing to remove from business its capacity to create, innovate, advertise, market, and distribute. The repeal of IP might create for it an additional cost of doing business, namely efforts to ensure that consumers are aware of the difference between the genuine product and impersonators. This is a cost of business that every enterprise has to bear. Patents and trademarks have done nothing to keep Gucci and Prada and Rolex impersonators at bay. But neither have the impersonators killed the main business. If anything, they might have helped, since imitation is the best form of flattery. FULL ARTICLE

Culinary arts and communist leaders

Jim Fedako

The lovers of Liberty sometimes discount how hard the statists work. Certainly, we discuss and debate, and read and write, all in an effort to further the cause of Freedom. We grow hungry and need refreshment; that we accept. But, what about the socialists who are in the midst of economic and political plans that will exterminate close to 100 million? What do they eat to nourish their tired minds and bodies?

For that answer, look no further than the book, Revolutionary Chinese Cookbook, by chef Fuchsia Dunlop. This book is full of tales of both the famous exploits and favorite meals of Chairman Mao.

Dunlop was interviewed earlier this year on NPR. According to the NPR website, "(Dunlop) joins Melissa Block in the kitchen to prepare one of the most common Hunanese meals, said to have been a favorite of Chairman Mao: home-style bean curd, a spicy dish that creates a rich glow in the mouth."

Interviewer Block has a noticable lilt in her voice whenever she says, "Mao." To those ignorant of history, Block's obvious excitement over the Chairman's menu makes him seem like some rock star from her youth.

OK. So, who's this Mao guy? Well, according to the interview web page, he is simply the man who led the Chinese Communist Revolution. China's version of George Washington, I suppose.

Dunlop opens her book with Mao's words of wisdom: "You can’t be a revolutionary if you don’t eat chilies." I wonder if her next culinary text will cover the favorite breakfasts of the Soviet Union. She could start that book with a little wisdom from Trotsky: "You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs."

Melissa Block can only wait.

A victory for executive power

S.M. Oliva

Last week Lew Rockwell said, “the Supreme Court did the right thing,” in Leegin Creative Leather Products, Inc. v. PSKS, Inc., a decision reversing the Court’s century-long condemnation of “resale price maintenance” (RPM) as a per se violation of the Sherman Act. Many academic critics of the prior RPM rule—invented by the Court in Dr. Miles Med. Co. v. John D. Park & Sons Co. (1911)—also hailed the decision as a victory for modern economic analysis. But Leegin was no victory for consumers, retailers, or manufacturers. The only beneficiaries are the same gaggle of lawyers, mainstream economists, and affiliated professionals who make their living off the federal welfare program called antitrust.

Continue reading "A victory for executive power"

Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?

George Reisman

In his July 1, 2007, New York Times Op-Ed piece, “Moving Beyond Kyoto,” Al Gore states:

Consider this tale of two planets. Earth and Venus are almost exactly the same size, and have almost exactly the same amount of carbon. The difference is that most of the carbon on Earth is in the ground — having been deposited there by various forms of life over the last 600 million years — and most of the carbon on Venus is in the atmosphere.

As a result, while the average temperature on Earth is a pleasant 59 degrees, the average temperature on Venus is 867 degrees. True, Venus is closer to the Sun than we are, but the fault is not in our star; Venus is three times hotter on average than Mercury, which is right next to the Sun. It’s the carbon dioxide.

No, Mr. Gore, it’s not the carbon dioxide. If you take the trouble to do an internet search on Google for “carbon dioxide” + “Martian atmosphere,” you will learn that the Martian atmosphere is 95 percent carbon dioxide, yet the average surface temperature on Mars is -63° C (-81° F). (It's true that the atmosphere on Mars is only about .6 percent as dense as that on Earth, but it's also true that its relative concentration of carbon dioxide is about 2400 times as great as that of Earth, which appears to make up for the thinness of the Martian atmosphere about 14 times over.)

Continue reading "Gore: Ignorant or Dishonest?"

Whiny Journalists

Ted Roberts

There's a brand of whiny, journalists who use nostalgia to attack the affluence that capitalism has bestowed on us.  Usually, they flash their columns on July 4th. Their gimmick is selfishness masked in childhood memories.  The scene is always one of youthful recollection; the bucolic picnic grounds, rippling lake, quaint rural paradise of their youth.  (Aunt Gertrude always made her famous stuffed eggs, Mama fried up a mess of chicken.) I encountered one of these scribblers the other day bemoaning the excess of of happy boaters that crowded the lake she and her family used to visit in serene solitude.

Alas, the days of yore - they are no more.  Too much competition.  the newly enriched public has squeezed them out.  And evil developers responding to the publics' desires have build homes, condos, vacation cottages.  And there's too many cars, too.  Can't hardly find a place to park, compared to the good old days when "we": pulled up rite beside the water.  This widespread prosperity makes them yearn for their privileges of yesteryear.  The spoiler is that devil - headstrong capitalism - that answers needs without asking society's permission. 

It was lovely when they owned the only home on the hillside - serenity and an unobstructed view was exclusively theirs.  But today everybody wants serenity and an unobstructed view.  And since they can afford it, builders supply it.  What's the world coming to?  The big news is that everybody's competing with "us".  We need a new set of "Grandfather" laws, they clamor.  If it wasn't that way when Mama packed up her fried chicken and Auntie Gertrude half poisoned the family with her stuffed eggs - well, it just shouldn't be legal. Why not a little central planning? Say, 20 speedboats, l2 catamarans, and 28 water skiers. A lake traffic planning commission - that's what we need. They could regulate lakeside housing too.

These dreamers would call themselves "Liberals".  They don't know that they sound like Aristocrats. 

They yearn for the generalized poverty of their youth where less fortunates were confined to baking backyard outings while they splashed in the unpolluted blue of the lake.  Damn developers - now the lake, due to a genial economy, is full of non-plutocratic ex-backyarders!!  There oughta be a law..........

Liberty versus Democracy

Jörg Guido Hülsmann

A substantial point of disagreement between Mises and many American libertarians was the question of democracy. Mises would come to taste the particular American flavor of hostility to democracy in a 1947 exchange of letters with Rose Wilder Lane. Apparently they had met for lunch, and Lane had the impression that Mises believed they shared the same outlook on fundamentals. At the meeting she did not feel it was the right moment to start a discussion on the subject, but later wrote him to set the record straight: "as an American I am of course fundamentally opposed to democracy and to anyone advocating or defending democracy, which in theory and practice is the basis of socialism." FULL ARTICLE

Time for Another Revolution

Mises.org Updates

The Americans insisted writes Frank Chodorov, that in the nature of things all rights inhere in the individual, by virtue of his existence, and that he instituted government for the sole purpose of preventing one citizen from violating the rights of another. Sovereign power, they said, resides in the individual; the government is only an agency of his will. If it fails to carry out its duties properly, or if it itself presumes to invade his rights, then the moral thing to do is to kick it out. FULL ARTICLE