[rt]

Hi Aphelei,
I recommend the following books:
“Great Wars and Great Leaders A Libertarian Rebutal” by Ralph Raico
“A century of war” by John Denson
These books talk about how the US got involved in WW1 and WW2 and how the Civil war really started. The history of past wars helps to understand present wars better and puts things in perspective. I haven’t read any books of Noam Chonsky so far but he seems to be very good on foreign policy; Jeffrey Tucker was heavely influenced by him. He has written a lot on war. You might like to read a book coedited by Tom Woods called “We who dared to say no to war”. To stay up to date on foreign policy follow the news on http://www.antiwar.com
Check out Adam Kokesh (former marine) who’s an outspoken critique of the US-Government, especially his foreign policy. Regarding your daughter, you might try to respond to her concerns and what’s important to her. If she likes liberty, show her that the military is all about obedience. If she’s for justice, show her how war is immoral etc…
Good luck

[rt]

Thank you, that’s what I thought! It’s unbelievable that these fallacies are committed again and again.

[rt]

Thank you, I see her again next week and approach her with these arguments. I’ll get back to you.

[rt]

Thanks. Do I understand this correctly: During the inflationary period of the 1970s demand for gold increased, in part because of price inflation. Then the Fed let interest rates rise and slowed down monetary inflation. Therefore price inflation was moderate throughout the 1980s. You mentioned that the price of gold in the 1980s stayed moderate but when the bubble burst, the decline was pretty sharp. Did this fall occur because demand for Gold collapsed and demand for dollars increased simultaneously?

Obviously a bubble in gold is different from a housing bubble. The former cannot be explained by ABCT correct? What is then exactly a bubble in gold?

In order for the price of gold to fall, the Fed would have to let interest rates rise, demand for dollars would have to increase and demand for gold would have to fall, correct? Is this very likely? If interest rates rose, the government would have to pay more interest on its debt, banks would become insolvent because demand for T-Bonds at lower rates would collapse. The economy would perform very badly. I don’t think people would buy dollars in such circumstances. Am I missing something here? What would have to happen for a drop in the price of gold to occur? Do you have a personal opinion regarding investing in gold?

Thanks again so much for your time and effort! It’s greatly appreciated!

[rt]

Watch this small video with Stefan Molyneux: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjTy4bV0Rro
He says what I consider to be correct.

[rt]

mmafan,
Okay your argument is of course legitimate and it is theoretically possible for things to work out in such a horrible way. However, if these people existed in our society today, I think they’d immediately try to take control of the government and force their will on the rest of society through the state. I don’t think that a government represents a barrier to these people. On the contrary, they would use the government to achieve their ends. It is estimated that hundreds of millions of people were killed by their own governments in the 20th century alone. These governments did not protect their citizens but killed them. Today governments are not protecting the citizens either. They are constantly stealing wealth through taxation and inflation.

[rt]

Regarding the group of rich people forcing their will on the rest through force. I’d ask how these people get wealthy in the first place. In the free market they’d have to provide goods and services that consumers desire and are ready to pay for. Thus they have to benefit society in order to get rich. Wouldn’t it be weird that those same people (after having helped society) would turn against the people whose lives they have improved? But let’s say they do. People would just stop buying their products and services and these rich people would lose lots of money and eventually it will be impossible to fund an army to oppress everyone. Moreover, in a free society there would be competing defense agencies, some of these would turn against these rich people if their costumers were ready to pay for this service. In addition, a great number of people would be armed and able to defend themselves in a guerilla way making it extremely difficult for a group of people to permanently force their will on the majority.

[rt]

I can’t think of an article you’re looking for. However I’d like to recommend to short books that I’ve read last year that seem to me very persuasive. First ‘The law’ by Frédéric Bastiat. You probably know it but Bastiat explains what the law should be (protection of life and property) and what the resulting role of government should be. The resulting government would be severely limited (a constitutional republic). The alternative would be a democracy with lots of government intervention which would be incompatible with individual rights and the proper role of the law. I gave this book to my best friend for his birthday. I’d consider him a social democrat but ‘The law’ really got him thinking and he’s moving toward a more libertarian position.
http://mises.org/document/2731
http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Frederic-Bastiat/dp/1612930123/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1357294025&sr=8-1&keywords=the+law

The other book I can recommend is “Beyond Democracy” by Karel Beckman and Frank Karsten. It’s again a very short book but highly persuasive in my mind. It’s not as academic as ‘Democracy The God that failed’ by Hoppe. The authors go through 12 common myths of democracy and debunk them. (e.g.. Democracy equals freedom). They als opropose alternatives like decentralization with small limited governments. While ‘The Law’ is written from a moral standpoint “Beyond Democracy” seems to be written from a more pragmatic standpoint.

http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Democracy-solidarity-prosperity-tyrannical/dp/1467987697/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1357294058&sr=1-1&keywords=beyond+democracy

I’d definitely check out both of these books and give them to your friend. You might ask him to recommend any books to you. After having read them you might have a discussion. Good luck

[rt]

Walter Block wrote a whole book called “The Privatization of Roads and Highways”
http://mises.org/document/4084
Moreover, you have an incentive to plow the part of the street of your house and so have other people. In a city, stores, banks etc. along the streets have an incentive to plow these streets in order to attract customers…

[rt]

I agree with Sterling!
But Mises007 I’m sure you know Stephan Molyneux of Freedomainradio! You mighr send him your questions, he often replies to those of his listeners!

[rt]

1. I’m not an expert regarding law but I’d think that both cases would be handled very similarly. The convicted person, who painted the swastika or the word nigger, however might face social ostracism…

2. Check out:
http://www.walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/theory_gun_control.pdf

3. Since the person was not allowed by the owner of the computer to download the movie (only to check emails), has he not violated an implicit contract? Or would he not have to ask for permission to use another person’s private property?

4. Check out the part on gun control (starting at page 36) of “Chaos Theory” by Robert Murphy:
http://mises.org/books/chaostheory.pdf

5. Hans-Hermann Hoppe argues that immigration in a libertarian society would be very restrictive, since every piece of land would be privately owned.
http://mises.org/journals/jls/16_1/16_1_5.pdf

I don’t know the right answers to your questions but I tend to agree with Walter Block, Robert Murphy and Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the various issues. I hope I could add some food for thought and I’d love to hear other people’s opinions!

[rt]

Wow! What an amazing answer! Thanks a lot Porphyrogenitus! I’ll definitely look into all the authors you mentioned and keep you up to date regarding the books!

[rt]

You’re partially right. The Broken Window Fallacy refers to the alleged benefits of destruction. But you can apply the lesson to government spending in general. The money you pay in taxes might result in the purchase of tanks, or government jobs (which is seen) but you cannot see where the money could have been invested or spent on without taxation

[rt]

link doesn’t work for me

[rt]

Mises was in favor of a limited government for the protection of life and property. (Police, Military, Courts). Rothbard rejected the State in its entirety and talks about his ideas in “For A New Liberty”.

[Author]

Posts