The Mises Seminar (Sydney, November 25-26)

The Mises Seminar will bring together Australians interested in libertarianism and the Austrian school of economics. The event comprises a dinner on Friday, November 25, and an all day seminar on Saturday, November 26. The events can be purchased separately, or together as a package deal at a discount.

The seminar will field a line-up of prominent anti-state, anti-war and pro-market thinkers from around Australia, with special guest Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Our speakers understand that free-markets generate prosperity, and that government intervention is both economically and socially destructive.

The Mises Seminar venue is the Union, Universities and Schools Club (UUSC), located at 25 Bent Street Sydney. This is Sydney’s most prestigious and exclusive venue, and the compulsory dress code reflects that. Ties and blazers for men, and the equivalent for women.

The organising committee for the seminar consists of Samuel Marks (Macquarie University Libertarian League), Sukrit Sabhlok (Liberty Australia), Michael Conaghan (Liberty Australia), Dr Bulukani Mlalazi, Dr Washington Sanchez (Aussienomics), and Benjamin Marks (Economics.org.au).

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions please don’t hesitate to contact us.

49 thoughts on “The Mises Seminar (Sydney, November 25-26)

  1. Sukrit – you previously said that there are only 26 real libertarians in Australia. Now you are planning an invitation only event for the subset that also qualify as radical. I’m not against exclusive events but aren’t you building a rather small tent?

  2. I’m not against exclusive events but aren’t you building a rather small tent?

    Quality not quantity Terje.

    It will be like Hoppe’s Property and Freedom Society: an uncompromising intellectual radicalism for justly acquired private property, freedom of contract, freedom of association and unconditional free trade. We condemn imperialism and militarism, and champion peace. We reject positivism, relativism, and egalitarianism in any form, whether of “outcome” or “opportunity,” and have an outspoken distaste for politics and politicians.

    This event is being organized by Michael Conaghan, Washington Sanchez and myself. We have already received confirmations from some of the speakers on the list. Thanks to those who have emailed me I will keep you informed.

  3. I recall when Sukrit started this blog as a polite young undergraduate.

    It’s good to see him putting his money where his mouth is and organising an event like this, but sad to see how doctrinaire and dismissive he’s become. I hope for his sake he’s not contemplating a career in the private sector, because his attitude will be *seriously* embarrassing when potential employers google his name.

    Hopefully he’s not so thinned skinned as to wipe this comment, I mean well.

  4. I’d just like to say that the term ‘radical’ shouldn’t be misunderstood for ‘committed’.

    There are many committed libertarians out there with various worldviews and strategies towards advancing liberty. Some have a limited incrementalist approach, while others are radical. Radical, as we define it, is the length and scope of change that is being advocated.

    Austrian school libertarians are well-known for their radical streak, according to this definition. Similarly, David Friedmanite libertarians are radical as they advance significant changes in the transition to a privatized society.

    In other words, just because the David Friedmanite camp doesn’t share the same economic and natural rights view with Murray Rothbard, doesn’t make them any less radical.

    Non-radicals libertarians shouldn’t be viewed as inferior, and radical libertarians shouldn’t be viewed as arrogant. At the end of the day, we’re moving in the same direction.

    The ALS and other groups have a broad tent under which many libertarians of many stripes can meet, greet and agree on general principles.

    The Mises Seminar will be a narrower tent, but one by which we’ll all benefit from.

  5. Dave,

    I’ve been pretty critical of Sukrit but that’s a very weak argument “you’re wrong, and if you do not admit so, you will never get a job.”

    The idea that you can’t have convictions in today’s society is also seriously wrong.

    Can’t we be incrementally radical?

  6. David Friedman was a radical incrementalist, so no there isn’t a problem at all with that label… Personally I’m less fussed with the strategy as I am with the end ideal goals.

  7. Why not start up a Kerrigan Award, inspired by the family name in the Australian movie “The Castle”, and give it to the individual who has done the most to support private property and free enterprise during the past year?

  8. There are essentially two alternate definitions that exist when referring to being “radical”, radical in the sense of ends (goal) & radical in the sense of means (how you go about getting there).

    How someone can think gradualism (means) will lead to radical (ends) is beyond me. But hey, maybe I’ve missed something there. If you think so, it’d be nice to help point that out (after reading the article linked below the quote), as they elucidate my direct thoughts on the matter.

    From Rothbard’s “Do You Hate the State?” –

    “Perhaps the word that best defines our distinction is “radical.” Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and anti-statism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul.

    Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark. I can think of hardly a single limited governmentalist of the present day who is radical – a truly amazing phenomenon, when we think of our classical liberal forbears who were genuinely radical, who hated statism and the States of their day with a beautifully integrated passion: the Levellers, Patrick Henry, Tom Paine, Joseph Priestley, the Jacksonians, Richard Cobden, and on and on, a veritable roll call of the greats of the past. Tom Paine’s radical hatred of the State and statism was and is far more important to the cause of liberty than the fact that he never crossed the divide between laissez-faire and anarchism.

    And closer to our own day, such early influences on me as Albert Jay Nock, H. L. Mencken, and Frank Chodorov were magnificently and superbly radical. Hatred of “Our Enemy, the State” (Nock’s title) and all of its works shone through all of their writings like a beacon star. So what if they never quite made it all the way to explicit anarchism? Far better one Albert Nock than a hundred anarcho-capitalists who are all too comfortable with the existing status quo.

    Where are the Paines and Cobdens and Nocks of today? Why are almost all of our laissez-faire limited governmentalists plonky conservatives and patriots? If the opposite of “radical” is “conservative,” where are our radical laissez-fairists? If our limited statists were truly radical, there would be virtually no splits between us. What divides the movement now, the true division, is not anarchist vs. minarchist, but radical vs. conservative. Lord, give us radicals, be they anarchists or no.”

    As mentioned by Benjamin Marks – this is probably the most important article on Australian libertarian activism.

    http://economics.org.au/2011/01/up-the-workers-bob-howard-1979-workers-party-reflection-playboy/

    It’s great to see this being said – by someone who has done & lived it. However, is this not the exact same strategy as the LDP, minus an actual radical (ends) platform? The same style/argument apply to the CIS, IPA and other “right wing” think tanks, no?

  9. I think it would be radical to abolish income tax. I think we could do it incrementally over a ten year period using normal economic growth to offset the lost revenue, along with some basic health and education funding reforms.

  10. And yet the problem with that is the following:

    “Thus, the libertarian abolitionist of slavery, William Lloyd Garrison, was not being “unrealistic” when, in the 1830s, he raised the standard of the goal of immediate emandpation of the slaves. His goal was the proper moral and libertarian one, and was unrelated to the “realism,” or probability of its achievement. Indeed, Garrison’s strategic realism was expressed by the fact that he did not expect the end of slavery to arrive immediately or at a single blow. As Garrison carefully distinguished: “Urge immediate abolition as earnestly as we may, it will, alas! be gradual abolition in the end. We have never said that slavery would be overthrown by a single blow; that it ought to be, we shall always contend.”8 Otherwise, as Garrison trenchantly warned, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

    Gradualism in theory, in fact, totally undercuts the overriding goal of liberty itself; its import, therefore, is not simply strategic but an opposition to the end itself and hence impermissible as any part of a strategy toward liberty. The reason is that once immediate abolitionism is abandoned, then the goal is conceded to take second or third place to other, anti-libertarian considerations, for these considerations are now placed higher than liberty. Thus, suppose that the abolitionist of slavery had said: “I advocate an end to slavery—but only after five years’ time.” But this would imply that abolition in four or three years’ time, or a fortiori immediately, would be wrong, and that therefore it is better for slavery to be continued a while longer. But this would mean that considerations of justice have been abandoned, and that the goal itself is no longer highest on the abolitionist’s (or libertarian’s) political value-scale. In fact, it would mean that the libertarian advocated the prolongation of crime and injustice.”

    “If, then, the libertarian must call for immediate abolition of the State as an organized engine of aggression, and if gradualism in theory is contradictory to the overriding end (and therefore impermissible), what further strategic stance should a libertarian take in a world in which States continue all too starkly to exist? Must the libertarian necessarily confine himself to advocating immediate abolition? Are transitional demands, steps toward liberty in practice, therefore illegitimate? Surely not, since realistically there would then be no hope of achieving the final goal. It is therefore incumbent upon the libertarian, eager to achieve his goal as rapidly as possible, to push the polity ever further in the direction of that goal. Clearly, such a course is difficult, for the danger always exists of losing sight of, or even undercutting, the ultimate goal of liberty. But such a course, given the state of the world in the past, present, and foreseeable future, is vital if the victory of liberty is ever to be achieved. The transitional demands, then, must be framed while (a) always holding up the ultimate goal of liberty as the desired end of the transitional process; and (b) never taking steps, or using means, which explicitly or implicitly contradict that goal.

    Let us consider, for example, a transition demand set forth by various libertarians: namely, that the government budget be reduced by 10 percent each year for ten years, after which the government will have disappeared. Such a proposal might have heuristic or strategic value, provided that the proposers always make crystal clear that these are minimal demands, and that indeed there would be nothing wrong—in fact, it would be all to the good—to step up the pace to cutting the budget by 25 percent a year for four years, or, most desirably, by cutting it by 100 percent immediately. The danger arises in implying, directly or indirectly that any faster pace than 10 percent would be wrong or undesirable.

    An even greater danger of a similar sort is posed by the idea of many libertarians of setting forth a comprehensive and planned program of transition to total liberty, e.g., that in Year 1 law A should be repealed, law B modified, tax C be cut by 20 percent, etc.; in Year 2 law D be repealed, tax C cut by a further 10 percent, etc. The comprehensive plan is far more misleading than the simple budget cut, because it strongly implies that, for example, law D should not be repealed until the second year of this planned program. Hence, the trap of philosophic gradualism, of gradualism-in-theory, would be fallen into on a massive scale. The would-be libertarian planners would be virtually falling into a position, or seeming to, of opposing a faster pace toward liberty.” – Toward a Theory and Strategy for Liberty, Chp 30 TEOL Rothbard.

    Sorry for the long quote/post. Also unsure of how to bold or underline things here.

  11. Michael,

    The problem is, not that people will disagree with you, but rather, they won’t know WTF you’re talking about.

    I’d love it if everyone had read Human Action (like I have), had a degree in economics (as I do) and wanted 5% GDP spent on Government etc but it simply doesn’t interest people.

    Even if you’re right you have to sell it another way.

    Pick 10 things that piss them off and give them a libertarian solution. They’ll come over for that – the usual suspects – housing affordability etc.

    The answers might all be in Mises but unless you are a committed libertarian and/or economically literate, you simply will not relate to it – I was rare – I was intrigued by libertarianism which seemed whacky but I was convinced more and more the more I read.

    You will get some (IMO, valuable) people this way, but it will probably not appeal to the masses.

    Quite frankly I’d like to see a LDP/LA coalition Government…BTW I’m probably as *hardcore* as most of LA, a member of the LDP but do not consider myself “left” or “right”.

    I’d rather be neither like Gillard or Abbot!

  12. Michael,

    Like it or not, you still need a plan.

    If we changed the tax system to GST only, I would say it should be capped at 20% and then reduced in accordance with a real constant level of per capita spending. Growth would see the rate fall. The size of the Government would slowly BUT SURELY shrink, as would the tax rate.

    Sure we could go quicker but given the outcomes of the US LP, Rothbard had no right to criticise gradualism as being slow.

  13. “Even if you’re right you have to sell it another way.”
    – Ron Paul: pretty good salesman. 😉

    “but it will probably not appeal to the masses.”
    – Ron’s strategy is accurately depicted in the Libertarian Parties “Rothbard Caucus” Ten Points. (http://www.lprc.org/tenpoints.html)

    “but do not consider myself “left” or “right”. I’d rather be neither like Gillard or Abbot!”
    – I’m really glad to hear that! 🙂

    “If we changed the tax system to GST only, I would say it should be capped at 20% and then reduced in accordance with a real constant level of per capita spending. Growth would see the rate fall. The size of the Government would slowly BUT SURELY shrink, as would the tax rate.”

    – The point is for to hold high the true goal of liberty, which is abolition. It is then, that we get others to try sell us on that ‘compromise’. We call for abolition of taxation – it is theft and illegitimate. The income tax is akin to partial slavery. What else do you call a system where you work half of your life for the state? blah blah etc.

    We then accept their movements in the right direction, “Fine. GST only is better COMPARED to the current situation. But there should be no gst either!” You need to continue to agitate.

    We’re not going to get into power & even if we get a Ron Paul in – that isn’t going to achieve much of anything (change within the system). Ron Paul acknowledges that – the system ain’t going to be changed by people being elected & voting.

    If the assumption is we are in power, and you have the choice and option to completely abolish it all – and you choose NOT to… how is what Rothbard said wrong? You’re not for true liberty at all. You’ve got the opportunity to unload the gun, yet you keep it cocked. What’s all that about? lol. (Btw, I mean “you” in the general sense – not you personally).

    “Sure we could go quicker but given the outcomes of the US LP”
    – I’m not sure I understand that. What outcomes? What exactly have they done to reduce the size of government? Bobb Bar? lol.

  14. “Like it or not, you still need a plan. ”
    “Quite frankly I’d like to see a LDP/LA coalition Government…”

    – How about this plan then? 😀

    “In conjunction with the privatization of all assets according to the principles outlined, the government should adopt a private property constitution and declare it to be the immutable basic law of the entire country. This constitution should be extremely brief and lay down the following principles in terms as unambiguous as possible:

    Every person, apart from being the sole owner of his physical body, has the right to employ his private property in anyway he sees fit so long as in doing so he does not uninvitedly change the physical integrity of another person’s body or property. All interpersonal exchanges and all exchanges of property titles between property owners are to be voluntary (contractual). These rights of a person are absolute. Any person’s infringement on them is subject to lawful persecution by the victim of this infringement or his agent, and is actionable in accordance with the principles of proportionality of punishment and of strict liability.19

    As implied by this constitution, then, all existing wage and price controls, all property regulations and licensing requirements, and all import and export restrictions should be immediately abolished and complete freedom of contract, occupation, trade and migration introduced. Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate.” ~ Democracy: God that Failed, Hoppe – p215

  15. “how is what Rothbard said wrong? You’re not for true liberty at all. You’ve got the opportunity to unload the gun, yet you keep it cocked. What’s all that about? lol.”

    Rothbard had no freaking clue about banking. His ideas were nutty and Statist.

    What we need to change is culture. We need to encourage philanthropy rather than just talk about cutting taxes.

    That’s great but how would you privatise things? YOU STILL NEED A PLAN!

    Hoppe was wrong – at least according to Rand. Didn’t she believe in voluntary contributions to keep the law courts, police and armed forces going?

    Well – the US did this half half of it’s early military expenditure.

    Do you reckon the “Anarchist Experiment” Rothbard wrote about the Pennsylvanian Amish is libertarian or not? They did have very light taxation.

    Until you change the culture, you cannot rely on voluntary donations.

  16. “Hoppe was wrong – at least according to Rand. Didn’t she believe in voluntary contributions to keep the law courts, police and armed forces going?”

    – Did you miss this? “Subsequently, the government, now propertyless, should declare its own continued existence as unconstitutional-in so far as it depends on noncontractual property acquisitions, that is, taxation-and abdicate.””

    I don’t see how Hoppe is wrong. And isn’t that just an appeal to authority fallacy. Who cares what Rand thinks. What are her arguments for a minarchist night watchmen state? I think you’ll find they’re bunk. Not that I care about discussing a minarchism vs. anarcho-capitalism, as per the Rothbard quote way above this doesn’t concern me. Radicalism does.

    “That’s great but how would you privatise things? YOU STILL NEED A PLAN!”

    – First step is showing the current “privatisations” aren’t what they proclaim to be. http://www.la.org.au/opinion/251010/qld-government-asset-sales-more-state-theft

    As for the process and method of legitimate de-socialization / de-statization, which I didn’t go into in depth in that article… there is: Part 4 – What Now? section of The Strategy For Liberty, a book I’m editing.

    Brief current outline of contents for that section if you want to search and learn more:
    •How and How Not to De-Socialize – MNR (11 pgs)
    •On Socialism and De-socialization – Hoppe (15 pgs)
    •Nations by Consent: Decomposing the Nation State – MNR (10 pgs)

    oRepudiating the National Debt – MNR
    oWhat We Mean by Decentralization – Lew Rockwell (4 pgs)
    oA Radical Prescription for the Socialist Bloc – MNR (3 pgs)
    oThe role of entrepreneurship in desocialization – Herbrener
    oThe Recovery of Stolen Roads – Jim Davies (5 pgs)
    oPrivatize public highways – Block (4 pgs)
    oPrivatizing Air Security – Murphy
    oHomesteading City Streets: An exercise in managerial theory – Block (22 pgs)
    oTransition to private roads – Block (14 pgs)
    oThe Four Step Healthcare Solution – Hoppe (2 pgs)
    oCutting Is So Hard to Do – Grant M. Nulle (7 pgs)

  17. You say I miss something but you then go onto make a conclusion based on that same omission.

    You have a plan. I was right. This is many times better than just demanding liberty.

  18. “You have a plan. I was right”

    – Excuse me? When did I ever deny one was necessary? Haha.

    I’ve been attacking the ‘plans’ of others because they are doomed to fail [since the strategy is flawed], and will do nothing to achieve liberty in the real world.

  19. The strategy isn’t “failed”. They fail a libertarian purity test.

    I have nothing against the more purist stuff but when it demands no gradualism it gets nowhere.

    Seeing you think we will never have any power, what are you actually trying to achieve?

  20. “when it demands no gradualism it gets nowhere.”
    – I think you are mixing up the legitimate “gradualism” of acceptance/concession in the right direction towards liberty, whilst still agitating & holding high the true banner of liberty… with the illegitimate gradualism of holding a position & policy you only think will be acceptable to the public, so you can get votes. By already compromising (and pushing to the background true liberty – all taxation is theft)… you’ll get nowhere. Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.

    I mean seriously, take a look around you… since when has the strategy ever worked in the history of the world? When has government ever remained limited? It is absolutely utopian & anything but practical or pragmatic. They’re just buzz words for making one feel special about selling out.

    Can someone please read the Economics.org.au article I linked early before continuing to comment?

    What the LDP is proposing has been TRIED, to a way better degree… and it failed due to the reasons outlined. The conception of strategy associated with it was flawed.

    “Seeing you think we will never have any power, what are you actually trying to achieve?”
    – I said “get into power”, by that I mean “state power” – get someone principled like Ron Paul elected etc. & as I said, even if that happens it won’t largely change anything. Ron Paul acknowledges that – the system ain’t going to be changed by people being elected & voting.

    We have another type of power. Social power.

    “…following Albert Jay Nock, history is essentially a race or a conflict between state power and social power, as Nock put it. Social power is a network of voluntary interactions: the economy, civilization, everything that is voluntarily interacting. Nock calls that social power.

    And state power, of course, is the State. It’s always trying to repress social power, cripple it, tax it, loot it, etc. So history becomes a race between these two forces.” – http://mises.org/daily/4708

    I have a nuanced position. I don’t reject political activism outright [as some do]. Anymore, more on that – http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard78.html

  21. “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”

    No that’s not right. It’s just an assertion you’ve picked up to buttress your argument.

    Gradualism was meant to preserve British India but actually lead to the fall of the Raj, Indian independence and a Republic.

    Gradualism got them to their objective despite being ostensibly against their goals.

  22. “I mean seriously, take a look around you… since when has the strategy ever worked in the history of the world? When has government ever remained limited?”

    Pretty much always. The only time it isn’t limited is in a totalitarian state. In historical terms, these are rare.

    Of course government might be too big or too intrusive or too corrupt… but it’s still, almost always, “limited”.

  23. “I think it would be radical to abolish income tax. I think we could do it incrementally over a ten year period using normal economic growth to offset the lost revenue, along with some basic health and education funding reforms.”

    Don’t be applying to get into the meeting fella. What you are saying here is you approve of all that stealing for all that time.

  24. “Seeing you think we will never have any power, what are you actually trying to achieve?”

    You haven’t answered the question. Answer the question fella.

  25. I’ll be more polite to Michael.

    I agree with your aims. Why do you think you will be successful and why other approaches succeed?

    I’m asking *why*, not what you think is inevitable.

  26. Haha… I love that this had degenerated into an argument over how to best transition to a free society!

    I agree with Michael (predictably): we should aim high, keep the vision and principles radical. Gradual change is more likely than rapid change, but by keeping the message radical the goals are clear and articulated and thus momentum will be on our side with each step forward.

    When the message is one ‘baby step’ at a time, people don’t know where you’re going or why.

  27. Wow, so there are now 10 “real” libertarians in Australia?

    Good luck…though I suspect you are actually either “phil” or the equally unhinged “Graeme Bird”.

  28. Right.

    Now I know it is actually you Graeme, you mind numbingly stupid moron, as I read a post from your blog which is a cesspit of mental depravity – you are not making up the invites. Humphreys is more or less running the show.

    If anyone is unwelcome, it is you.

    These guys are hardcore. You are not a libertarian. Going to convince these guys about your whacky ideas about subsidies for aquaculture, you twit?

  29. I’m not that worried whether I’m going to be in the IN CROWD or not. I’m just happy that Sukrit has finally sorted the right strategy, and that fakeass types like you Cambria, and a lot of other obstructionists, aren’t going to be invited.

    Hows that for zen cool by Sukrit? He now gets to choose whose in the ultimate aristocracy of righteousness and who isn’t.

    And I feel confident to guarantee that you weren’t even considered.

  30. Oh yes we’re fake because we don’t support destroying the banking system, rendition and a bizarre North Korean style industry policy….you idiot.

  31. You are out Mark. You don’t understand economics. You are not committed to human freedom. And most particularly you don’t have the sort of mind that will ever understand the monetary side of economics.

    Its important that I rub all your noses in the exclusivity of the project, in order to bring honor and gravitas to the undertaking.

    If Suckrit sees further than others he will do so by stomping on the heads of midgits.

  32. I think some people here need a group hug! All together now, a big air hug all round!
    There, feel better? No more nasty name-calling, please!
    In this, the new Chinese year of the rabbit stew, let’s only vilify statists and non-libertarians.
    As for changing societies, Tunisia shows us how to do it. One libertarian will need to kill themselves in protest at the repressive state, and the rest of us can organise spontaneous public revolts and marches, and overthrow the existing system. If we hand out guns to all adults, that would be one correct step in disempowering governments.

  33. Right Graeme. I have more of an education than you and gainful employment in the field. I am published. You are a crank.

    The only reason why you think I’m not a libertarian is because I oppose your nutty views on an illiberal banking regime, the use of rendition and oppose your whackier ideas about industry policy, homesteading, being anti privatisation and your truly baffling obsessions with crank science.

    “And most particularly you don’t have the sort of mind that will ever understand the monetary side of economics.”

    No Graeme you idiot every claim you made was repudiated with mathematics, legal authority or empirical research.

    “Its important that I rub all your noses in the exclusivity of the project, in order to bring honor and gravitas to the undertaking.”

    You have no gravitas other than your portulant carriage.

  34. We’ve got enough authentic queers in this city without you pretending to be one Mr Gray.

    I don’t think libertarians need to kill eachother in order to get the point across. If you are going into a fight it may be useful to be able to smash a bottle over your head, in order to make the other fellow wonder what the hell it is he intends to try on. But setting yourself alight is not going to win influence in this country.

  35. “No Graeme you idiot every claim you made was repudiated with mathematics, legal authority or empirical research.”

    Lets have three then? You are a liar. You won’t be showing up.

  36. 1. You were wrong about the legal status of fractional reserve (per Hill v Foley).

    2. You never, ever repudiated my claims about the maths of the credit multiplier.

    3. You were wrong about M1 causing M3. Empirically it has been show to run the other way.

    You dummy.

  37. You are wrong about M1 and M3. The causal flow runs the opposite way to what you are claiming. Frank Shostak understands this. You don’t. Frank will be there but you won’t.

    You were imbecilic in terms of your allegic mathematical proof. I mean drooling imbecilic. You claimed that M1 growth was non-inflationary, based on some maths that did not show this. You are a hopeless case and will not be invited.

    You are lying as to my alleged claim about the legal status of fractional reserve. You made it up. You are lying. You are not invited Mark. Forget it.

  38. “Rothbard had no freaking clue about banking.”

    I simply cannot abide this level of stupid. Never widen the tent. For the love of God never make the tent larger.

  39. [When has government ever remained limited?”]”Pretty much always.”
    – Could you possibly provide some examples where the goal was to restrict (limit) the size & scope of the state (via constitution etc.) and where that has actually happened. Thanks 🙂

    “Gradualism was meant to preserve British India but actually lead to the fall of the Raj, Indian independence and a Republic.”
    – Can you tell me a bit more about this? History of it. And how exactly are you defining gradualism here.

    Didn’t British rule collapse due to Ghandi… a principled politician? Who was essentially an absolute radical. Doesn’t the whole scenario directly confirm what Rothbard writes in “Ending Tyranny Without Violence by Murray N. Rothbard, which I linked to early?

    “Are you sure? How many have read Hoppe etc?”
    – I didn’t know that was a pre-requisite. Hehe.

    “Why do you think you will be successful and why other approaches succeed?”

    – Achieving ‘success’ depends on the goal. Personally that is to do what I can to help start a movement. And make steps towards getting liberty related ideas rolling in an oz perspective. (http://forums.la.org.au/showpost.php?p=602&postcount=3) That requires drive & long term dedication which can only come about through a passion for justice.

    Why Be Libertarian? – http://mises.org/daily/2993

    “It is our view that a flourishing libertarian movement, a lifelong dedication to liberty can only be grounded on a passion for justice. Here must be the mainspring of our drive, the armor that will sustain us in all the storms ahead, not the search for a quick buck, the playing of intellectual games or the cool calculation of general economic gains. And, to have a passion for justice, one must have a theory of what justice and injustice are — in short, a set of ethical principles of justice and injustice, which cannot be provided by utilitarian economics.”

    “why other approaches succeed?”
    – There are many paths / strategies of how to get to liberty. Who is to say there is ONLY one correct strategy? It needs to be like guerilla warfare… whatever you are personally interested in, there is that division of labor & specialisation – be it in trying to change academia, moving forward the theory and edifice of liberty through education & commentary, marketing, politics, secession, sea steading, non violent civil disobedience etc..

    But within that, there are principles. i.e In a democracy, the worst rise to the top etc. So it is easier to change things locally, as opposed to nationally.

    “Today, the State’s protection monopoly is considered public instead of private property, and government rule is no longer tied to any particular individual, but to specified functions, exercised by unnamed or anonymous individuals as members of a democratic government. Hence, the one or few man conversion strategy does no longer work. It doesn’t matter if one converts a few top government officials – the president and a handful of senators – because, within the rules of democratic government, no single individual has the personal power of abdicating the government’s monopoly of protection. Kings had this power; presidents don’t.

    The president can only resign from his position, only to be taken over by someone else. But he cannot dissolve the government protection monopoly, because supposedly the people own the government, and not the president himself.” – What Must be Done: Hans Hermann Hoppe

  40. I’ve got some quotes that give the general gist. If they don’t suffice, let us know and I’ll try answer more satisfactorily.

    – “The pattern repeats itself so often that it almost seems to be a law of history: the radicals who change history must do so over the resistance of the moderates, who claim to be friendly to the same cause, but somehow always end up on the side of established interests.” (Moderates and Radicals) – Lew Rockwell

    “The radical of one century is the conservative of the next. The radical invents the views. When he has worn them out, the conservative adopts them.”
    ~ Mark Twain

    “It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds” – Samuel Adams

    “Certainly, one indispensable ingredient of such a solution must be the sundering of the alliance of intellectual and State, through the creation of centers of intellectual inquiry and education, which will be independent of State power. Christopher Dawson notes that the great intellectual movements of the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were achieved by working outside of, and sometimes against, the entrenched universities. These academia of the new ideas were established by independent patrons. See Christopher Dawson, The Crisis of Western Education (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1961).” – Anatomy of the state, footnote – MNR

    “Say to a man: you have the right not to be put to death or arbitrarily plundered. You will give him quite another feeling of security and protection than you will by telling him: it is not useful for you to be put to death or arbitrarily plundered.” – Principles of politics

  41. I think it sounds like a great idea, and good luck. I think Washington got the point perfectly when he said that we have places like the ALS to be a “broad libertarian tent” and then there is a role for a more radical talkfest occasionally.

    Graeme — I see that you’ve found a new name and way to by-pass moderation. If you stay calm, polite and don’t spam the site, I’ll leave things as they are. Though I think it’s a bit cheeky for you to call yourself “Dr”.

Comments are closed.