The Mises Community

Building Rothbardia

Bleicke — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 15:16:25 GMT

Hello guys,

So I've read my Rothbard and my Minerva and now I'm faced with the following question: how do we build our own Minerva? I don't believe in turning a state libertarian from the inside out. I'd rather take the Minerva-route, buy some land and found my own country. I think seasteading is cool, but I really like land.

I'm sure many people here are interested in this also. Are there any projects going on at the moment? If not, why don't we start our own? Building a country takes lots of people, money, time and effort. I'm convinced that it can be done, though, even if it takes a few years or decades.

Who here's interested in joining up for a project group of some sort? Since it's a very complicated topic and different people have different pieces of knowledge needed to make this work, there needs to be a boatload of thinking, brainstorming and discussion going on. For starters we can discuss in this thread, maybe later get our own project site somewhere. This is pre-pre-0.1-Alpha stage (at least for me), but we've got to start sometime.

Topics which I think are important (feel free to add anything I forgot and comment on anything I got wrong):

- Where will Rothbardia be?

I'm thinking Africa, coast. Africa because there's a lot of weak governments. If we do this in Langley, they'll shoot us down in no time. In Africa, many people don't give a shit about their government and might join us. Many governments there are just warlords. We'll definitely be attacked by these warlords, but they're easier to defend against than the US.

Why not an island? In the beginning an island might be of advantage due to the isolation. But when this thing really goes off, the isolation will be our biggest problem! There will be lack of space, transportation and immigration. Also, islands in the Pacific get hurricaned all the time.

- Will it even be called Rothbardia?

This is just my name for it. Call it what you want, so long as we make it work.

- How will we get the land?

I'm thinking buying from the owners, not the government. Unless the government IS the owner, in which case we'll buy from them. I don't think "buying sovereignty" is the right start. We don't accept authority of meta-beings like states. We respect the ownership of the land by the natives of the area.

Another point for Africa: I'm guessing many people will be happy to sell their land for a)little money or b)promise of future goods. We could just give them a house when we're done. Raising the standard of living is in anyones interest, and in many African areas it might be as easy as providing water.

- How will we get the money?

Yea, this is a good one. Of course we'll have to be filthy rich to get this started. But a few hundred dedicated people should be able to do this. Right? Maybe we'll get investors.

IF this takes off, we'll have huge industry in no time. If only for tax purposes.

- How will we purchase the land?

In Minerva, a huge company is formed which then buys the land, sub-contracting it to all the residents. We could either do it that way or buy our shares individually. It shouldn't be more expensive than buying land anywhere else on the planet. Probably cheaper in the beginning.

- Public Relations

I think it's important to be open about this. There shouldn't be any chance of "Rich Right-Wingers Exploit African Natives" spin. This could easily be done with a few semi-dedicated journalist types and a website. If everyone can see we're friendly, non-criminal people and actually RAISE the standard of living in these areas, nobody has any reasons to condemn us. This could be a war-preventer, in my opinion. We don't want the american public to feel we're a threat to freedom or anything.

- Immigration Policy

Immigration is practically non-existent in a private country, as I understand it. If you're "in", it's because you OWN or RENT the part you're in. There is no problem with immigration, because immigrants won't be "taking our jobs" or "siphoning our social systems empty". If they get in, it's because they paid for it.

In fact immigration will be of great advantage in this system, because each immigrant will mean more productive work. People can work in Rothbardia and rent a house or apartment. Many of the locals might do this, as it's probably more lucrative for them than farming for rice or what they did before.

I also think Rothbardia should be open about joining it. Everyone who owns land can join Rothbardia. This way, our country would spread like a virus. A good virus! If our neighbors see the advantages of living in Rothbardia, they can just join up and the country grows organically. This doesn't even have to be local neighbors, it could be people around the world. But those would probably rather found their own country after our example.

- Law

I'm not very knowledgeable in this category, but I'm sure many of you are.

It's mostly IP I'm concerned about. If we do non-IP (which is the libertarian thing to do, isn't it?), will major corporations even join our country? Right now most companies are freaking out about outsourcing to China, because they don't respect IP properly. If we openly declare that IP is worthless in our country, will companies not be afraid to even sell their products to us?

- Defense

I see three main defense scenarios.

1)Random thugs and raiders

This shouldn't be too hard if we bring some rednecks with guns.

2)Warlords

Depending on the area, this might be hard. They'd probably just kill and loot everyone. It would be easy diplomacy-wise, because it's clear we're the victims. The fight would be hard. Some african countries have less than 1 million residents, some have 150 millions. We'd have to find a region that is not too badly struck by warlordery.

3)Western countries

Some western countries might feel threatened by us or declare we're violating some UN resolutions. Some of the european tax havens have been "economically attacked" because they didn't release information about their bank customers! And the US has attacked countries for less than that.

This would be a VERY hard battle, but I think it could be very dependent on diplomacy. If people get the impression we're a bunch of armed thugs taking advantage of poor people, we'll get attacked immediately. If we instead are able to project the truth, by being open and inviting journalists etc., we might prevent such an attack. It's more difficult for a democratic government to attack a bunch of nice people that do nothing but help the local economy.

That's just the stuff going through my brain right now. Let's make this more than just a book we all like (Minerva). Let's try to do it for real. It's a long way, but this might be the first step.

Also: please don't reply to tell me this is a stupid idea or why Anarcho-Capitalism is flawed. Constructive criticism is very much wanted, but no "your idea is shit!" stuff. If I made major mistakes or forgot major points, just join the discussion. It's going to be our country, so we should all discuss it.

Gay marriage and civil unions

Individualist — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:49:50 GMT

Should libertarians support legalizing gay marriage? Should all marriages be replaced with gender-neutral civil unions? Would either of these things entail more regulations on hospitals, insurance companies, etc.?

Could I get some opinions on particular books from mises bookstore?

David. — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:42:06 GMT

I got given some money for my birthday towards buying books (about $210, but about $65 will be for postage to NZ), and these were some of the titles I wasn't entirely sure about.. If you've read any of these, I'd really appreciate any input regarding whether they're worth getting. If you think some of these books are rubbish, make a suggestion?

Austrian Theory of the Trade Cycle and Other Essays

Meltdown

America's Great Depression - Rothbard

New Deal in Old Rome

Politically Incorrect Guide to American History

Note: I'm definitely getting HA and The Theory of Money and Credit, and I can get most Mises and Hayek in my university library. I already have Economics in One Lesson and Economics for Real People.

Artificial Interest Rates

Jack400 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:38:56 GMT

I am trying to better understand Austrian economy theory and was wondering if anyone out there could help explain something to me, or direct me to a good article explaining it:

How should interest rates be set?

I understand that part of the problem, according to Austrian theory, is that interest rates were artificially low, thus encouraging too much borrowing and malinvestment of that borrowed money. I also understand that it is generally seen as the Fed who sets this rate artificially low through the discount rate.

My question is: how should that rate be set? I read a lot that it should be set "by the market," but what does that mean? Is there some better calculation the Fed should use to set the discount rate (and is that really allowing "the market" to set it)?

I'm just confused as to how interest rates would get set by market forces since at some point, some individual (or agency) actually has to set the discount rate.

Oh man does New York City hate homeless people

auctionguy10 — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 20:37:40 GMT

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/11/07/2009-11-07_no_7_subway_extension_forces_eviction_of_open_door_homeless_shelter.html

Pretty damn heartless.

Lifeboat Situations Revisited

Daniel — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:46:34 GMT

What would be the moral answer to this situation:

A cruise ship has a fire in the hold and begins to sink rapidly. Six passengers plus a ship's officer find themselves on a lifeboat far out at sea. There are sufficient room and provisions for a total of six, not seven, people. The officer is indispensable. He has a compass and is experienced in handling the boat and the rough sea. He realizes that to save six, he must decide which of the passengers can be sacrificed. The passengers include: a star football quarterback, an unwed pregnant teenager, an elderly nun, a 24-year-old drug dealer who lifts weights and has strong arms, a 70-year-old Pulitzer Prize poet, and a terminally ill librarian given one year to live. Who should the officer sacrifice and why?

Please, no links to Rothbard's chapter of lifeboat situations. And, yes, it doesn't really make any sense that there are 7 people on a lifeboat that only fits 6, but is how the scenario was proposed.

The sorry state of public opinion

AJ — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:57:51 GMT

Hardly a single anti-socialist position in this Reddit post. I know Reddit skews a little left, but gimme a break.

Al Qaeda compared to the American revolutionaries

Sukrit Sabhlok — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:50:16 GMT

Reading Michael Scheur's Imperial Hubris at the moment. Combined that with Rothbard and I now understand that Michael Moore was right to compare the resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq to the American revolutionaries. They're obviously not the same, but they're both rebelling against a stronger occupying power brutalizing the people.

FAQ Page or WIKI FAQ or whatev...

filc — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 06:05:12 GMT

Howdy Folks,

Its kind of been a brainstorm week for me for whatever reason. At any rate it just dawned on me... Shouldn't we have a FAQ page for those repetative pesky questions we seem to get on a weekly basis? IE, Public Roads, National Defense, Welfare, Business Cycles, blah blah blah.

Can we use the Wiki page for that? I was browsing through it and didn't find any specific articles on some of the most common statists topics we seem to get. A nice wiki article + links to literature for those common topics would be a great FAQ alternative. Also the Wiki on this site doesn't seem very organic. It's not anything like mediawiki is it? It seems somewhat limited, though I have yet to post a topic....

Massacre at Fort Hood and its repurcussions

Capital Pumper — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 11:01:52 GMT

Link

A nationalist rallying point never fails to bring out people's true colours. I see this incident is already being used as pretext to dehumanize an entire group of people. A couple of people I'm acquainted with have labeled the shooter as "another Muslim fanatic". They try to justify their call to arms sentiment of indignation through special pleading, "they've dehumanized themselves!" It's a wonder people churn out such rhetoric, when the historical consequences of the us vs them mentality are crystal clear.

Newbie questions

Tukaram — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:35:35 GMT

I am new to the site and Austian economics. So I have a few stupid questions (and will have more later I'm sure).

My main question right now I guess is how much government control should there be in business, if any?

Would business competition smooth out the tendency towards greed and slothfulness? Or do we need some regulations? I think we would need some few, very basic, regulations but let capitalism work on it's own for the most part.

One of my favorite authors has always been Ayn Rand (We The Living is great). In Atlas Shrugged she made a good case for capatilist progressing society and the bleeding hearts ruining everything trying to make it 'fair'. As much as I agree with with her in theory I don't think I have as much faith in human nature as she seemd to.

For her model to work you need capitalists who run a company well, gives the workers a livable wage, and produce a good product. You need labor who doesn't demand outrageous wages, does an honest days work. You would also need well informed consumers.

Unfortunately we seem to have corporations run by greed not profit (I think some would strip mine their grandmothers grave for the silver in her hair). Workers that are only concerned with a big paycheck and when is the next coffee break. Add in the idiotic consumers and we get a mess.

Or am I just jaded?

Seventeenth Amendment

Deist — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:48:42 GMT

I use to support repealing the seventeenth amendment to the United States Constitution but I have changed my mind upon finding the style and scope of legislation passed by pre seventeenth amendment Senators

Legislation before the seventeenth amendment was passed:

1)Both National Bank bills, National Banking system (1860's till 1913) and eventually the Federal Reserve Act
2) The Erdman Act (outlawed "yellow dog" contracts)
3) Pure Food and Drug Act,
4) Land grants to corrupt railroads
5) Sherman Anti trust act
6) Alien and Sedition Act

And the list goes on.

Pre seventeenth amendment senators did not give a hoot about states rights if federal power could be used to subject a minority of other states to their states advantage. The major cog that slowed down centralization was an adamant federal judiciary.

Centralization was in no way slowed down by state legislative appointment. If that was the case then Germany should be one of the most decentralized governments on the planet.

The surest way to bring back Federalism is to revive the non-delegation doctrine. Federal Executive Agencies pass more laws per year than all laws passed by congress and signed by the president through out history. And those congressionally created laws include ones that the federal courts struck down.That sheer amount of regulation floods the courts on the state level (because state governments delegate as well) and the Federal courts cannot nullify them since the Supreme Court will not let them due to New Deal case law.

But do not get me wrong I don't think reviving the non-delegation doctrine is going to happen, nor do I believe that present senators are better then they used to be. I just think the focus on repealing the seventeenth as misguided and inneffectual. A politician is a poltician no matter who elects them.

Prices are going to go through the FLOOR?!?

american.swan — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:35:45 GMT

Supposedly we're all fools and the central bankers have us by strings like we're puppets.

Everyone here dumping dollars and hording Gold. Is that the right play for everyone? This says otherwise. This has all happened before and we're suckers about to get scrapped over an open fire.

PLEASE read the following EYE OPENING report and interview and tell me how she/he is WRONG and Austrians are RIGHT?

http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/5917

Freedom Images...

Conza88 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 10:18:05 GMT

The saying goes "A picture's worth a thousand words"... well let's do some writing. Just looking for images that articulate the freedom / liberty agenda. What you got?

Help coming up with a name for my game....

Snowflake — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:23:47 GMT

Hi mises people!

I'm making a tabletop based off basic economic concepts. It will have division of labor, technology, education, etc etc. As many market-forces as possible without having an overly complicated system. The complexities enter into it in how the players interact with one another. In some alpha tests of the game, very complex and interesting trading strategies arose. Its quite exciting and fun.

I also put violence into the game, since i'm really trying to simulate anarchy.

So here's the question... What do I call this game? I can't come up with any clever economic puns or anything :(

the least evilest taxes are...

Marko — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 07:51:35 GMT

This is something I was going to ask for a while now in relation to this Rothbard quote from How and How Not to Desocialize:

"Whatever taxation that might exist after desocialization should, however, be as close to neutral as possible. This would mean, in addition to very low rates and amounts, that the taxation be as unobtrusive and harmless as possible, and imitate the market as closely as it can. Such imitation might include the voluntary sale of goods and services at a price, or setting a price for participating in voting. The sale of goods or services by the government would, of course, be drastically limited in our desocialized system, because of the enormous scope of privatization of government activities. Privatization will be treated below."

Any ideas what sort of goods and services does Rothbard have in mind specifically? He is being very unspecific.

What does a government selling goods look like? A government monopoly on salt?

And selling services? That would be the government demanding a fee for issuance of marital licenses and passports and the like? Am I kicking in the dark here?

What proposals canlibertarians make that would lead to cleaner energy / lighter CO2 footprints?

TokyoTom — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 06:16:04 GMT

I`ve pulled together here various suggestions that I`ve seen:

http://mises.org/Community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/11/03/a-libertarian-immodestly-makes-a-few-modest-climate-policy-proposals.aspx

Your thoughts are appreciated.

Given the current logjam, it seems to me that libertarians have a chance in steering things in a deregulatory direction.

Even those who think that libertarians should remain, in principle, disengaged from trying to engage with others in trying budge the policy process, might have some suggestions.

Thanks.

The value of money in terms of produce/man hours.

mickanomics — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:38:23 GMT

Does anyone know of any work (either by an Austrian or non Austrian) that attempts to derive the value of money in terms of amount of some produce or an amount of hours worked. Perhaps something along the lines of, if there are X dollars in total in the society and (other things defined...) then on average each dollar will buy Y hours labour.

As an illustration, here is my own formulation: Imagine a very simple society in which there is only one commodity: sandwiches. Everyone in the land grows the ingredients for their sandwiches in their gardens. Often they will exchange sandwiches with their neighbours just for variety. There is no money in this society only barter. But then one day the king of the land says "I've just invented something I'm going to call money. It consists of metal coins called shekels. I will give everyone in the land 1000 shekels and from now on bartering is banned. All exchanges must be via the medium of exchanging shekels. What's more, nobody is allowed to eat their own sandwiches." The question now is: how many shekels will a sandwich cost? It may well be that on day one, people will not have a clue and all sorts of silly prices may get paid... but presumably over time the price will gravitate towards a certain value. What will that value be?

Federal government to pay Stop lossed personell 500 per month of extension.

Saan — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 19:52:41 GMT

Well guys, my old driver called me up and told me about this. I checked it out. It's true. I can't link anyone to the official site. It is secure.

My information so far says this legislation was passed on Oct 21st this year. (unverified as of yet)

What are everyones thoughts about this. According to the application form I can collect 3,000 dollars. I don't think I'm gonna do it. It's blood money. I've had enough of that. Anyone care to try and justify me collecting my due.

Finding books on the Internet

Peter Sidor — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 11:11:52 GMT

Searching here and there for resources, it makes you appreciate any book available online, so you don't have to lose time going into a library. For many older books, not even a large library may help.

While far from perfect, online books are immediately accessible and ready to be quoted - if you can find them. Here are a few useful links to search online books at, feel free to add more!

Gutenberg.org, the oldest digital library with many books in the public domain, often old books and quite a few economical texts too.

The Internet Archive contains huge amounts of information, little of it useful... and then it can surprise with the oddest finds.

The Open Library boasts of having many books as well. Haven't had any experience with it yet, but it looks hopeful.

Google Books have often only incomplete versions, but it should do for most quoting.

Last but not least, Mises.org has many Austrian and related books too!

Must See Movies

Conza88 — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:48:19 GMT

The point of this is to create a list of worthwhile films / movies / TV shows & series, that relate in a major way with an issue or issues this movement stands for. So make way for the propaganda! The hope is that these can be used to subtly influence family members, friends, co-workers - as a starting point, or supplement to getting them to turn off the television and start really thinking for themselves.

Obviously not all of the below are 'pure', but I believe them to have more positives than negative. I also think it is important to try understand the main message / moral of the story, and how someone who has not yet been enlightened by liberty would interpret the film.

Some movies are great on issues like individualism vs collectivism, but then might fall down in other areas. So if you have seen the film recently, and don't think that it belongs (negatives outweigh positives) definitely speak up. By all means, discuss the films... if you have seen a film, and recommend it - please give it a shout out..

Other issues to look out for below include; self responsibility over paternalism, anti-war, dystopia's, anti-big brother, justice, against collectivism, conspiracy (self interested politicians), anti-green agenda, bureaucracy, entrepreneurship, corporatism, the mafia, revolutions, drugs, corruption, police, pre-crime, mass media, ruling elites to name a few.

What did I miss? Movies, shows, films that enlighten about the current state of affairs, as well as heed warning & inform should be added here. Also maybe provide a synopsis or blurb about it, as to why its such a classic / you are recommending it.

12 Angry Men (1957)
1984 (1984)
2081(2009)
300 (2007)

A

Antz (1998)
American History X (1998)
A Midnight Clear (1992)
A Man For All Seasons (1966)
Amazing Grace (2007)
Amistad (1997)
Akira (1988)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
Animal Farm (1999)
All the King's Men (1949)
Arlington Road (1999)
Alien (1979)
Adventures of Robin Hood (1938)
Army of Shadows (1969)
Appaloosa (2008)
The Americanization of Emily (1964)

B

Bananas (1971)
Batman Begins (2005)
Battle of Algiers (1967)
Birth of a Nation (1915)
Blade Runner (1982)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Brother Sun, Sister Moon (1972)
Brazil (1985)
Braveheart (1995)
Breach (2007)
Breaker Morant (1980)
Bourne Ultimatum (2007)
Born on the Forth of July (1989)
Boom Town (1940)
Burnt By the Sun (1994)
Bulworth (1998)
The Brotherhood of the Bell (1970)
Bury My Heart At wounded Knee (2007)
The Bal cony (1963)
The Bank Job (2008)
The Beyond (1983)

C

Caddyshack (1980)
Casualties of War (1989)
Casino (1995)
Cavalcade (1993)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City of God (2002)
Children of Men (2006)
Cinderella Man (2005)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Cool Hand Luke (1967)
The Castle (1997)
The City of Ember (2008)
Captain Blood (1935)
Cinema Paradiso (1988)

D

Dr. Strangelove (1964)
Dark City (1998)
Death of a President (2006)
Duck Soup (1933)
Dr. Zhivago (1965)
Dollar's Trilogy (1964)
Demolition Man (1993)
Defiance (2008)
Dark Knight (2008)
The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951)
The Deer Hunter (1978)

E

Election (1999)
Enemy of the State (1998)
Enemy at the Gates (2001)
Escape From New York (1981)
Europa, Europa (1990)
Equilibrium (2002)
Eagle Eye (2008)

F

Farewell My Concubine (1993)
Fahrenheit 451 (1966)
Fight Club (1999)
Finding Nemo (2003)
Firefly (2002)
The Fountainhead (1949)
Full Metal Jacket (1987)
First Blood (1982)

G

Grave of the Fireflies (1988)
Gandhi (1982)
Good Night and Good Luck (2005)
Goodfellas (1990)
Gladiator (2000)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
Gallipoli (1981)
Grand Illusion (1937)
Ghost Busters (1984)
Gattaca (1997)
Gran Torino (2008)
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966)
The Godfather Trilogy (1972)

H

Hate (1995)
Harry's War (1981)
Harrison Bergeron (1995)
High Noon (1952)
Hot Fuzz (2007)
House of Cards (1990)

I

Its a wonderful life (1946)
Into The Wild (2007)
Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956)
Idiocracy (2006)
I, Robot (2004)
Iron Man (2008)
The International (2009)
Independence Day (1996)
The Inner Circle (1991)
The Incredibles (2004)

J

Jacob's Ladder (1980)
Jericho (2006)
JFK (1991)
John Adams (2008)
Johnny Got His Gun (1971)
Joyeux Noel (2005)

K

The King of Hearts (1966)
The Killing Fields (1984)
The Kite Runner (2007)

L

Land of the Blind (2006)
Laggan - Once Upon a Time in India (2001)
La Vallee (1972)
L'America (1994)
Lord of the Rings (2001)
Lord of War (2005)
Logan's Run (1976)
The Leopard (1963)
Legends of the Fall (1994)
Lorenzo's Oil (1992)
Little House on the Prairie (1974)
The Last Castle (2001)

M

Metropolis (1927)
Minority Report (2002)
Mad Max (1979)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
The Matrix Trilogy (1999)
Manchurian Candidate (1962)
Metropolitan (1990)
The Mouse that Roared (1959)
The Man in the White Suit (1951)
The Man Who Would Be King (1975)

N

No Man's Land (2001)
Natural Born Killers (1994)
The Network (1976)

O

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
Once Were Warriors (1995)
The Outlaw Josey Wales (1976)

P

Prison Break (2005)
Paths of Glory (1957)
Pursuit of Happyness (2006)
The Patriot (2000)
Pump Up the Volume (1990)
Porco Rosso (1992)
The Prisoner (1967)
The Path to 9/11 (2006)
The Promise (1979)
The Pentagon Wars (1998)
The Philadelphia Experiment (1984)

R

Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002)
Red Dawn (1984)
Robocop (1987)
Rendition (2007)
Runaway Jury (2003)
The Rules of the Game (1939)
The Ruling Class (1972)
Requiem For A Dream (2000)
Rollover (1981)
Reds (1981)
Road to Perdition (2002)
The Running Man (1987)
The Road Warrior (1981)

S

Scarface (1983)
Shawshank Redemption (1994)
Shindlers List (1993)
Sleeper (1973)
Star Wars (1977)
Serenity (2005)
Simpsons Movie (2007)
South Park - Bigger, Longer & Uncut (1999)
Sophie Scholl: The Final Days (2005)
Stalker (1979)Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Shooter (2007)
Stalingrad (1993)
Seven Days in May (1966)
Shenandoah (1965) Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)
Sunshine (2007)
Salvador (1986)
Serpico (1973)
Spy Game (2001)Skulls (2000)Sneakers (1992)
The Seven Samuri (1954)
Soylent Green (1973)
Spartacus (1960)
The Siege At Ruby Ridge (1996)
The Siege (1981)
The Searchers (1956)

T

Tae Guk Gi: The Brotherhood of War (2004)
Tailor of Panama (2001)
The Third Man (1949)
Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988)
Three Kings (1999)
Total Recall (1990)
The Third Man (1949)
The Thin Red Line (1998)
Time Bandits (1981)
THX 1138 (1971)
Touch Of Evil (1958)
The Twilight Zone Series (1959)
The Truman Show (1998)
They Live (1988)
Team America: World Police (2004)
Terminator Trilogy (1984)
Tron (1982)
Tucker: A Man and His Dream (1988)
Time Bandits (1981)
Thank You For Not Smoking (2005)
Twelve Monkeys (1995)
The Quiet American (2002)

U

Underground (1995)
Unforgiven (1992)
The Usual Suspects (1995)

V

Valkyrie (2008)
V for Vendetta (2005)
V (1984)

W

Wall-E (2008)
Watership Down (1978)
Wall Street (1987)
'War Inc.' (2008)
WarGames (1983)
Wag the Dog (1997)
What About Bob? (1991)
War Letters: American Experience (2002)
The White Rose (1983)
The Wire (2002)
Wild River (1960)

X

X-men (2000)
X-Files (1993)
Xiu Xiu: The Sent Down Girl (1998)

If I missed something, recommend it. If you don't understand why something is there, investigate and ask. If you don't think it should be there, make a case for it's removal. These were collected by myself at RPF with the help of others. I have updated it considerably, this is the most up to date version. Reviews were gleaned from here at Mises, LewRockwell for starters. Enjoy!

Gray areas with fractional reserve banking

Alex M — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:39:07 GMT

Whether you're a free banker or one who would consider fractional reserve banking to be a punishable offense, where do you draw the line between legitimate banking practices and cycle-generating credit expansion? For instance, if instead of there being warehouse receipts that said "redeemable for 10 ounces of gold", the phrasing "redeemable for 10 ounces of gold upon availability" were used, would it be permissible for a bank to loan out the money of those depositors who were provided with receipts with the latter phrasing? The "upon availability" signifies that, while the bank still owes the depositor money, if not all the money is there, the depositor will have to wait until loans are called and money is freed up before he/she can withdrawal. It would not mean the bank would have to close up shop due to insolvency and failure to meet its obligations, since the obligations weren't strictly demand deposits, but rather demand deposits upon availability of funds. A bank run needn't ruin the bank the day it happens, though the bank would quickly lose its reputation after the fact and would likely have trouble attracting future business.

So it seems to me in this case that the contract between the bank and the clients is clear -- the money is there, eventually you'll be able to take it out, though in most cases you can take it out right away. The receipts don't claim to be backed by immediately-withdrawalable money, but likely, people will treat the receipts as a money substitute, and that's really all it takes to generate a business cycle, since the money supply (including the substitutes) has increased and will likely be loaned out to businesses. All you anti-free-bankers out there, would you consider such a system to be fraudulent? How can you tell which banking practices are considered fraudulent, since whatever people consider to be money-substitutes is purely subjective? Certainly there are cases where we can all agree that a banking practice is not fraudulent and does not generate a business cycle, but some cases are less obvious. What if I have a CD that offers a higher IR than a savings account, but I have the option (at some penalty) of taking out the money before the maturity date -- is that to be considered credit expansion? If I consider the money I can extract from the CD whenever I'd like to be money "on hand", is this yet again an example of credit expansion? Where do you draw the line? It's seems like there are so many insurmountable gray areas to this, and I don't simply want to make a rule that any practice that generates a business cycle is fraudulent, simply because the mere existence of business cycles is troublesome to me.

The Paradox of Government Coercion

Sage — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:56:02 GMT

Libertarians hold two positions which, at first glance, might seem to be contradictory: First, that government is coercive and involuntary, and second, that the power of government rests ultimately on public opinion rather than coercion.

The first point is stated brilliantly by Mises:

It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. The funds that a government spends for whatever purposes are levied by taxation. And taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers. They know that any disobedience or resistance is hopeless. As long as this is the state of affairs, the government is able to collect the money that it wants to spend. Government is in the last resort the employment of armed men, of policemen, gendarmes, soldiers, prison guards, and hangmen. The essential feature of government is the enforcement of its decrees by beating, killing, and imprisoning. Those who are asking for more government interference are asking ultimately for more compulsion and less freedom.

In other words, all government edicts, taxes, regulations, etc. are enforced by the threat and application of violence.

The second point was originally expounded by Boétie and Hume. As Boétie writes in his Politics of Obedience:

[The tyrant has] nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you. Where has he acquired enough eyes to spy upon you, if you do not provide them yourselves? How can he have so many arms to beat you with, if he does not borrow them from you? The feet that trample down your cities, where does he get them if they are not your own? How does he have any power over you except through you? How would he dare assail you if he had no cooperation from you?

He concludes:

Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.

And as Hume put it in his "First Principles of Government”:

Nothing appears more surprising to those, who consider human affairs with a philosophical eye, than the easiness with which the many are governed by the few; and the implicit submission, with which men resign their own sentiments and passions to those of their rulers. When we enquire by what means this wonder is effected, we shall find, that, as force is always on the side of the governed, the governors have nothing to support them but opinion. It is therefore, on opinion only that government is founded; and this maxim extends to the most despotic and most military governments, as well as to the most free and most popular.

Thus government, as a minority of the population, does not have the power to control the entire population through force alone, but must rely on widespread support in the form of public opinion.

But, one might object, if government requires widespread support from its citizens, how can it also be coercive and involuntary?

First, notice that government can be coercive and yet draw its power from something other than its coerciveness (e.g. public opinion.) Just because government does not derive its power from its coerciveness, it doesn't follow that government isn't coercive.

Let's investigate more closely. The government decrees what its citizens may and may not do, and threatens violence against recalcitrant individuals who disobey. The citizens acquiesce to government rule, but they do so under duress. This point is crucial: the citizens are acquiescing under the threat of coercion. In other words, the majority of people, under the threat of coercion, do comply with the government's dictates, while recalcitrant individuals are directly coerced. Thus, government is coercive.

But if the government is vastly outnumbered by its citizens, why do they put up with its coercive dictates? Why don't they rise up and overthrow it? The answer is public opinion: the citizens, steeped in statist ideology, believe that government is just and necessary, and hence refrain from revolting. More specifically, public opinion creates a collective action problem. If most people believe in statism, then one individual's resistance to government will achieve nothing except martyrdom. The government can dispose of one lone resister. If most people believe in anarchism, however, then their combined resistance will be sufficient to topple the government. The government's existence depends on what the public believes. The difficulty lies in coordinating simultaneous and effective resistance. Thus, the power of government rests on public opinion.

(So Boétie is incorrect to say that "It is... the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude." It's true that their coordinated resistance would bring down the government. But it's wrong to say that their servitude is voluntary or consensual, because as we've seen, the government threatens them with coercion. It might be the case that governments are more or less coercive depending on the credibility of their threats.)

(Also, his statement "I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer" needs clarifying. It's not that people just have to withdraw their "consent". Rather, they have to disobey the government and make it carry out it's threat of coercion; they have to call the government's bluff. So "removing your support" means potentially incurring the wrath of the state.)

Thus, there is no paradox at all. Government is coercive and draws its power from public opinion. But this raises the question: if coercion is not the base of government's power, then is it a necessary feature of government? The answer must be yes; government just is a coercively maintained territorial monopoly of ultimate jurisdiction.

This raises the following question: if coercion is not the base of government's power, then is government a necessary feature of society? This question is the driving force of market anarchism. As Long writes: "if governmental force is impotent except insofar as it accords with public opinion, then ... it is public opinion, not governmental force, that actually maintains social order, in which case we can safely dispense with governmental force and rest social order on public opinion alone."

Mathematically Perfected Economy?

auctionguy10 — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 17:32:17 GMT

I've been reading abit from www.perfecteconomy.com (the site could use some revamping so it is easier to read, but I suppose bear with it?), I'm also very new to Mises and the Austrian school. I was wondering what the opinion is of people here regarding the mathematically perfected economy. Right away I understand that the Austrian school rejects the idea of math being used as a model for human action- and the negative view of interest Mike Montagne holds. If anything it looks like an interesting debate.

Human Action Comics by Lilburne

Lilburne — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 05:48:44 GMT

Introducing...

Issue #1: The Basics

Until I figure out something better, I'm publishing these as Google Picassa album.

Feedback appreciated as always.