Murray Rothbard had a different view of ethics from the prevailing view among mainstream economists. He advocated rights, while the mainstream favors utilitarianism. The mainstream economists will usually claim to be “value free,” but their appeal to the “social welfare function” belies this.
Almost all the rhetoric of social democracy today, especially its American version, boils down to this implicit statement: “Free market capitalism is great as long as it financially supports us and our campaigns. But for you common folks, it’s a lethal poison!”
Herbert Hoover was a progressive activist president when it came to intervention into the economy. During this period, while free market capitalism was already increasingly hampered in the US (i.e., central banking, business regulations to the benefit of politically-connected big business, the income tax, etc.), many countries were experimenting with bold new theories of central planning (e.g., socialism, communism, fascism). Herbert Hoover—before and during his presidency—was at the forefront of this progressive-interventionist paradigm.
[Editor’s note: This article was originally published by Liberalų sąjūdis (Liberals’ Movement) a center-right Lithuanian political party containing free-market and libertarian factions. In this context, “liberal” is roughly equivalent to what we call “classical liberal” in the English-speaking world.
According to the most recent data, the birth rate in the United States hit a new low in 2024. Many pundits and economists across the political spectrum have framed this as a big problem, not least of all because regime supporters want more young taxpayers to prop up social-benefit programs like Medicare and Social Security.
Among both leftists and conservatives, it has become popular to insist that a few tweaks to economic policy will reverse the downward trend in fertility.
[This article is Per Bylund’s opening speech he gave for Sociedad de la Libertad’s VIII Cumbre Mundial de la Libertad (the Seventh World Summit of Freedom) on November 9, 2025.]
Is a little wet, still wet? It seems like a question with an obvious answer. But, for many, the correct answer—for which they argue vociferously—is that “a little wet is not wet.”
