The more historians and publicists worshiped and adored the greatness and the majesty of Franklin Roosevelt, the more they scorned his predecessor as the dour man in the high collar who tried but failed to thwart the nation's ascension to paradise.
What if a president took a different direction and sought popularity by expanding rather than reducing liberty?
Just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All the power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn.
Life in a stateless society will sometimes be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious. But the outcome in a society under a state will be much worse.
The wave of bombings and assassinations perpetrated by anarchists during the 1890s was largely a fiction. To some extent, it was frankly invented by sensation-mongering writers who hoped to sell newspapers.
Even though these economists — especially Diamond — are very smart and productive, they and their colleagues have hardly helped the plight of the unemployed, as we stumble ever deeper into depression.
Recorded at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama; 9 October 2010.
Recorded at the Ludwig von Mises Institute; Auburn, Alabama; 8 October 2010.
Many elected officials are already wealthy by most people's standards. What makes the wealthy and otherwise successful want to hold office? Is it an overweening ego and an insatiable hunger for public adulation?
The Tea Party, no matter how successful it is at the polls in November, will certainly betray the party of liberty. There are several reasons for this, but the fundamental one is intellectual. The Tea Party does not have a coherent view of liberty.
