Rothbard explains that it is not enough to read an author's work. You have to understand his intentions, which means that you have to understand who he's talking to, who his friends are, who his enemies are, and who he's reacting against.
Thomas Mun set forth what would become the standard mercantilist line.
Hayek noticed that the British habit of proclaiming compromise to be ingenious is an excuse for closing the eyes to unpleasant facts. If there is anyone who is not entitled to put his trust in the genius for compromise and for muddling through, it is the modern planner.
There is, after all, the surprisingly favorable response that libertarianism encounters from people in all walks of life.
"Just as everyone is born ignorant of math, so everyone is born a folk economist."
Public opinion looks askance at wealth acquired in trade and industry, and finds it pardonable only if the owner atones for it by endowing charitable institutions.
And to wind up at my own doctrine about history, following Albert Jay Nock, history is essentially a race or a conflict between state power and social power.
In light of all the varied and bizarre beliefs, usually incorrect and often pernicious, that have informed human communities throughout the past, is it inconceivable that the far more sensible views of libertarianism might someday become widely accepted?
Pictures of the Socialistic Future warns that socialism, promising equality, can deliver only equal poverty and death.
