1. The price that invariably must be paid for taxation, and for every increase in taxation, is a coercively lowered productivity that in turn reduces the standard of living in terms of valuable assets provided for future consumption. Every act of taxation necessarily exerts a push away from more highly capitalized, more productive production processes in the direction of a hand-to-mouth-existence.
    — Hans Hermann Hoppe
  2. Is there traffic congestion? Ban all cars! Water shortage? Drink less water! Postal deficit? Cut mail deliveries to one a day! Crime in urban areas? Impose curfews! No private supplier could long stay in business if he thus reacted to the wishes of customers. But when government is the supplier, instead of being guided by what the customer wants, it directs him to do with less or do without. While the motto of private enterprise is “the customer is always right,” the slogan of government is “the public be damned!”
    — Murray Rothbard (via anarchei)

    (Source: mises.org)

  3. alliemercury:


    okay look at the last 4 years

    you dumb motherfuckers gave george bush 8 years to fuck this economy up and expect it to be cleaned up in 4 years?

    please have a seat on the floor you don’t even get a chair


    Blaming economic problems caused by policy decisions and monetary issues that were in place far before Bush’s two terms on Bush makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect the economy to soar when the same policies that caused and/or contributed to the economic crash continued during Obama’s first term. And will carry over to his second term. Or to Romney’s first term.  

    People who are economically illiterate, the real “dumb motherfuckers” really shouldn’t be the ones telling critics to be quiet. Here’s Rothbard’s take on economic ignorance.

    It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance

    So please, if you think that Obama carrying on the same policies as his predecessors will someday, somehow “fix” the economy, “have a seat on the floor, you don’t even get a chair”. Actually, even better just stay home and stay out of the discussion.

    (Source: uffu)

  4. The action axiom, in particular, should be, according to Aristotelian philosophy, unchallengeable and self-evident, since the critic who attempts to refute it finds that he must use it in the process of alleged refutation. Thus, the axiom of the existence of human consciousness is demonstrated as being self-evident by the fact that the very act of denying the existence of consciousness must itself be performed by a conscious being. … A similar self-contradiction faces the man who attempts to refute the axiom of human action. For in doing so, he is ipso facto a person making a conscious choice of means in attempting to arrive at an adopted end: in this case the end, or goal, of trying to refute the axiom of action. He employs action in trying to refute the notion of action.
    — Murray Rothbard, Economic Controversies (via conza)
  5. … The crucial point is that Marx’s definition of ‘class’ and ‘class conflict’ under capitalism is hopelessly muddled and totally wrong. How can capitalists, even in the same industry, let alone in the entire social system, have anything crucial in common? Brahmins and slaves in a caste system certainly enjoy a common class interest in conflict with other castes. But what is the common class interest of the ‘capitalist class’? On the contrary, capitalist firms are in continual competition and rivalry with each other. They compete for raw material, for labour, for sales, and customers. They compete in price and quality, and in seeking new products and new ways to get ahead of their competitors. Marx, of course, did not deny the reality of this competition. So how can all capitalists, or even ‘the steel industry’, be considered a class with common interests? Again, in only one way: The steel industry only enjoys common interests if it can induce the state to create such interests through special privilege. State intervention to impose a steel tariff, or a steel cartel with restricted output and higher price, would indeed create a privileged ‘ruling class’ of steel industrialists. But no such class having common interests pre-exists on the market before such intervention comes about. Only the state can create a privileged class (or a subordinate and burdened class) by acts of intervention into the economy or society. There can be no ‘capitalist class’ on the free market.
    — Murray Rothbard (via anarchei)

    (Source: eltigrechico)

  6. Why Study Economics?

    Quote taken from David Gordon’s book, An Introduction to Economic Reasoning (free pdf download)

    Why Study Economics?

    Why, indeed? A good short answer is that you can’t get away from it. Almost everything you do involves economics. Why do people have to earn a living? Why do some people—heavyweight boxers, rock stars, and movie producers, for example—earn vastly more than bus drivers or policemen? What determines the price of a Big Mac, or, for that matter, a Mack truck? Whenever you have to deal with money or prices, you are talking about economics. To paraphrase Monsieur Jourdain, a character in a play by the seventeenth-century French writer Molière, you have been speaking economics all your life. But granted the pervasiveness of economics questions, why study them systematically? After all, we are all governed by the law of gravity—try jumping off a cliff sometime if you don’t think so—but does it follow that we have to study physics? If people don’t understand the basic laws of economics, we are headed for disaster. You don’t have to understand much physics to know why it’s not a good idea to jump off a cliff; but an economy that runs well depends on enough people grasping some simple truths about how the price system works. As we’ll see throughout this book, a sound economy depends on allowing people to act freely. If politicians interfere with the free market, or attempt to replace it entirely with socialism, we are in for trouble. And some people are always tempted to do this. They think that by one or another hare-brained scheme, they can promote their own welfare. Unless you understand the key elements of economics, you may fall for some of these ideas. If people do so, the economy will suffer or collapse altogether; and we may lose our freedom as well. A little time spent learning economics will help you to avoid a great deal of trouble later.

  7. The Economic Underworld of Social Credit, Gary North

  8. No better is the propensity, very popular nowadays, to brand supporters of other ideologies as lunatics. Psychiatrists are vague in drawing a line between sanity and insanity. It would be preposterous for laymen to interfere with this fundamental issue of psychiatry. However, it is clear that if the mere fact that a man shares erroneous views and acts according to his errors qualifies him as mentally disabled, it would be very hard to discover an individual to which the epithet [p. 186] sane or normal could be attributed. Then we are bound to call the past generations lunatic because their ideas about the problems of the natural sciences and concomitantly their techniques differed from ours. Coming generations will call us lunatics for the same reason. Man is liable to error. If to err were the characteristic feature of mental disability, then everybody should be called mentally disabled.

    Neither can the fact that a man is at variance with the opinions held by the majority of his contemporaries qualify him as a lunatic. Were Copernicus, Galileo and Lavoisier insane? It is the regular course of history that a man conceives new ideas, contrary to those of other people. Some of these ideas are later embodied in the system of knowledge accepted by public opinion as true. Is it permissible to apply the epithet “sane” only to boors who never had ideas of their own and to deny it to all innovators?

    The procedure of some contemporary psychiatrists is really outrageous. They are utterly ignorant of the theories of praxeology and economics. Their familiarity with present-day ideologies is superficial and uncritical. Yet they blithely call the supporters of some ideologies paranoid persons.

    — Ludwig von Mises. Human Action, Chapter 9 Sec 2, The Role of Ideas: World view and ideology.

    *For the next time you are called either ‘crazy’ or ‘insane’. (via conza)
  9. Peter Schiff testifies before schools Congressional Jobs Committee (part 1) (part 2)

  10. Introduction to Economics A private seminar with Murry N. Rothbard (2 of 7)