I had the great pleasure and honor of meeting Murray Rothbard in person back in 1988, after having read his book America's Great Depression, by recommendation of a Venezuelan economist - Roberto Dubuc. I made arrangements to meet with him in Las Vegas, where I flew in 1988. He was the most intelligent and kind person I have ever met. When I expressed my great appreciation for being able to talk to him and having been able to meet him in person, he, being the kind of person he was, simply stated, I know the feeling José; I've been there before. That was the kind of person he was. He was so kind that I had his home phone number, and I also had the opportunity to talk to him several times, during the Mises University that I attended in the summer of1989, in Stanford University. He used to call me José, the pilot from Venezuela. It was much easier for him to call me like that, than attempting to pronounce my last name (Azpurua - a name, originally from northern Spain) He was Mr. Freedom. I've never seen a person who knew so much and loved freedom, like he did. I simply had (and continue to have) the greatest admiration for him. I believe there is no one else who has had the love and knowledge Murray had. I felt extremely sad, when I learned about his untimely death in 1995. He deserves the highest praise and honor from all freedom lovers in the whole world. In my case, I have an undying admiration for him. And enjoy extremely when I see videos of wonderful people, like Tom Woods, praising him; something that can't never be done adequately. He deserves the greatest admiration and gratitude from any person that has read his books, and learned about freedom from his ideas. I hold him in higher esteem as even Thomas Jefferson, whom I consider the greatest thinker in America. José Azpúrua, from Caracas Venezuela. I simply love the ideas of Jefferson and Rothbard. They are simply, the best mankind has been able to produce.
I enjoy Woods very much but over the years I've begun to question whether this is the Mises Institute or the Rothbard Institute. Surely the "opening" lecture should go to Mises. And after that, the time split between Rothboard and Hayek.
Murray Rothbard, along with Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert, was a co-founder of the Mises Institute. It would seem to make sense that the opening lecture would discuss the contributions of a deceased founder.
AndrewTheRed it becomes harder to talk about Mises as less of the people who knew him well are alive. Meanwhile i think a lot of people in that room at least talked to Rothbard once.
As you can see, Guido Hulsmann often kicked off Mises U with a discussion of Mises' life. The Institute is devoting this year, though, to particular emphasis on Rothbard's work (hence the NYC event in October), so in keeping with that theme they asked me to talk about him.
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed. Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress. *The Anarchist's Constitution* 1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition. 2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial. 3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules. 4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will. Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply. Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules? I understand Ancaps as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, ie., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough. Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others? What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others? What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for? Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die? Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a new born infant? Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals? Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will? Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately? Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties? A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent? This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these *rules without rulers* ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent? Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia. Just curious, but do you hold that *The Anarchist's Constitution* is sufficient for a functioning free society. Do you? Can you really not think of various instances where even free people would have to submit, regardless of their individual wishes? And please remember, I would be just as happy to lose this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do. Does the truth derive from authority or Does authority derive from the truth? Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
Woods is too humble, great speaker and powerful reasoning.
I had the great pleasure and honor of meeting Murray Rothbard in person back in 1988, after having read his book America's Great Depression, by recommendation of a Venezuelan economist - Roberto Dubuc. I made arrangements to meet with him in Las Vegas, where I flew in 1988.
He was the most intelligent and kind person I have ever met. When I expressed my great appreciation for being able to talk to him and having been able to meet him in person, he, being the kind of person he was, simply stated, I know the feeling José; I've been there before. That was the kind of person he was. He was so kind that I had his home phone number, and I also had the opportunity to talk to him several times, during the Mises University that I attended in the summer of1989, in Stanford University.
He used to call me José, the pilot from Venezuela. It was much easier for him to call me like that, than attempting to pronounce my last name (Azpurua - a name, originally from northern Spain)
He was Mr. Freedom. I've never seen a person who knew so much and loved freedom, like he did. I simply had (and continue to have) the greatest admiration for him. I believe there is no one else who has had the love and knowledge Murray had. I felt extremely sad, when I learned about his untimely death in 1995. He deserves the highest praise and honor from all freedom lovers in the whole world.
In my case, I have an undying admiration for him. And enjoy extremely when I see videos of wonderful people, like Tom Woods, praising him; something that can't never be done adequately. He deserves the greatest admiration and gratitude from any person that has read his books, and learned about freedom from his ideas. I hold him in higher esteem as even Thomas Jefferson, whom I consider the greatest thinker in America.
José Azpúrua, from Caracas Venezuela. I simply love the ideas of Jefferson and Rothbard. They are simply, the best mankind has been able to produce.
Man I love Tom woods. Could listen to him all day. Brilliant! Thank you, sir!
"If you don't have enemies, then you're probably a lazy bum."
Me: _Cries in lazy bumhood._
We need this man in a cabinet position.
How does Tom keep improving his talks every year? Amazing.
Tom Woods is so freakin funny. What a gem for libertarians.
One day we will proud of all these heros and we will see them as legends,
Scott Horton introduced me to Rothbard just by his gushing about his writing, I am eternally indebted.
Tom ON FIRE!!
cant beleive its been a year since the last mises week.
What a great video for enhancing my interest into this mindset. It makes me excited to learn more.
Highlight of my day, thanks Tom!
A breath of fresh air!🎉
9:19
Did you hear about Jeffery Dhamer? THEY GOT HIM!
- Murray Rothbard
My cousin told me about this guy. Great listen. 😊
Episode 345: Economic Cycles Before the Fed
Cycles before the Fed is a brilliant talk.
A true gentleman!
That was awesome.
how many Smackers?
T sent me here
Me to
Welcome.
Men of culture, we need a new party.
I enjoy Woods very much but over the years I've begun to question whether this is the Mises Institute or the Rothbard Institute. Surely the "opening" lecture should go to Mises. And after that, the time split between Rothboard and Hayek.
Murray Rothbard, along with Lew Rockwell and Burton Blumert, was a co-founder of the Mises Institute. It would seem to make sense that the opening lecture would discuss the contributions of a deceased founder.
AndrewTheRed it becomes harder to talk about Mises as less of the people who knew him well are alive. Meanwhile i think a lot of people in that room at least talked to Rothbard once.
As you can see, Guido Hulsmann often kicked off Mises U with a discussion of Mises' life. The Institute is devoting this year, though, to particular emphasis on Rothbard's work (hence the NYC event in October), so in keeping with that theme they asked me to talk about him.
Rothbard was amazing! Future openings will be about Hoppe and Lew. Mises legend will not diminish, it will grow. Trust me
the koch brothers disliked this video
objectivists*
What’s a good book to begin with Rothbard?
If tom woods doesn't have a statue someday right next to a scott horton one there is no god
Murray Rothbard died just 4 days before I was born.
Sad
Woods 2020
Maybe 2024.
It seems that communism crimes made him very angry and rightly so. What about the criminal society he himself a member of - The Catholic church?
Politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. While there are many things free people *should* do,... what *must* free people do,... as in literally do this or you will be forced to with the proviso that if you resist you may be killed.
Consider the following as a starting social contract between free people that is a work in progress.
*The Anarchist's Constitution*
1. *_There is no Sovereign Immunity._* Any Person (or Persons) who commits force, fraud, or trespass against any other Person’s life, body, or property is liable for restitution to repair the victim to their original condition.
2. *_The Right to be left alone is Absolute, subject only to the enforcement of the first rule._* Any Person (or Persons) may deny the use of their life, body, or property to anyone else without any necessity to justify the reasons for their denial.
3. There are no exceptions to these 4 rules.
4. These rules being observed,… do whatever you will.
Remember,… any additional positive duties imposed necessarily imply the state’s right, even duty, to kill anyone who does not comply.
Is the only positive duty that of _if you break it, you must fix it_ sufficient,... or might there need to be more such positive duties. I am basically asking what unchosen, positive duties would all free people *have to observe* always,... even in an anarcho-capitalist libertopia. Rather than considering a contract between the government and a free people,... I am considering a contract between all free peoples with each other and regardless of individual consent. How can it be a contract,... regardless of individual consent,... you may ask? I think of it as the political equivalent of the necessity of all mathematics having to rely upon the use of axioms,... statements that are taken as self-evidently true requiring no further effort to prove. Anarcho-capitalists talk of rules without rulers. Okay,... so I am asking, what are these rules,.. how do we arrive at a consensus of what these rules are,... and what happens to those who dissent from these rules?
I understand Ancaps as believing there should be no unchosen, positive, affirmative duty,... other than everyone has to fix what they break, ie., restitution. That unless it's consensual, it ain't moral. Minarchists aren't so sure that that is enough.
Do people consent to having to make restitution for the damages they cause others?
What is to be done with those people who refuse to make restitution for their injurious actions to others?
What is to be done with a serial killer, and how is this paid for?
Is it okay not to help an abandoned infant who will otherwise die?
Would it be okay for a mother to just leave a new born infant?
Can no violent response be made to those who gratuitously mistreat and harm animals?
Can someone who owns the last breeding pair of an endangered species destroy them at will?
Would it be okay for entrepreneurs to create limited liability corporations in which costs from debts and pollution are socialized and profits are held privately? Is it just that such shareholders are liable only for the money they have invested, with no liability for any costs that corporation may have involuntarily imposed on innocent third parties?
A very practical question is what duty would citizens have in libertopia to cooperate with those trying to enforce what rules are to exist upon everyone,... even without everyone's individual consent?
This list is in no sense exhaustive. I consider all of this to comprise various works in progress. What are the minimum set of rules (these *rules without rulers* ) that even anarcho-capitalists seem to recognize as necessary? How do we arrive at such a consensus? What happens to those who dissent?
Again, politics is the means by which society decides upon what is the proper use of socially sanctioned initiatory violence. This is unavoidable, even in libertopia. Just curious, but do you hold that *The Anarchist's Constitution* is sufficient for a functioning free society. Do you? Can you really not think of various instances where even free people would have to submit, regardless of their individual wishes?
And please remember, I would be just as happy to lose this debate, but where Libertarians only see violence as a means to protect value and not as a means to create value, I am now asking, in all good will,... is this really necessarily so? Because certainly we are alone in believing this to the extent that we do.
Does the truth derive from authority or
Does authority derive from the truth?
Does respect flow more from admiration or from fear?
Trying really hard not to be offensive, but this seemed like a sad kiss up act of a cult member towards their cult leader
😢😢😢😢😢
1st comment. nice.
Congratulations! You get a cookie. :-)
Christine Marie you KNOW where you WILL get a cookie?
José Martí Nice segway. Now we just need an awkward pause...
+Ron C,
You know where you WILL get an awkward pause...?