Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, I think Rothbard is a fool. There you go.
I find him very sexist. He speaks constantly of 'Man', and refers to 'Every man...' as if that were the only sort of person who might, for instance, own property.
Inspired by you I am indeed reading the article about money. Here's an example:
<< This process: the cumulative development of a medium
of exchange on the free market—is the only way money can
become established. Money cannot originate in any other
way, neither by everyone suddenly deciding to create money
out of useless material, nor by government calling bits of
paper “money.” For embedded in the demand for money is
knowledge of the money-prices of the immediate past; in
contrast to directly-used consumers’ or producers’ goods,
money must have preexisting prices on which to ground a
demand.>>>
I'm open to persuasion about money, but this is a strange piece of rhetoric. It fiddles with the word 'originate' - we can all see, in the historical sense, how this may be right, about the historical origin of money - but implies, as the piece will go on later to maintain, without any clear evidence I know of - that present-day money-creation might 'originate' only under the same rules. This to me is cheap propaganda. It's just using the ambiguity of words to propose a point of view. It doesn't put reference to evidence within it, and in that sense, to me, dishonours the Austrian School.
There are all sorts of wacky ideas around about money, especially after the events of the last few years. Some of the ideas on the left are mad in my view too. This isn't a brilliant example, as I see it. But hey, that's just my opinion.
Please don't be rude.
Patrick
Now describe to me how Libertarianism, can be left-wing and applaud state intervention in the economy.
Because I think it's just another Socialist incursion into corrupting and adopting labels to hide true purpose...
I am not rude, I am, however, direct.
In late October, California’s Air Resources Board cleared the last legal hurdles to launch a statewide carbon cap-and-trade regime. Emissions will be capped and emitters will receive permits covering roughly 90 percent of their effluent; if they want to pollute more, they’ll have to buy permits on an exchange. The more cuts made, the more permits available.
The air resources board figures that they’ll be overseeing $10 billion in annual carbon trading by 2016. The objective is to reduce California’s emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. The law also requires emissions cuts for vehicles, more efficient appliances and for the state to get a third of its electricity from renewable sources by 2020.
![]()
Weak dollar, and Iran.

You're rude as hell, bro.
UD's in the Coyote cave, penciling it all out.
UD's in the Coyote cave, penciling it all out.