Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Jeffery Tucker Responds to EPJ about Murray Rothbard

In a post last week, I pointed out that Laissez Faire Books did not feature Murray Rothbard on any of its top page. He's not on the front page and not on the front pages of the economics section, the history section or the section on politics.

During a video Q & A, someone asked Laissez Faire Book's Jeffery Tucker about my post, This was his response. I believe it speaks for itself.

129 comments:

  1. "Some website"? Come on, Jeffrey. Everybody knows EPJ!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I posted this at http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/01/jeff-tucker-declines-to-be-interviewed.html , but it should be posted here.

      I wrote Jeff, he's an acquaintance. I wrote him with no intention of posting anything he said, but I hope he will forgive me for this; it's just as I suspected. He said, "I'm not even sure what he [Wenzel] is talking about with this Rothbard claim. The front page has all the newest books. The [T]op [A]uthors [list] is [generated by] an algorithm [based on] sales."

      So, like all authors, Rothbard will rotate in and out of Top Authors list based on his popularity (sales). I knew Murray. He would be delighted to see other good books push his out of the top spots because it would mean others are advancing the ideas of liberty further.

      Delete
    2. Sean O,

      You did more to damage Tucker than to help him with your comment. Second party accounts are always suspicious. It's what the guy who made up the fake girl friend is doing now--talking through a girl he has revealed all to. If Jeff has something to say he should be the one to say it.

      And as far as Murray being Jeff's friend what do you really know about the relationship? I have heard all kinds of second hand accounts, should I post them in the comments here?

      Delete
    3. I shouldn't respond. You seem like a troll uninterested in facts. For example, my name is Scott not Sean. As they say about no good deed going unpunished...

      So fact-check what I posted with LFB yourself. Most of what is posted on this page denigrating Tucker and Rothbard is garbage, including your reply.

      Delete
  2. That's the face and mannerisms of GUILT.

    What is going on at Laissez Faire Books?

    If Murray Rothbard was a "dear friend", then put his books on the front page, Mr. Tucker! He's a major reason you're even able to work at the Mises Institute.

    The more you hum and haw about it the more will the appearance of guilt and shady agenda become that which I am convinced is indeed the case.

    Is the financier of Laissez Faire Books anti-Rothbard? Is Rothbard an embarrassment now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "That's the face and mannerisms of GUILT."

      It's the face of someone that is stumped by an accusation he did not expect.


      "The more you hum and haw about it the more will the appearance of guilt and shady agenda become that which I am convinced is indeed the case."

      Yeah sure.
      He has an agenda because he does not give paranoiacs looking for people who don't properly worship Rothbard an answer at the snap of a finger.

      Delete
    2. Oh please. Jeffrey Tucker is not easily stumped. What a ridiculous insult to his intelligence.

      There are no "paranoiacs" you ad hominem spewing topic changer. This is like seeing a list of books on Communism and leaving out Marx from the top page.

      Give it a rest.

      Delete
    3. I love Jeffery Tucker, but this isn't the Jeffrey Tucker I know...

      Delete
  3. I guess those of us behind firewalls at work will have to tune in this evening to see the conclusion of this dramatic turn of events.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'm not a big fan of Tucker, Kinsella, and some of these new libertarians that claim to be part of the Rothbardian tradition. Especially their leftist stance on things like IP. Good work Wenzel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can you explain what is "leftist" about their stance on IP and why that should even bother anyone who is a libertarian?

      What, specifically, do you disagree with as far as their approach to IP is concerned?

      Delete
    2. It's pretty leftist commie to think the creations of your own mind are not yours. It should be of great concern to any libertarian if this view is held by society at large.

      Delete
    3. Sure, but what is a "creation of my own mind"? And how do we objectively delineate where that creation starts and ends?

      Probably not a good place to hash it out in the comments of a blog post, and I know you've promised us a book on the subject, but as it stands right now I've never heard what the libertarian alternative to standard IP is-- and we all know that's problematic/immoral.

      Delete
    4. Well, it's true that for a moment I took your comment (above) as coming while you were sitting on the can, but then I gave you the benefit of the doubt and took it as a creation of your mind. Am I correct?

      Delete
    5. RL,there are a ton of so-called libertarians that have no problem talking loudly out of their ignorant asses. Don't be one of them.

      Delete
    6. Bob,

      Are you being purposefully belligerent or are your comments being influenced by the pain you're experiencing from trying to squeeze one out yourself?

      Okay, so my comment was a "creation of my own mind." Now what? Can I go around beating people up who quote me without my permission? Can I attack another person (in self-defense) who shares the same thoughts I did but makes no mention of the fact that I was the one to come up with it? Might I engage in a duel with an individual whose thoughts were clearly derivative products of mine own but never thought to offer me a royalty for my troubles?

      Apparently this stuff is so self-evident that you'd have to be an intellectually constipated moron such as myself to see why it's leftist commie speak to utter it. If that's the case then give me my dunce hat. And shame on me for trying to understand this ORIGINAL CREATION OF YOUR OWN MIND.

      Delete
    7. Well, the so-called "Intellectual Property" is nothing more than government-granted temporary monopoly. It cannot exist without government and its function is to off-load exclusion costs (exclusion of free-loaders being a necessary component to any business) to the society at large.

      What's not to like about it by any Twue Libertarian?

      Delete
    8. Wenzel,
      You're just wrong about IP and your continual arrogant and ignorant rants just make you look like an ass.

      Delete
    9. Looks like Wenzel needs to have Kisella on his podcast. I can't believe that reason ends with RW when it comes to this issue, but Kisella would set him straight.

      Delete
    10. IP is anti-libertarian. To claim otherwise it to claim that you gain some control over physical resources I own merely because you structured the physical resources you own in some particular manner beforehand. It's a violation of real property rights at the altar of imaginary ones.

      Delete
    11. How about everyone who believes in I.P. starts paying every single originator (or their heirs) of every single idea, for the ideas they've adopted and used to further their own intellectual development?

      How many original ideas do people have, isolated from the ideas and concepts of others which i'm pretty sure they have not paid for (nor asked or wondered if they even should)?

      This whole I.P. is bull. There is no way to prove any idea is legitimately your own, or that someone else has not come up with it simultaneously. Claiming the right to an idea or thought, as if they are scarce is ridiculous to begin with.
      And as Averros said, you need the state to grant monopoly over it.

      Taken to its logical extreme, it can easily lead to a form of intellectual totalitarianism.

      HEY, you can't say that! I've already come to that conclusion in my book, released last march. Shut up or pay me.

      Anti-I.P. is not leftist. It is the opposite of statist. No one gets to control what rolls out of your brain or your mouth. No one gets to determine how you organize ink on a piece of paper. There is no theft because nothing is stolen. The original object or content is still there.

      Delete
    12. Apparently Bob thinks Hans Hoppe (as well as most Austrians) is a leftist.

      Delete
    13. @Clive. Wenzel WILL NOT have Kinsella on. He can't win the debate. He knows that.

      It's the same reason Krugman won't debate Murphy...

      Delete
    14. @Davis, Thanks for the advice. Unfortunately, you've got the wrong guy.

      @The anti-IP proponents: Rothbard supported copyright. So to call IP anti-libertarian is ironic, given Rothbard essentially wrote the Libertarian program. Also, there are plenty of IP proponents besides Rothbard. Such as Gary North and Paul Cwik (http://mises.org/journals/scholar/cwik3.pdf)

      Also, to say that people like Bob think Hoppe is a leftist is a logical leap. Just because we think Hoppe is misguided on one small aspect of libertarian philosophy, does not mean we dismiss him as a leftist. Libertarians are allowed to disagree, fail, succeed, and add to the discussion.

      Thanks!

      Delete
    15. The main problem with IP is that it is governed by the government.

      A free, anarcho capitalist system would have ways of compensation that we cannot imagine.

      Arguing that IP laws are pure and just in their current form is commie pinko leftist---Look at how Disney has gotten extensions of Copyright law extended by 50 years by bribing various congressmen. Can anyone argue that this is a good and libertarian thing?

      If so, do we owe the Greeks, and Romans, for every use of Zeus and Athena? Or that Shelley, Stoker and Doyle estates are owed royalties on every use of Frankenstein's monster, Dracula and Sherlock?

      Delete
    16. reformed,

      Just because Rothbard did X, doesn't make X correct. That's argument from authority. Fallacy.

      We IP-skeptics are trying to "disagree, fail, succeed, and add to the discussion", by the way. Or are we not allowed to do that?

      And I am pretty sure North is not actually an anarchist. I have never seen him say "I am an anarchist" and I have read a lot from him that seems to make it obvious he thought the Constitution was a good start, like RP, which should be abhorrent to libertarians, not just because the motives of the Constitutional Congress were openly (and by openly, I mean secretly, the secret band of murderers and thieves that Spooner always talked about) about creating a strong national, central government in contradistinction to the already not-anarchist Articles of Confederation.

      Then there's the whole fact that North writes a blog called "The Tea Party Economist" and always writes to a "conservative" audience.

      I love North, by the way. One of my favorite authors and writers and the man is just a ruthless naysayer of the elite and a true political curmudgeon. But my point is, saying "North believes in IP" doesn't do much for me when I don't think North is an anarchist.

      Delete
    17. @ reformedlibertarian.com

      First you claim calling IP anti-libertarian is ironic because Rothbard was pro-IP.

      Yet you then proceed to claim Hoppe is not a leftist because anyone can make a mistake.

      Are we to assume you think Rothbard could not make a mistake? Or did you just forget to be consistent?
      Or maybe you conveniently think those libertarians that don't agree with you make mistakes, while those who agree with you are flawless?

      Either way, i ironically see no real argument from either you or Wenzel other than it being "leftist" to be anti-IP. Which as an argument does not impress me in the slightest.
      You have Kinsella's book. I would say, happy refuting.

      Delete
    18. Tony,

      I am creating a new fallacy called "Argumentum ad Pseudo Librum", it's the "Argument by referring to an unpublished book" fallacy. Bob always drags it out when you start questioning his pro-"libertarian IP" views. He says "Just wait for my book" instead of responding to your argument. Then he never publishes the book.

      Where is it? HBR? Wiley? Oxford? MIT Press? Who optioned the IP on this one?

      Delete
    19. @ Taylor. You said: "Just because Rothbard did X, doesn't make X correct. That's argument from authority. Fallacy." True. But I never even said X was correct because Rothbard said it. I said: "Rothbard supported copyright. So to call IP anti-libertarian is ironic..."

      You also said: "seems to make it obvious he thought the Constitution was a good start." He thinks the opposite. He wrote a book on its illegality.

      @Tony: Rothbard can most certainly make a mistake. All I said was that, "Rothbard supported copyright. So to call IP anti-libertarian is ironic..." Whether or not that is a mistake is not pertinent to my point within that sentence. The rest of your statement results from you misunderstanding my statement.

      You also said: "Either way, i ironically see no real argument from either you or Wenzel other than it being "leftist" to be anti-IP." We have made no deep argument in the comment section. Sorry you aren't impressed. Perhaps in another post at a later time.

      Delete
    20. Taylor,

      Maybe you write books as fast as you write comment posts. I don't. Research is not "dragging things out." It's being responsible in thoroughly covering a topic. As I have written before, my research into IP has resulted in my exploring natural rights, which I believe is a precursor to properly understanding IP.

      The book on natural rights comes first, then the book on IP. If you can produce these books quicker than I can great, go for it. Though, the only thing I have seen you produce so far is a stumble on whether or not your mind has produced the comments you have posted here.

      Delete
    21. Even Rothbard did not fully endorse the notion of IP. His own notion of copyright is that it can only be infringed upon if it was provable infringer had copied the work and not arrived at it independently. And for this reason, he threw out patents as wholly incompatible with the free market or libertarianism, since the patent system prevents independent inventions.

      However let's focus on the arguments themselves and skip the argument from authority, as even Walter Block had mentioned that he felt sure that Rothbard would have changed his mind had he heard some of the recent arguments against IP. He did change his mind a just a couple issues. And he became an anarchist, from a minarchist position in the same manner, when in a debate, one of his lefty friends questioned him on the logical implications (i.e. taking his own positions to the logical end, there is no "limited government", which was like an epiphany moment for him to change his mind). And he also endorsed Hoppe's argumentation theory, as particularly "hardcore", and the same theory is what's used against IP.

      So, if you support IP, then you support the ownership of words. Remember: there's no time limit in true property ownership. True property does not by itself become public or unowned. Therefore by what permission do you have to use words in the English language?

      All language and words were the creation of someone's mind. So if you support IP then you surely must support obtaining permission from the inventor of the words before using them, lest you commit theft, right? After all, even if you say others taught you those words, then surely receiving stolen property from your parents or teachers still does not excuse the theft, particularly if you know it is--as would be the case if you support IP.

      Of course you see the conundrum you would run into if you truly wanted to be logically consistent with IP support, since even your own thoughts could not truly be your own thoughts.

      But that's only one argument against it (using argumentation theory), the other is defining what exactly is property. Or more specifically what characteristics does true property have. When Rotbhard mentioned he was against patents because it does not allow for independent inventions of the same thing, he did not realize he was contradicting himself in the reasoning for copyrights. How can one own words or a string of words, or knowledge, and yet be allowed to arrive at it independently? There's an ontological problem here, where two things map into one. There is *no way* to logically prove then, that words--more generally ideas--belong to you, as in true sole ownership to you, or someone else if both are identical property are allowed to coexist.

      Real property has the characteristic of what some calls "scarcity" (not quantity, but quality) but what is more accurately called exclusivity. This is obvious enough to see with physical things. There can only be one owner and one possessor at a time. (Whether that owner and possessor is a single person or group of people matters not, as it's still just a single entity) That is inherent of real property because that is the only way to confer possession.

      Delete
    22. (.. continuing my rambling ..)

      Even a natural rights, Lockean perspective does not support IP. Start with a Robinson Crusoe, ground up example. Everything starts off unowned. Robinson picked a fruit from a tree and the fruit is now his. Friday picked a fruit from another tree and it is now Friday's. But wait! Robinson told Friday, he can't do that since he laid claim to the idea fruit picking on this island. Maybe Friday saw Robinson and maybe he didn't. Again, it is actually impossible to prove. But what this claim has done is prevent Friday from exercising his own natural right to claimed unowned fruit not yet appropriated by Robinson.

      Of course there are even more fundamental problems if you really supported IP, in the Crusoe example, before you even get to fruit picking, of language, and tool usage, or even body usage (again as conferred by ideas and claims of ownership of ideas).

      Delete
    23. "Even a natural rights, Lockean perspective does not support IP."

      Duh, well maybe that's why Wenzel says he has to address natural rights, first,

      Delete
    24. Bob,

      Is it a "stumble" when I try to fully understand this confusing (and apparently self-evident) notion you've brought to my attention, but it's just "doing my research" when you drag things out.

      In the meantime, if you're pretending you're still fleshing things out and trying to make up your mind about the whole subject, isn't it a bit disingenuous to:

      a.) Not explain to people why your position is what it is, telling us to "read my book" that isn't written yet
      b.) Call people pinko leftist commies for disagreeing on the subject as if it truly is a simple litmus test issue when they have an intellectual confusion/disagreement and, referring to A, you refuse to clarify for them?

      My mind produced the comments I posted here-- surely in this case it was not someone else's mind that activated my body and posted them for me. Great. Accepted. Now what? What obvious, self-evident conclusions about IP can I arrive at from that? Who do I get to beat up and under what conditions with regards to acknowledging this fact?

      reformed,

      I stand corrected on North. I did not know he wrote a book on the illegality of the Constitution. I am not even sure what "illegality of the Constitution" means w/o a particular context around such a phrase but I'll accept that as evidence that he is not a supporter.

      I do still get the impression he is a minarchist and does not fully adhere to the principle of a true private property society (as advocated by Rothbard and Wenzel), and I have not seen which book, article or speech he has fleshed out this view and coherently explained why it is that he rejects such a principle. It just seems to be a belief based upon some unstated premise or assertion.

      Can you point me the right way on this?

      Delete
    25. Taylor, actually yes he is a minarchist. From a rare a "fringe" Christian group called Christian Reconstructionism. Don't look it up, it'll look scary. Okay fine look it up:)

      Anyway, he is an older generation minarchist who holds that even the the Constitution is too big government and prefers the Articles of Confederation (which technically an anarchist must oppose because it is in itself a government). But I digress. North's book is called Conspiracy in Philadelphia. It is here: http://garynorth.com/philadelphia.pdf

      As for IP, he agrees in limited copyright like Rothbard did. Which was my point from the get go. He was just an example.

      I'm out. Peace.

      Delete
    26. reformed,

      Thanks, I downloaded it and threw it on my kindle/iPad. I'll probably never get to it as I have literally tens of thousands of pages of other stuff on the backburner, but it's fun imagining myself eventually doing so. (Also, not a priority because I am halfway through "Plain, Honest Men" about the CONvention of 1787 and it's pretty effing clear to me it's a conspiracy... so if that's what North's thing is about, while I'd enjoy his writing and handholding me through the evidence I think I already get and accept the premise.)

      I get you on the IP claim now I think.

      And yes, his religious beliefs definitely confuse and scare me. Same w/ Murphy (who I also love aside from that). I don't get the whole, "I am a man of reason in all areas... except this one" thing. Never will. Won't try anymore.

      Btw, I prefer AoC to CONstitution, too, but that doesn't mean I prefer AoC to anarchy.

      Delete
    27. Our ideas, our thoughts, the creations of our mind are stored on a physical medium; our brain.

      Every individual owns his own body and thus also his brain.

      When something is your property, that means you have the exclusive authority to decide how that resource can be used. To own an idea that other people are aware of, would mean you have the exclusive authority to decide how they can use that idea. That means you would have the authority to decide how they can use a part of their own brain.

      To claim ownership of an idea is to claim ownership of the medium it is stored on. Patents and copyrights are not compatible with the concept of self ownership.

      Delete
    28. pathetic wenzel.if anyone analyses IP from first principles, ie understanding why we evolved property rights in the first place (short answer: to handle the problem of scarcity of economic goods),it is obvious that intellectual 'property' is no property at all.
      also for an austrian school adherent,you and murphy dont shy away from making pronouncements about how much inflation is coming down the road.if you are an austrian economist,you should,like rothbard said -just explain how things work and not try to make futile predictions.
      this site has become just one or two degrees better than alex jones

      Delete
    29. @TaylorConant

      You are mistaken on North's reverence for the Constitution. He wrote a book on this subject called Conspiracy in Philadelphia. He is one of the harshest Libertarian critics of the US Constitution. Now, he, and I presume even you would tend to think that if the Constitution was at least followed to the letter, the people living in the US would be better off. They wouldn't be living in perfect libertarian harmony as the Constitution is still a statist document, but it is no crime for a libertarian to hearken back to a more benign statist era than the one in which he presently resides. There is a fairly common libertarian strategy called gradualism that allows for this sort of thinking. We are all gradualists at some level, even those of us who foolishly reject the term outright because we are too proud or too set in our ways to see it. It is not to be confused with compromise, which can be found at formerly libertarian institutes (who at least still occasionally crank out something good) like the Cato or Reason. Compromise gets you nowhere. But moving back to a more benign statism, a minarchy, especially as a temporary move, is not compromise. If anything, more ground is gained than is given up (though perhaps not a single inch of ground was ceded to the enemy). Of course, I happen to think it is not possible to adhere to the original intent of the Constitution anymore, but it does not mean that if we did do exactly that, by some miracle, we would not be better off. I'm with Tucker on IP, but I still love Mr. Wenzel. I look at this as just another one of those meaningless feuds that won't do anyone any good.

      Delete
    30. @ReformedLibertarian

      I too am Calvinist in my theology, as well as a libertarian. I don't see how being opposed to IP is any more leftist than being opposed to other traditional "conservative" values, like imperialism, protectionism, censorship, etc. Nothing is more obvious than that if you have to protect "ideas" that are written in an exact and lengthy form it is arbitrary to not protect all ideas in any and every conceivable form. If you didn't do this you would essentially be subsidizing one group at the expense of another. In the logical extreme, as Tony pointed to above, if you want to be consistent and just then there is not a single idea out there, no, not one, no matter how small or common or abstract or basic, that doesn't belong to someone or someone's heirs. In which case we are all unabashed free-riding, free-loading crooks and thieves, even those of us way up on our oh-so high pro-IP horse. Also, I find it somewhat ironic that you cite both Rothbard and North on IP in spite of their disagreements on anarchy vs. minarchy (and Natural Law vs. Biblical Law) and then are critical of others who are not minarchists (and like Rothbard, are natural law anarchists: Tucker, Kinsella, Hoppe, the latter two who are nothing if not clearly right-of-center in the Anarcho-Capitalist community) who disagree (it is a much smaller disagreement than you seem to think, and I will explain why below) with Rothbard ONLY because they extend his principles further. It leaves me wondering whether you are an anarchist or a minarchist (FYI, I am better described as an anarchist than a minarchist myself) yourself and whether you are a Natural Law Theorist or a Theonomist (this is an important distinction, because if you are the latter, then your citation of Rothbard makes no sense in your support of IP, because he supported it on different grounds entirely, grounds that could be extended to reject it as well). Rothbards stance on copyrights was not (these are very much paraphrases): "I support them, willy-nilly," it was, "I support contracts, and thus if a copyright is seen as nothing more than a contract, it is legitimate." However, Murray also believed in the inviolability of the will. This means that contracts, if permanently enforceable in perpetuity, or even if enforceable for one second longer than either signer wants, are nothing short of voluntary slavery, which is illegitimate in Rothbard's conception of Natural Law (and only quasi-legitimate in Biblical Law). Thus, there can be no absolute intellectual property rights. But property rights are supposed to be absolute. So it follows that IP is not really property. The individual object on which the idea is printed or stored certainly is really property, and is transferrable under contract, but said contract can not contradict the self-ownership principle (in the same way that voluntary slavery does). Even a voluntary contract that states "the signee will not copy or distribute without explicit permission from the author" can and must be violated if the alternative is the violation of the will. Of course, contractarians and utilitarians and Objectivists and Theonomists are free to reject this interpretation, but so long as Rothbard is cited as an authority it should be plain that we are not talking about those groups. All this refutation of IP without even examining criticisms of Locke's (a sometimes Calvinist, sometimes deist, but a Natural Law Theorist rather than a Biblical Law Theorist) misguided (and disastrous for the world) theories of value and property.

      Delete
  5. That you shouldn't have reacted so strangely to that?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Asking a question of why one of the greatest, if not the greatest libertarian intellectuals of the 20th century, if not ever, has exactly zero books on the top page of a website called Laissez Faire Books, a website run by Jeffrey Tucker, a man who is web admin of the Mises Institute, of which Rothbard was Dean?

      You call THAT "reacting strangely"?

      Look at the other authors on the top page of that list. Are you telling me that ALL of these men are more important libertarian authors than Rothbard? Rothbard would demolish all of them, and not just in libertarianism, but economics, history, philosophy, etc, etc, etc.

      This behavior by Tucker is an embarrassment.

      Delete
    2. maybe its because you can get all of rothbards books for free on Mises.org

      Delete
  6. Very creepy clip and Tucker doesn't even respond to the heart of Wenzel's question: Why aren't Rothbard's books featured at LFB?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Mises.org gives them away as PDFs and sells them as fairly cheap hard covers. There isn't a huge market opportunity. I really like this site, but I think Wenzel is a bit off the mark on this one, and I think Jeff's mannerisms are those of someone who is flabbergasted and trying not to exacerbate it, not guilty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That argument doesn't wash. Mises.org does the same thing with Ludwig von Mises books, but Tucker has them on the frontpage. And if this was the case, why didn't Tucker says so in his answer. He really offered no explanation.

      Delete
    2. The Cleaner, there are zero Mises books on the front page of LFB.org. The reason for that would be the products on the front page are newly added.

      Delete
    3. Mises books are in other categories and ranked among "Top Authors".

      Delete
  8. Wenzel, where's your initial blog post? The link doesn't take us there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Arthur Krolman, CFAJanuary 15, 2013 at 5:13 PM

    I think Jeffrey Tucker is great on beautiful anarchy and I miss his erudition at Mises.org. (And so is Kinsella and of course Hoppe too, all on the same page about IP by the way). No question Wenzel is on to something strange and sad going on here with Rothbard's lack of proper prominence at LFB...but please let's not let the sadness extend to an internecine bonfire amongst like-minded libertarians. I'd much rather focus on the Krugman-Stewart breakup! Let's be a group of thick-skinned debaters continually molding and improving each other's arguments on how to achieve pure capitalism. I do hope we don't go down the path of litmus tests or witch trials against each other no matter how many silly rich people vainly try to fund Rothbard into anonymity. For example, I chide Walter Block for saying that any libertarian who criticizes Ron Paul is worse than evil. Come on Walter. But I still love you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amen, Bro!
      We've got enough enemies without making enemies of our friends.
      Regarding IP: That's a whole school of study in and of itself. There's plenty of differing opinions among right thinking libertarians of good will. No need for potty jokes, boys.

      Delete
  10. Wait, what? Is this a case of contradictions, where how can Tucker et al claim to be libertarian and omit the giant of 20th century thought on liberty? Why does he do this?

    ReplyDelete
  11. With "friends" like Tucker, Rothbard doesn't need enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  12. There is some very strange body language going on with Jeff Tucker on this clip. Not sure if this is normal behavior for him, but he sure does not radiate candor. Also, the "some website" comment is a giveaway that he has beef with EPJ and that there is more to this than is apparent. So is he no longer associated with the Mises Institute?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Also, the "some website" comment is a giveaway that he has beef with EPJ."

      Why would he not have beef with EPJ since it accuses him of disappearing Rothbard from its lists without having any evidence of ill will?

      Delete
    2. He has posted in the comments section of this site before and exchanged angry emails with Wenzel, so he knows exactly what the site is.

      Delete
  13. What the hell is going on with Laissez Faire Books? Have you listened to Tucker's Immediate Release? Now they want you to join some club. You get an intro packet of books that, surprise, does not include any Rothbard titles. Has LFB always been owned by Agora Inc? Aren't they the guys that run the Oxford Club?

    Rothbard had an easy litmus test for libertarians: Do you hate the State?

    I propose a new litmus test for libertarians: Do you mention Rothbard?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ed Ucation,

      I think they were recently acquired by Agora and they're using the same marketing system/subscription approach that has been so successful with their other newsletters and products. It is a "book club", yes.

      There have been a number of changeups at LvMI recently. Tucker departed, as did French. Lew Rockwell is back at the helm and making an intense fundraising push. This all happened some time ago and with no fanfare, but I am surprised how many people are just noticing now.

      As for the litmus test, I have come across numerous individuals who are intelligent, thoughtful and committed anarchists/libertarians and they never mention nor seem to have any familiarity with Rothbard. I am not mentioning that to denigrate Rothbard or his achievements intellectually and socially (I owe him an intellectual debt myself... that's what I owe him, right Wenzel? Since they're the products of his mind...), only to make the obvious point that there are many ways to freedom and Rothbard might be one of the most imposing but he's neither necessary nor sufficient on his own in some cases.

      Frankly, I think "mentioning Rothbard" as a litmus test takes a scary step toward the Dear Leader cult and away from rationality.

      But that's just me.

      Delete
    2. I didn't day "worship Rothbard." I said "mention Rothbard." Big difference. But I do understand, and emphatize with, your point. However, can you mention some of these committed libertarians/anarchists that never mention or seem to have any familiarity with Rothbard? I am intensely curious.

      Delete
    3. Ed Ucation,

      Since you asked, here is one I always liked that no one seems to have ever heard of and yet I just find him to be such an original thinker on the subject. I'm sure he had his own influences but I remember emailing with him early on when I was first figuring this stuff out and surprised how "informal" his education, thinking and background are in terms of libertarian philosophy.

      http://radicallibertarian.com/

      And this is his self-published book that I think you will find to be an entertaining read and hard to put down: http://radicallibertarian.com/jlaws.html

      Delete
    4. Ironically, IP has been the litmus test for anarcho-capitalists for several years now. LOL.

      Delete
  14. Man, you guys are all reading way too much into this. Maybe "Top Authors" is the same as "Best Sellers". If that is the case then Murray may just not be selling as well as the others. Why blame the messenger?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, why didn't Tucker just say this?

      Delete
    2. Because then Bob would accuse him of doing something to hurt Rothbard because sales are low. This sort of guilt by accusation can never be satisfied.

      No offense to Bob, but Jeff Tucker has done 1000x more for Murray Rothbard's legacy than he has. It's crazy to see Bob trying to take him on about this, when everyone knows what Jeffery did for LvMI for nearly 20 years.

      Delete
  15. @James:

    That seems like a possible rational explanation that would take about 10 seconds for Tucker to explain. If that's the case, why not just say so and be done with the whole thing?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Because you don't feed the trolls. Also, I believe the expression, "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all," may also apply here.

      Delete
  16. Is this a method to drive page views? Please don't go all Mark Levin on us Robert, with the "back benchers" bit. Your work stands on its own without creating controversy where none might possibly exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a wacky theory. Tucker makes a statement that is a response to Wenzel's statement. How is this a method to drive page views? It's Wenzel being more considerate than Tucker, since Tucker didn't mention EPJ or Wenzel by name, but Wenzel puts up Tucker's response.

      If Tucker didn't respond today, Wenzel would likely having nothing on the subject. It's just Wenzel running an honest blog.

      Delete
  17. This is why no one takes us libertarians seriously.

    "You aren't quite as well-read as I am on some archaic point of Austrian economics!! You're a fake!"
    "Your shrine to Rothbard isn't big enough! You're a fake!"

    Seriously, Wenzel, I find your blog very informative, but this crap really drags it down. It's fine if someone is wrong and you want to point out how and why, but I would suggest structuring it as an educational matter rather than a witch hunt.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I wouldn't have expected RW to zero-in on Jeff Tucker as a what--closet anti-Rothbardian? My gut is take Tucker at a face value here, still, RW is original post was on the mark that Rothbard is a pretty influential figure to the modern libertarian movement on many fronts and he isn't getting his due. I personally would place him 3rd, after Rand (at #1) and Ron Paul (at #2), in terms of influence. Moreover, Ron Paul's political and economic views were heavily influenced by Rothbard, and Rothbard, as an economist and philosopher, was superior to Rand.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Why don't any of the whiney people here first put forth a coherent theory as to WHY Jeffrey Tucker would shove Murray Rothbard down the memory hole?

    Tucker is an anarcho-capitalist, just like Rothbard.
    Tucker is an Austrian, just like Rothbard.
    Rothbard and Tucker were friends it is claimed.

    So if there is some kind of strange foul play here, how about instead of talking out of your rear ends with accusations, you actually try to explain a reason for why Tucker would do this?
    Until then, all of this is just paranoia from annoying idol worshippers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't know why Mr. Tucker failed to post Rothbard up but it would be nice to hear why. The funny thing is that he didn't answer the question when asked. My curiosity is now piqued.

      I do think Bob may be over-reacting to this though.

      Delete
    2. Quite frankly i would not have answered the question either. Why respond to baseless accusations about disappearing Rothbard down a memory hole, when Tucker seems to have absolutely no reason for doing so?

      Some things you just don't dignify with a response.

      Delete
    3. It's an algorithmic list. It's also not supposed to be a list of favorites, or hand picked authors. Aside from editorial content, all web content from such a site is dynamically generated.

      See 'Ed Ucation's post below for a snapshot of when Rothbard actually was in the Top 10 in 2012

      Delete
    4. And just how do you know this? And if this is so, why would a libertarian site simply list across its front pages books that come by purchasing algorithm? That's pretty strange, though I believe it is inaccurate.

      Delete
  20. Replies
    1. You mean, as in "I believe his response speaks for itself" (as if it really did).

      I did also believe his response spoke for itself.
      Tucker shrugged the nonsense off and refused to dignify it with any further in-depth response.

      Delete
  21. Gotta love the Wayback Machine:

    Here is a snapshot of LFB from January 2012. Guess what, Rothbard is #3 on the list of Top Authors, right after Mises and Hayek:

    http://web.archive.org/web/20120119002223/http://lfb.org/

    I guess Rothbard stopped selling sometime later in 2012?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's likely due to their publication of Rothbard's book "Education: Free and Compulsory" in 2012 in ebook format: http://lfb.org/shop/education/education/

      It's also given out as perks for subscriptions; maybe those downloads counts and maybe they don't.

      All the mentions of Rothbard on their posts:
      https://www.google.com/#hl=en&q=rothbard+site:lfb.org%2Fblog
      As you can see he most certainly has not faded from lfb memory

      Delete
    2. Yeah, most of these search results appear because of the bio paragraph for Doug French, which says that he got his master's degree under Rothbard. Furthermore, it appears none of the blog entries that pop up were written by Tucker. Also, one of the top search results makes fun of Walter Block for criticizing some author for not citing Rothbard. Very interesting.

      Delete
    3. I stand corrected, there is a blog entry by Tucker that mentions Rothbard. Sigh, I am tired of this topic. Hope Tucker throws out a quick explanation that makes this whole stupid thing go away.

      Delete
  22. Sigh.. Robert, wish you wouldn't take everything as a conspiracy.

    I am 99% sure the lists are automatically generated! I can see why Tucker, who's not apparently not familiar EPJ, wouldn't really understand and think the accusation silly, as if he hand edits the html on lfb every day.

    On the very front page, it indicates: "Recently Added Products"
    Why would you expect Rothbard to be on the front page?

    In each section, it indicates "Top Authors" i.e. best selling authors, by default. However, this is just top 10 of all the authors they carry, which does include Rothbard: http://lfb.org/product-authors/

    That's just 10 out of 458 authors!

    Now maybe there are differences in buyers at lfb, but you of all people should know about intr-personal subjectivity, so there may be a number of reasons why people who shop at LFB--part of the more financially and less politically oriented Agora clubs--have been buying books authored by Mises and Hoppe and Ron Paul in the recent years. Maybe the lists take into account not just physical sales, but downloads by club members (usually given out as perks for other newsletter subscriptions; things like that)

    Readers will certainly be introduced to Rothbard if they read any of LFB's blog posts or subscribe to their newsletter as Tuckers and other mention him with some regularity (as indicated in the video)

    Have you ever thought that maybe most buyers already have Rothbard's books or PDFs that available from LFB? If so, of course he wouldn't be on the list!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. EVERYTHING as a conspiracy?

      What is with the exaggerations on this thread?

      Delete
    2. Hey ncomplete,

      If your other beliefs are as good as your belief that Tucker doesn't know who EPJ or Wenzel are you are really clueless. Do a search for Jeff Tucker at EPJ. Tucker knows full well who EPJ and Wenzel are.

      Delete
  23. Robert, you're coming off as an ego-maniac and a personality cultist here. Jeffrey Tucker started his own website so that he could be responsible for himself, so why is he compelled to capitulate to your every demand? You knew Rothbard very well, do you think he's the type of person to raise a stink over something like this? He made fun of Ayn Rand and the Objectivists for the type of behavior that you're displaying right now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Every demand? EVERY demand?

      What a stupid comment.

      Delete
  24. Here is a link of lecture by Tucker on inflation at a LvMI event a few years ago.

    http://mises.org/media/4821/The-Cultural-Upheaval-of-Loose-Money

    It is about 30 minutes long but well worth the time. There isn't one iota of statism in this man. Watch the video and decide for yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I am a member of LFB. Rothbard is actually mentioned quite a bit by Tucker in the articles and videos. I have bought several books from LFB, but have not bought any Rothbard books because I already bought all of his books from the Mises Institute. I am certain that is why he is not among the best sellers at LFB, which is why he is not listed as a top author. However, I think Wenzel is on to something. I have been curious as to some of the books they sell, like Skousen, Friedman, Ferguson, and others. It could be just stock left over from before Tucker, Doug French, and Wendy McElroy became involved. I haven't heard Tucker promote any of those books. If you notice the recent additions and Tucker's takes and author interviews, they are all very libertarian, such as Doug Casey, Nock, and Hoppe. Mises.org probably has the market on Rothbard since the his Ebooks are free and buying from there feels good to support them and liberty. It is probably taking a little time for Tucker's impact to take full root. He has always been an optimist willing to listen openly to all ideas, but he is not the one to attack here. He is as true to the movement as anybody. He was even in Rothbard's play. If anyone should be attacked, it should be the previous administrators or maybe even Agora. Tucker's a great guy and a true champion of liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have to agree wholeheartedly with this comment above. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that it has more to do with the fact Rothbard's book sell extremely well at Mises Institute and all of his works are basically available for free whereas LFB's subscription is to release a new eBook each week (or release a new cover/art for updated editions) and not necessarily about bulk book sales. I'm not sure I see how that could happen for Rothbard's works unless they dig up some old unfinished works or half-done manuscripts and release them as a essay/ebook, etc.

      The simple question would be this: how is the LFB "Top Authors" list generated? Is it a static list or dynamically generated through some type of real-time algorithm?

      Done - end of story.

      However, it is no secret that Jeff Tucker and Bob Wenzel disagree on Intellectual Property (IP). My advice would be to read Chapter 2 of Hoppe's A Theory of Capitalism and Socialism as it deals with property rights - "free goods" versus "scarce goods." That is the basis for Kinsella's argument for anti-IP. I think the anti-IP argument is very compelling.

      One thing I'm going to say - it's fine to ask questions (even if they are inane ones) - but I feel it's incredibly childish and stupid to play "Who is the biggest Rothbardian?" Rothbard is by far the most responsible for my thinking and evolution as a Austro-libertarian - but he is not the Alpha and the Omega of all things austro-libertarian. No conversations about libertarian ethics, philosophy, and economics should be made without understanding Rothbard. But, he made mistakes (like other thinkers have done) and is not above reproach. One example would be Father Sadowsky's takedown of Rothbard on the issue of abortion (http://www.anthonyflood.com/sadowskyabortion.htm). I'm sure others might think Rothbard or Walter Block is correct on this issue, but I have not seen a better argument for abortion from an anarchist/libertarian standpoint than Sadowsky.

      Delete
  26. Come now. There are economic reasons for all of this. The LvMI gives out volume upon volume of Rothbard's work for free, and we wonder why it's not selling elsewhere?

    http://library.mises.org/books/Murray%20N%20Rothbard/For%20a%20New%20Liberty%20The%20Libertarian%20Manifesto.pdf

    I would be more suspicious of LFB if they were willing to pay the opportunity cost of the highest viewed spots on their listing to feautre books that they don't think will sell.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Your logic fails, the books of Ludwig von Mises are also at Mises.org but are prominent at LFB.

      Delete
    2. You've repeated this many times in the other post, but that's also a logical fallacy. There are many reasons why there can be differences.

      First as I said, the lists are not based upon some hand picked preferences. See above for when Rothbard was actually #3 for a short time, due to a recent publication by lfb.

      Second, you are assuming that just because an item is the inventory of two stores, they must be selling the same. LFB doesn't feature as comprehensive a list of Rothbard's books as LvMI and it's very possible that anyone who's interested in Rothbard would already have his books in print or pdf form.

      It could also be that the consumers among the LFB and Agora crowd just are more interested in buying the physical Mises books, or other more recent authors, or if ebook club/subscription free downloads are also counted among the ranking.

      It's ridiculous to use false equivalency to charge someone of being heretical or conspiracy

      Delete
    3. So we're empiricists now? ;)

      Delete
  27. I'm not upset with you RW, just disappointed. Libertarian calling out libertarian in that fashion is immature. Is Jeff really that evil or do you just have some differences? Your not doing the Rothbardian movement any favors as you generate animosity towards like minded fellows.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Why would I buy a hard copy of a Rothbard work when Jeff Rigfenbach will read it to me for free? Just sayin'.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Perhaps this whole thread belongs over at Alex Jone's website.

    ReplyDelete
  30. In that webcast format, don't forget, that Tucker did not actually have to answer the question at all. But he did.

    ReplyDelete
  31. My immediate take on this was "Who cares?" If Tucker doesn't want to sell Rothbard, I don't care, he'll make less money. Also, Tucker is a class act, and probably one of the nicest guys in the movement. I didn't really detect the sinister body language other people did. Honestly, I don't see why this is an issue. I watched the new James Bond movie "Skyfall", and in it there was a story about putting rats into a hole in the ground, and eventually they eat each other. Well, I guess we can say the same thing about Libertarians eh? I'm a younger libertarian admittedly. but I'm a lot more of the Tom Woods/Bob Murphy type, I try not to get involved in these libertarian on libertarian fights. It's bad for liberty, that's for sure. Eventually, these older guys who knew Rothbard directly or were one person removed from him will die off, and their grudges against each other will as well. Maybe that's the only way I won't have to hear about how the Koch Brother's stole the Cato institute, or how Rand Paul's a fascist.

    ReplyDelete
  32. My immediate take on your "Who cares?" is who cares you don't care?

    If the post isn't for you, or the web site isn't, move on. Why are you wasting time telling us you don't care, since obviously many do judging by the number of comments to this post.

    Do you go to movie theaters where movies are playing that you don't want to see and stand outside telling people you don't care about the movies? Weird.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well let me explain further since I suppose you're not getting the jist of what I'm saying:

    I don't think Tucker excluded Rothbard intentionally or with malice.
    I didn't detect any malice in this video, towards Rothbard or Wenzel.
    I dislike Wenzel's attitude toward's other libertarians when he disagrees with them, on even minor issues, and prefer Tom Woods/Bob Murphy's approach to disagreements within the liberty movement.

    I'm also free to post here, and to maximize my utility any way I see fit, until Wenzel kicks me off the comments. That's what I meant by "Who cares".

    Usually I just leave the movies if I don't like it, but I suppose if I wrote a review of the movie online disliking it, that'd be a lot more productive than standing outside the theatre. Weird, I wonder if anyone does this?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do you even know what "Who cares?" means?

      Why are you even at Wenzel's site, why don't you go over to Murphy's or Woods' site, if you prefer their approach?

      Delete
    2. Well I suppose like most people in the world, Wenzel's not all good or all bad, which I freely admit. If you read my objection to him, it relates to his disagreements with other libertarians, not his site as a whole, if that clears things up for you. Maybe the expression was a bit much, but I provided a lot of context in both comments. Myself, I'm from NJ, so when someone says something like "Who cares", it can mean a lot of things, like "forgettabout it" or the like.

      Also, Murphy and Woods don't post as much, although I visit their sites daily.

      Either way, I object to the idea that Tucker is in some way maligning Rothbard with his site/LFP or with this video, which was the purpose of the post if I can grasp the "it speaks for itself" cop out inserted by Wenzel. "Who cares?" If Wenzel takes offense, I suppose your answer would be "everyone who is commenting". My reply is that this issue is not important to the overall objectives of Tucker or Wenzel, I don't like that he framed the issue as an attack on Tucker's "devotion" to Rothbard, and it speaks to the larger issue he has with disagreements within the movement and what I think is an immature approach to them.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  34. Robert, I suspect that Jeffrey's site automatically chooses "best sellers" based on what is sold there. But he certainly has alot of Rothbard for sale: http://lfb.org/?s=rothbard

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5 titles

      http://lfb.org/product-author/murray-n-rothbard/

      Delete
  35. You suspect this based on what?

    And if that is the case, why hasn't Tucker just said so, rather than let this entire thing drag on.

    No one, including Wenzel, is arguing that Rothbard's books are not in the back catalog.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wow, finally got to watch the video. It's not an academy award winning performance by Tucker, by any means, but I would offer this observation to all reading (and feel free to tear it apart, or nod your head in agreement, or go rabid in other creative ways, whatever you like):

    Tucker is a fierce critic of his ideological opponents but overall I think he aspires to be a gentleman. However, I don't think he is what you might consider the most aggressive, confident gentleman in all of history, so I don't think he had an intuitive or instinctive sense of how to politely and gentlemanly deflect this accusation without coming across as attacking or belittling his accuser, which I think he has no personal interest in doing and a lot of personal interest in not doing. I think we all can think of times when we esteemed to be seen or perceived one way, but we weren't quite sure what that looked or felt like and so we ended up coming across as a bit nervous and confused trying to play the role. It doesn't mean we WEREN'T what we were trying to be, just that we were still trying to figure out how to be it.

    In other words, if that was hard to read through, I think Tucker desires to be treated in a way where his motives and intent are not seen as suspicious, and he saw himself being accused of just the opposite and this unnerved him and he felt anxious thinking that people saw him as a villain in this regard. He didn't want to come out snarling and biting and saying, "No, Bob Wenzel is a liar and a scoundrel" and so the best he could come up with was, "Well, I know some website made this claim and I just don't get it, Rothbard was a friend of mine I don't have any interest in sending him down the memory hole." Maybe he wanted to leave it at that without turning it into an accusation about Bob's motives and intent.

    I could be totally off on this. And I think only further clarification by Tucker, along with some time and HUMAN ACTION on his part (which will display his true values, right?), will make things easier to understand.

    But one piece of evidence I would point to for consideration is the way in which Tucker, French and others departed from the Mises Institute originally-- no fanfare, no explanations... no name-calling and recriminations. In other words, trying to be gentlemanly about it.

    Maybe I'm wrong. Could be wrong. I'd accept that if I were.

    (Not picking a side here and not trying to defend Tucker, just sharing my observation based off of what I know of the people involved, having met all of them personally.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly. I think the post was just plain stupid to begin with. That coupled with the ham-handed jabs at anti-IP'ers have motivated me to stop visiting this site.

      Delete
  37. 100th comment!!

    Yay, Mission Accomplished.

    The crabs are now in the bucket.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Good Lord in Heaven! Wenzel has himself some lickspittle followers! A creepy video, says one? I suppose that goes to show that believing is seeing.

    The video, Herr Wenzel, demonstrates the facetiousness of your little witch hunt and that Tucker is above it.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Bob, you seem to have a pretty solid grasp of the state as a "gang of thieves writ large." That being so, how do you propose to make copyright work in a way that is compatible with liberty? When you consider ideas in the context of physical property (since there is millennia worth of legal tradition on it), you can't steal ideas in a way that deprives the creator (you would claim owner) of them their use. They are NOT real property. I'm sure you're familiar with the history of copyright as a grant of exclusive privilege by the STATE. And even then, such a grant was usually limited.

    In your case, you have a paywall and can provide a boilerplate contract to your paying subscribers (hopefully one that's not written in lawyer-ese and actually readable) that prohibits redistribution and the like, all without a single copyright law in place. Violations then would be your typical run of the mill tort. And penalties limited to what a reasonable assessment of the damage would be, probably based on the actual income your ideas currently generate rather that insane pie-in-the-sky and imposed-by-the-state penalties (that you might not even get!).

    But saying that using your ideas is stealing, or something akin to stealing, and should be treated as such?

    Get real.

    ReplyDelete
  40. yes, you anti-I.P. people are so right! It's Orwelian, statist mind-control to suggest that the musical, scientific, engineering creations produced from thousands of excruciating hours of dedicated application of one's mind *and eventually marketed and sold in the public domain as a piece of PROPERTY* that people will pay *money* for...should be protected from theft.
    I'm sure the Beatles, Rolling Stones and countless other bands would cease and decist from their mindless obsecssion with treating their albums as personal property...and just given their records away for free and allowed anyone to copy the lyrics, phrases and riffs note-for-note and claim it as their own...if only they read your brilliant arguments here on EPJ.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arthur Krolman, CFAJanuary 16, 2013 at 9:35 AM

      I am an inventor. I am afraid of inventing new things that might infringe existing patents and wasting time with lawyers. So I invent less. My successful products are those that solve the needs of niche markets and are manufactured by secret techniques.

      The Beatles copied American blues and paid no royalties. The Odyssey, Iliad etc were freely copied stories told by professional performers all over Greece -- for *money*. Homer later wrote the poems down and paid no one. Why couldn't the Beatles or Stones earn a nice living by performing to admiring audiences in special FX concert halls just like Cirque de Soleil? Think of local street performers making a huge comeback too for people with smaller budgets. Think outside the box. You remind me of Rothbard's comment about people wondering how on earth they would get their shoes if they were used to applying at the post office every year for the right size.

      Without IP there would be an explosion of creativity in my opinion. But that's just utilitarian icing on the cake. The real reason to get rid of it is because it makes a mockery of the word "property". IP is immoral and in direct opposition to pure capitalism.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and all of the others paid royalties for every single idea and inspiration they got from other people's work.

      Or maybe you think they got all of their inspiration and ideas in a vacuum.

      Again, PenguinProse, how much royalty have YOU paid for every single idea you had that was in one way or another inspired by the ideas of those you did not pay?

      Why should someone get I.P. rights when he himself must almost by definition have exploited concepts, ideas and works of others to develop his own work?

      By the way, i am not *in favor* of copying someone else's work. I am against any notion that someone gets to dictate what anyone else says, writes, prints, listens to, or does with his own body or hands that does not result in the actual violation of scarce property (i.e. that property which can actually be lost or damaged).

      So yes, the opposite of what i mention in the paragraph above IS control, statist or otherwise. Because nobody gets to determine what i do with MY computer, MY printer, MY hands, MY mouth, MY mind, or anything else that i own and which is scarce.

      Delete
  41. Trying my best to put everything into a "non drama" perspective:

    We know Wenzel is a huge cheerleader for Rothbard.(rightfully so)
    So his motive is obvious.

    That being said, does anyone watch this video and think, "Well, that explains everything."?

    Tucker looks uncomfortable and we all know he's fully aware of "EPJ", so the comment about "some website" is disingeuous at best.

    Do I think the notion of Rothbard going down the memory hole absurd? Yes, I do. I think Tucker is right.

    But, I can't help though but feel there is much more to this all of us don't know about bubbling beneath the surface of this exchange.

    I think we can all agree to one thing though, whether LFB/Tucker chooses to subtantially include Rothbard's works in his offered collection or not-it has virtually no impact on Rothbard's impact, standing, or longevity in the big picture.

    So to me it's really a non-issue beyond the time I just took to post this response.





    ReplyDelete
  42. http://bastiat.mises.org/

    notice the header image.

    ReplyDelete
  43. One of the disadvantages to LFB is that Mises.org has most of the liberty books for free. Too many of their ebooks of the week are free at mises.org. Ex. the ebook this week is The Driver, which is free at mises.org. LFB's goal has to be to differentiate itself from the mises instistute. LFB has begun to do it lately with new books from Hoppe and Casey. If anything, LFB features too much of Rothbard, because Mises.org has it all. If LFB were too attempt to translate Rothbard's third volume of Austrian Perspective from his inelligible notes or convert his files from the old technology he used, that would be something new and exciting. Otherwise, LFB has no way to challenge the free stuff from Mises.org. A free market needs division of labor, thus if every liberty site featured Rothbard primarily, the market would be flooded and no further advancement would be accomplished.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This. Basic Economics Bob.

      Delete
  44. Shocking! Mises not mentioned once on front page of EPJ! Rothbard only mentioned once!

    ReplyDelete
  45. Today, LFB even featured the anti-Rothbard Bob Murphy. Despicable.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Tucker is a class act, however Mark Skousen is a snake in the grass.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bobby,

    Cut the crap with Tucker, Kinsella and French. Focus. Fight the real enemy: Crane's giant ass. If you need to mix it up, Palmer's exercise bulimia is in remission.

    ReplyDelete
  48. A note on an earlier comment. I just noticed that an early commenter made reference to the private life of an individual involved in this discussion.

    It was buried deep in a comment and I cleared it without reading the entire comment. In other words, I was not aware of the full comment. My apologies to the person involved. The comment has been deleted.

    I don't think this warrants being put in a full post. It would just bring more attention to the now deleted comment, but for those of you following this thread, you now know why the comment is gone.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Robert, I love your site and check it multiple times a day. However, I think you dropped the ball on this one. You should really post an apology to Jeff Tucker. I think that if you jumped the gun before doing your research on LFB. Since, Jeff has taken over, LFB has really changed and pointed more into the direction of anarcho-capitalism. I appreciate it when you go after people supposedly in the freedom movement like Rand Paul, Doug Wead, Gary Johnson, and Stefan Molyneaux. But, Jeff Tucker has devoted his life to the liberty movement and it probably the nicest guy in it. You should bring him on your show and ask him about the new direction of LFB and personally apologize to him. Other than that, love your blog. Thank you for all that you do for liberty.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stefan Molyneaux is "supposedly" in the liberty movement?

      Stop drinking the EPJ kool-aid. He is an anarcho-capitalist that thinks voting is wrong and futile. He's actually got a lot more conviction than i can say for a lot of other libertarians.

      The mere gal of putting him in a line up with the likes of Rand Paul and Doug Wead is tantamount to a form of character assassination.
      He's actually MORE libertarian than the generally worshipped Ron Paul, whom depite everything still peddled the constitution as if libertarians hold it as their bible. Molyneux was attacked because he had the nerve to make no exceptions for ANY politician. How dare a man in the "liberty movement" not put faith in ANY politician. Doesn't he know that making exceptions is the rule in the "liberty movement"?

      I have my own problems with Molyneux; for one i think he is much too long winded and it is often a chore just to sit through 5 minutes of his video's.

      But i'm disgusted that some people now apparently think he is only "supposedly" in the freedom movement, just because Wenzel has some stick up his ass in the same way he now seems to have a stick up his ass about Tucker.
      Seriously, stop being a sheep and figure out his work yourself. You may get bored quickly, but with half a brain you should at least be able to see that you can't be any more in the "liberty movement" than Molyneux is.

      Which is more than i can say for many others claiming to be in the "liberty movement". Including maybe even Wenzel himself, with his "enforce I.P." views.

      By the way, what is with this "liberty movement" crap anyway? This phrase is often used by Tea Party types. To me it sounds like a sneaky way for people to avoid saying that they're actually a libertarian.
      Libertarianism is not a "movement"; it is nothing like the Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street. It is an eternally lasting philosophy.

      Delete
    2. Tony,

      You make some strong points. If Molyneux isn't "in the movement" then I'd like his critics to explain what he is really after. A cult? Socialism? I mean what program is he on?

      I also agree that libertarianism is not a "movement". The people who talk about "the movement" are the sheeple who think someone else is going to come hack their chains off for them and have this vain belief that if they just sit right where they are they'll be free one day.

      Fat chance. Got to earn your freedom, like everything else in this world. TANSTAAFL!

      Delete
    3. the "liberty movement" is a movement to take over the GOP and to promote liberty candidates within it. Of course there are plenty of libertarians who aren't interested in voting or fighting back within the GOP so they would not be part of it however there are many thousands of people who are committed to fighting the neocons in the GOP and promoting liberty candidates

      Delete
  50. I am confused as to why EPJ thinks it knows the most profitable way to run an online bookstore. Mr Tucker is a committed advocate of freedom and liberty and I think it is not in the best interest of the movement to try and brandish him through passive accusations and innuendo.
    Mr Tucker's explanation makes perfect sense, if a little awkward. He promotes the books that are popular right now as this will generate the most sales in the limited space available on a webpage. If Wenzel wants to promote Rothbard's books more prominently that LFB, then start an online book store and fill the home page with his books.
    Murray Rothbard is hugely important and definitely worth as much space as can be provided. However, if LFB doesn't run it's business in the most efficient and profitable way it will cease to be an outlet for anyone's books.

    ReplyDelete