News & Analysis
The Anti-Freedom Movement States Its (Worst) Case? ... Austrians Vs. the Illuminati
Proof Libertarianism Is an Illuminati Ploy ... So Jewish Supremacism can be retraced directly to the Austrian Economics' main proponent himself (Murray Rothbard) ... Libertarianism and Austrian Economics are not the products of maverick free thinkers. On the contrary, all leading proponents of the movement were highly connected individuals. In the early years the Volker Fund made available vast sums of money, because Austrian Economics was considered the right answer to communism, to maintain the dialectic the Money Power needs (also see: 'Banker explained 'Occupy America' Scam'). Far from a fringe movement, Mont Pelerin Alumni collected no less than eight Noble Prizes. Alan Greenspan testified of its pervasive influence by saying in 2000: "the Austrian School have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country." In this day and age when communism is no longer considered a threat, but with Marxism/Liberalism/Political Correctness a strong force in Western nations, Libertarianism has found a new lease of life as a way co-opting the resistance in the Alternative Media. The dialectic continues unabated. – Henry Makow
Dominant Social Theme: Freedom is government?
Free-Market Analysis: Social credit entrepreneur Anthony Migchels has authored a screed at HenryMakow.com entitled "Proof Libertarianism is an Illuminati Ploy." He also thanks a fellow who has often provided controversial feedback here at the Daily Bell, "Memehunter."
We don't doubt that both Memehunter and Migchels mean well (in the sense that they wish for human beings to progress toward more tolerable and "just" living conditions, worldwide) but we are puzzled about why they (and others) believe that by attacking the evolution of free-market thinking they are providing a service to those who support freedom in the alternative media.
Migchels' article seems basically a restatement of another article by "Anonymous" that was published in May 2011 and has had circulation on such websites as the Democratic Underground. We have read other, similar statements recently on the Internet as well. So for purposes of identification, we will refer to those who espouse these views as "anti-libertarians."
It would be easy – too easy, in fact – to attack the motives and backgrounds of those who espouse these views – even Henry Makow himself, who is providing a platform for these perspectives and has his own problems of late. (Memehunter, too, with whom we are more than familiar.) But we will do our best in this article to restrict our criticisms to what has been actually presented.
One needs to combat pernicious ideas (in our opinion) with facts if possible rather than ad hominem arguments. First, let us figure out the background of "social credit." Here are excerpts of a profile of social credit's founder, C.H. Douglas, taken from Wikipedia (but seemingly well sourced nonetheless):
C. H. Douglas was born in either Edgeley or Manchester, the son of Hugh Douglas and Louisa Hordern. Few details are known about his early life and training; he probably served an engineering apprenticeship before building an engineering career that brought him to locations throughout the British Empire in the employ of electric companies, railroads, and other institutions ...
Douglas concluded ... the economic system was organized to maximize profits for those with economic power by creating unnecessary scarcity. Between 1916 and 1920, he developed his economic ideas, publishing two books in 1920, Economic Democracy and Credit-Power and Democracy, followed in 1924 by Social Credit. Freeing workers from this system by bringing purchasing power in line with production became the basis of Douglas's reform ideas that became known as Social Credit.
There were two main elements to Douglas's reform program: a National Dividend to distribute money (debt free credit) equally to all citizens, over and above their earnings, to help bridge the gap between purchasing power and prices; also a price adjustment mechanism, called the Just Price, which would forestall any possibility of inflation. The Just Price would effectively reduce retail prices by a percentage that reflected the physical efficiency of the production system.
Migchels has explained that his version of social credit is free-market oriented and "private," but Douglas's certainly does not seem to be. We can see from this brief description that Douglas apparently intended to use social engineering (government power) to redistribute wealth via a "national dividend" and also via his idea of a "just price" that would fix prices across a given society.
Of course, price fixing via force is likely, in our view, to further distort an economy, not bring it justice. As Adam Smith (and then others) showed, the only methodology of true economic growth resides in the marketplace itself, which can efficiently distribute capital via the Invisible Hand of competition. Without competition, one simply has the hand of man. The "hand of man" (government) murdered some 150 million people in the 20th century.
The articles of late, promoted by those we are calling "the anti-libertarians," seem to us to be espousing a power elite dominant social theme; they evidently seek to discredit about 50 years of theoretical progress in the freedom movement that has seen the rise of Austrian, free-market thinking and the spread of the concepts of human action and the business cycle.
Contrast free-market thinking with Douglas's theories of social credit. Human action, as conceived by the Austrians, points out that individuals are the prime actors within an economy. There is no such thing as "government," in fact. Government is "we" – individuals.
Our choices, in fact, seem relatively simple. Either individuals will work cooperatively and peacefully via enlightened self-interest to pursue their aims and goals or they will in some sense attempt to inflict their private agendas on others via force. In the modern era, this sort of force has been administered by government – what we call regulatory democracy. It is force, nonetheless.
Douglas and his theories are very obviously to be administered via official power. There is no other way that we can see to "redistribute wealth" via a "national dividend" than by taking money from some and giving it to others. His just price is surely not meant to be a "suggestion," either.
It seems to us that anti-libertarians who espouse social credit and other social-engineering schemes are inevitably suggesting that force be used to bring people in line with their views of how society should operate.
Is this an encouraging approach when it comes to reinforcing human freedom? We're more comfortable with the considerable body of modern libertarian thought that promotes individual liberty and the idea that people ought to organize societies as much as possible to reject coercion and violence.
In fact, free-market thinking is an ancient conversation. One can trace it back to the Greeks and likely beyond that. Modern free-market thinking may have gotten its start in Spain or in France where the French philosophists opposed Napoleon.
Adam Smith contributed to free-market thinking with his Wealth of Nations and later the Austrian free-market school developed the theory of marginal utility, which is the dividing line between static classical economics and neo-classical economics.
Neo-classical economics is based on the idea that markets provide price discovery. While rulers can fix prices by decree, such price-fixing is inevitably a wealth redistribution that takes wealth from its creators and hands it over to those who didn't create it and likely won't utilize it as efficiently.
Austrians such as Carl Menger, Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk and Friedrich von Wieser elaborated on free markets, entrepreneurship and the mechanisms of economic growth. The most famous 20th century exponents of Austrian economics were FA Hayek, Ludwig von Mises and, later on, Murray Rothbard.
Mises further developed the theory of human action that holds people themselves are the prime influencers of the economy (how could it be otherwise?). FA Hayek and Mises together developed the theory of the business cycle that shows clearly how central banks overprint money, leading first to booms and ruinous busts.
The only way to end the terrible (central banking) business cycle is to allow money to operate freely within a free-market environment. Fixing the volume or value of money via any government monopoly scheme is bound to cause more misery, not less.
Murray Rothbard is well known for his late 20th century influence, which included helping to found formal Libertarianism – an anti-government movement based on the principals of free-market economics – and participation in the founding of the Ludwig von Mises Institute as well.
The Ludwig von Mises Institute, styling itself as "anti-state, anti-war and pro-market," is also the brainchild of Lew Rockwell. Interestingly, while some of the modern progenitors of Austrian economics were Jewish, Lew Rockwell is a devout Catholic.
Catholicism is deeply rooted in Rockwell's conception of Austrian economics; he even identifies the Spanish Jesuits as playing a role in the founding of what eventually would become modern, free-market thinking.
Under Lew Rockwell, the Mises Institute and his own LewRockwell.com website, has recruited such intellectual "paleo-conservative" stars as Patrick Buchanan, whose Catholicism is very much part of his larger sociopolitical orientation, and Thomas Woods, a devout Catholic whose scholarly work has often focused on the Church via such books as How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization and The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy.
Ironically, it could be said that currently the thought leaders of free-market economics are increasingly Catholic: Anti-War's founder Justin Raimondo (a confidant of Rothbard's) was "raised Catholic" and Rockwell's Paleo-Conservative movement has a distinct Catholic subset. (Would the anti-libertarian crowd characterize them as crypto-Jews?)
This brings us, of course, to another disturbing facet of the current anti-libertarian movement – its determination to equate free-market thinking with a "Jewish Illuminati." Anti-libertarians seem to believe that because some modern Austrian economists were Jewish, the entire 2,000-plus-year-old evolution of free-market thinking is to be invalidated as a power-elite plot.
The argument currently being made is that the modern free-market philosophy is actually an elite creation intended to provide a dialectic between the forces of elite-managed totalitarianism and freedom-oriented thinkers such as Rothbard. These latter individuals are conceived as tools of the elite, intent only on confusing people and priming them for further anti-freedom takeovers.
It is ironic, however, that these arguments are being made by anti-libertarians who want to utilize government itself as a mechanism of monetary equality. The same modern history that shows us that governments conspired to murder some 150 million in the 20th centuryinforms us that government is not to be trusted when it comes to supporting and advancing the cause of liberty.
We are well aware that prominent alternative media facilities routinely characterize the evident and obvious Anglosphere conspiracy to create global governance as "Zionist." We have argued that this conspiracy is a good deal broader than a single religion or ethnicity.
The one-world-order conspiracy may have at its core a group of intergenerational families that control central banking around the world but it is aided and abetted, apparently, by factions of the Vatican and other religious elements as well as non-Jewish corporate, military and Intel enablers and colleagues.
To call this complex amalgam of interest and ethnicities "Zionist" is to simplify a complex phenomenon. Much as the Italian mafia hires Italians, so those involved in the one-world-order conspiracy prefer to work with people of their own religion and ethnicity. Those at the top are running a CRIMINAL conspiracy, not a religious one. These people USE religion, and even encourage anti-Semitism, ironically. They are not "of" religion, not by any means.
Nonetheless, the anti-libertarians continue to emphasize an apparently Zionist/Jewish argument by conflating the modern freedom movement with "Illuminati Jews." In our view, this does an injustice to liberty's greater conversation and even its modern, 500-year-old pedigree.
To buttress arguments that free-market thinking is a Jewish plot, anti-libertarians have now constructed a specious (in our view) alternative history of freedom's modern evolution. These articles tend to begin (nowadays) with someone called William S. Volker (1859-1947) "a wealthy German-Jewish businessman." Volker is supposed to have led the charge for an Illuminati-created freedom movement:
Far from defending freedom, the Illuminati created Libertarianism to reflect their Social Darwinian and racial supremacist ideology. With its opposite twin, Communism, they control the dialectic ... "These two contraries, like Bolshevism and ourselves, find their identity in the International."
According to anti-libertarians such as Memehunter, David Rockefeller himself personally funded Ludwig von Mises when he arrived in the United States, broke and out-of-work, and Volker, apparently a modern-day Illuminist, also funded von Mises as well as Murray Rothbard.
The anti-libertarians also argue that such entities as CATO, funded by the neo-libertarian Koch Brothers, are actually part of a larger elite dialectic. Of course, there is no doubt that the elites HAVE tried to set up a dialectic using various free-market elements and individuals.
From our perspective, FA Hayek cooperated with some of these efforts, as did the Chicago Freshwater School led by Milton Friedman. Friedman, for instance, could never bring himself to disavow central banking entirely, arguing instead for a "steady state" central bank that would mechanically inject a certain amount of money into the economy.
Some have made the same accusations about the Mont Pelerin Society and the Austrian element at George Mason, and its mission to "professionalize" Austrian economics. The answer to these charges, when it comes to the Rothbardian/Misesian School of Austrian, free-market economics, is fairly straightforward. Both Rothbard and Mises were fairly incapable of compromising their personal beliefs for social gain and evanescent wealth.
Mises himself disavowed the Mont Pelerin Society when he reportedly stormed out of a meeting shouting, "You are all socialists!" Mises, too, (contrary to Memehunter's assertions in these pages) was never funded directly out of David Rockefeller's pocket and eventually all funding from the Rockefeller Foundation is said to have been terminated.
Murray Rothbard was fired by the Volker fund honchos in the early 1960s, just as he was fired from CATO in the early 1980s (a few years after CATO's inception) by the Koch Brothers along with Lew Rockwell when the two men refused to significantly soften their "hard" freedom-oriented positions, especially as concerned their principled opposition to the elite's cash-cow, central banking. The result, in fact, was the Mises Institute.
None of this is hidden information. Rothbard, Rockwell (and Mises), determined to go their own way, rejected elite establishment funds and prominent elite positions. Rothbard eventually helped found the Libertarian Party, which is the precursor to the modern US anarchy movement. Mises, of course, created his masterwork, Human Action, (much hated by elites, as it remains formally unpublicized), along with the anti-central-banking business theory that has been driving the elite establishment nuts for decades.
Rockwell, a devout Catholic, has been significantly responsible for spreading the doctrine of freedom – real freedom – around the world for years via the Mises Institute and Lewrockwell.com. His Catholic colleague Justin Raimondo founded Anti-War.com.
Free-market thinking, a concept with a 2,000-year-old pedigree, has virtually exploded in the past decade thanks to the Internet. To argue that the current freedom movement is merely an outgrowth of a shadowy US "German-Jewish" banker, William Volker, is to entirely miss the point about what's going on.
Human beings are not perfect creatures, of course. The Rothbard Misesian focus on a gold standard runs counter to neo-Austrian thought on the value of competing currencies and even private fractional reserve banking. But Rothbard was apparently shifting his views on these issues before his death; Rockwell and libertarian Congressman Ron Paul have stated more flexible views as well.
Yet there is nothing remotely wrong with suggesting that gold and silver have a place within a free-market money environment. History shows that this is the case. However, any sort of mandated or government approved gold standard would be price-fixing and would present some of the same problems, sooner or later, as the current central banking regime.
Some other issues ... anti-libertarians believe that "most leading Libertarians are or were Jewish." But the modern movement of libertarian/conservative scholarship and principled anti-war activism is led by four Catholics, Raimondo, Rockwell, Buchanan and Woods. (Maybe freedom is not specifically a Jewish preserve after all ... )
Rothbard and Mises are said to have been funded throughout their careers by the Rockefellers and the Koch Brothers. But anyone who actually bothers to read the history of these relationships will find out that both scholars were fired by the very individuals and foundations that were supposedly their supporters.
Finally, as a free-market publication we should deal with the issue of Rothbard's "racialism" (whatever that means) as mentioned in several anti-libertarian articles. In fact, free-market theory tells us clearly that people are social and cultural animals.
People, in fact, tend to stick together and absent government coercion will seek out those of their own kind – whether it be as regards skin color, religious preference or various cultural elements.
This clear and salient observation can be lost in accusations of racism, but the principled libertarian stance is that people ought not to be forced to live in ways they don't want to or in places where they don't wish to. This no doubt is Rothbard's larger point, and certainly it's not racist to point it out. (Or certainly not more so than to point out that the founder of social credit apparently referred to the Protocols of Zion for inspiration.)
What is more disturbing than Rothbard's supposed "racialism" (in our view) is the growing drumbeat of anti-Jew prejudice within the context of the alternative 'Net media. Whether it's "Jewry" or assertions that "all Jews" subscribe to the mysterious Protocols of Zion, anti-Jew sentiment is definitely on the rise.
Here at the Daily Bell, we're starting to get our share of it. In fact, many who participate in DB's brief are not Jewish, either formally or informally. We believe, in fact, that the state of Israel should be secularized and we believe that at the core of the criminal power elite there is a significant Jewish element. We haven't been shy about stating it.
Our feedbacker "friend" Memehunter, who is apparently anti-Jew (though he claims to be Jewish), once pointed out on these pages that Austrian Economics was invented in the late 1920s as a result of a pan-European movement. He later partially retracted the statement, which he then tried to blame on the irrepressible and sometimes inaccurate Eustace Mullins.
We would tend to believe that such claims, because they are inaccurate (even profoundly ignorant), are bound to fail. In fact, Carl Menger, commonly held as the founder of the school, did not approach his investigations into marginal utility religiously but as an economist.
Now, it's been pointed out that Menger and other early Austrians were involved with the power elite of the day. But this, too, is a kind of specious logic. The kind of classical liberalism and republicanism that is reflected in Austrian, free-market economics goes back to the Greek "Golden Age" and beyond.
So ... the conversation of freedom is an ancient one. To try to collapse a 2,000-3,000 year old conversation into a 150 year time frame in order to make it appear linked to a modern elite conspiracy is to argue in bad faith, in our view.
The Austrians, especially the modern Misesian-Rothbardian school, have made significant contributions to it in the modern era by stating (restating) important elements of REAL economics. Their contributions cannot be denied; their observations cannot be minimized by rewriting history to make it look as if the purest expression of scholarly free-market thinking (the Rothbardian-Misesian school) is merely a dialectical, elitist strategy to denude us of our "freedoms."
The real question, in our view, is why would anyone want to do this? What is it about modern free-market thinking – an extension of people's natural yearning to live as they choose within cultural and familial associations – that arouses such vituperation? Is it because anti-libertarians want to build a case for government activism? (And, again, why would they? What appeals to them about authoritarianism?)
The modern power elite reigns via mercantilism. As we've pointed out plenty of times, government, especially big government, is bound to be taken over – dominated – by elite forces. The best way to deal with government is to make it as small as possible while seeking to live (ourselves) in small, flexible and self-sufficient communities. Why does such a solution arouse antipathy?
Conclusion: To insinuate (or even state, as anti-libertarians are now doing) that the millennia-old freedom conversation, with contributions (in the West) from Greeks, Romans, Catholics, Europeans and Americans, is a modern outgrowth of Illuminati strategic destruction is not only inaccurate, it is worse. It is profoundly, well ... banal. And banality, in some of its forms, is plain evil.
Posted by LloydMiller on 03/25/12 05:12 PM
Erecting "liberty" or the "rule of law" is an infinite project unlikely of finding success within an individual's lifespan. On the other hand, there are many possibilites for successful predation that fall within the span of a lifetime. At best, the "rule of law" or "liberty" is a mostly false justification for state action. To the extent the rule of law or liberty is acheived for a time, it is because the local masses, through accidental factors, have become used to a major dose of liberty and only over time can be talked out it!
Posted by LloydMiller on 03/25/12 04:55 PM
The real problem with the Austrian School is that they have failed to adumbrate the science of human action outside the restraints of the "rule of law." It is obvious, if anyone would bother to think about it, that the full reality of human action, including all the freedom crushing government action libertarians rail against, must be fully explainable by the full, but unexamined science of praxeology. Von Mises often reiterated that his recommendations flow from the premise that the purpose of policy is the well-being of the masses, ie. that the "statists" are just confused about the effects of their policies! Rothbard, with his "Economic Determinism" (covert predation of statist economic elites), broke partially from this straight jacket, but still failed to explain how statism would at some miraculous time in the future, be less profitable for the statists than now or how the diffuse purposes of the "masses" could someday trump the co-ordinated predatory policies of the elite.
Posted by Luis Magno on 02/23/12 11:49 AM
Extremism in the defense of Liberty is no vice but the defense of extremism is always vice.
Posted by peri1224 on 02/23/12 12:28 AM
All these social crediters have one big problem. They don't know what money is. I have explained it to Mr. Migchels as feedback on his site. If they knew what money is and where it's coming from, they wouldn't try to replace one harebrained money system (the current one) with another one that does the same except that it changes private bankers for government agents.
Libertarianism's main fault: Blaming the State while ignoring the Money Power
Click to view link
Posted by memehunter on 02/22/12 01:12 PM
DB: In fact, there are now comments showing up on other threads in other venues claiming we're a "Jewish website" and commenting incorrectly on the religious perspectives and backgrounds of DB advisors. If you intend to personally attack the principals of this website, we shall seriously consider attacking you personally as well. If other such transparent attacks are launched, we'll understand the obvious despite any potential denials: You are likely party to them and organizing them.
M: After having done some research, and assuming that the paragraph quoted above was referring to the two threads linked below, I can confirm to the Daily Bell that I have nothing to do with feedbacker between_the_lines (nor with feedbacker Quacksilver for that matter) and that I am not the author of the comments posted on these threads:
Click to view link
Click to view link
The DB can surely check IP addresses to confirm my claims if they wish to do so, anyway.
As to the question whether I know who is feedbacker "between_the_lines", I do not think so but obviously cannot confirm with certainty given that people may choose different pseudonyms on different websites. In any case, I do not frequent PrisonPlanet and I do not recall having ever posted a comment there.
Moreover, I do not know about the religious/ethnical affiliations of the DB advisors. In any case, I come myself from a Jewish background and have written about it several times. However, I wish to disassociate myself forcefully from the Zionist and/or Talmudist ideologies. My family has suffered enough from the consequences of these ideologies.
Regarding the fact that some ideas expressed by feedbacker between_the_lines are similar to ideas I have expressed here (for instance, noticing the misleading insistence on the "Anglosphere"), the DB elves should not be too surprised that two or more minds can independently notice the same facts and come to similar conclusions. It is not necessarily evidence of a vast collusion against the DB.
In conclusion, I wish to express my disappointment at being gratuitously linked with any online criticism against the DB that bears similarity to some of the ideas I have expressed here. If the DB truly believes that I am responsible for personal attacks against them, then I suggest that it would be in their own interest to make sure that they have obtained factual evidence before jumping to conclusions.
I would respectfully suggest to the DB elves to avoid resorting to personal attacks against individuals holding contrasting views, as they have successfully done in their latest reply to my article, and as (I believe) Mr. Migchels and myself have done in our own articles. I do not believe that readers (whatever their opinion) will benefit from further mudslinging, save perhaps for the occasional entertainment value.
The elves will note that I have chosen to post this comment on this particular thread to avoid 'clogging' new threads with this discussion.
Reply from The Daily Bell
We did not directly link you to (admittedly occasionally, as yet) claims this is a "Jewish" website. In fact we were careful not to.
But we find this puzzling. Can your assumption that we are mudslinging (when we have avoided doing so) be construed as a kind of mudslinging itself?
We choose not to take it that way.
In fact, we wrote in our followup article, the following: "Will such attacks continue? They are only recent in nature; yet, we will NOT assume they are triggered by current participants. (emphasis added)."
In neither our original statement on the matter nor in our follow up did we accuse you or Migchels of being behind the attacks.
But here is a question you need to ask yourself, and it is one we've brought up before. By constantly harping on Jews and "Zionism" (and certainly many others do as well) as the major protagonists in what is obviously a larger criminal conspiracy, are you setting the stage where people feel empowered to make such attacks?
Are there are not other ways to explain what is going on that do not so explicitly SEEM to target whole groups. We have suggested "mafia," crime family and "Jewish cabal" as alternative nomenclatures.
We thank you for your courtesy in not "clogging" the current thread. But our irritation, warranted in our view, has had to do with the repetitive nature of your postings, which could amount to 20 or 30 on any given day and had the effect of crowding out other commentary. Now that you have access to another forum, perhaps you won't be so frustrated.
Posted by Charlie on 02/20/12 08:32 PM
Seems like a rather lame attempt to discredit free market economics.
Posted by flying_pig on 02/20/12 06:12 PM
Why should self-interest reigns supreme and uncontested? "
Why are you asking such irrelevant questions? Have you ever lived in a society? If you have, you might have realized that self-interest almost never reigns supreme or uncontested - I'm guessing you are not married, don't run a business, and/or are not employed in the private sector.
As DB admonished you earlier, go out and live life a little. See the real world.
Posted by dave jr on 02/20/12 03:07 PM
I don't question if a society of self-interested individuals is ideal or not. Who is to define ideal? I simply accept it as real.
When you and I speak, we are attempting to find 'balance'. Everyone is allowed to speak and to listen to find their balance. Common ground is the natural authority between us or the group involved. To invoke a group that is not present to back your argument is cheating. That is my only complaint thus far.
We have not been discussing the hired enforcers or spokespersons, so coercion really hasn't been an issue here.
True authority does not coerce. Block or defend maybe, but coercion is for despots.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/20/12 01:40 PM
"Why should self-interest reigns supreme and uncontested?"
because IT DOES and, cannot be contested without devolving to "final solutions", as a tase of power (over the lives of others) is addictive and always destroys opposition until "absolute power corrupts, absolutely".
Life is self-interested and, so are any possible "rulers", including groups with a "benign agenda" (pretext). Those who "propose to rule", even if truly benevolent (a phenonena not seen for all of history) cannot avoid pursuing "self-interest" and, in actual fact the entire "professions" of politics, law and, YOUR delusional "arguments" are nothing but "pretexts to prey", or, to be kind, lead there, without your awareness.
Posted by memehunter on 02/20/12 01:28 PM
DB: In this thread alone you've made at least five factual errors. If you read Dr. Gary North's column today, you'll find you've made more than that.
M: What about "the elites REALLY dislike" - sorry, I'm being repetitive... But I will repeat my fair warning to the DB who keeps mentioning my "errors".
As for North, I will leave it to Anthony Migchels to reply, but I cannot say that his column impressed me (same for the one on Ellen Brown). I note that Mr. North also worked for the Volker Fund and appears to be proud of it (of course, I discovered this during my research and am not surprised to see Mr. North barking like a good old Libertarian watchdog after reading this article).
Posted by bionic mosquito on 02/20/12 01:26 PM
Abu, I am sorry - I didn't see your earlier post as I tend to ignore threads that have numerous and repetitive rantings of a madman as recent history.
As to the characterization of you and me by Migchels, I would wear it as a badge of honor if his opinion on any subject was worth a nickel to me. It isn't.
Posted by memehunter on 02/20/12 01:21 PM
Why should self-interest reigns supreme and uncontested? More importantly, why do you believe that a society in which self-interest reigns supreme is an ideal society and why do you characterize *any* mention of the awareness of the possible effects (negative forced choices) that individual initiatives may have on other people as being favoring "coercion" or favoring "authority"? Not even one bit of balance - as soon as someone mentions this he is for "coercion".
I know that you or others will probably attack me for saying this, but I don't find this logical, Dave. It's simply a black-and-white view of the world that doesn't resonate with me and, if I may say so, with many others (although perhaps not on this particular website).
Posted by dave jr on 02/20/12 01:12 PM
Personally, I am left feeling disappointed. The topic of interest free money was being debated and was progressing nicely using logic in the exchange of ideas. Then, when the logic of one side ran out, a non-consentive collective authority was wielded to prematurely claim victory. From there it degenerated into personal attacks.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/20/12 01:10 PM
I posted Norths' article some hours ago as well. Some gems, indeed ...
BTW, are you aware that you and I have been decorated - as state-hating, gold-buying "drones" that is - because, you know, "we don't know what we're doing" ...
Click to view link
Posted by bionic mosquito on 02/20/12 12:56 PM
Dr. North has commented on this Migchels article. His comments are available in the public area of his site:
Click to view link
Among many of the gems: "Let me say, before I begin, that the author of this article is the only person I have come across who could profitably study with Ellen Brown... .when compared to Mr. Migchels, lawyer Brown is a Pulitzer-Prize candidate in history."
I believe Dr. North's opinion of Ms. Brown's econmic and historical knowledge is well known.
Migchels and Makow have likely attained the objective they desire - to be noticed. Noticed as nut-cases, but noticed nonetheless.
Posted by memehunter on 02/20/12 12:41 PM
DB: We BELIEVE in issues-based argumentation.
M: This may have been the most ironic statement I've read all day. Thanks for the laugh.
DB: Obviously, we'll have to establish FACTUALLY that you're behind any personal attacks. We suggest you not go down that road.
M: I'm really curious as to what the DB has on me. I must have forgotten that I worked for some sort of "foreign intelligence" (dixit DB) or that I received funding by some obscure think tanks (ooops, better not look too closely at some of those libertarians... ), or that my career is somehow associated with a "special interest" group involved in promoting specific economic/political viewpoints (good luck with that one!).
But I would not be surprised if the DB elves are willing to forego their "truth" and reveal what they really know about the world by acting in such a way, if it can provide them with an expedient attack on an annoying dissenter.
As for my personal attacks on the DB, I note that Mr. Wile was until recently consulting for "Anglosphere" banks. I don't see how pointing out this fact (revealed by Mr. Wile himself in his biography) is an attack. I also note that I do not know anything about the DB elves. Not their backgrounds, not their names, nothing. How, then, am I supposed to launch a personal attack?
Reply from The Daily Bell
M: "The DB's childish attempts at misrepresenting my positions are tiresome. I would politely advise the DB to discontinue doing so, unless the elves are prepared to have their own positions deconstructed at length on other websites. This is not a threat, simply a 'fair warning'."
DB: Another statement (the one we were responding to) right in line with the way you are operating, by taking over threads with repetitive and often incorrect statements. Watch. Unless we ban you (which presumably is what you are after) we will see another 5-10 defensive/accusatory posts on this thread in a matter of hours, rendering it all-but-unintelligble for anyone who actually wants to learn anything useful.
M: "We BELIEVE in issues-based argumentation."
DB: We don't expect you to reread your comments, (that would be too painful). But if you did so, you would find that each of our comments in this thread (and others) pertains directly to your to arguments such as they are.
If you object to our characterizing them as misleading and mistaken, then stop making factual errors.
In this thread alone you've made at least five factual errors. If you read Dr. Gary North's column today, you'll find you've made more than that.
You've also announced that you know little either about Austrian finance or social credit, which were the underlying subjects here. You seem proud of it. We wouldn't be.
Posted by dave jr on 02/20/12 12:15 PM
It is quite plain.
Without society, there can be non-interacting individuals. Without individuals, there is no society. The result of dynamic interactions originate in the individuals, not the group. And whether these dynamic results come to define a group or not, is the result of individual decisions to accept or deny.
To artificially remove the result of individual action by assigning it to a group, the individual is relieved of responsibility, and a cover is created for irresponsible acts.
To speak in the voice of a group IS exercising authority. Where consent has not been given, there will be opposition no matter what is said.
Posted by Abu Aardvark on 02/20/12 12:00 PM
"The interactions between individuals in a community can give rise to all kinds of phenomena that can not be predicted simply by looking at isolated individuals."
Yep, and the elves are writing about the "hive-mind" on a regular basis, for example. Remember?
But does the existence of the "hive-mind" - supposed you subscribe to the idea - justify coercion of individuals by "a society", or self-appointed speakers therof?
It does NOT, of course.
Posted by rossbcan on 02/20/12 11:20 AM
"see example with the neighbors and the loud sound system"
you are such an idiot, assuming organized force required to solve "issues" such as this. Given such a neighbor, determine what their hot botton is and push as hard as you can until they "cease and desist" and decide "live and let live" is the best approach. Police are just tax collectors, you know. They do not "serve and protect" any but themselves.
It is not just goods and services that are honestly traded. So are actions and consequences, a tit for tat conflict sequence that over millennia led to the "rule of law", before it was rationalized away by glib predators on the bench. Now, apparently we have to repeat this conflict and re-learn the obvious, this time with nukes.
In respone to your general "there oughta be a law" (unstated: and me and mine to enforce it) I STATE: There is a law: hurt me and / or mine and, right back at you.
Posted by flying_pig on 02/20/12 11:17 AM
dude, read Bastiat's "The Law"
it's a short pamphlet, and will serve you well