http://mises.org/…

1. Introduction: Money and Politics
2. The Genesis of Money
3. What is the Optimum Quantity of Money?
4. Monetary Inflation and Counterfeiting
5. Legalized Counterfeiting
6. Loan Banking
7. Deposit Banking
8. Problems for the Fractional-Reserve Banker: The Criminal Law
9. Problems for the Fractional-Reserve Banker: Insolvency
10. Booms and Busts
11. Types of Warehouse Receipts
12. Enter the Central Bank
13. Easing the Limits on Bank Credit Expansion
14. The Central Bank Buys Assets
15. Origins of the Federal Reserve: The Advent of the National Banking System
16. Origins of the Federal Reserve: Wall Street Discontent
17. Putting Cartelization Across: The Progressive Line
18. Putting a Central Bank Across: Manipulating a Movement, 1897-1902
19. The Central Bank Movement Revives, 1906-1910
20. Culmination at Jekyll Island
21. The Fed at Last: Morgan-Controlled Inflation
22. The New Deal and the Displacement of the Morgans
23. Deposit “Insurance”
24. How the Fed Rules and Inflates
25. What Can Be Done?

http://www.lewrockwell.com/…

Tom Woods blogged about people starting book clubs, and yesterday Revolutionaries in Maryland had their first book club meeting. I was in attendance, and it was everything I hoped for and more.
Ron Paul’s message was discussed as an abstract philosophy and as it applies to certain issues. The meeting lasted about 3 hours and the last half-hour or so was spent discussing what we do next. It seemed that everyone was in agreement that this is a long-term movement that will go well past November, and also everyone felt strongly that education of our fellow citizens was extremely important; not coerced education - but a presentation of the ideas of the movement at every opportunity.
We’re going to meet monthly, choosing books from The Manifesto’s extensive reading list. Next up, I am pleased to say, is Rothbard’s “What has Government Done to Our Money?” published by the Mises Institute.

This is good to hear. Hopefully the idea spreads. The biggest thing to come out of the Ron Paul Revolution has been the social component. From the Meetup groups to moneybombs and driving crossing state lines to canvas and rally. The libertarian movement really didn’t have that before and most people need that sense of belonging in order to stay focused and not get discouraged. The stereotypical libertarian is the rugged individualist who’s likely introverted. The rugged part is generally way off but we do tend to be self motivated. This is a fairly small component of the population. That’s not to say that libertarianism only appeals to that minority. I think historically you can show this isn’t true. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense got the Colonists all worked up and it’s a very libertarian work for the time. Perhaps you could say that it was just the anti-King rants that got them going but it would seem to me it wouldn’t require Paine’s help in order to do that. There was something more about it. The idea that every man is a sovereign. The common man does believe in liberty they just need to be reminded of it. This revolution is made up of the common man and the social networks that are being created are both a sign of that and also means to sustain them. Or maybe the technology we have now makes herding cats easier.

Whatever the case it seems to me this movement has more staying power then similar ones before it. The participants are often younger and the belief in freedom rarely fades the way other political fads do. The Free State Project is showing us that even a very small percentage of the population being active on behalf of freedom can make a obvious differences in the political and apolitical spheres. Now we will bring that nationally through organizations like DownsizeDC, Free Talk Live, the RLC and maybe even the LP. And of course through the actions of dedicated individuals at their local levels.

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/…

Thomas DiLorenzo spoke about his interests in economics and Abraham Lincoln, and his investigations into the two areas through his books, The Real Lincoln: A New Look at Abraham Lincoln, His Agenda, and an Unnecessary War (Prima Lifestyles, 2002); and Lincoln Unmasked: What You’re Not Supposed to Know About Dishonest Abe (Crown Forum, 2006). He spoke about his research and methods, as well as many of the results he uncovered during the research. Professor DiLorenzo not only criticizes President Lincoln’s handling of the Civil War, he also criticizes current day historians who, he says, belong to the “church of Lincoln.” Those include James McPherson, Harold Holzer, Harry Jaffa, Eric Foner, and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Professor DiLorenzo also contends that academic historians critical of Lincoln have difficulties getting university level jobs.

An hour long but pretty good.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=755108158

Notice the dead air after Eeden lays the first accusation out. It’s sad they actually believe the Fed’s stats.

http://www.strike-the-root.com/…

In The Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard presents selling oneself into slavery as a logical impossibility because of the “inalienability of the will.” The will may be inalienable, but a contractual obligation certainly is not “inalienable.” Rothbard would reject a contract worded thusly: “I hereby sell myself into slavery to Smith Co. in return for subsistence living and three lottery tickets per week.” However, consider this case. Joe A. Gambler is given a one million dollar line of credit at 20% interest at the casino. He gambles it all until he has one million in debt, and just the monthly interest is more than his attainable monthly income. He is bankrupt, and if Rothbardian contractual debt obligations are enforceable in a meaningful sense, then the casino has very significant rights on the control of how Joe gets to spend his income, how much leisure he gets, and how much he must work. Joe has become a de facto slave.

Rothbardians miss this essential problem. People are advertised, persuaded, brainwashed, conned, Ponzi schemed, schooled, and more to convince them to sell themselves into virtual slavery. It is not a non-issue, it is a central issue. Living by debt is walking on a wobbly fence when falling on the wrong side is slavery. Call debt slavery merely de facto slavery if you will, but if it looks like a dead fish and smells like a dead fish, then why treat it other than like a dead fish? Notice how important thrift and debt avoidance was to Thoreau in the first half of Walden. He noticed that, like today, people would sell themselves into debt for superficial luxuries in housing when one could build an acceptable structure without debt. For those who say it cannot happen, I say rather, don’t let it happen.

1. “I hereby sell myself into slavery to Smith Co. in return for subsistence living and three lottery tickets per week.” is a an invalid statement/contract. You can’t be definition be a voluntary slave. You can’t be property. You can voluntarily act like a slave which from an ignorant 3rd party perspective looked like enslavement but you can not call that situation slavery. Looking and smelling like a dead fish does not mean it’s a dead fish.
2. Rothbard clearly describes restitution proportionality and what he feels should be considered a legitimately enforcible contract. One’s inalienable right to life would override any debt described in the above article. In all but the most extreme cases, just as today, people would not end up in any sort of prison or work camp or otherwise physically restrained in order to pay off their debts. This includes wage garnishing to an extent where the debtor was unable to sustain themselves. There would more likely be a great amount of ostracism which the debtee attempts to propagate if the debtor fails to make reasonable efforts to repay the debt. That debt however is voluntary theft and therefore you are obligated to repay it… not involuntary slavery.
3. Nor is it the same as the situation of supposedly selling yourself into slavery. In that case you are agreeing to something which is continuous. Shelter and food can be stopped at any point with little or no theft. You stop working and they stop providing shelter. That’s significantly different from Joe A. Gambler taking a one million dollar loan at 20% interest. In that case you’ve taken money conditionally and upfront. Any failure to repay under those conditions is outright theft. Just because you cannot predict the future doesn’t negate the situtation you’ve agreed to. The debtor could have won money and repaid the loan too… so that act of getting the loan they possibly couldn’t afford isn’t in itself illegitimate. Besides it’s not practical. Are you really going to go to the individuals who have the money and ask for it back telling them the loan was illegitimate to begin with? If we are talking about a free society there can not be an organization with a monopoly on force, justice and law which attempts to forbid such contracts from being created in the first place.
4. “People are advertised, persuaded, brainwashed, conned, Ponzi schemed, schooled, and more to convince them to sell themselves into virtual slavery.”
   1. advertised: voluntary
   2. persuaded: voluntary
   3. brainwashed: hardly scientific IMO, can’t judge
   4. conned: fraud
   5. Ponzi schemed: possibly fraud, caveat emptor
   6. schooled:voluntary

   If you voluntarily enter into a situation that turns bad then there is little I feel someone can argue about. Lots of people make bad, ignorant decisions. That’s not fraud however nor is it something realistically preventable nor should it be prosecuted. Fraud however is a different story and would negate any contract entered into.