Jeffrey Tucker – Liberty Classics: Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor With Jeffrey Tucker

Related Discussions

  • Alex Merced

    Video on the History of Economic Thought

    This is an imperfect video, but would love to get your thoughts on it.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Peter Lothian Nelson

    Rothbardian anarchy

    “The State is profoundly and inherently anticapitalist.” – Murray Newton Rothbard, “Anatomy of the State”, 1974, version LvMI, 2009, P42

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • James Smith

    Why should a murderer compensate his victim's family?

    A question for libertarian law buffs: Assuming that A. The proper form of punishment for crimes is restitution, or the repayment to the victim for the losses incurred by the crime, and B. no machine or magic exists that can bring people back to life, to whom and in what way should a murderer compensate for his crime? Murder is unique amongst all crimes becuase the victim physically cannot be compensated (except if there exists a life-giving machine or wizard), but why should the compensation, then, go to the next of kin? Ok, so the family are missing out now becuase the victim presumably provided money, security and love whilst he was alive, but why not also compensate his employer who now has to look for a new worker and his friends who miss his charming company? Do some or all of those parties have rightful claim to the murderer’s resources? And why? Let me know if that’s understandable.

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • Martin Nicholls

    War on the Radical?

    As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Martin Nicholls

    Time for Mises Institute to Award Israel Kirzner?

    I think the Mises Institute should present Israel Kirzner with one of their awards because since he is one of the last few who actually studied under Ludwig von Mises, and (despite differences of opinion in the Austrian School) has been one the main contributing players in the school. I suggest doing this because since he’s “getting on in life” I think it would be a good thing for the Mises Institute to recognise his contribution to Austrian Economics “before his time comes,” what do you think? Kirzner on Rothbard: The Intellectual Portrait Series: A conversation with Israel Kirzner “Seminar students such as Hans Sennholz, William Peterson, George Reisman, Israel Kirzner, and Ralph Raico eventually formed—together with Murray Rothbard—the solid core of Misesians to hold out through the long libertarian winter of the 1960s and 1970s, thus enabling the breakthrough of Misesian ideas of the 1980s and 1990s. At least three regular NYU students would eventually become important Misesians who, each in his own way, took up where their teacher had left off: Hans Sennholz, Israel Kirzner, and George Reisman.” Jörg Guido Hülsmann: Last Knight of Liberalism. “In his twenty-four years at New York University Professor Mises sponsored only four candidates who wrote their dissertations under his tutelage (Sennholz, Spadaro, Kirzner, Reisman).” Hans Sennholz.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies


Join Jeffrey Tucker this Sunday for another installment of his Liberty Classics series! This week he’ll be sharing his thought’s on Rothbard’s Freedom, Inequality, Primitivism and the Division of Labor.

“If men were like ants, there would be no interest in human freedom,” writes Murray Rothbard in this masterpiece of exposition. “If individual men, like ants, were uniform, interchangeable, devoid of specific personality traits of their own, then who would care whether they were free or not? Who, indeed, would care if they lived or died? The glory of the human race is the uniqueness of each individual, the fact that every person, though similar in many ways to others, possesses a completely individuated personality of his own.”

Thus begins Rothbard’s celebration of human freedom and the inequality that is its real glory. And yet in our time, political life celebrates equality above every other virtue — not just equality under the law but equality of opportunity (impossible!) and equality of result (a terrifying ideal!). We come to depend on each other in society because we need each other to accomplish our goals, and we depend on each other because we all have different skills and personal attributes.

See More See Less