- The problem of rights violating rights protectors [1:22]
- Differentiating law and ethics [10:47]
- Three core legal theory modules [18:35]
- The full range of responses to aggression [33:56]
- Consistently rights-protecting legal institutions [39:12]
- Who wins and loses from misplaced complexity? [46:36]
There are several questions at the end of the presentation. As usual the above was brilliant. A listing of more timestamps are available in the video description. The paper I mentioned in the introduction which is the basis of the talk is available here along with some choice excerpts. This is the most cutting edge article on Austro-Libertarianism that exists today.
"The truth is inherently practical, and in recognizing an idea as true (or false), a scholar cannot but want it to be implemented (or eradicated) immediately. For this reason, in addition to pursuing his scholarly ambitions, Menger served as personal tutor to the Austrian Crown Prince Rudolf, and as an appointed life-member of the Austrian House of Lords (Herrenhaus). Similarly, Böhm-Bawerk served three times as Austrian minister of finance, and was a lifetime member of the Herrenhaus.
Likewise, Mises was the nationally prominent chief economist of the Vienna Chamber of Commerce and advisor to many prominent figures during Austria’s first Republic, and later, in the U.S., he served as advisor to the National Association of Manufacturers and numerous other organizations. Only Mises went even further. Just as he was the first economic system-builder, so was he the first to give the Austrian activism systematic expression by associating Austrian economics with radical-liberal-libertarian-political reform (as laid out in his Liberalism of 1927).
Only Rothbard, who likewise served in many advisory functions and as founder and academic director of several educational organizations, accomplished something comparable.”
— Hans-Hermann Hoppe, MNR: Economics Science, & Liberty
"…The second point I found important was one that Ms. Wolf made several times: understanding what is really happening with the state can be emotionally challenging. I think this factor is key in explaining why so many people have a hard time really accepting deep insights about the nature of the state. Doing so can be emotionally unsettling. It can disrupt our basic sense of security to realize that figures who were supposed to be our childhood heroes cannot really be viewed so unambiguously. Our war heroes are revealed to have been fighting the wrong battles. Our police are enforcing unjust laws. Our judges are operating within bogus legal frameworks. Our schoolteachers are pushing state propaganda (knowingly or unknowingly) and only secondarily hopefully also teaching bits of real knowledge.
I came face to face with such an emotional challenge in a particularly difficult way a few months ago when my ongoing reading program took me through Professor Thomas J. DiLorenzo’s two Lincoln books. The sheer vision of so much suffering, death, and destruction, accomplished by so much deceit, all to pull off a gigantic mercantilist rip-off, was certainly difficult to take in. All those “universal soldiers”—they believed; they killed; they died. But how many of them knew what it was really about? Now, to top it all off, generation after generation are still taught mountains of lies about what it was for.
If one really looks straight on at the reality of such things, it takes some emotional courage to just see—to realize that these are not nightmare images, but real pictures. Denial is a powerful force in the human psyche, and it works against people recognizing the sheer horrors that the state inflicts and the startling magnitude of the accumulated lies on which it is based. It takes time and effort to work through such realizations bit by bit; to pass through the initial reaction that “no, that couldn’t be true.”
From there, though, one has to switch back to the positive—what can we do?—and push forward with a contribution.”
Working on the vague theme of ‘love' this is probably best viewed from the page, not your dash. Describing music is generally pretty hard. However, I really enjoy sharing songs I like. * Indicates a film-clip, otherwise it’s just audio. Youtube is easier to embed than soundcloud. The below songs are a mix of different genres that even I find hard to categorize; indie-dance, chillwave, house, disco-house, luvstep and who knows what other genres get made up. I hope you enjoy.
 | Silicon Love (Original Mix) by Lifelike
*A great film clip which matches the music pretty perfectly.
 | No Guns And Horses, Just Make Love by Ellie Goulding, Daft Punk & Monsieur Adi
"No stranger to sophisticated remix work, producer Monsieur Adi recently created a mashup between his rendition of Ellie Goulding’s "Guns And Horses" and Daft Punk’s "Make Love". As usual, Adi utilizes electrifying strings arrangements and couples them with the British songstress’s soothing voice and adds a little mellow electronica to the blend."
Click the bold for the soundcloud link. A real great smooth song, chill’d but uplifting disco house.
 | Love on a Real Train (SymbolOne remix) by Tangerine Dream
*Another fine video here. A real classic.
 | I Love U So (TROWA Remix) by Cassius
A different kind of dubstep. Luvstep.
 | Make Love Tonight (Lifelike Re-Edit) by Roman d’Amour
French house. Lifelike turns things to gold.
 | Cosmic Love (Short Club Remix) by Florence and the Machine
Mellow, but builds… beautiful. A song hard not to fall in love with, maybe a cosmic love then. Wonderful Florence and the Machine track that with this wonderful remix makes me want to love the whole cosmos.
 | Love Will Guide You (Edwin Van Cleef Remix) by Shinichi Osawa
Edwin van Cleef, one of my favorites. “An electro-pop killer which fans of indie-disco a la Kitsuné will die for.” - Juno
 | So Much Love To Give by Thomas Bangalter & DJ Falcon | Download.
Classic French House. Thomas Bangalter - half of Daft Punk. Prepare for this to get in your head… maybe due to the length.
 | In Love With You by The Paradise
Another French House classic. The Paradise is Alan Braxe. I consider this pretty much timeless.
These were quickly whacked together. If you’re looking for music geared towards an actual mixtape for a special occasion this might be something worth checking out.
"Economics can only tell us that a boom engendered by credit expansion will not last. It cannot tell us after what amount of credit expansion the slump will start or when this event will occur. All that economists and other people say about these quantitative and calendar problems partakes of neither economics nor any other science. What they say in the attempt to anticipate future events makes use of specific "understanding," the same method which is practiced by everybody in all dealings with his fellow man.
Specific “understanding” has the same logical character as that which characterizes all anticipation’s of future events in human affairs?anticipation’s concerning the course of Russia’s foreign policy, religious and racial conditions in India or Algeria, ladies’ fashions in 1960, the political divisions in the U.S. Senate in 1970; and even such anticipation’s as the future marital relations between Mr. X and his wife, or the success in life of a boy who has just celebrated his tenth birthday.
There are people who assert that psychology may provide some help in such prognostications. However that may be, it is not our task to examine this problem. We have merely to establish the fact that forecasts about the course of economic affairs cannot be considered scientific.”
"…It follows, from the abolitionist’s conception of his role in society, that the goal for which he agitated was not likely to be immediately realizable. Its realization must follow conversion of an enormous number of people, and the struggle must take place in the face of the hostility that inevitably met the agitator for an unpopular cause… The abolitionists knew as well as their later scholarly critics that immediate and unconditional emancipation could not occur for a long time. But unlike those critics they were sure it would never come unless it were agitated for during the long period in which it was impracticable…
To have dropped the demand for immediate emancipation because it was unrealizable at the time would have been to alter the nature of the change for which the abolitionists were agitating. That is, even those who would have gladly accepted gradual and conditional emancipation had to agitate for immediate and unconditional abolition of slavery because that demand was required by their goal of demonstrating to white Americans that Negroes were their brothers. Once the nation had been converted on that point, conditions and plans might have been made…
Their refusal to water down their “visionary” slogan was, in their eyes, eminently practical, much more so than the course of the antislavery senators and congressmen who often wrote letters to abolitionist leaders justifying their adaptation of antislavery demands to what was attainable. The abolitionist, while criticizing such compromises, would insist that his own intransigence made favorable compromises possible. He might have stated his position thus:
If politics is the art of the possible, agitation is the art of the desirable. The practice of each must be judged by criteria appropriate to its goal. Agitation by the reformer or radical helps define one possible policy as more desirable than another, and if skillful and uncompromising, the agitation may help make the desirable possible. To criticize the agitator for not trimming his demands to the immediately realizable—that is, for not acting as a politician—is to miss the point.
The demand for a change that is not politically possible does not stamp the agitator as unrealistic. For one thing, it can be useful to the political bargainer; the more extreme demand of the agitator makes the politician’s demand seem acceptable and perhaps desirable in the sense that the adversary may prefer to give up half a loaf rather than the whole. Also, the agitator helps define the value, the principle, for which the politician bargains. The ethical values placed on various possible political courses are put there partly by agitators working on the public opinion that creates political possibilities…”
— Murray Rothbard quoting Aileen Kraditor’s brilliant study of the strategy and tactics of the Garrison wing of the abolitionist movement entitled Means and Ends in American Abolitionism, 1969; pp. 26-28).
What made Ron Paul so special? He was essentially both at the same time. As a radical he called for the abolition of the “IRS, CIA, FBI, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Labor, the FED, and Bring the Troops Home immediately etc.” in the national mainstream debates and throughout his campaign—while avoiding the pitfalls of opportunism.
If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy. But this leaves the question open whether or not a state is necessary, i.e., if there exists an alternative to both, monarchy and democracy.
History again cannot provide an answer to this question. By definition, there can be no such thing as an “experience” of counterfactuals and alternatives; and all one finds in modern history, at least insofar as the developed Western world is concerned, is the history of states and statism. Only theory can again provide an answer, for theoretical propositions, as just illustrated, concern necessary facts and relations; and accordingly, just as they can be used to rule certain historical reports and interpretations out as false or impossible, so can they be used to rule certain other things in as constructively possible, even if such things have never been seen or tried.
In complete contrast to the orthodox opinion on the matter, then, elementary social theory shows, and will be explained as showing, that no state as just defined can be justified, be it economically or ethically. Rather,
every state, regardless of its constitution, is economically and ethically deficient. Every monopolist, including one of ultimate decision-making, is “bad” from the viewpoint of consumers. Monopoly is hereby understood in its classical meaning, as the absence of free entry into a particular line of production: only one agency, A, may produce x. Any such monopolist is “bad” for consumers because, shielded from potential new entrants into his line of production, the price for his product will be higher and the quality lower than otherwise.
Further, no one would agree to a provision that allowed a monopolist of ultimate decison-making, i.e., the final arbiter and judge in every case of interpersonal conflict, to determine unilaterally (without the consent of everyone concerned) the price that one must pay for his service. The power to tax, that is, is ethically unacceptable. Indeed, a monopolist of ultimate decision-making equipped with the power to tax does not just produce less and lower quality justice, but he will produce more and more “bads,” i.e., injustice and aggression.
Thus, the choice between monarchy and democracy concerns a choice between two defective social orders. In fact, modern history provides ample illustration of the economic and ethical shortcomings of all states, whether monarchic or democratic.”