George Reisman does not (fully) understand the libertarian view on free speech.

In this otherwise excellent article of his George Reisman states: “Nevertheless, by the logic of the prevailing view of freedom of speech, protesters in the future will be able to storm into lecture halls and/or seize radio and television stations in order to deliver their message and then claim that their freedom of speech is violated when the police come to eject them, even though the police in such cases would in fact be acting precisely in order to uphold the freedom of speech. Indeed, since the days of the so-called Free Speech Movement at Berkeley, back in the 1960s, disruptions of speeches delivered by invited guests have occurred repeatedly on college campuses, in the name of the alleged freedom of speech of the disrupters. No attention has been paid to the actual violation of the freedom of speech of the invited speakers.”

In his analysis of the occupiers occupancy of Zuccotti Park, Reisman was astute enough to place free speech rights exactly where they belong; as part and parcel of private property rights:

A major lesson to be learned from the occupation is that hardly anyone nowadays understands the meaning of freedom of speech. Contrary to the prevailing view, freedom of speech is not the ability to say anything, anywhere, at any time. Actual freedom of speech is consistent with respect for property rights. It presupposes that the speaker has the consent of the owners of any property he uses in speaking, such as the land, sound system, or lecture hall or radio or television studio that he uses. Had the owners of Zuccotti Park invited the protesters to camp on their land and propound their ideas, and then the police had ejected them, the protesters’ freedom of speech would in fact have been violated.

However, when Reisman arrives at his discussion of Berkeley, he forgets all about this keen insight of his. Rather, he writes as if this campus of the University of California, like Zuccotti park, was private property. But even a fraction of a moment’s reflection will reveal this to be a total falsehood. Rather, this institution is state — not private property, and any analysis of private property that does not take into account this primordial libertarian fact must go off the rails.

This is precisely the error committed by Reisman’s mentor, Ayn Rand, as exposed in this article of mine. For further support of the view that the University of California at Berkeley is not private property, and that this is crucial for any accurate libertarian analysis, see here.

Let us be clear on what I am not saying. I do not aver that the “invited speakers” at Berkeley, the ones invited by the administrators, that is, the thieves in charge of that institution, were in the wrong. They, too, have free speech rights (although these must be truncated, given that they are invitees of the ruling class exploiters). What I am saying is that Reisman, in treating this university as if it was private property, errs in his otherwise excellent analysis of free speech. This author full well understands the issue of free speech. But, in using the University of California, Berkeley as an illustration, he made a particularly bad choice.

This blog post originally appeared on lewrockwell.com.

Just the other day, on 1/1/04, I wrote a piece called “Is there a right to unionize?” Soon after, I received dozens and dozens of responses. Many of them were either simply congratulatory, or raised interesting points I did not address in that article, or, at least, not fully enough. Some were of course critical, but they were all thoughtful and polite. Quite a difference from my experience with other venues! Rather than responding to all these letters, substantively and in detail, I thought I would reply to some of the points made by several of my correspondents.

1. Unionism is legitimate.

Many insisted that theoretically, unions are compatible with the free society. I agree, I agree. Nothing I said before should be taken to be inconsistent with this view. All such a union would have to do is to eschew both white and blue-collar crime. I only argue that it has never happened in fact (see on this, Hutt, W. H. 1973. The Strike Threat System: The Economic Consequences of Collective Bargaining, New Rochelle, N.Y.: Arlington House; Hutt, W. H. 1989. “Trade Unions: The Private Use of Coercive Power,” The Review of Austrian Economics, Vol. III, pp. 109—120; Petro, Sylvester. 1957. The Labor Policy of the Free Society, New York: Ronald Press), not that it would be impossible for it to occur.

However, I am something of a fuss-pot about language (see Block, Walter. “Watch Your Language,” February 21, 2000; Block, Walter. “Taking back the language,” April 1, 2000; Block, Walter. “Word Watch,” April 20, 2000). Surely, a worker’s association that totally eschews the initiation of violence, or even the threat thereof, deserves different nomenclature from organizations it only superficially resembles; e.g., unions. My suggestion is that we not characterize as a union any labor organization that strictly limits itself to the threat of quitting en masse.

What, then, should we call a group of workers who eschew both beating up “scabs” and laws compelling employers to bargain with them? Here are some possibilities: workers’ associations, employees’ groups, organizations of staff members, etc.

Thus. Are workers’ associations as defined above compatible with free enterprise? You bet your boots they are. Do unions, or organized labor qualify in this regard? No, a thousand times no.

2. Public sector unions.

One reader, a very distinguished fellow columnist, takes the position that public sector unions are the worst of them all (not his exact language, which is too pithy to be fully recorded here).

In my view, public sector unions present theoretical libertarianism with a very complex challenge (albeit in a slightly different manner than do private sector unions: in this case, they are not necessarily incompatible with the free society, but, as it happens, there are no actual cases in existence of such employee organizations that areconsistent with economic freedom).

The complexity presented by public sector unions is that, on the one hand, from a libertarian perspective they can be seen as a counterweight to illegitimate governments, while on the other hand they constitute an attack on innocent citizens. Each of these different roles calls for a somewhat different libertarian response.

Let us take the first case first. For the limited government libertarian, or minarchist, the state is illegitimate if, and to the extent it exceeds its proper bounds. These, typically, include armies (for defense against foreign powers, not offense against them), police to keep local criminals in check (that is, rapists and murderers, etc., not victimless “criminals” such as drug dealers, prostitutes, etc.), and courts to determine guilt or innocence. Some more moderate advocates of laissez faire add to this list roads, communicable disease inoculations, fire protection and mosquito control. For the anarcho-libertarian, of course, there is no such thing as a licit government.

What, then, are libertarians to say about a public sector teachers’ union, on strike against a state school? (A similar analysis holds for public sector unions in garbage collection, post office, buses, or in any other industry where government involvement is improper in the first place). It is my contention that the correct analysis of this situation is, “A plague on both your houses.” For not one, but both of these organizations is illegitimate. There is no libertarian who can favor government schools, whether anarchist or minarchist (Milton Friedman, who champions public schools, as long as they operate under a voucher system, thus falls outside the realm of libertarianism on this question). So, on one side of this dispute, there is illegitimacy. But the same applies to the other, the union side, as we have previously demonstrated). Thus, there are here two contending forces, both of them in the wrong. From a strategic point of view, we may well even support the union vis — vis the government, since they are the weaker of the two opponents. But from a principled perspective, my main interest here, we must look upon the two of them as would all men of good will witness a battle between the Blood and the Crips, or between Nazi Germany and Communist U.S.S.R. Root for both of them!

Now, let us consider the second case. Here, we note that the public sector union does much more than attack illegitimate government. It also vastly inconveniences practically the entire populace. When schools are closed, garbage is not collected, the buses do not run — because public sector unions utilize violence and the threat thereof to these ends — then the libertarian response is clear: opposition, root and branch.

Let us take one last crack at public sector unions, which brings about a further complication. One of my correspondents mentions that “The last 2003 show of ABC’s 20/20 news show had a story on how public employee unions are fighting against people who volunteer for the public good,” referring to “one of the great ‘Give Me a Break’ segments by host John Stossel” (see on this No Good Deed Goes Unpunished: Are Volunteers Taking Workers’ Jobs? ABCNEWS.com).

The general issue is that citizens have been volunteering to do things like help public sector unionists collect trash in parks, aid them in planting flowers, help them stack books in public libraries, etc., and the unions have reacted viciously, as is their wont.

Before we can shed libertarian light on this contentious issue, let us first ask, What is the libertarian analysis of ordinary people volunteering to help the government do jobs it should not be doing in the first place? To put it in this way is almost to answer the question.

There is no difference in principle between volunteering to help the state perform illegitimate acts (of course, these are not illicit, per se, as are concentration camps; rather, it is improper, in libertarian theory, for governments to take on such responsibilities) such as regarding libraries, schools, parks, etc., and sending them monetary donations for such purposes. In either case, one is aiding and abetting evil, and risking being found guilty of crimes against humanity by a future libertarian Nuremberg trial court.

Repeat after me: free enterprise, good, (excessive) government, bad. Once again from the top: free enterprise, good, (excessive) government, bad! The appellation, “libertarian,” is an honorific. It is too precious to be bestowed on all those who claim it. It is my contention that people who support (excessive) government are simply not entitled to its use. (At least in the specific context in which they violate the non-aggression axiom. John Stossel is indeed a libertarian on many other issues, but certainly not on this one).

Here is a lesson for libertarians. If you want to be worthy of this designation, and desire to contribute money to a good cause, do not give to a government that goes beyond its legitimate authority. There are many worthy causes that oppose statist depredations, not support them. If you want to be worthy of this honorific, and wish to donate time to a good cause, e.g., by collecting garbage, planting flowers, or filing books, etc., then do so for the relevant private groups, whether charitable or profit seeking, it matters not one whit.

3. Can a libertarian join a union?

Several members of LewRockwell.com asked if it is proper, if it is even logically possible, for a libertarian join a coercive union? Much as I hate to be controversial (okay, okay, I don’t mind it a bit) my answer is Yes. There are many issues upon which I disagree with William F. Buckley, but his decision to join ACTRA is not one of them. (This was the requirement imposed upon him for being allowed to air his television show, Firing Line.)

Why would I take such a seemingly perverted stance? Let me answer by indirection. Given that it is illegitimate for the government to run schools and universities, is it illegitimate for a libertarian to join them whether as a student or a professor? Given that it is illegitimate for the government to organize a post office, is it illegitimate for a libertarian to mail a letter? Given that it is illegitimate for the government to build and manage roads, streets and sidewalks, is it illegitimate for a libertarian to utilize these amenities?

True confession time. I have been a student a public schools; grade school, high school and college. I have even been a professor at several public colleges and universities. I regularly purchase stamps from the evil government post office, and mail letters. I walk on public sidewalks, and avail myself of streets and highways. Mea culpa? Not a bit of it.

If Ayn Rand‘s heroic character Ragnar Danneskjold has taught us anything, it is that the government is not the legitimate owner of what it claims. Why, then, should we respect its “private property rights” when there is no practical reason to do so? If this means that libertarians can partake of services for which they favor privatization, then so be it.

Similarly, with coercive unions. If a hold-up man demands your money at the point of a gun, giving it up is not incompatible with libertarianism, even though it amounts to acquiescing in theft. If organized labor threatens you with bodily harm unless you join with it and pay dues to it, I cannot think that agreeing to do so per se removes the victim from the ranks of libertarianism. Buckley, to give him credit, never ceased inveighing against the injustice done to him in this way. If he had reversed field, and starting defending unions, then what little claim he has to be a libertarian would have vanished. In this regard, there is all the world of difference between a Marxist professor at a public university who promotes interventionism, and a libertarian who opposes it.

4. Not aware of violence

Several of my correspondents objected on the ground that they were not aware of any violence in their own unions. But, many employees of the IRS are probably not aware that what they are doing amounts to the threat of the initiation of violence. I don’t see why all union members should necessarily be aware of this for my thesis (this is hardly original with me) to be correct. My understanding is that after the British left India, the government of the latter began polling people in far removed rural villages as to their thoughts on this matter; they had to stop when they learned that they were not aware that the British had even arrived there in the first place. Heck, there are probably some people out there who still think the earth is flat, or that socialism is an ethical and efficacious system! That does not make it so.

5. Self-defense

Some readers of my previous column on unions objected on the ground that union violence did indeed exist, but was justified on the ground that this was only in self-defense, against employers, scabs, or foreigners. Let us consider each of these in turn.

Yes, employers are violent too. The Pinkertons spring immediately to mind in this regard. Some of these cases were justified in self-defense, against prior union aggression, some were not. In the former case, there is certainly no warrant for invasive behavior on the part of organized labor. But even the latter cases cannot serve as justification for pervasive union aggression, even against non-invading employers. (It is only a Marxist who would claim that employers are necessarily offensive; for an exposure of this fallacy, see Bohm-Bawerk, Eugen. 1959 [1884]. Capital and Interest, South Holland, IL: Libertarian Press, George D. Hunke and Hans F. Sennholz, trans., see particularly Part I, Chapter XII, “Exploitation Theory of Socialism-Communism.”) At best, this can validate self-defense on the part of the rank and file in those cases of employer aggression only.

And what of “scabs?” The claim, here, is that “scabs” are stealing, or, better yet, attempting to steal, union jobs. But the scab can only “steal” a job if it is owned, like a coat, or a car. However, a job is very different. It is not something anyone can own. Rather, a job is an agreement between two parties, employer and employee. But when an employer is trying to hire a scab and fire the unionist, this shows he no longer agrees. Do not be fooled by the expression “my job.” It does not denote ownership, any more than “my wife,” “my husband,” “my friend,” “my customer,” or “my tailor” indicates possession in any of those contexts. Rather, all of these phrases are indicative of voluntary interaction, and end (apart from marriage laws which may prohibit this) when the agreement ceases.

Then, there is the supposed “threat” imposed by Mexican workers (or Indian or Japanese workers, who ever is the economic Hitler of the day). Remember that “giant sucking sound?” The best remedy for this bit of economic illiteracy is to read up on free trade. Henry Hazlitt’s book, Economics in One Lesson, would be a great place to start.

6. But they signed a contract

Several respondents argued that since the employer signed a labor contract, he should be forced to abide by its provisions. But why should the employer have to honor a contract that was signed under duress? Suppose I held a gun on you, threatened to shoot you unless you signed a “contract” with me, promising to give me $100 per week. Later on, when you were safe, you reneged on this “contract.” Certainly, you’d be within your rights.

7. Maximize income

One reader asked: “How else is a man who sells the only product most of us have, labor and time, going to maximize the return of his investment, other than by joining a union?”

First of all, even if this were true, any criminal could say no less. A hold-up man, too, wants to “maximize the return of his investment” and does so by committing aggression against non-aggressors. How is the unionist any different than the hold-up man in this regard?

Secondly, it is by no means clear that organized labor is the last best chance for economic well being on the part of the workingman. Anyone ever hear of the rust belt? Unions from Illinois to Massachusetts demanded wages and fringe benefits in excess of productivity levels, and employers were powerless to resist. The result was “runaway shops.” Either they ran into bankruptcy, or they relocated to places like Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana, where unionism was seen more for the economic and moral scourge that it is, than in Taxachussetts. If organizing workers into unions is the be all and end all of prosperity, how is it that wages and working conditions are very good in computers, insurance, banking, and a plethora of other non unionized industries?

8. Hierarchy is the real problem.

This claim must have been made by a left-wing libertarian. He acknowledges that unions are illegitimate, but thinks that their real problem is that they are hierarchical, and chides me for not opposing all hierarchical organizations, which would certainly include employers, too.

But this is just plain silly. Libertarians oppose the initiation of coercion or the threat thereof, not hierarchy. Yes, all groups that violate the non-aggression axiom of libertarians are hierarchical. Governments, gangs, rapists, impose their will, by force, on their victims. They give orders. And yes, in all hierarchies, people at the top of the food chain give orders to those below them. But the difference, and this is crucial, is that the recipients of orders in the latter case have agreed to accept them, but this does not at all apply in the former case.

When the rapist orders the victim to carry out his commands, this is illegitimate hierarchy. When the conductor orders the cellist to do so, this is an aspect of legitimatehierarchy. I oppose unions not because they are hierarchical, but because the scabs have never agreed to carry out their orders.

Please Donate!

True confession: I have now taken up with the neoconservatives and other enemies of the Mises Institute.

We’ve got to smash the MI. Here’s my plan to undermine the Mises Institute.

First, we’ve got to get so many students applying to and attending Mises University, and the Austrian Scholars Conference, that the paltry edifice they have created in Auburn, AL, at great expense will be exposed as the vastly underbuilt facility that it really is (at least compared to the need for its services).

How can we do this? By sending the Mises Institute large donations, so that they can better advertise these seminars.

This will force them to add to their real-estate holdings (they are psychopaths, unable to turn away people who want to attend their events).

In this way, we can bankrupt them. How can we further accomplish this important task?

Second, paradoxically, by sending them lots of money, even more than the amounts we have just sent them for publicizing the Mises University and the Austrian Scholars Conference. How will large-scale donations to the MI hurt this institution, pray tell?

It is simple (in addition to becoming a neocon, I confess, I’ve also taken up with Keynesianism). This act, on our part, will constitute a Quantitative Easing (QE). Now, we know, from my new economics guru, Paul Krugman, that the only problem with QE1 and QE2 was that the funds devoted to this purpose were not large enough.

So, the Quantitative Easing for the Mises Institute (QEMI) has to be as gigantic as you can possibly afford.

And make these contributions immediately. One, for tax purposes.

And two, of course, the sooner we undermine the Mises Institute, the better off we shall all be.

We Keynesians are sick and tired of Bob Murphy raining on our parades.

He must be stopped from criticizing his betters, such as mah man, Paul Krugman. And what of that rascal, Tom DiLorenzo?

His constant attacks on neocon hero “Honest Abe” Lincoln simply can no longer be borne.

And this is to say nothing of other Mises Institute burrs under the neocon Keynesian saddle, such as Gary North, Tom Woods, Joe Salerno, Ralph Raico, Lew Rockwell, Doug French, Mark Thornton, David Gordon, Stephan Kinsella, Guido Hülsmann, Ron Paul, and Hans Hoppe. The Mises Institute aids and abets these people!

They are enemies of all that is good and true.

Who else would publish the likes of Murphy, DiLorenzo, North, Woods, Salerno, Raico, Rockwell, French, Thornton, Gordon, Kinsella, Hulsman, Paul, and Hoppe? No one, that’s who. And this is only the tip of the veritable iceberg. Look here and here for more miscreants, weirdos, and enemies of the public good, etc. Not a one of them believes in American exceptionalism, American Greatness. No, the Mises Institute and all of its evil ways, and its support for scholars who reject — sneer at — war-mongering, Lincoln-worshiping Keynesianism, must be stopped.

And the only way to do this is by sending them gobs and gobs of money. Do it soon. Do it NOW!

Freshening this post.

Here is a nice survey that will be very helpful in research that I’m doing:

Sept 12 Bellevue, WA, Mises Institute, Mises Circle, “Ticka, ticka, ticka, you need good timin’”

Sept 22 Baton Rouge, LA. Louisiana State University, Paul M. Hebert Law Center, near the intersection of Highland & Dalrymple, room 110, from 12:40 to 1:40pm; topic: free market environmentalism, contact: Andre Collins Gaudin Jr, 504 669-2125, andre.gaudin.jr@gmail.com,

Oct 1 Newark, N.J., Rutgers Newark Law School, 123 Washington Street, room 125, Baker Trial Courtroom; 8-10pm, topic: socialized medicine; contact: Steve Link, sjlink@pegasus.rutgers.edu, 201-788-5108

Oct 2 Newark, N.J., Seton Hall University, 1109 Raymond Blvd, 1 Newark Center; probably 5th Floor Faculty Library, noon – 2pm; topic: socialized medicine; contact: Alessandro DiStefano – alessandrorinaldodistefano@gmail.com, 617-894-5436.

Oct 5 New York, N.Y., Cardozo Law School, noon-1:30pm; 55 Fifth Avenue (corner of 5th Ave & 12th St), room 206; topic: socialized medicine; contact: John Safarli, jsafarli@gmail.com; 206-909-9963

Oct 6 Baton Rouge, LA., Southern University, Room 129 in AA Lenoir Hall at noon – 2pm. Contact: Cindy Manuel, Barry Manuel, barrymanuel@bellsouth.net, Ross LeBlanc, leblarm@yahoo.com, 504-236-2451; topic: medical socialism

Oct 21-24. Salamanca, Spain. Mises Supporters Conference.

Oct 31. Grove City College, Grove City, PA. Mises Lecture Austrian Student Scholars’ Conference “My 41 years as an Austrian economist”

Nov 4. Williamsburg VA 23188; William & Mary Law School, 613 South Henry Street, 1-3pm; room, tba; contact: Amanda DeVuono, abdevuono@wm.edu, 571 970-7725, topic: “Is the market racist? Sexist? No.”

Nov 4. Richmond, VA 23173; University of Richmond School of Law, Moot Court Room, 28 Westhampton Way, Contact: Margaret Harker, margaret.harker@richmond.edu, 240 481-1872, 4pm; Topic: welfare state? Topic: Medical socialism? Commentator: Dr. Karen Swisher Professor of Health Law with the Department of Health Administration at VCU/MCV where she teaches in the MHA (Masters in Health Administration) Program.

Nov 5 Charlottesville, VA 22903; UVA School of Law, 580 Massie Rd, room #: tba;. Contact: Alex Cox, cox.alexander@gmail.com, 517 614 0473; noon; Topic: drug legalization

Nov 5. Lexington, Virginia 24450; Washington and Lee University Law School, 5:15pm, Sydney Lewis Hall. AKA “The Law School,” room A or B; Topic: The Market is NOT Sexist nor Racist: the Black-White, the Male-Female Wage Gap and the Glass Ceiling.

Because my new book on roads is mentioned in the Wall Street Journal. Ok, it’s a letter to the editor but still!

I advocate the complete, total, and full privatization of all roads, streets, highways, byways, avenues, and other vehicular thoroughfares. And I am serious about this, deadly serious.This is so far off the radar of public-policy analysis and apart from the concerns of politicians, pundits, and commentators that few people will take it seriously. Do not be one of them. Your very life may be at stake. FULL ARTICLE

It is not at all true that speed, alcohol, drugs, etc., are ultimately responsible for vehicular death. Rather, they are only the proximate causes. The underlying explanation is that the managers of the roads, those in charge of them, have failed to deal with these problems. With a system of private highways and streets, the various owners would compete with one another to provide service for their customers (including, preeminently, safety). Those who failed would be forced either to change the error of their ways or go belly up. FULL ARTICLE

I first met Larry Moss in 1966. He was a first year economics graduate student at Columbia University; I was one year ahead of him there, in my second year.

It soon became clear that we were on the same wavelength as far as political economy was concerned; he and I were part of a small band of free enterprisers at Columbia, surrounded by a bunch of critics of the marketplace, both amongst the students and faculty. He and I had a lot more in common; we were both from New York City. He had recently graduated from Queens College, and I from Brooklyn College, sister schools in the City University of New York (CUNY) system. We were both Jewish, and, in order to embrace the free market philosophy, both became outliers in our families. We both lived in the upper west side near Columbia, just a block or two from each other.

However, despite these commonalities, I never really grew close to Larry at this point. Why not? Because he kept saying that he wanted to introduce me to this fellow, Murray Rothbard. I would have been willing to do so, but Larry said that Murray was an anarchist, among his other descriptions. Well, that did it for me. I was in my Randian stage at that time, and I knew, I just knew, that all anarchists were nuts and fruitcakes. My respect for Larry plummeted. He and I didn’t have too much to do with each other at that point.

However, one day I met Larry and his then roommate, Jerry Woloz, another friend of Murray Rothbard’s. The two of them ganged up on me; they made anarchism sound almost palatable; not quite of course, but enough so that I finally became willing to meet Murray (who converted me to this position in about five minutes).

Then, began my and Larry’s overlap during the ‘living room’ period of both our lives. The two of us, and Jerry Woloz, along with the remnants of Murray’s circle Bastiat, would hang around in Murray’s living room until all hours of the night, discussing economics, libertarianism, playing Risk (don’t ask, you had to be there to appreciate this), and laughing so hard we thought our stomachs would burst. Murray was fiendishly funny. This lasted, at least for me, until 1978, when Larry’s and my path diverged from each other’s.

Larry and I kept in touch with each other after that, but it became more sporadic, with me on the west coast of Canada, and he in the New York City and later in the Boston area, where he taught for many years at Babson College. We would see each other from time to time at economics conferences, and renew old times, old friends. When he became editor of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, we began a new chapter in our lives, as I published some half dozen articles with him over the years. But, I’ll never forget my graduate school friend. I’ll be eternally grateful that he had the chutzpa to keep pushing Murray Rothbard on me, despite my initial protests. My life would likely have been very different, and much poorer, were it not for Larry’s assertiveness in this regard.

I’ll never forget one class I took with Larry; it was Donald Dewey’s course in Industrial Organization. For some reason it had a very small class size; there was me, Larry, two Randians, and miracle of miracles, 3–4 other supporters of laissez faire capitalism. In his first class, Dewey was attempting to set the stage for opinion within the economics profession concerning anti-trust law. To do so, he took a survey of the class members. First, he asked for a show of hands of those who wanted to strengthen and extend this law; no takers. With a bit of surprise on his face, he then called for those who favored the status quo in this regard; again, no one raised his hand. Very perturbed now, Dewey asked those of us who favored a reduction in the power of this law to identify ourselves. He was truly amazed, again, that not a single hand shot up. Exasperated, he finally offered us the fourth alternative: complete repeal of this law. Every hand was raised, amidst general mirth, at least on our parts. Larry and I grinned at each other.

Larry Moss, rest in peace. We didn’t agree on every jot and tittle of Austro-libertarianism, but you did the Lord’s work, promoting liberty and Austrian economics.

I regard Grove City College and Loyola University New Orleans as the best two places in the U.S., heck, on the entire planet, for young people interested in an Austro libertarian undergraduate education, where cultural Marxism will not be shoved down their throats. Or, rather, where this will be minimized, compared to other colleges. Both are very good private religious schools. I think any young person interested in this perspective would have a great undergraduate education at either of them.

However, as a member of the faculty of the latter, let me outline the advantages, as I see them, for my own school.

1. We have more Austrian economists on our faculty then they do on theirs. At Grove, the only Austrian economists are Jeff Herbener and Shawn Ritenour. At Loyola, in addition to me, there are Bill Barnett, Stuart Wood and Dan D’Amico. Plus, my economics department colleague John Levendis is sympathetic and open to these views, although not convinced of them.

2. We have more publications than them in both Austrian and non Austrian journals, certainly in total, but, also, I’m pretty sure, per capita. (This is a traditional way of comparing faculties.)

3. We absolutely exceed them in terms of number of professors and number of students who regularly attend Mises Institute events. Typically, some 3-5 professors, and over a dozen students, can be found at the ASC, the Summit and the MU. Why is this important? In indicates that there are not only more Austro libertarian professors at Loyola than Grove City, but more students of this persuasion. And why, in turn, is that important? One of the chief determinants of happiness at a university for a newcomer is the number of friends made. And friends, usually, share a political economic philosophy. If there are more such students at Loyola, then the chances are that a new freshman of this orientation will be able to link up with them.

4. Since I have arrived at Loyola, two of my former students now have faculty jobs in economics departments (Dan D’Amico is one of them), and 3-4 others are now in graduate schools earning their Ph.D.s in economics. At present, there are another dozen undergraduate students who are planning such careers. I have no information on Grove City in this regard, but, it is unlikely it can match us in this regard, given above considerations.

5. We have regularly scheduled Austrian seminars (monthly), libertarian seminars (monthly), and economics club meetings (twice monthly) where Austrian and libertarian related topics are covered. Both students and faculty attend. Our Austrian seminar is regularly attended by faculty at other universities. Thus, in addition to classes taken with sympathetic professors, there are opportunities to interact with them and like minded students on a weekly basis.

6. Although libertarianism and Austrianism are in different universes of discourse, students interested in the latter are often interested in the former. In this regard, we have several other professors at Loyola, apart from those already mentioned, who are very appreciative of the free enterprise, private property, limited government philosophy: Nick Capaldi in business ethics, Lee Mundell in statistics, Patrick Lynch and Lee Yao in accounting, Jim Viator and David Gruning in law, Jerry Goolsby in marketing, Ron Christner in finance, Bill Walkenhorst in chemistry (no, that is not a typographical error: he regularly attends our seminars). Our college president, Fr. Kevin Wildes, S.J., has published libertarian oriented papers in scholarly journals; he is very open to diversity of ideas, something rare for a college president. Roger White, associate provost, is also sympathetic to free enterprise. Let anyone else top that.

Here is a suggestion: google all these people, plus those mentioned and others at Grove City. This will give you a better comparison.

I must acknowledge that the Austro libertarian professors at Loyola University New Orleans are in the distinct minority. There are only about a dozen of us, in a faculty of several hundred. As at most other universities, faculty members of the humanities and other social science departments are not at all sympathetic to classical liberalism, laissez faire capitalism.

What of considerations in picking a school apart from the academic and scholarly? Yes, New Orleans has had hurricanes, and will, likely, again. But, typically, we get a 7 day warning before their onset. In contrast, earthquakes, fires, tornadoes, etc., which occur elsewhere, strike almost instantaneously.

Writing this introduction is a labor of love for me. You know how women sometimes say to each other “This dress is you!”? Well, this book is me! This was the first book on economics that just jumped out and grabbed me. I had read a few before, but they were boring. Very boring. Did I mention boring? In sharp contrast, Economics in One Lesson grabbed me by the neck and never ever let me go. FULL ARTICLE

See Gingrich in the WSJ. In a strange turn around, Barack Obama is supporting Milton Friedman’s socialist negative income tax, and two supposed supporters of Milton Friedman are attacking Obama for that. Things don’t get too more convoluted than that!

In “The Man Behind the Wall Street Journal,” Richard Tofel says that Richard Kilgore “drew his own perspective from the Journal’s editorial page, which soon became, and has remained, the leading voice of mainstream libertarian thinking in the nation.”

I should probably leave it at that, but succinctness has never been one of my personal characteristics. So let me say that on economics, the Wall Street Journal editorial page is not all bad. Indeed, quite a bit of it is informative, and much of what it is publishes is compatible with libertarianism. But, when it comes to foreign policy, the “War” Street Journal is about as far removed from the libertarian axiom of non aggression, non invasion, as it is possible to be.

I hope you enjoy this debate over 100% reserves.

In the last sentence of Charles Murray’s article here, he writes: “Our public schools should be places where good teachers want to teach and are permitted to teach.”

Suppose pizza parlors had been nationalized, and there were (no surprise) all sorts of problems with pizza. Would he have written this?: “Our pizza parlors should be places where good chefs want to bake and are permitted to bake.”

Somehow, I doubt it. Knowing his other writings, he might say something to the effect that pizza parlors should be privatized, and analyze the pizza problems as emanating from pizza socialism: poor incentives, no bankruptcy for lousy restaurants, etc. He would give the back of his hand to the objection that if pizza was privatized, the poor wouldn’t be able to get any pizza.

Ditto to Milton Friedman’s external economies argument: that people wouldn’t buy enough pizza, because they are not able to capture all the benefits of pizza; some it spills over to other people since they will be nicer if they have just eaten pizza and are now more content.

What’s the difference between pizza and schooling, such that people like Murray are socialists in the latter case but not the former?

An important piece on Alternet:

So far this year, roughly 3,500 murders have been directly attributed to the drug war in Mexico, surpassing last year’s estimate of 2,500. (These numbers include the murders of at least 500 soldiers, cops, judges, politicians — and their family members — in nearly two years. The drug war rages across Mexico’s urban and (mostly) rural terrain, and murders are usually targeted toward pronounced rivals, but increasing numbers of victims are innocent bystanders, including women and children who were previously considered off-limits where acts of drug war-related retaliation were concerned.

It is important that the government bail out Fannie and Freddie.The free enterprise system, with its private property rights, profit and loss system of incentives, and market prices that allow individuals to rationally plan, works just fine for all other goods and services: food, clothing, health care, etc.The one exception is housing. Here, greed and rampant capitalism reign supreme, causing vast harm to the populace. The only hope for the average person is government.They are there to help us.

No, wait, that’s all wrong. That is nonsense on stilts. Yet, this sort of mischievous thinking is argued on behalf of government involvement in the housing market. But, there is no difference between housing and any other good or service. The free enterprise system is the last best hope that society has for keeping the wolf from the door. ALL government interference with the housing market has been an utter and total disaster. And this includes, in addition to Fannie and Freddie, rent control, housing subsidies, zoning legislation, urban renewal, housing codes.

Have we learned nothing from the fall of the USSR? Socialism doesn’t work. It doesn’t work in ANY country, and it doesn’t work in ANY sector of any nation’s economy. Housing is no exception.

This issue of the International Journal of Social Economics is online for free. I’m the editor of this issue and it includes many excellent papers by authors familiar to readers of Mises.org.

I’ve updated my advice here.