Posts tagged Tom Woods
The Difference Between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc:
Dennis Fusaro Explains on The Robert Wenzel Show
Worked for the Ron Paul 2008 Presidential campaign. Dennis describes the difference between Ron Paul & Ron Paul Inc.
Miss a show? Here’s the archive.
We Win the NY Times Prize
The New York Times, whistling past the financial graveyard, paused over the weekend to smear the Mises Institute, Ron Paul, our other scholars, hardcore libertarianism, and me. Why? Because our ideas and our youth movement are gaining real traction. It is in effect a compliment. They have never faced opposition like ours before, and Ron Paul’s tremendous resonance with young people has only made things worse from the Times’s point of view.
The Times wants opponents who play the game, who accept the presuppositions of the regime, and who are willing to confine themselves to the narrow range of debate to which the Times would prefer to confine the American people.
The purpose of articles like the one over the weekend, it should be unnecessary to point out, is not to shed light. It is to demonize and destroy a school of thought that the regime considers threatening.
The article, for instance, notes that Ron spoke on the topic “Do We Live in a Police State?” earlier this month at a Mises Institute event, and that another speaker (me) spoke on “American Fascism.” The lecture titles are evidently supposed to be self-refuting, although you can listen to Ron’s remarks and read mine and decide for yourself. It’s little wonder that the Times would want to ridicule the idea that American society could resemble a police state, given that paper’s cover-ups of the regime’s surveillance of American citizens.
The rest of the article is an attempt to distort the philosophy of libertarianism and to demonize Ron and other prominent exponents of that philosophy.
The whole exercise reminds me of the time, not long ago, in which a state-endorsed hate group took a swipe at Murray Rothbard (1926-1995), known in his day as Mr. Libertarian. The writer summarized Murray’s career in a single sentence about — of all things — lesbians during the Progressive Era.
Now consider: Rothbard’s 1,000-page treatise Man, Economy, and State was an extraordinary contribution to the field of economics; his two-volume history of economic thought has been praised by scholars across the board; his study of the Panic of 1819, published by Columbia University Press, received rave reviews in the scholarly journals and is still considered definitive; his Ethics of Liberty is a philosophical defense of self-ownership and the nonaggression principle, and so on.
“And so on” hardly does Rothbard justice: we haven’t mentioned his textbook on money and banking, his classic What Has Government Done to Our Money?, his four-volume history of colonial America, the scholarly journals he edited, the voluminous correspondence he kept up with the major thinkers of his day, and — well, and so on.
And a critic tried to reduce this man — this man! — to one unfavorable sentence.
It used to be easy to do this: how, apart from driving to the library, was someone to discover Rothbard for himself? But today, discovering Rothbard is just a click away. And once you discover him — his scholarship, his knowledge, the encouragement he gave to students, and his refusal to compromise his principles even when doing so would have meant career advancement — you understand why the state wants to minimize or demonize him. No wonder the most popular piece of libertarian apparel is our Rothbard “Enemy of the State” T-shirt.
Economics professors have even been known to urge their students not to read Rothbard. But what do you think the brighter students do when they’re told not to read someone? And once you read Rothbard, you never look at the world the same way again.
The Times article, which continues in the tradition of portraying Murray preposterously, tries the same tactic with libertarian historian Tom Woods. According to the Times, Tom’s book Who Killed the Constitution?, co-authored with Kevin Gutzman, “denounced the Supreme Court decision desegregating schools, Brown v. Board of Education, as ‘a dizzying display of judicial imperialism.’”
With even Publishers Weekly endorsing Who Killed the Constitution, there’s obviously something fishy here — would the staid and scrupulously establishment PW endorse a segregationist book?
In fact, Woods and Gutzman argue that the same result could have been achieved with the enforcement of the Fifteenth Amendment — and that that is precisely how, in practice, the schools wound up being desegregated anyway. As historian Michael Klarman shows in his book From Jim Crow to Civil Rights, the Court may have uttered a lot of pretty words, but desegregation occurred only after the Fifteenth Amendment was enforced. And had this constitutional approach been followed in the first place, the authors contend, American society would have been spared the precedent established in Brown whereby the justices decide on their preferred outcome in advance, and then tendentiously search for legal justifications for that outcome, no matter how implausible.
A handful of libertarians whose views are more congenial to the Times take opportunities like these to wag their fingers at the Mises Institute. Why, if we’d only play nice, and scrupulously observe every PC platitude as they do, reasonable people like The New York Times reporters would leave us alone. We just need to show The New York Times that a libertarian approach will do a better job of reaching our shared goals, etc.
Anyone deluded enough to believe such a thing understands nothing about the nature of the state and its media apologists.
Whose interests do you suppose the Times is more dedicated to advancing: those of the libertarian movement, or those of the state? The question answers itself. And so we might turn the accusation around: if you’re such a threat to the state, why does its media ignore or actually flatter you, perhaps even holding you up as a model for other libertarians to live by? If the Times wants you to represent the libertarian movement, do you think this is because it suddenly has the interests of libertarianism at heart?
Behind the state media’s attacks are always the issues of war and peace. Conservatives have deluded themselves into thinking that the so-called “liberal media” opposes the regime’s wars and wants to “abandon our troops.” To the contrary, you won’t find bigger and more consistent cheerleaders for the US government’s aggression than the official media. When they encounter a root-and-branch opponent of the warfare state, whether it’s Ron Paul or the Mises Institute, they pounce.
And when we oppose war, we don’t oppose it on the grounds that a particular conflict isn’t in “America’s interests.” That is regimespeak. We oppose the wars because they are based on lies, morally outrageous, and carried out through expropriation of the American public. You think the Times might not want a message like that gaining resonance?
The Mises Institute, moreover, does not issue policy reports to persuade the state that its interests will be more effectively met through libertarian solutions. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been flushed down the toilet in this way, and if you want to know how much it’s accomplished, take a look around you.
The Mises Institute’s scholarship, on the other hand, is aimed at understanding and overthrowing the entire paradigm of domination and exploitation that the state represents. No, we don’t play nice. We tell the unvarnished truth. It is this, and not anything else, that explains why the state’s media considers us an implacable foe.
Anyone is free to examine what we do: our annual scholarly conference, our student and topical conferences, the free books we’ve made available to the world, the vast library of audio and video files on both technical economics and popular topics, our Dailies, our regular Mises View commentary, and much more.
If you’re looking for efficiency experts for the state, who seek to devise better and more effective ways for state goals to be accomplished and the people to be expropriated, the Mises Institute will disappoint. If it’s “tax reform” you’re interested in — which is always a shell game in which the outward form of taxation may change a bit, but the amount of taxes collected stays the same or even rises – we’re not your cup of tea.
On the other hand, we have much to recommend us. We don’t back down and apologize when we’re smeared by the state’s media. We relish it as an indication that we’re doing our job. We tell the truth about the state: its wars, its expropriations, its militarized police, its propaganda. We don’t peddle the elementary-school propaganda that the state is a public-service institution seeking the public good. We believe that the great products of civilization — indeed civilization itself — are the result of spontaneous human cooperation. The parasitic class that holds the levers of power in the state apparatus may try to condition the public to believe that central planning and threats of violence — the hallmarks of the state — deserve credit for human progress, but our scholarship proves the opposite.
Ron Paul has been our Distinguished Counselor since we opened our doors in 1982, and he recently joined our board. The Times and the state hate us for the same reasons they hate Ron: we’re truth-tellers, we oppose Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve lock, stock, and barrel; and we support the cause of peace against the state’s wars. This is all too much for the state’s house organ, which has rarely heard war propaganda too preposterous to print, or a Keynesian apologetic too much of a stretch to repeat.
We are attacked because we are doing our job. The Times’s smear is a medal on our chest.
About the Author
Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr. is chairman and CEO of the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, editor of LewRockwell.com, and author of Fascism versus Capitalism. Send him mail. See Llewellyn H. Rockwell Jr.’s article archives.
Image credit: https://mises.org
The Economics of the Police State | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
Published by misesmedia
Published on Jan 22, 2014
Recorded at the Mises Circle Southwest Regional in Houston, 18 January 2014. Includes an introduction by Jeff Deist.
In the modern United States, federal laws are now so numerous and written so broadly and vaguely, that it is nearly impossible to make it through the day without breaking at least one of them. And through it all, an enormous government apparatus of prisons, prosecutors, police, and bureaucrats remains well-funded, powerful, and nearly impossible to oppose in court.
Glenn Jacobs (WWE Wrestler Kane) Talks Libertarianism, and His Heroes
Published by TomWoodsTV
Tom Woods interviews Tennessean and WWE wrestler (Kane) Glenn Jacobs regarding the philosophy of Libertarianism, personal freedom and economic liberty.
Ron Paul Discusses the Ron Paul Institute on the Tom Woods Show
Ron Paul, chairman and founder of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, discussed RPI and its work to “promote the idea of nonintervention in foreign policy” Tuesday on the Tom Woods Show.
Listen to the 26 minutes wide-ranging interview here:
Published by TomWoodsTV
Tom Woods, whose New York Times bestseller Meltdown features a foreword by Dr. Paul, asks the former congressman questions submitted by listeners.
Video capture added to original post.
Ron Paul Segment on RT’s Prime Interest
Video posted by Robert Wenzel
Peter Schiff, Tom Woods and Ron Paul Institute Director Daniel McAdams appears in a RT Television segment about Dr. Paul’s Peace and Prosperity and Ron Paul Channel projects.
A good interview by Tom Woods with Ron Paul discussing the thoughts behind and expectations of the new Ron Paul action, The Ron Paul Channel. The interview is about 8 minutes in length and I encourage all to listen in.
Ron Paul Explains His Forthcoming Ron Paul Channel
Pubshished by TomWoodsTV
Bestselling author Tom Woods, filling in for Peter on the Peter Schiff Show, talks to Ron Paul about his new venture, the Ron Paul Channel.
Tennessee Needs a Political “Cage Match”
Those of us in Tennessee have seen nothing short of political waltzes performed for our entertainment. Occasionally a small spat may arise but then the waltz continues. This show is scheduled prior to elections in Tennessee, and as normal, one must lead and one must follow. Once the show is done we find that the “leader” only has the leadership ability to lead their hand into our pocket.
Time for a revival, of political sense, is on the Tennessee horizon perhaps. The cage match is about to begin, and lucky for us it is a tag team event. The announcer yells into the microphone… “In this corner, wearing the blueish red, or maybe reddish blue trunks, are the current title holders”. Sadly these titles include expanded spending, complete disregard for those they were elected to represent and the safeguarding of the welfare, and occasional warfare state, by the contributing corporations that fuel their re-election campaigns.
The announcer continues… “representing the great state of” (audience thinking - please don’t say it!) “Tennessee, Alexander, Ramsey and Corker!”. The crowd goes wild, with boos and a chant of “RINO” that is shaking the rafters.
The announcer continues… “and their opponent in the opposite corner wearing red, white and blue trunks, Glenn Jacobs”. Now the crowd stands and cheers thinking maybe this one time justice for We The People of Tennessee will be served.
Final words for the announcer… “Let’s get ready to rumble!”, and we are!
Glenn Jacobs, also known in the wrestling circles as Kane, is considering a run in political arena. Although the match with three to one odds are unfair, for the three, due to political regulations Glenn Jacobs can face but one opponent at a time. In this opening match, titled “RINO Hunt”, should Glenn climb into the ring located a Neo-Con Plaza, Vegas books have Jacobs as a 3:2 favorite despite a slew of early wagers by lobbyists from all corporate and military avenues supporting his potential opponent, Lamar Alexander. Alexander has his share of supporters, but this is unable to be immediately confirmed until all the lobbyist phone numbers have been collected, called and results tallied.
Glenn Jacobs, better known as Kane, is a smart and likable guy. He’s considering a run for U.S. Senate against incumbent Lamar Alexander in 2014. Alexander is everything one might loathe in a mainstream GOPer — he’s for interventions abroad and at home, which in Joe Sobran’s playful definition makes him a “moderate.”
Note in the article, at the Daily Caller, that Jacobs’ influences are Austrian economists. Ron Paul is routinely made fun of at the Daily Caller — duh, Ludwig von who? — for his supposedly eccentric interests (eccentric meaning they’re not held by Mitt Romney or Ted Cruz), but the Caller seems favorable toward Kane. That’s great; I never gripe when one of our people is treated respectfully. I suppose it couldn’t hurt that Kane could pound a neocon into the ground while doing 20 other things (but since he believes in the nonaggression principle, he wouldn’t).
Then we have this brief video piece from Gary Franchi’s Next News Network.
Finally, here is an interview that I posted here for fellow Tennesseans and people elsewhere that Gary and N3 held with Glenn Jacobs recently, to get a better understanding of Glenn Jacobs and his thoughts on the issues.
Folks, should this match come to fruition, and if you have had enough of the lobbyist controlled, Obama supporting, status quo champions of the welfare and warfare state, loving to redistribute your hard earned money to their own special interests, corporate partners and Wall Street, and should you think the great state of Tennessee is long over due for intelligent and responsible leadership, take a look and a listen. You know what, there might be some hope after all this time! It may be time to take the blinders off of those who are unknowingly stuck in the political party “box” mentality, thinking that supporting these lap dog politicians is the only choice they have.
By Tom Woods
April 6, 2013
Announcing the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum
Over the past several weeks I have mentioned that I’ve been at work on a K-12 homeschool curriculum. That wasn’t the whole story. Today I can tell you the whole story: it is the Ron Paul Homeschool Curriculum.
There is nothing like this curriculum anywhere. Here are just a few of the factors that set it apart.
(1) Grades K-5 will be available for free. You have six years to try out the program without having to spend a dime.
(2) Students will learn the origins and travails of liberty in the Western world and in the United States in particular.
(3) Students will learn the economics of the Austrian School.
(4) Students can learn at their own pace. If they’re advanced and move more quickly, they can quiz out of the first two years of college and enter college as juniors.
(5) The emphasis in this program is not simply on teaching from a different point of view, or teaching material that no other school or curriculum offers, although the Ron Paul Curriculum does both of these things. But it also emphasizes oral and written communication, so that students will be able to spread and defend their ideas effectively. Students will have their own blogs, start YouTube channels, and even learn the basics of video production, website design, and Internet marketing.
(6) It’s cheap. For access to the forums, it’s $250 per year. Each course is just $50. No textbooks — they’re awful, and we use pdfs and primary documents to teach students — so you’ll save hundreds of dollars that way as well.
(7) Parents who wish they’d had the chance for this kind of education can listen to the lectures their children are hearing. We’ve made them of a length that works well with the average commute.
By September 2, we expect to have the material for grades 6-10 available. We’ll continue to add grades until December 2015 — our target date — when we expect to have the entire K-12 curriculum finished.
My own role will be to teach high school courses in Western civilization, the U.S. Constitution, government, and the history of American wars. All the courses on the site are available as part of the overall curriculum or a la carte, for those who would like individual courses.
These courses are centered around a 36-week schedule, five lessons (25 minutes each) per week per course. This means that for each course I will need to record 180 lessons. If you are wondering why I have not found the time to answer your email lately, I hope you will understand now. I have dropped not quite everything, but quite a bit in order to focus on this.
Here’s my three-minute pitch:
The website officially launched today. Right now the site has an excellent course on high school preparation, which covers such topics as how to study, personal goal-setting, time management, public speaking, speed reading, typing, note-taking and retrieval, software for essay writing, how to set up a YouTube channel, how to set up a WordPress blog site, and that most challenging skill, how to read a book. Between now and September 2 you can join the site and access that course for $25.
This, I am convinced, will prove to be Ron Paul’s most significant contribution to the cause of liberty — and that’s saying something. Please check out RonPaulCurriculum.com, and stay tuned for more news as we move forward with this exciting project.
For people wondering what Ron Paul has been up to since retiring from Congress, then, here’s your answer. And he has more announcements coming.
Tonight Dr. Paul will speak to a very large homeschool convention in Ohio. He has a book coming out on education. This is all part of the same package: Ron Paul’s revolution in homeschooling. Be a part of it.
Tom Woods, New York Times bestselling author of 11 books and a senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, makes a virtual visit to the studio of Next News Network for an interview with Gary Franchi. Tom covers various topics including nullification, state rights, mainstream media spin and news suppression, and the need for alternative news sources, such as the Next News Network.
See all the interviews, guests and share the information here at the Next News Network with your friends and social network connections. Follow the link on the main N3 (NextNewsNetwork) site to donate to support the efforts of freedom in journalism and reports such as this.