Tag: Libertarianism

From Stalin to Sellers: A Christian Individualist Reflects on Geoffrey Roberts’s “Stalin’s Library”

[Also on Substack] This Christian Individualist’s path from the one man to the other over the past fifty years was paved with books. Yours truly, the young Stalinist, was a bibliophile, but so was Stalin the mass murderer. Geoffrey Roberts’s Stalin’s Library: A Dictator and His Books [1] is surprising me (I’m more than halfway through it) with his description of a life that resonates with me at so many points that I’m forced to reevaluate—not repudiate, but painfully re-examine at some cost to my self-image—the love on whose altar I sacrificed much else of value.

Roberts documents, in a profuse but captivating way, what I had surmised from earlier study: that Josef Dzhugashvili (1878/9—1953) gave himself over to his love of books. Omnivorous reading, which had propped up his familial inheritance of the Russian Orthodox faith, also helped him rationalize and then cement his conversion to Marxism and eventually his revolutionary discipleship under V. I. Lenin.

Roberts’s Stalin is a flesh-and-blood historical actor with strong feelings in all the areas of life that we all know from the inside. I’m grateful to Roberts for permitting me to infer that, even at my most foolish, perhaps I was not willing to cross certain lines (e.g., murder, bank robbery) to prove my commitment to The Cause. The truth of that is known only to God, to Whose mercy I entrust myself.

In the history of professing Christians in this dispensation, there have been romantic idealists who, had they the means, would not have hesitated to use them to annihilate “enemies of the Faith,” that is, fellow believers who interpreted Scripture differently. I’m thinking particularly of the ironically named Pope Innocent III (r. 1198—1216), who wiped out the professing Christian dualist sect, the Cathars, and made outcasts of Jews and Muslims (Saracens) living in “Christian lands.” I shudder to think what he would have done with more effective weaponry. (After all, weren’t those hapless tens of thousands a threat to the “souls” of every Catholic they ideologically infected?)

I’m not singling out leaders of the religious society in which I was raised. The great Protestant Reformers Luther and Calvin would not have extended the hand of fellowship to Otis Q. Sellers or to any believer he influenced. Nay, they would have immolated us all or entombed us alive, just as surely as Martin V, let alone Innocent III, would have caused recent occupants of the Papal throne to be incinerated as “heretics.”[2]

In my eighth decade, I view life stages, not as arithmetical deductions, but as seasons I’ve passed through. That’s true for my enemies and heroes alike. As a teenager, I grasped abstractly what it meant to be in one’s twenties, thirties, and so forth. Now I understand those ages viscerally. Things that were merely facts in a biography now represent existential turning points.

The same goes for the loss of friends and the illnesses and deaths of loved ones. Every historical actor I ever read about or personally knew suffered something about which they had to suppress their feelings as they answered this naif’s questions. Lovers live as though they’ll continue along the same lines until some unknown and distant endpoint. No, death may very well overtake one or the other, sometimes when one is in advanced age and grieving the loss unimaginably. My libertarian genius friend Murray Rothbard (1926—1995) left Joey (1928—1999) too soon. Fay Aptheker (1905—1999) predeceased my erstwhile friend and ideological apothecary Herbert (1915—2003) when he was physically and mentally at his most vulnerable.

Stalin’s bibliophilia had no “aesthetic” dimension. It served his commitment to communist revolution and to securing its gains, whatever the cost. The communist vision effectively functioned as his “Absolute,” a pseudo-transcendent object against which he measured everything else. But since the latter cannot function in one’s life as a genuine Absolute, Stalin was bound to distort his relationship to reality—his family, his friends and comrades, and to truth itself.

By contrast, another bookworm, Otis Q. Sellers (1901—1992), consecrated his life, not to the demonic fantasy of communism, but to the God Whose Logos is the Truth and revealed to His people truths of the enscripturated, propositional kind—the One on Whom “Koba” the ex-seminarian fatefully turned his back, just two years before Sellers’s nativity in the new century.[3]

Notes

[1] Yale University Press, 2025.

[2] Although Jan Hus was executed in 1415 and Martin V was not elected pope until 1417—both events occurring while the Council of Constance was in session—what Martin did immediately after his election leaves no doubt that he endorsed the council’s ghastly sentence. Before becoming Pope Martin V, Cardinal Oddo Colonna was an influential member of the Roman Curia. On behalf of then-Pope John XXIII, he (Colonna) had investigated the Czech reformer’s writings, branded Hus a heretic, and issued his excommunication, demonstrating a longstanding personal and theological opposition to Hus well before the execution. (That “John XXIII” was Baldassarre Cossa, whom Angelo Roncalli (1881—1963), the “good” John XXIII, r. 1958—1963), later declared an “anti-pope,” thereby settling a five-century “debate” over Cossa’s status and regularizing the papal chronology.) On February 22, 1418, just months after his election, Martin V promulgated Inter cunctas, the papal bull recognizing the decisions of the Council of Constance, including its condemnation of the thirty “heretical” articles of Jan Hus. That execrable screed also mandated that the Holy Inquisition interrogate and hand over to secular authorities any suspected Hussite—the very mechanism that had led to Hus’s being burned at the stake.

[3] In April or May 1899, Dzhugashvili left or was expelled from the seminary in Tiflis in his native Georgia. Officially, it was because he missed his final exams. “Uncle Joe” said it was because he ran Marxist propaganda circles within the seminary walls. By 1899, he had taken on the alias “Koba” (the fictional Caucasian bandit of Alexander Kazbegi’s 1882 The Patricide (მამის მკვლელი, mamis mkvleli) and traded in his mother’s Russian Orthodox Christian faith for Marxism. The ex-seminarian, having abandoned any path toward the priesthood, briefly took a job as a meteorologist, and transformed himself into a dedicated agitator for atheism.

The Centenary of Murray N. Rothbard

Hoping Stephan Kinsella or Hans-Hermann Hoppe won’t sue me for copyright violation, I can think of no better way for this site to memorialize this milestone than to reproduce this cornucopia of resources from The Property and Freedom Society, whose site I could not safely open. Since maybe you can’t either, I’m grateful to internet argonaut Dave Lull for copying and pasting its table of contents into an email. (Two humble contributions of mine made the list!)

Murray was a lad of 58, I a mere babe in the libertarian woods (only 29), when I first met him. What a powerful, creatively synthesizing mind; what a generous friend! May God grant him eternal life in the Kingdom!

Anthony Flood

Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment

by Stephan Kinsella on January 9, 2026

– Other PFS books –

Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment, Stephan Kinsella and Hans-Hermann Hoppe, eds. (Papinian Press and The Saif House, 2026).

Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995) was one of the world’s greatest champions of the human liberty. In his honor, and to commemorate his 100th birthday, on March 2, 2026, the Property and Freedom Society (PFS) has assembled this collection of tributes to and commentary on him and his work by PFS members, including many who knew him personally.

This book is released in digital form today, March 2, 2026, on Murray’s 100th birthday. Print, in both paperback and deluxe hardcover, and kindle/epub/pdf versions will be made available shortly.

[Note: the links below will go live March 2, 2026, at 12:01am CST, as will this announcement: Rothbard at 100: A Tribute and Assessment Published Today]

Contents

Front Matter

Part 1*

Part 2

Appendix

*Part 1 consists of PFS authors who personally knew or met Rothbard

Related

Biographical

Bibliographical

Correspondence

Tributes/obituaries/memories/commentary

Notes

    1. See The Free Market (June 1986), p. 2, listing papers in “Man, Economy, and Liberty: A Conference in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard.” See also: Jeffrey Tucker and Lew Rockwell, “Man, Economy, and Liberty” (17 November 2009) (Tucker interviews Rockwell about Rothbard’s festschrift, published in 1986 in honor of Rothbard’s sixtieth birthday); Rothbard, Man, Economy, and Liberty (1 March 1986) (Rothbard comments and responds to the speakers and papers presented at the “Man, Economy and Liberty” colloquium hosted by the Mises Institute; backup Youtube); Hoppe, Book Review of Walter Block and Llewellyn H.Rockwell, Jr., eds., Man, Economy, and Liberty: Essays in Honor of Murray N. Rothbard, Rev. Austrian Econ. (Vol. 4 Num. 1, 1989). See also Timothy Virkkala, “Bestschrift,” Liberty (September, 1989), p. 63.
    2. “I prefer to remember him as the charming, brilliant, and joyous friend he had been in Liberty‘s formative years. He was the wittiest man I have ever met, the best man with whom to spend an evening in a bar that I ever knew. I miss him enormously.”
    3. excerpted here: “Shortly before Murray [Rothbard] died, I called him to tell him of my plans to run for Congress once again in the 1996 election. He was extremely excited and very encouraging. One thing I am certain of—if Murray could have been with us during the presidential primary in 2008, he would have had a lot to say about it and fun saying it. He would have been very excited. His natural tendency to be optimistic would have been enhanced. He would have loved every minute of it. He would have pushed the “revolution,” especially since he contributed so much to preparing for it. I can just imagine how enthralled he would have been to see college kids burning Federal Reserve notes. He would have led the chant we heard at so many rallies: “End the Fed! End the Fed!”
    4. Duke is former counsel to the Mises Institute. “Murray N. Rothbard is the most intelligent and informed man I have met in my entire life! He like Ludwig von Mises, refused to speak and write only the truth. This hurt Mises and Rothbard financially their entire lives. They were ridiculed by the mainstream economists, government, new media, academics. But they held to the truth that they knew in their minds and hearts. I knew Murray N. Rothbard personally and he was kind to everyone. He was so brilliant that most people were nervous when they met him. Murray usually told a joke or said something weird, strange, funny or whatever to make people comfortable. He did not laugh; he cackled. He was jovial. I had lunches and dinners with him and spoke with him at the Mises institute. I was the attorney for the Mises Institute in the early years. – JRD”

A perfect storm of converging crises

The dictionary defines a perfect storm as an “unusual combination of events or things that produce an unusually bad or powerful result.” The latter, as I see it, is life as we’ve become accustomed to enjoying it.

Four years ago, I stated my grounds and posed a question to a writer who thinks Christian Reconstruction or Theonomy meets the level of our times:

The argument . . . is over hermeneutics and confessional commitments that flow from one’s interpretation of Scripture. Do libertarians wish to have that conversation? That would be more than fine with me. I’ll need bullet-proof exegesis, however, to believe that Christians are charged, as Dominion theology teaches, with overthrowing Satan’s dominion of this world with its sex-trafficking, drug cartels, arms dealers, blood diamond trade, supervised as they are by pathological warlords; the totalitarian ethnostate of Communist China; radical Islam whose agents are sprinkled the world over; pandemics exploited by globalists and their medicrat tools; the virtually total loss of privacy at the hands of the Deep State, Big Pharma, Big Data and Artificial Intelligence; the trillions of dollars in unpayable debt and the hyperinflation that must follow central banking as the night the day—just to name some of the enormities that blight our planet.

In that post, I didn’t refer to this concatenation as a “perfect storm of crises,” but since then I’ve used this meteorological metaphor when considering our parlous estate.[1] It has come to mean any situation where a highly improbable concurrent of circumstances leads to an event of unusual magnitude or severity. I’d like to know where it falters, if it does.

The “event of unusual magnitude or severity” I refer to is the total collapse of the good of order—civilization, what’s left of it—on which any regular enjoyment of goods of consumption depends. Continue reading “A perfect storm of converging crises”

Who needs government? A response to Bill Vallicella’s comment on David Mamet

William F. Vallicella, Ph.D.

While composing a response to William “Bill” Vallicella’s recent posts on presuppositionalism (starting with “The Holocaust Argument for the Existence of God”), his Substack post, “Notes on David Mamet,” arrived in my inbox. In that post, Bill takes issue with what this distinguished playwright and self-described conservative said about government and taxes.

I will evaluate, not the dramatist’s claims, but Bill’s dismissal of them. Bill shows no awareness of, let alone respect for, the well-developed case that has been made for a philosophical position (with which non-philosopher Mamet loosely identified himself in an interview).

David Mamet

That is, I’m interested in whether Bill fairly represented, not Mamet, but the view that Bill, the self-described conservative, excoriates as “absurd.”

I stipulate that I’m ripping out of context (a context available to interested readers who take the link above) these sentences of his:

Conservatives . . . . are not anarchists because they accept the moral legitimacy of the State. Conservatives are law and order types, but there can be no law and order without a coercive state of [sic] apparatus that forces people to do what they are often uninclined to do.  Conservatives believe in a strong national defense. They want the nation’s borders to be secure. All of this requires local, state, and Federal government. Conservatives are not libertarians because they understand that culture matters and that not every question is an economic one.

The last implication is, apparently, that for libertarians, either culture doesn’t matter, or every question is an economic one (or both). As someone who read and befriended Murray Rothbard 40 years ago, I never met a libertarian who held either belief. Whom did Bill have in mind?

The conservatives whom I’m sure Bill and I admire have cared a great deal about justice. Thoughtful conservatives, when confronted with argument and evidence that suggests that the way they go about establishing law and order, a strong national defense, and secure borders has offended justice—that is, that the policies they sincerely intended to secure those goods are unjust—don’t retort, “So what!” Rather, they examine the libertarian’s premises to see whether they’re (a) true or false and/or (b) linked validly or not in support of his conclusion. Bill neither did this nor pointed his readers to those who have.

Continue reading “Who needs government? A response to Bill Vallicella’s comment on David Mamet”

Aquinas’s proto-liberal concerns

Thomas Aquinas (1225?-1274)

The pleasant discovery of a series of posts by Professor Jonathan McIntosh on the site of the Libertarian Christian Institute (LCI) has occasioned my republishing today part of Chapter 10 of Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic (CCL). As that chapter originated as a post written about ten years ago, I’ve edited it, airbrushing references to the polemic. (Those interested in the latter should consult the book. I’ve modified the chapter in other ways.)

With erudition and nuance, Dr. McIntosh locates Thomas Aquinas on the political spectrum as a proto-liberal (my term, not McIntosh’s).

These anti-libertarian sentiments [of Thomas’s, just enumerated by McIntosh] notwithstanding, there are yet many other respects in which Aquinas’s political thought is not only consistent with libertarianism, but arguably provide the latter with an ideal and even necessary, moral and metaphysical framework.

McIntosh’s aim is

to sketch at least the outlines of a distinctly Thomistic, natural law libertarianism, one that coherently combines Aquinas’s account of law’s place within the social and moral dimension of human nature, with libertarianism’s more considered and consistent ethic of law’s inherently coercive nature.

McIntosh is a kindred spirit whose work I’m happy to advertise. (Visit his blogs The Natural Law Libertarian and The Flame Imperishable.) His admiration for Thomas is great, but does not inhibit his criticism. Aquinas’s thought on the subject of liberty is, as I shall show in my own way, a mixed bag, but one whose contents every lover of liberty and reason is better off for having explored.

McIntosh’s series is entitled “The Libertarian Aquinas: Aquinas and Libertarianism,” and here are links to Part I, Part II, and Part III. (At least another installment is on the way.) I welcome any criticism of my effort he may see fit to give.

I’m taking this opportunity to thank again LCI’s Chief Executive Officer Doug Stuart for interviewing me about Christ, Capital & Liberty in late 2019 and making our discussion available on their site since last March.

Note: The “Austrians” referred to in today’s post are writers who subscribe to the Austrian School of Economics (ASE), whose “dean”  was Murray N. Rothbard (1926-1995). “Anarcho-Catholics” are Roman Catholics who find a “profound philosophical commonality” between the ASE and Catholic teaching (but not “Catholic Social Teaching”). I would include among them James A. Sadowsky, S.J. (1923-2012), Joseph Sobran (1946-2010), Thomas E. Woods, and Gerard N. Casey, although none of them uses (or used) that term to describe his political philosophy. I have defended that compatibility; as a dispensationalist, however, I no longer use the descriptor for myself.

Continue reading “Aquinas’s proto-liberal concerns”

Dominion Theology: Salvation or Snare for Liberty?

The following review of Robert Grözinger, Why Libertarianism Needs Christianity to Succeed (Kindle eBook, April 7, 2020) was published on Amazon today.—AGF

Only in this post, not in the Amazon review or anywhere else it was published, I clarified my statement of Scripture’s status as divinely inspired (θεόπνευστος, theopneustos). The writings, not the human authors as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit, are “God-breathed.” —AGF, February 19, 2024

This provocative essay derives from a talk given to the Libertarian Alliance in London late last summer. German economist and translator Robert Grözinger (Jesus, der Kapitalist: Das christliche Herz der Marktwirtschaft, Munich, 2012) argues that libertarianism, which traditionally prides itself on its alleged independence from philosophical frameworks, cannot succeed without one that gives meaning to liberty-seeking itself. Arguments for, say, the superiority of free to hampered markets don’t compensate libertarianism for its lack of an adequate framework of meaning or worldview. Libertarians should identify theirs and persuade others on its terms if they want libertarianism to be more than an intellectual hobby. For if libertarianism’s attitude toward ultimate-meaning frameworks remains as laissez-faire as its politics, its attractiveness will remain limited. Grözinger believes Christianity best meets that need.

Robert Grözinger

Grözinger believes that most people—regular folks, not nerds who read themselves into and out of ideologies—are not libertarian for this reason: they seek meaning as much as (if not more than) economic well-being. Intellectual conviction that in a libertarian society everyone will be, on the whole, materially better off than in any alternative arrangement is not enough to seal the deal. For the masses, liberty may be a great good, especially when they’re deprived of it, but not necessarily life’s chief good around which all others revolve. If one wishes to attain and retain other great goods, the libertarian argues, one cannot neglect liberty. Liberty doesn’t defend itself, so people must learn to make it an object of thought and protection. Grözinger amplifies this insight: theoretically self-conscious defenders of liberty must, no less self-consciously, ground their defense in a worldview that embraces many values, not just one.

In his short book Grözinger packs in enough topics to fill an interdisciplinary graduate seminar in politics and religion; I’ll have to pass over how he draws upon Jordan Peterson, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and Friedrich Hayek and focus on the writer who answers Grözinger’s question to his satisfaction: Reformed historian and theonomist Gary North. Of the several scholars whose work Grözinger draws upon, North is the only one who’s also a professing Christian—and one with whom many (if not most) other Christians disagree. Continue reading “Dominion Theology: Salvation or Snare for Liberty?”

“Christ, Capital & Liberty”: the Libertarian Christian Institute interview

I interrupt my apologetics series to promote the 50-minute interview that Doug Stuart (Libertarian Christian Institute) conducted about my Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic last December 30th and posted a couple of days ago. I couldn’t be happier with how it turned out. We cover the conduct of Christian controversy, eudaimonism (good life-seeking), the pioneering libertarian Christian scholar James Sadowsky, SJ, and many other topics ignored in the book against which mine polemizes. I’m grateful to Doug for the opportunity he gave me to elaborate and highlight. I hope you’ll give me your comments. Here’s the link.

Christ, Capital, & Liberty, with Anthony Flood

 

Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic

Christ, Capital & Liberty: A Polemic is out today in paperback; xx + 331 pages, 42 chapters, four appendices. A Kindle edition is in the works. The following paragraphs should answer basic questions like, “What’s this about?”

From my Introduction:

From March 8, 2011 to September 10, 2012, nineteen months in all, I blogged my criticism of The Church and the Libertarian, Christopher A. Ferrara’s slanderous and ignorant attack on the Austrian School of Economics. He argued that no faithful Catholic could be a sincere libertarian of the ASE persuasion. One day I had promised Mr. Ferrara that if he published a book to that effect, I’d answer it. Across almost ninety posts I fulfilled that promise, and this book reincarnates them.

After a year and a half, however, I decided that life was too short to sacrifice other projects on the altar of this polemic. The issues were (and are) important, and I found researching and writing about them congenial, but I could no longer sustain the effort. . . .

This book is the record of an effort in pro-market apologetics (in the classic sense of “defense against intellectual attack”). All interference in market exchange, not only outright state control of the “means of production,” but also violent robbery, involves a degree of “socialization” of the costs of acquiring a good or service. To impose costs on individuals who have not chosen to bear them, be they contemporaries or later generations, is to “socialize” those costs. Calculating these (usually hidden) costs falls to the economist. “Socialism” and “communism” are but frank labels for the systematic, territory-wide state interference with the market exchanges of individuals. That is, it differs in degree, not of kind, from the predations of garden-variety gangsters.

From Gerard Casey’s Foreword:

Anthony Flood’s Christ, Capital and Liberty: A Polemic is a spirited and detailed defence of the fundamental compa­tibility of Catholicism and Austro-Libertarianism. . . .

Flood is critical not only of Ferrara’s conclusion, but also of the argumentative methods that Ferrara employs. “Several thorough readings,” writes Flood, “have convinced me that it is such a bad book, morally as well as stylistically, that it arguably ought to be ignored rather than critically reviewed. Its tone is continuously inflammatory, its arrangement of material lopsided . . . and his use of sources tendentious. The last-mentioned trait includes either unawareness or evasion of evidence relevant to his topic but inconvenient to his purpose.” Flood is especially critical of Ferrara’s epistemically uncharitable failure to employ responsible internal criticism of his opponents’ positions and also of his inadequate grasp of various historical controversies. . . .

Tony’s book will be of interest to many people, but perhaps especially (but not only) to those who are Catholic and who are also attracted to the intellectual coherence of Austro-Libertarianism, but are concerned that the two systems of thought may be irreconcilable. Polemical writing is not everybody’s favourite form of reading, but the multiple, mostly short, chapters of Christ, Capital and Liberty provide so many insights, engage the perspectives of so many thinkers and attack the central topic of the compatibility of Catholicism and Austro-Libertarianism from so many angles that no reader can fail to achieve a greater insight into the matter after reading it than he had before he began.

Gerard N. Casey MA, LLM, PhD, DLitt.
Professor Emeritus, University College Dublin
Associated Scholar, The Mises Institute, Auburn, Alabama
Fellow, Mises UK

And finally, at least for this post, the table of contents:

Part One: Setting the Table

Chapter 1      A Question of Tone

Chapter 2      In Few Things, Charity?

Chapter 3      A Question of Competency

Chapter 4      Sound Bites, Panic Buttons, Scare Quotes

Chapter 5      An Inconvenient Jesuit

Chapter 6      An Overview of an Overview

Chapter 7      Demonize and Delete the Austrians

Chapter 8      Value-Laden and Value-Free

Chapter 9      Adventures in Meta-Ethics

Chapter 10    Aquinas’s Proto-Liberal Concerns

Chapter 11    An Inconvenient Anarcho-Catholic

Chapter 12    Doctorates, “Dummies,” and Defamation

Chapter 13    On Not Seeing the Forest for the Woods

Part Two: Main Course

Chapter 14    Capitalism: a Post-Christian Structure?

Chapter 15    Conflating Science and Ethics

Chapter 16    Disparaging Imaginary Constructions as Illusions

Chapter 17    “Statism” versus “Greed”

Chapter 18    Confusion or Calumny?

Chapter 19    The Kevin Carson (Side-)Show

Chapter 20    What Do We Mean by “The Free Market”?

Chapter 21    If I Had a Hammer: Hayek on Tool-Ownership

Chapter 22    Rothbard on Enclosure

Chapter 23    The Hammonds, T. S. Ashton, and Emily Litella

Chapter 24    Grand Theft Monastery

Chapter 25    Dismissive of the New, Evasive of the Old

Chapter 26    Lie, Rinse, Repeat

Chapter 27    Sudha Shenoy on Enclosures

Chapter 28    The Gnat of Enclosure, the Camel of Slavery

Chapter 29    Lock(e), Stock, and Jesuit

Chapter 30    Slavery, Real and Bogus

Chapter 31    If This Is Infallibility . . . .

Part Three: Dessert and Leftovers

Chapter 32    Save Money, Live Better, Just Do It

Chapter 33    Corporations as “Psychopaths”

Chapter 34    Enclosing Debate

Chapter 35    Rothbard Shaves Ferrara’s Quasi-Marxist “Beard”

Chapter 36    Shall We Prefer Government by Naked Coercion?

Chapter 37    Slavery for the Corporation?

Chapter 38    The Corporation as “Sociopath”

Chapter 39    Railroading the Free Market

Chapter 40    (Fan)Fanning the Embers of Fascism

Chapter 41    Scrooge on Externalization

Chapter 42    Ferrara’s Reserve of False Notes

Appendices

Appendix A    Murray Rothbard on Abortion

Appendix B    A Profound Philosophical Commonality

Appendix C    Lord Acton: Libertarian Hero

Appendix D   Is Anarchy a Cause of War?

Lew Rockwell and the Story of the Ludwig von Mises Institute

Soon my autobiographical vignette of Murray Rothbard will join those of Herbert Aptheker, Sidney Hook, Bernard Lonergan, and Eric Voegelin. In preparation for that post I’m sharing, with the author’s permission, a recent letter from Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr. the Founder and Chairman of the Mises Institute. It’s a fundraising letter, one to which I hope you’ll respond. But it’s more than that: it’s his personal story of Mises, Murray, and the Institute, one he must have told a thousand times, but never more vividly and concisely. Let’s listen to Lew. — AGF

November 13, 2018

Dear Friend,

When I met Ludwig von Mises, he was exactly as I had imagined him: kind, brilliant, dignified, beautifully mannered and dressed, a gentleman from what Murray Rothbard called “an older and better world.”Image result for the ludwig von mises institute His wife, Margit, had been an actress, and she had great beauty, intelligence, and presence as well.

Image result for margrit von mises

A genius, Mises was the greatest economist of the 20th century, and a hero in his courageous battles with Marxists, National Socialists, and Keynesians. Never did he put his own career ahead of teaching the truth, which he did in brilliant book after brilliant book. As a result, he never had the professorships and honors that were his due. Forced to flee the Nazi occupiers, he found American Keynesians a hostile bunch as well. So his career was stunted, but not his spirit, and not the legacy and example he left to all who cherish freedom.Image result for last knight of liberalism

Murray Rothbard I had the privilege of knowing well. He was funny, charming, and a genius, too. Like his mentor Mises, Murray suffered in his career for his integrity and truth-telling, which he also displayed in brilliant book after brilliant book. Even billionaire oligarchs couldn’t stop him. A model scholar, teacher, and polymath, he seemed, like Mises, to know everything.

Murray once told me he never heard Mises express any self-pity for his treatment, but only good will and determination. I never heard Murray express such feelings either. He was the happy warrior of Austrian economics and liberty. Continue reading “Lew Rockwell and the Story of the Ludwig von Mises Institute”