Logo
    Search

    The Legalization Cure for the Heroin Epidemic

    enMarch 28, 2016

    About this Episode

    A heroin epidemic has been spreading across the United States, expanding enormously for the last several years. With it, the number of people dying has also increased dramatically. While politicians offer failed solutions like “securing the borders,” the real solution is to legalize drugs.

    The number of drug overdoses in the US is approaching 50,000 per year. Of that number nearly 20,000 are attributed to legal pain killers, such as Oxycontin. More than 10,000 die of heroin overdoses. I believe these figures vastly underestimate the number of deaths that are related to prescription drug use.

    The “face” of the heroin epidemic has changed since the 1960s when it was largely contained to urban “junkies” and Vietnam veterans. In recent years the epidemic spread to suburbia as heroin became a low-cost substitute for other drugs. In more recent times, the epidemic has spread to rural areas such as fishing villages in Maine and coal mining towns in Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

    The problem of the epidemic rests with two causes. The first is the War on Drugs which creates profit incentives in the black market for the distribution of the most dangerous drugs. The second is the pharmaceutical-medical-FDA complex, or Big Pharma, which profits from treating pain with dangerous pharmaceutical drugs.

    The Problem with Illegal Opiates

    The War on Drugs makes the business of black market drugs more risky and expensive. Hundreds of thousands are arrested every year for illegal drug violations. If drug smugglers can make their shipments of, for example, 1,000 doses or units smaller, they are better able to avoid detection, capture, and punishment. The best and most obvious way to achieve this is to smuggle more potent versions of the drug, or more potent drugs.

    Marijuana growers sought to meet the demand of smugglers by offering better processed, better grown, and eventually genetically engineered products tightly packed into “bricks.” As a result, the potency of THC in marijuana increased from less than 0.5 percent when the War on Drugs began in the early 1970s, to almost 10 percent today.

    Of course, the incentive from the War on Drugs does not stop there. It also encourages producers to switch to other drugs that are more compact and potent. Therefore, marijuana as a class of drug is disadvantaged compared to more potent and more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. This leaves a black market where one dose of marijuana is relatively more expensive than one dose of heroin.

    In the black market consumers do not know how potent their purchases will be until after the product has been consumed. In the free market, the potency of a Bayer aspirin is always the same. In the black market, the potency of products can vary widely over time. Also, a consumer’s tolerance for a drug changes over time. Daily users may have to increase their dose over time, while new users or relapsed addicts may only need small doses. If any individual takes much more than the appropriate dose for them, then they will stop breathing and can die.

    Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s overdose death helps illustrate the pitfalls created by the War on Drugs. Hoffman was a drug addict that had been off of drugs for many years. When he became overwhelmed with personal problems he relapsed and died from a combination of prescription and potent illegal drugs. There have also been numerous reports about heroin being sold that contains both heroin and a legal opiate, Fentanyl, which is often lethal.

    In a free market, heroin would come in an unadulterated pharmaceutical grade form of various indentified doses. It would have warning labels and instructions. You might have to consult a medical doctor or pharmacist before purchasing heroin, or you might have to go to a clinic. The producers, distributors, and retailers would have some liability for negligence. Before it was made illegal in 1914 one of the most popular heroin products was Bayer’s Heroin.

    The Problem with Legal Opiates

    One of the biggest problems with legal opiates and heroin is that the medical-pharmaceutical-FDA complex has achieved a much greater use rate in recent years. Essentially, the pharmaceutical companies bribe medical researchers, doctors, and heath bureaucrats to recommend to authorities such as the FDA to promote the use of drugs such as Oxycontin and Vicodin, instead of less powerful and less addictive alternatives that were used in the past. Of course, the taxpayer ends up paying for most of the bill.

    A couple of years ago while traveling I went to a “Doc in the Box” for a minor medical issue. I was examined by a physician’s assistant and was asked what pharmacy I used. I picked up the prescription after leaving and took one pill when I arrived at the motel. I sat in a chair and later became groggy and almost lost my balance when I stood up. As soon as I steadied myself, I went to check the prescription. To my amazement, it was Oxycontin!

    The problem gets worse from there because physicians are also under pressure from the government to not overprescribe strong painkillers. They, for example, cannot continue to prescribe pain killers after a wound has obviously healed. The result is that people are addicted and then cut off from these powerful opiate prescriptions.

    Their alternatives include entering an addiction treatment program which can be expensive, time consuming, and ineffective. As a result, these freshly minted addicts can turn to the black market for Oxycontin and Vicodin. The problem here is that it can cost $10–25 per pill and addicts require multiple pills per day. Also the supply of such pills can be erratic.

    Their next alternative is the black market heroin which seems to be more available than ever and often at a lower price per dose. If you buy in large quantities you can obtain a dose for as little as $4.00 and possibly lower.

    Legal Use Leads to Illegal Use

    This explains why we have seen the heroin epidemic spread across the country. Doctors are prescribing legal opiates to people like fishermen and coal miners who sustain painful injuries on a regular basis. They become addicted and then get cut off. Eventually they cannot afford the black market prescription drugs, so they turn to the often deadly alternative, heroin.

    How can the drug legalization help solve this vexing problem? First of all, in a free market you would not have Big Pharma rigging the medical practices of doctors around the country creating thousands of addicts each month. Second, drug addiction treatment programs could use the maintenance and withdrawal method which was used somewhat effectively prior to the passage of the Harrison Narcotics Act in 1914.

    Third, in a free market, drugs like heroin would be produced and sold on a commercial basis. It would be a standardized product(s) and companies that sold dangerous and addictive products would do so under several legal constraints, such as liability and negligence law. Fourth, cannabis would be legal and produced for several medical purposes, like it was prior to the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937. Many of the pre-prohibition products were used to treat pain, as well as many of the symptoms associated with opiate withdrawal, such as muscle aches, anxiety, inability to sleep, nausea, and vomiting.

    With drug legalization the number of overdose deaths would plummet and tens of thousands of families would not have their lives ruined every year.

    Recent Episodes from Mises Wire

    Mises Institute's <em>Abolish the Fed</em> Documentary

    Mises Institute's <em>Abolish the Fed</em> Documentary

    In 1996, we produced a documentary titled Money, Banking, and the Federal Reserve. For the next ten years, we distributed copies all around the world, to our students, our members, and the public. Thousands of people were introduced to the evils of the Fed and central banking. At that time, not many people or organizations were calling for the abolition of the Federal Reserve. The Mises Institute was. And that hasn’t changed.

    Eventually, the documentary was posted on YouTube in February 2006, and it remains one of the Mises Institute’s most popular videos. We’ve had viewers from more than eighty countries. There’s even a Russian version of the film! From the most rural US town to Kathmandu, this documentary has exposed the dangers of central banking.

    Of course, a lot has changed since 1996.

    The Federal Reserve has seized numerous new powers and prerogatives, and the US economy has endured three more recessions, a major financial crisis, and forty-year highs in inflation. Another recession appears to be on the horizon, and much more inflation, too.

    Now is the time to create a new documentary that explains how the Federal Reserve continues to wreak havoc in the modern economy. It’s almost as if Fed economists want to impoverish us.

    We’ve interviewed several production companies and found one that believes in the importance of this documentary. That wasn’t an easy find!

    Our board has approved this important project, as well.

    We have everything in place to offer this film on Amazon. It will be free for all two hundred million Amazon Prime members. Making our film available to this kind of audience will be huge!

    We’ll also upload the documentary to streaming services like YouTube, Odysee, and Bitchute. And it will be on mises.org like everything else we create.

    The documentary will expose the Federal Reserve for what it really is: an enormous threat to prosperity, peace, and freedom. The Fed steals from the vast majority and gives to the corrupt few. The Fed makes it possible for the regime to wage endless wars. It’s a reason the government has grown to massive proportions. It threatens the livelihood of future generations. And ours, too.

    It’s a reason civilization is in decline.

    The Federal Reserve’s balance sheet quintupled in size after the 2008 financial crisis. And the Fed caused that crisis. Perhaps intentionally. Since then, the money supply has grown by more than $12 trillion. Half of that was printed in just the last three years.

    The Federal Reserve’s reckless money printing was touted as creating financial stability, yet Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank, and First Republic Bank still failed. Many more are on the same path.

    The Federal Reserve constantly moves its own goalposts. Remember how Fed economists declared that inflation would be “transitory” but then said we needed to “retire the word ‘transitory’” just a few months later?

    We need to retire the whole system, if you ask me.

    Politicians tell us that we need more regulation to fix the Fed. What we need is to abolish the Fed.

    The “experts” tell us that the Fed is our protector. Ha! It only protects the state, big banks, and their cronies.

    This is why we need to set the record straight. We cannot let the Fed be its own judge. We cannot let the financial news media paint a rosy picture of the government’s counterfeiting machine. Our new film will create an informative, watchable, and high-quality documentary approximately thirty-five minutes in length.

    I’m pleased to announce that Dr. Ron Paul has agreed to be in this film! There’s no way we would make a film about the Federal Reserve without Ron in it. His efforts to educate the world about the Fed’s manipulation of money are unmatched.

    The documentary will also feature several Austrian thinkers:

    Our friend James Grant, founder of Grant’s Interest Rate Observer and author of The Forgotten DepressionDr. Joseph Salerno, our Academic Vice President and the foremost Austrian scholar on sound money and business cyclesDr. Alex Pollock, Mises Institute Senior Fellow, former principal deputy director of the Office of Financial Research, and coauthor of Surprised Again!—the Covid Crisis and the New Market BubbleDr. Mark Thornton, Mises Institute Senior Fellow and one of the first economists to write about the housing bubbleDr. Jonathan Newman, the Henry Hazlitt Research Fellow at the Mises Institute, an impressive young scholar researching the role of central banking in expanding the size of government

    Their interviews will be combined with spectacular footage to illustrate the evils of the Federal Reserve. A top narrator will tell the story in an understandable fashion.

    The film’s goal is to introduce viewers to how the Federal Reserve causes inflation, business cycles, and economic disaster. We want to help people understand the urgent need to abolish the Federal Reserve system, and central banks in general. The more people understand the Fed is evil, the more pressure we build.

    Most people aren’t interested in the hundred-year history of the Federal Reserve, but they are interested in why their standard of living is lower, why they can’t afford to buy a house, and why they don’t have any money left over at the end of each month.

    As the Fed keeps telling lies, the rest of us know that something is terribly wrong. More and more people want to know what that is.

    Here at the Mises Institute, we know people have a lot of questions. We are the place where they can find the answers. This is why our film is so important.

    The film will cost $248,876 to produce. The crew will travel to Lake Jackson to film Ron. They will go to New York City to film Jim Grant. The other interviews will take place at the Mises Institute. Equipment, travel, and labor costs are the most expensive pieces of the documentary.

    Would you consider supporting this documentary? Every donor who gives $1,000 or more will be listed in the rolling credits at the end of the documentary. Of course, we welcome donations of all amounts.

    We want you to be a part of this important documentary.

    Join us in telling the truth about the Fed. With your help, millions of people will see the Fed for what it is: the enemy of liberty and prosperity.

    The Fed has dominated its own narrative for too long. Help us tell the world about the Fed’s failed record! Donate today.

    Mises Wire
    enOctober 09, 2023

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    Thanks to all of our generous donors who are participating in our 2023 Fall Campaign.

    Your continued support is vital and much appreciated. Donors are added daily.

    Won't you join them?

     

    Monday, September 25

    Abdelhamid Abdou Adam BattlesAdam DengAlan ZibelmanAndreas HübnerAnonymousAndrew WindsorArthur KnolleAnonymousBarb WhitemanBridget SantosCarl ChambersCarlos Aixerch MateuCharles CrawleyCharles DemastusChris Lingwall, In honor of Milton Friedman and Thomas Sowell who opened my eyes 50 years agoChris StriebeckChristopher SearsCristina FontaineDan ZipayDaniel Krivickas, In memory of True Liberty and Economic FreedomDarlene CorbettDave BennerDavid CardaronellaDavid NeilsonDavid ShaneDavid StefanDavide TafuriDione DurhamDon BellanteDonald SteeleDoug Hill, In honor of Ron PaulDouglas HaagaDustin TrammellEric HaleEzra GoldmanFred WitthansGerard EvenwelGreg KrabbenhoftGregory CitarellaHoward KillebrewHugh KendrickHunter Lewis

    Iain GreumJacob Coffin, In Honor of Hans-Hermann Hoppe and the book he wrote, Democracy: The God That FailedJames IrwinJavier Antonio Quiñones OrtizJavier Pantoja RomeroJay KorinekJeanne KacprzakJeffrey YerkesJerome GloeklerJerry KnarrJesse Cowell, In honor of William AndersonJesse DugayJim AgelopoulosJo Ann CavalloJohn BzoskiAnonymousJohn JollyJoris DebatsJoseph Wilchek, In honor of Tom WoodsJoshua BozzickKathryn HamiltonKenneth Woods, In memory of Milton FriedmanKerry SteenKevin AlonsKim StephensKristin JackvonyLawrence HamiltonLinda NicoLukas AbelmannManuel Heel, In honor of Manuel H.Mark MarkicMartin JacoviniMartin YoungMarvin Graham, In memory of Charlotte Kay GrahamMary SullivanMaureen MooreMiguel Gracia Arias, In honor of Miguel G. MoreuMike KeenanNancy Ore, In honor of the Mises InstituteNguyen Hoang DucNoah Van Horn

    Paris BleicherPaul BunevichPaul CerinoPaul JacobusPeter MichelPeter MorcombePeter RasmussenPitipong WantaRandy BoringRay SvobodnyReed ScercyRichard KrebsRichard MuldoonRichard Page, In honor of Lahaina CondoRichard PardoRobert CerfRobert ChandlerRobert YabutRoberto Mello, In honor of Dra. Sonia LafayetteRodger CottrellRoger WoodwardRonald BannerRonald LangdonSami PeltolaSayre PowersSheldon HayerSing ChungStelio PescialloStuart HicksTamara GoforthTheodore A. GebhardThomas CulverTimothy McMullanTony FulgenziTyke ConradyTyler HoxieTyler WambekeVernon MoretVictor SolaWalter BlockWilliam CampWilliam Winters

     

    Tuesday, September 26

    Alessandro ArtiniAlex KralAngela and Roger BoxAsh NavabiBarry LinetskyBart MillsBitcoin AnonymousBrandon Harnish, In honor of Paul MichelsonBurley StewartCarson McCurdyAnonymousDan HeinigDarryn CallDennis Gilman, In memory of Chesley H. GilmanEric RussellGary GodleyGary SchreyerGui LopesHarry MorseIvan Pedro Jimenez Correal

    James KernerJames RobertsJason SwiatekJoe KlecaAnonymousJohn PritchettJorge Oliveira DiasKatherine YoderKeith BrilhartLeonid GolenderLori McKenna, In memory of Charles ScarboroughLucas GoetzAnonymousMark McGuireMatthew Gunnell, In honor of LibertyMaxime Hupé

    Michael HarveyMichael MienkoMichael StankevichMiguel Ángel Alarcos TorrecillasNathan HarperNelly SmithRaul BritoRichard PaquetteRobert GainesRobert ZumwaltRobi ChatterjiAnonymousSkylar WebbSteven DusterwaldSteven MillerTakashi KimuraThomas LonerganVanner Ferreira da SilvaWayne K. FordZachary Bryson

     

    Wednesday, September 27

    Amy LePoreAndrew FitzgeraldAndrew QuinnAnonymousAntonio OrtegaAnwar M OsmanAshley Baxter, In memory of William Thomas CarlisleAttila RebakBambi KochBenjamin LemonBret LoganCharles CastroCharles HughesCharles Reifenberger, In honor of Paul KrugmanCharles TraugerChip MonroeCliff SlaterCorey CotterD Schertz, In honor of Rand Paul, I liked the robeDarren OlofsonDavid CrouchDesiree DumasDonnie MartinDoug JonesDouglas BrownellEdward WilsonGabe RoyerGabi Avni

    Gordon ClarkHayes GahaganHenk AllesIan SchmeisserJames CooperJames ThomasJason HallJason LubykJeff MillerJeffrey AbrahamJoe KerkesJohn WaresJoseph GillotteKaren SlingsKeith SipeKevin BurtKevin KylesLawrence GreenbergLisa BordelonLjubomir DimitrovskiMac TrenchMark BriggsMatthew BeanMatthew HaleMatthew WalshMitch Costin

    Naoya FuseNathan CharpentierPaul DidierPaul McCormickPaul SlobodnikPaul SullivanPeter CrabtreePeter de VietienPhilip HansenRaymond RondeauRichard Bird, In honor of all truth tellers—EverywhereRichard BrowningRichard HuberRichard WestrupRichard WilsonRobert StroheckerRonald WestStuart EgglestoneTab SchweitzerTed McKnightThomas BertrandAnonymousTim KnivetonTobie HallWalter CruseWilliam White

     

    Thursday, September 28

    Aaron LutherAgustin ArgaluzaAllen RossAna MartinAndrew LachajczakBart VanderhaegenBetzaida DurkinBoris KozintsevBradford WilsonBrent DresserBrent HarperBrett RoulstonBrian DuBridgeBrian McGlincheyBrian MurphyBruce SammutCharles ArmourCharles Naja, In memory of MUMChris DuFrayne, In memory of the U.S. DollarChris HindmarchCory HoldenDan NibbelinkDavid BarnesDavid CruseDavid PomeroyDean KocianDean McHenryDerek NelsonDorothea Burstyn, In memory of Alexander BurstynErik GuerraFrank GalushaFranklin JensenGabriel FancherGail MitchellGary CesarzGeorge ShchudloHarry ElliottHarry HerchertIra EpsteinJack WalshJames GreeneJan NiessenJeancarlo LopezJeff ReasonsJerome R AllenJerry LeCroy

    Joao Fernando Rossi MazzoniJoe LoiaconoJoel GibsonJohn CrissmanJohn DowningJohn FrabottaJohn GallagherJohn GrossJohn LarkinJohn RountreeJohn SattelJohn SchemppJohn SoutsosJonathan Huthmaker, In honor of Lauren SouthernJonathan HuthmakerJonathan MerrittJoseph CammJoseph GeorgeJoseph M. StivalettaJoseph SpelmanJoshua Vincent, In honor of Saifedean AmmousJoy Brower, Remembering Robert LeFevre and the Freedom School in ColoradoJulio BaylacKegan WilliamsKen ChristianKen HowardKenneth RobinsonKevin ChristensenKyle ThomLina ThomasLinda McCraryLisa GanskyMadalyn PettenatiMag Martin Alois BrandnerMalcolm IllingworthMarcin WielochMark AllenAnonymousMark SanchezAnonymousAnonymousMichael DurnwaldMichael ElwellMichael HouzeMichael JeffersonMichael Solow

    Michael WoodsMike and Kelsey WhelenMitchell OelbaumMT WebbNasly UstarizNorman HansenPatrick ButlerPaul FrankAnonymousPaul McCormickPaul SullivanPaul TaggartPedro García Mateo, In Honor of Pedro Ga. MateoPeter NavarroPeyton GouzienR.H. Hartman, In memory of Murray N. RothbardRaymond Eatmon, In honor of Stefan MolyneuxRichard ArmstrongRobert BellRobert CzachorskiRobert DaveyRobert GrahamRobert LisiRobin DeaRon LynchRoshi KhilaniRoy SteenhoekRui RosaRW HobertSeth BenjaminAnonymousSteve FennoSteve MitchellSteve ReillySteven MichaelTerrence D Gallagher, In memory of Morgan James GallagherThomas MajewskiTimothy RydellTimothy RydellTony DickersonTreena LuchettaVance HayesVictoria SandbergVincent O'NeillVincent VanderbentWilhelm LaecheltWill Fuller

     

    Friday, September 29

    Aaron BrownAlan ForresterAlberto Gonzalez, In memory of Alexis A. GonzalezAllen DempsterAndrew CainAndrey MorozovArthur NationBarry KnightonBenjamin LawrenceBernhard StalzerBilly ArmstrongBitros GeorgeBruce BurtonBryce NygaardBud Stamper, In honor of PrisonersChris BoyceChristopher StevensClaudia AsensioClaudia StaplesClinton Athey, In honor of Lew, Murray, and LVM.Colby CouncilColin TurnnidgeDar GandhiDavid HoustonDENNIS M BLAIRDerek SchanilDirck StormDon SalonenDonald McKennaDoug WhiteEddie Allen, In memory of James AllenEdmund BuckleyErick SepúlvedaErik OlsovskyErnesto OrtizAnonymousFrank GrahamGary GeddensAnonymousGeorge Miller-DavisGlenn RisoloGraham HarrowerGregg HunterGregg VoosGustavo Hincapie

    Hjalti KjartanssonIan RossiJames Mosher, In honor of Joseph Schumpeter and Ludwig von MisesJames VorisJamie Sargeson, In honor of Murray RothbardJared WallJason BrownJennifer Cole, In honor of Teddy GrafJerry MarshallJohannes Van der WeideJohn CiccotelliJohn GoodJohn JaegerJohn SweeneyJonathan DoozanJonathan LawlerJoseph BratcherJoseph FeiferKathie DoughertyAnonymousLance PietropolaLanden TerrellLarry GoodmanLaurence RebichLes DunawayLeslie MaltbyLuke Carriere, In honor of Satoshi NakamotoMark BransonMark BurkMark PackardMatthew BiancoMatthew LorenceMatthew Lynn, In honor of Ludwig von MisesMatthew ThomasMax JiangMax PrugerMichael ByrdMichael DeGanMichael WilsonMike AlcarazMike MaddaloniMolly BrannonNasser El DebsNicholas West

    Olliver RobinsonPatrick BrannanPaul ChristensenPeter GardowPeter SpungRalf HeinRalph HughesRares HRenee DuquetteRicardo KilsonRichard KlabechekRick NeisserRiley Wipf, In honor of Jason James Wipf, my brother and guide.Robert MolinowskiRobert RoseRochelle WoychowskiRoman FresnedoRon WilharmRonald StauberShelly Benford, In memory of Louis GregorichStan UllerichStephen GorinSteven DigilioTerrell YonTerry ReaddickThomas DiazThomas FleresThomas Jon JensenThomas KirwanTimothy Hutson, In memory of Albert & Loyola HutsonTimothy PittTodd ConnellyTodd WallsTom FreyTom Jenney, In honor of Ludwig von MisesTsvetalin RadevVladimir PopovicWayne CrapellaWayne WilliamsonWilliam Johnston

     

    Saturday, September 30 AnonymousAlvin PlummerAndrea CabralAndrei BucurAndrei CristeaAndrew ClevelandBarry FunkBob CovyeauBrian LintzBruce MauCharles BrooksCharles DeladuranteyCharles LarsonCharles NovitskyCharles PerrielloChris DolanChris GrindrodChristopher DillinghamChristopher NawrotClinton EzekielConrad WolfgangConway HawnDaniel HerltDaryl LandsgardDavid BeglarDavid BrownDavid CassarinoDeborah Cunningham, in memory of Herman KahnDeborah S ThompsonDennis GilmanDevon AkersDjamchid AssadiDon LeufvenEbenezer HoweEdwin LeggoeGail EgnerGlenn Parish, in memory of Edward Allen ParishGregory Girolami, in honor of Edward J. SavioGregory ToddHal Howertonharry bollingHeinz BitterliJack WattJacob McKnightJames ArgiroJames Flynn, in loving memory of my mother, Donna Flÿnn

    James JudgeJames MackeyJan NarvesonJarod MinneyJason LibbyJason LovettJay Davis, in honor of Roy DavisJay SmithJeffery KeysJerald RukavinaJessica TimbergerJim FarleyJoel MostowJohn BusenitzAnonymousJohn JordanJohn MasonJohn ReynoldsJohn SwallowJohn TeitenbergJohn WilsonJoselu GiraldoesJoseph RichJoshua SoldnerJulie HartmanKent DawsonKevin CokerKevin P HamiltonKevin WaspiKurt WagnerL. Michael WattsLarry AustinLarry WoodsAnonymousLinda GunningLinda PowersLucille StainesLuis KaramMarco OoijerMark OlesMark OwenMark ThorntonMichael BonenbergerMichael English

    Michael WatsonMike HartmanAnonymous, in memory of Richard and Helen GladsonNathan HinesNathan RussellNorman Andrews, in memory of Samuel Edward Konkin III.Nuno Martim Vieira MartinsPenelope MymudesPeter ThomasPeter TowersPeter TowersRandall DunnRandalll BrannanRene SarmientoRichard PiekenbrockRob GilmorRobert BatemarcoRobert ChevakoRobert ChevakoRobert WalkerRodney PilbrowRoger YoungRosemary DaugustaSam Price, in honor of Tom WoodsSamuel BakerScott AsterScott GreenoughScott WeissShawn BrodofAnonymousSteve LatimerSusan BrownThomas LevinsThomas RogersTimothy MooreTracy JamiesonUlrich CarlVictor AzebeokhaiWayne Johnson, in memory of Harlan C. JohnsonWill SchwartzWilliam AndersonYann BongiovanniZack Rogers

     

    All donors will be listed on our home page this week. Recurring donors of $5 or more, or one-time donors of $60 or more, will receive a free copy of Ten Great Economic Myths by Murray Rothbard.

    Mises Wire
    enOctober 01, 2023

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    "Thank you!" to the generous supporters, below, who donated to our Fall Campaign. The best people in the world support the Mises Institute.

    The goal of our Fall Campaign is simple—to increase our Membership and our influence.

     

    Friday–Sunday, September 30–October 2 Mr. Lukas Abelmann,in Honor of Eugen RichterMr. and Mrs. George AdamsMr. Carlos AdaroMr. Robert AllenAngel Alarcon AlvarezMr. Raul AmaviscaMr. Paul AskinsAnonymousMr. Richard BaileyMr. Philip BakkerDr. Javier BardavíoAnonymousMr. Louie Dean BattlesAnonymous,in Memory of Boo the DogMr. Oscar BendeckDr. George Bitros, in Memory of Fritz MachlupMr. Daniel BledsoeDr. Walter E. Block,in Memory of Murray N. RothbardDr. Carla BoydMr. Paul BraccoMr. Shaun BradleyMr. Ken Brodeur,in Memory of Leon Roldolph BrodeurMr. Gary BrogochMr. Steven BuerkleMr. J. Michael BugglinMr. Scott BurkhardtMr. Michael Ray BurrisMr. Jason V. CalvasinaMr. Nathaniel CameronMr. Dennis M. CampbellMs. Carol CarnesMr. Anthony CarrionMr. Samuel Cartagena-SergenianAnonymousMr. Carl ChambersMr. Stephen ChaplinMr. John Ciccotelli,in Honor of Ludwig von MisesMr. Doug ClarksonMr. James Cleaver,in Memory of Virginia D. CleaverMr. John C. Clonts,in Honor of George RobertsMr. Mark ColemanDr. Pearl CompaanDr. Giacomo ConsalezMr. Michael CoreMr. and Mrs. Michael E. CoughlinDr. Carlos Cuervo-ArangoMr. and Mrs. Raymond E. CunninghamMr. Robert CzachorskiMr. Bryan DanaMr. John Dancey,in Memory of Hilmar "Bob" MuellerMr. Matthew DarlingMr. Charles DemastusJP DeVilliersMr. Tino DiazDr. Ljubomir DimitrovskiMr. Richard DinnenyDr. Richard DoehringMr. John DorickoMr. Pedro DorregoMs. Maureen Dowst, CPA, PLLCMr. Kevin DueckMr. Walter H. Duke, Jr.Mr. J. Richard DukeMr. Ryan P. DukeMr. Jeremy P. DukeMrs. Desiree DumasMr. Lester DunawayMr. Andrew DwyerMr. Bill EatonMr. Brenton ElisbergDr. and Mrs. Sam EslerFare FakaMr. Jim FarleyMr. David FieldMr. Gregory M. Fisher,Free Julian Assange!Mr. Alan FluckigerMs. Diana ForgyIn Honor of Mr. Martin C. FoxMs. Kim GabrielDr. Gerardo Garcia GorostidiMr. Gary T. GeddensDr. Elizabeth GesenhuesMr. Christopher GeyerMrs. Debra GoldmanMr. Michael Alexander GoldsteinMr. William GoodaleMr. Larry GoodmanMs. Sheila GrabnarDr. Marvin Graham,in Memory of Charlotte Kay Snyder GrahamMr. Frank GrahamMr. Oscar Eduardo Grau Rotela,in Honor of Fabricio TeránMr. Steven GreerMr. Andrew GuinossoMr. Douglas HaagaMr. Matthew HanerMr. Bradley J. Hansen

    Kelley Hansen,in Memory of Nathan YazzieMs. India Hargett,in Honor of Melva GilesMr. Geoff HarpurMr. Roderick M. HarrisMr. Michael HarveyMr. Charles T. HatchMr. Daniel W. HaubeilMr. Otto HavelMr. Daren HeboldMr. Scott Heddaeus,in Honor of Hans Sennholz, Professor, Grove City CollegeAnonymousMr. Harold HelbockMr. Claude A. HemmerMr. James HendersonMr. Piet HensenMr. Eric HillerAnonymousMrs. Deborah P. HolmesMr. Douglas HouckMr. Chris Huff,in Memory of Ayn RandMr. Earl M. HughesMs. Linda HuntoonMrs. Rebecca Hyink,in Memory of Doyle and Wanda BairdMr. Lawrence JacksonDr. Thomas Jon JensenMr. Dan Johnson and Ms. Randee LaskewitzMr. David JohnstoneMr. Doug JonesMr. Justin JozokosMr. Robert D. KaercherDr. Martin KamberMr. Peter KearneyAnonymousMs. Laurel Kenner,in Memory of M. Stanton EvansMr. Barry KnightonMs. Julie KnowlesMr. Richard KrebsMr. David KuehnMr. Vincent LaBanca,in Honor of the Mises InstituteMr. Rick A. La GreideMr. Daryl LandsgardMr. Andrew LeaverAnonymousMr. Stephen Lemmons,in Honor of Dave SmithMr. Nicolas LeoboldDr. Paul LeslieMr. Brian LewisMr. Barry LinetskyMr. Donavan LingerfeltMr. John LockeJaime Lopez DiazMr. Jason LovettMr. David J. LownMr. Travis LutherMr. Mark MacheyMs. Amy MacnaughtonMr. Michael R. MaherMr. Benedict MaliakkalMr. K. Scott MalickMr. Raymond MannMr. James MansfieldMr. Donald W. MarekAnonymousMr. John MasonMr. Tim McClayMr. Duke McClure,in Honor of Dr. Karen PalasekMr. Patrick McDermottMr. Brian McGlincheyMr. Scott McRuerMr. Joseph MerlinoMrs. Donna Merzi,in Memory of Robert J. MerziAnonymousMr. Jarod MinneyMr. David MitchellMs. Gail S. MitchellMr. Mark MitchellMr. Zachary MooreMr. Glennon T. MoranMr. Roberto MorenoMr. David MorganMr. Paul MoschidesMr. Richard MuldoonMrs. Karen MunseyMrs. Penelope MymudesMr. Gerald NachurskiMr. Brent NelsonMr. Joel NicoloffMr. Nathan NifongMr. Eric Nyuma,in Memory of Eric S. NyumaMr. Perry OfferMr. Pete OliverMr. James OrphanidesMr. Antonio Ortega AlbonicoMr. Jaime OrtizMr. and Mrs. Michael V. OrtonMr. Daniel Pack

    Mr. Pablo Palacio DuarteMr. Brian PanaskoMr. John W. PanchukMr. Uwe Paschke,in Memory of Henry HazlittMr. Douglas PeckhamDr. Pedro Alfredo PerezMr. Neal PhenesMr. Richard A. PhillipsMr. Tom C. PolkMr. John R. PorterMr. Steve PoteatMr. Ronald PrestonMr. William Primm,in Memory of Eva PrimmRaven Grove Press, LLC.,in Memory of Ludwig von Mises Mr. Matthew Rawlings,Mr. Matthew Rawlings,in Memory of Roy RawlingsMr. Matt RayMr. Richard ReevesMr. William ReminiMr. Roland M. RenneMr. Allen Ricks Dr. Eric RidgwayAnonymousMr. Glenn RisoloMr. Matthew RitchieKahlil RobinsonMs. Rosemarie C. RotellaMr. Joseph RothMr. Charles RoweMr. Arthur RoyDr. Harleston RunionMr. John RyanMr. Steven M. SadlerMr. Luis SalgueroMr. Rene SarmientoMr. Andrew SaundersMr. Norman J. SavinMr. Derek SchanilMs. Kimberly SchrederMr. Jeff SchroederMr. Karl-Michael SchumannMr. Eric SchummMr. William SchwartzMr. Michael SchwarzMr. Tab SchweitzerMr. David SchwendingerMr. Daniel SearerPark SeohaMr. Kelley F. Shippey and Ms. Donna SimpsonMr. Rafael Silva,in Honor of all the great pro-freedom Austrian economistsMarcel SmeetsMr. Jay L. SmithMs. Danielle StanleyMr. Joseph StandridgeMr. Daniel Stenabaugh,in Memory of Ludwig von MisesMs. Mary Beth StockAnonymousMr. Craig StoughMr. Paul SummersMr. James SummersMr. Jess SuterMr. Alejandro SzitaMs. Catherine TheuerMr. and Mrs. Peter Ruffin Thomas,in Memory of my parents, Dr. and Mrs. Robert Y.H. Thomas, IIIMr. Jesse Thomas,in Memory of Iysander SpoonerMr. Matthew Thomassee,in Memory of Charles McGowenMr. Neal ThompsonMr. Charles TraugerMr. Michael P. TusayMr. and Mrs. Timothy UrlingMr. Christopher P. ValleMr. David VarianMr. Gregory VasaleMr. Steve VenderMr. Martin VennerMr. and Mrs. Chase VentersMr. Jeremias ViverosAnonymousDr. Sharon R. WaiteMr. Craig WalcottMs. Lora WalkerMr. Paul WardMr. Paul F. WeberMr. Nathan WhitsonMr. Kevin WillardsenMr. Spotswood WilliamsMr. Michael R. WilsonMr. David WinansMr. Richard WolfMr. Adam WoodMr. Michael WoodsMr. Gennadiy YablonovskiyMr. Robert YabutMr. Jim YoungYukon GroupMr. Warren Y. Zeger

     

    Thursday, September 29 Mr. Zeke AbramsWeston ArgoMr. Billy ArmstrongMr. Benjamin J. AycriggDr. Biff BakerMr. Robert BarrMr. Julio BaylacMr. Ken BeersMr. Bryan BerklandTerry BirdsallMr. Simon BlöthnerMr. Travis BostMr. Shaun BradleyAnetta BuraczynskaMr. John BzoskiMr. John CarboneMr. Juan Carlos Cervellera,in Memory of Raquel and J.C. Cervellera, Sr.Mr. Thomas ColellaAnonymousDr. Pearl CompaanMr. David CruseMr. Michael CulpRobin DeaMs. Delia Patricia Del Riego de los SantosMr. Donald FannonMr. Anthony Favalessa,in Memory of Erma FavalessaMr. Wayne FordMr. Andrew GallagherMr. Matthew GannonMr. Carl GartsideDr. Theodore GebhardMr. Stephen GorinMr. and Mrs. Charles GoyetteMr. Claudio GrassMr. Allen HartungMr. Justin HawkinsMr. Paul HenningMr. Robert W. HobertMr. Peter HyattMr. David HynesMr. Pavel IlcikMrs. Sara IsenhourMr. Darius JankowskiMr. Guojie JiaMs. Virginia JohnsonSchelina JuleMr. Daniel KellyMr. John KellyMr. Ryan KennedyMr. Darryl KingMr. Jack M. KingDr. Rudolph KohnMr. Greg KrabbenhoftMr. John H. LandMr. Andrew LinknerMr. Thiago LoMr. Burt LockhartMr. Matthew LorenceMr. Roger LoriaMr. Dennis Marburger,in Honor of Dr. Richard E. MarburgerMr. and Mrs. Thomas McCrary, Jr.Mr. Dean McHenryMr. J.T. McPhersonAnonymousMr. George Miller-DavisMr. David MuellerMrs. Camila Navia,in Honor of Fabricio TeránMr. Eric Nelson,in Honor of Daniel NelsonMr. Richard A. NewellMr. Justin PerryMr. Fernando Pozo MolinaMr. John PritchettMr. Carlos Puerta,in Honor of LibertyMs. Margareta RaducanMr. Michael ReddMr. Walter RiveraMr. Zackary RogersMr. Ezio RomanòMr. Jerry SalamoneMr. Mark SanchezMr. Charles ScarboroMr. John F. ScheererMr. Karl-Heinrich SchieleMr. Philip Schipsi,in Honor of Walter WilliamsMr. Ethan SchweitzerMrs. Bretigne A. Shaffer,in Memory of Butler ShafferAnonymousMr. George ShchudloMr. Ralph ShiveDr. Lawrence SilverMr. Tim SmithMr. Jeffrey SprolesDr. John E. Staddon,in Honor of F.A. HayekMr. Robert J. StewartMr. Jade Sullivan,in Honor of Greg SullivanMr. Michael A. ThompsonMr. Gregory ToddAnonymousMr. Larie TrippetAnonymous,in Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. and Mrs. Scott J. UlleryRobin VazZonghui WangMs. Elizabeth WernerMr. Marcin WielochMr. Fred WitthansMrs. Donna Zedler

     

    Wednesday, September 28 Happy AlexanderMr. Brian AllenMr. Jeremias Antunes,in Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Florin-Paul ArmeneanMr. Charles AwaltDr. Robert BatemarcoMr. H. Ronald BjorkmanMr. Eddie BlueMr. Daryl BortzMs. Molly BrannonM. BrierleyMr. Nathan BriggsMr. Keith BrilhartMr. John BubolzMr. Conor Bunn,in Memory of John BunnMr. Charles C. Burridge,in Honor of Jeff DeistMr. Bruce BurtonMr. Justin CardwellMr. Carter CobbMr. Sam CragerMr. John CrissmanMr. Alfred R. DavieMr. Dennis De FordDr. Adolfo G. de UbietaMiss Ruth DickensSwithun DobsonMr. Brent DresserMr. Mark EcklerAnonymousMr. Anthony FerrettiMr. Alan ForresterMs. Sandra FosterMr. Richard FuhrmannMr. Tony FulgenziMr. Jetlir Gashi,in Memory of all those who share knowledge and help us abolish all ignorance!Mr. Bill GoadMr. William L. GossMr. Scott GreenoughMr. Olav GreisMr. Carl Hanich,Thanks to Frank ShostakMr. Darren HargroveMr. Jake HemingwayMr. Marvin HillMr. Jeffrey HillMr. Len Hofferber,in Memory of Lennert and Eva HofferberMr. David HoffmannJ.R. HoyneMr. Adrian B. IbricMr. Jaime Jasso BachaMr. Kyle JorgensenMr. and Mrs. Jason C. KellyMr. David KeoghMr. Frederick KinchMr. Edward KottMr. Vincent KulinMr. Barton KunstlerMr. William LangMr. Thomas LonerganMr. Michael LucasAnonymous,in Memory of Michael C. Lukehart, Attorney at LawMr. Bill MarakMr. William McNelisAnonymousMrs. Deborah Miller,a Gift for my HusbandMr. Mack M. MullicanMr. Edward MurrayMr. Gary Nelson,in Honor of Andrew Galambos, Free Enterprise InstituteMr. Zachariah NevilleMr. Santo Laucer OrtizMr. Jeffrey ParkerMr. Gary PelledMr. John PerlMr. Steven PerlmanMr. Charles C. PickMr. Paul PinetteAnonymousMr. Sean PolicelliMr. Jon PoureMr. Alexander ProffittMr. Javier A. Quinones-OrtizMr. Thomas Ramsfield,in Honor of Edward SnowdonMr. Gary RichiedMr. Clark RollinsMr. Eric RowellMr. Bruce SammutMr. Josh SchwartzAnonymousMr. Jackson SepulvadoMr. Jeffrey ShawAnonymousMr. Bob SimeralMr. Stephen SkarbekAnonymousMr. Kees SpaanMr. Greg StuesselMr. Lee SutterfieldMr. Ray D. SvobodnyJordan TahiMr. Paul ThielDr. Daniel TirelliMr. Joshua Vance,in Honor of Ken VanceMr. James VeillonAnonymousMr. Michael WatsonMr. John WernerMr. Ronald L. WestMr. Chris Wilson,in Memory of Walter WilliamsMs. Janelle WolfMr. Larry N. WoodsMr. Sean YounkinMr. Henry Yuen

     

    Tuesday, September 27 Mr. Abdelhamid AbdouAnonymousMr. Nick AscherMr. Harry AsmussenMr. Duane AushermanJade BarkerDr. John BartelMr. John BeanMr. David BrewerMr. Stephen A. BrownMr. Garland Anthony BulluckMr. Lance CansinoGordon P. Clark, MDMr. Eric ConnerMr. Jeffery DegnerMr. Greg DensonMr. Aaron Diaz ChavezMr. David DustinOr EzraMr. Paul FarmerMr. Kyle FennerMs. Eileen FitchAnonymousMs. Lisa GanskyMr. Lawrence GreenbergMr. Nathan HarperMr. James R. HartjeMr. Christopher Holbrook,in Memory of Thomas Wayne CampbellMs. Kathleen Jagodnik,in Honor of Ron PaulPekko KovanenMr. Roger LohmannBozhidar MarinovMr. Michael McQuadeMr. Roberto Mello,in Memory of Olendina de Azevedo BarbosaMr. James MillerMr. Vladimir MorgensternMr. Keith NolanMr. John Allen Bennett NoveyMr. Bernhard PaierMr. David ReyesMr. Ian RossiMr. Carter RuessMr. Luigi Santos-HammarlundMr. Michael ScarbroughDr. Mark SmithMs. Louise S. ThomanJose G. Urrutia, MD,in Memory of Rollin K. and Andrew UrrutiaMr. Juan Carlos Vera,in Memory of Ludwig von Mises

     

    Monday, September 26 Mr. David AmonetteAnonymousMr. James ArgiroMr. David BakerMr. Jeff BarreDr. Jeffrey BilottiMr. Alan BlairMrs. Daniela BullrichMr. Joseph CammMr. Stewart CarrollAnonymous,in Memory of Heinz BlasnikDr. Michael Castle,in Memory of Thomas JeffersonAnonymousMr. Eric CrosbyMr. Thomas CulverMr. David DouglassMr. Michael DurnwaldMr. Peter C. EarleDr. and Mrs. Sam EslerMr. Alex FábiánAnonymousMr. David FerroMr. Paul GendreauDr. David GilmartinMr. John GroshMr. Gene GryzieckiMr. Toby GuilloryMr. Douglas HaagaAnonymousMr. Dan HallettMs. Courtney HansonMr. Edward C. HarrimanMr. Daniel HerltMr. Gustavo Hincapie,in Honor of Javier MileiMr. and Mrs. Chris HindmarchMr. Michael Hogan,in Memory of Terrence T. HoganMs. Angela HooverMr. Herbert H. HooverMr. Jasson HowellMr. Hal HowertonAnonymous,in Memory of Dale CooperMr. Andreas Huebner and Mrs. Maria Jose Silva Roman,in Memory of Antonio MartinoMr. William HusseyAnonymousAnonymousMr. Michael KelleherMr. James P. KernerDr. Ricardo Kilson,in Honor of Ricardo Almeida KilsonMr. Thomas KirwanMr. and Mrs. Nathan J. KleffmanMr. Charles E. LarsonMr. Darius LeshabaMr. Joseph LombardiMr. Fernando LourençoMr. John LoyS. LutchmeenaraidooMr. Christopher J. MaloneyMr. Mark MarkicMr. Neal MarstonMr. and Mrs. Eugene V. McCaffreyMr. Ryan McHaleMr. Timothy McMullanMr. Ray McMullenMr. Samuel A. MitchellWaco MooreMr. Tyler MooreDr. Richard MorrisMr. Jack MosesMr. Daniel MuheMr. John MulheranMr. Arthur NationMr. Christopher NawrotMr. Gregg ObbinkMr. Douglas C. OrtonMr. James PeltonMr. Rodney PilbrowMr. Alvin PlummerMr. Jim RadetichMrs. Charlot RayMr. Melvyn ReznickMr. Brett RoulstonMr. Steve RudhallMr. John E. RushingMr. Rogerio Russo,in Memory of American FreedomMr. Mark SandeAnonymousMr. Virginio Schiavetti,in Memory of Murray N. RothbardMr. Mikhail Serfontein,in Honor of Jesus ChristMr. David SherrerMr. Robert SmithMr. David SmithMr. Richard SpreadboroughMr. Henry A. Steddom IIIMr. John SteelMr. Christopher StevensMr. John StoesserMr. Peter StollmackMr. Ronald TamburroMr. Josh TaylorMr. Sean ThomasTerri TotzkeMr. Paul TrappMr. Vitalik V.Mr. Mike VandenbosMr. Tim Van HussMr. R. David Van Treuren,in Memory of Murray N. RothbardMr. Richard VincentDr. Sharon WaiteAugust WestMr. Bob WheelockRichard and Lupita WiggansMr. Adam WilliamsMr. Elmer A. WrightMr. Theodore WroblewskiMr. Katherine YoderMr. Martin YoungAnonymousMr. Alan ZibelmanMr. David ZientaraMr. Robert Zumwalt

     

    All donors will be listed on our home page this week. Recurring donors of $5 or more, or one-time donors of $50 or more, will receive a free copy of How Inflation Destroys Civilization by Guido Hülsmann.

    Mises Wire
    enOctober 03, 2022

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    "Thank you!" to the generous supporters, below, who donated to our Fall Campaign. The best people in the world support the Mises Institute.

    The goal of our Fall Campaign is simple—to increase our Membership and our influence.

     

    Saturday, October 2 Mr. Benjamin AbbottDr. William L. AndersonMr. Robert W. AndersonMr. Jorge AvilaKasey BakerMr. Yvan BampingMs. Sheila BarkofskeMr. Bruce BarronAnonymousMr. Mark BeadleMr. Steven BechankoMr. Chris BecraftMs. Christine BenderMr. Robert BergdoltMr. Daniel BlackwellMr. Randy BleyerMr. Howard J. BlitzMr. Alexander BogeMr. Michael BowmanMr. Jack BoydMs. Susan Breidenbach,     In Memory of JoAnn RothbardMr. Ian BrennanMr. Andrew BroomeMr. Bozidar BrownMs. Maryjane BrownMr. Michael BrownMr. Daniel BuchfinkMr. Edmund BuckleyDeirdre BuckleyMrs. Daniela BullrichMr. Michael BurksMr. John BusenitzMr. Martin CarlsonMr. Nicholas Cerri, IVMr. Michael CevallosMr. Daniel ChangMr. Mark ChenMr. Kerry ChhimMr. Ricardo ChoiMr. Ken ChristianGordon P. Clark, MDMr. Vincent ClarkeMr. Doug ClarksonMr. Jim CofferMr. Stacy ConawayDr. Christopher CourtneyMs. Jo-Ann CoyneMr. Charles CrawleyMr. Wilson CruzMs. Candice Cullman,     In Honor of Paul CullmanMr. Sergio CusimanoMr. Robert CzachorskiMr. Kevin DaleBhargava DattaMr. Thomas Dattenberg-DoyleMr. L. Michael DavisMr. Timothy DeeringMr. John DePasqualeMs. Jennifer DePierroDr. Ljubomir DimitrovskiDr. Daron DjerdjianMr. Daniel DonovanRichard DukeRyan DukeJeremy DukeMr. Brian DunbarMr. Mark DyerMr. Levi EdwardsMr. Javier Eguillor MonteroAnonymousMs. Kristy EmmertAnonymousMr. Jared EwingMr. Joel FishTJ FitzsimmonsMr. Julian FondrenMs. Katherine L. FooteMr. David ForsterMrs. Nancy Forster,     In Memory of my mother, Mrs. Elsa RuskanMs. Wendy FoyMr. Mike FrancoMs. Elizabeth FranzagoMr. Todd FrenchMr. Alan FrischMr. Thomas FrühbeckMr. Carlton FurrMr. Apple GaffneyMr. Rafael GallegoMr. John GammageMr. Michele GarauGenaro GarciaDr. Theodore GebhardMr. Arthur Germaine,     In Memory of the Confederate States of AmericaDr. Elizabeth GesenhuesRobbyn GibbsMr. Raymond GladueAnonymousMr. Gary T. GorskiMr. Peter GrassMr. Brett GrasseMr. Nick GravesMr. Kevin GriffithMr. Sean GriffithMs. Olga GurariyMr. Joel HadfieldMr. Kevin HagenMr. Kevin P. HamiltonMr. Christopher Hammond,     In Memory of Gerald E. Hammond, MDMr. Timothy HansonMr. Nathan HarperMr. Jeffrey HarringtonMr. Rod HarrisMr. Daniel W. HaubeilMr. Justin HayesMr. Paul HenningMr. Harry E. HerchertDr. and Mrs. James M. HerringMr. Kenneth HiltonMr. Barry HoffordMr. Logan HoldenDebra HolmesAnonymousMr. Douglas HunttingMr. John JaegerMr. Alfred KaltschmittMichael KimberMr. Thomas R. KnappMr. James KnightMs. Jan KoemanMr. Greg KrabbenhoftMr. Richard KrebsMr. Bruce KrietschMr. Karl Kunkle,     In Memory of Robert Delos KunkleMr. Brian LankoRenato LatiniMr. Steven Law,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesMs. Kathryn LawatiDr. Michael Lesser,     In Memory of R. Henry LesserAnonymous,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Matthew LinderMr. Barry LinetskyMr. Thomas LonerganMr. Kevin LongbergMr. Stephen LordMr. Harmon Lowman, IIIMr. John LupoRobin MacInnisMr. David J. MackDr. Mihai MacoveiMr. K. Scott MalickMr. Dennis MarburgerMr. Donald W. MarekMr. Mark MarkicMr. Dennis MarshallMrs. Sheri MatzMr. David MayesMr. Samuel MazzaMs. Jennifer McDonaldMr. Stephen McIntoshMr. Donald J. McKennaSilas McKenney,     In Honor of Brogan and Lydia McKenneyMr. Timothy McMullanMr. David MellerMr. Michael A. Mellott,     In Memory of Robert WenzelMr. Kurt MeurisMr. Steven MichaelMr. Christopher MiedzaMr. Reuben MillerMr. Peter MilneBern MlynczakMr. Jacob MollMr. Robert MontgomeryMr. Robert MoodeyMr. Timothy MooreMr. Roberto Moreno,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Joseph Morton,     In Honor of Harold ShurtleffMr. Joe MossMs. Gwen MyersMr. Per Wilhelm MyhreMr. Richard NaethingDr. and Mrs. Jonathan NewmanMr. Javier NogueiraMr. Roger NoldMr. Christopher NoyesMr. Joseph O'DonnellAnonymousMr. Mike OrtonMs. Roberta PaganiMr. Randy PalmerPanagiotis PapalamprosMr. and Mrs. Dennis PavickMr. Matthew S. PerryDorel PetreMs. Sandy PierreMr. John PiperMr. Patrick PoolMr. Dan PricopMr. Alexander ProffittMr. Dimitrios PsemmasErin QuinnMs. Mona RabonMs. Mark RaftisMr. Rafael Ramirez-de-AlbaAnonymousMr. Scott L. Reavy, Jr.Sai Reddy,     In Honor of Austrian EconomicsMr. and Mrs. Hans RichnerMr. Francis RooneyDr. Richard RossMr. Brett RoulstonMr. James RuhlandMr. Glenn RuffusMr. John E. RushingMr. John RyanLou SamselMr. Carlos Sansoulet,     In Memory of Raul Carlos SansouletRobin SchaferMr. Bernard P. ScheurleMr. Thomas SchiblerMr. Jack SchlichtingMr. Vincent SchoenigMr. Richard SchwaabMr. Leland ScottAnonymousMr. Benjamin SeeversDr. and Mrs. Don W. ShepherdMr. Bob SimeralMr. Keith R. SipeMr. Henry SkawinskiJay SmithMr. Victor SobczakMr. Joshua SoldnerMr. Joshua SolisMr. Joseph SpelmanMs. Laurie SponzaMr. Ronny StagenKasey StanfieldMr. James SteinMr. Joseph StephensMr. Christopher StevensMr. Timothy E. StevensMr. Edward StevensonMr. Robert StewartMr. James SummersMr. Thomas SwansonMr. Robert SzymaszczykMs. Nicole TateMr. Michael J. TearneyMr. Peter Thomas,     In Memory of Dr. Robert Yates Haynes Thomas, IIIMr. Charles ThompsonMr. Todd ThurmanMr. Richard TimbergerMs. Shea TroyerMr. Matthew UnterfengerMr. Lukas van GinnekenMr. Eduardo A. Visbal,     In Honor of Maruja y NandoMr. Thomas VitzthumMr. Janton WaandersMr. James S. WagnerLaura WalkerMr. Glen WarnerMr. Anthony WarrenMr. George WashburnMr. Greg WatlandMs. Mary Watterson,     In Honor of Lowell McEntyreMr. Paul F. WeberMr. Scott WeissMr. Richard W. WilckeJT Wilcox,     In Honor of Nom DeguerreMr. Steven WilkinsonAnonymousMr. Adam WilliamsMr. Jeff WilliamsMarty WilliamsMr. Torgeir WillumsenMr. Richard WilsonMr. Robert WimsattKirby and Andra WisianMr. Randall WolfMr. Scott WoosleyJungho YooMs. Irene ZannisMr. Marco Zavala

     

    Friday, October 1 AnonymousHappy AlexanderAnonymousMr. Luis Fernando Mira AmaralMr. Thomas AmatoMr. James ArgiroMr. Donald ArmstrongMs. Donna AsternMr. Timotej AugustinovMs. Jordan AusmanGabi Avni,     In Honor of my son Nadav for introducing me to the Mises InstituteMr. Vincent BarberaDr. Francis Xavier Bardavío AraMr. Joseph BartlettMr. Lawrence BellandMr. Stuart BerkMr. Samuel BlackmanMr. Lawrence BlakelyMr. John BoharsikMr. Chris BoyceAnonymousMr. Juan Bueno TrillMr. Jochen ButheMs. Kimberly CarlileMs. Kim CastorMr. Joe CelkoMr. Joseph Chizik,     In Honor of Louis ChizikMr. John CiccotelliMr. James ClarkMr. Alistair T. CosterAnonymousMr. Judson CrabbMr. Justin DavisMr. Charlie DayGerrit DevolkMr. Zach DillonAnonymousMr. Thomas Dougherty,     In Memory of Mary Irene Fraire DoughertyMr. David DouglassMr. James DunavantMr. Lawrence DunnNasser El DebsMr. Ross FarisMr. Anthony FavalessaMr. Wayne FechtMr. James FedakoMr. Steven FennoMr. Jonathan FinckMr. Steven FinneyMr. Paul FosterMr. William FosterMr. Paul Furlong,     In Memory of my “uncle” Jerry, my father’s best friendBarend GehnerMr. Paul J. Gendron,     In Honor of Anita GendronMr. Niels GerbitzMr. Richard GlanzmanMr. George GoemaereMr. Ralph GoldwasserMr. Paul GreatsingerMr. Paul GreenMr. Hank GreerMr. James GrundyDr. Amy Hackney BlackwellMr. Wayne HagelbergMr. Stephen HanleyBlair HardestyMr. Charles HatcherHendrik HechtMr. Jake Hemingway,     In Honor of Ron PaulMr. Robert HeuermannBruce and Lynne HillisMr. Travis HolteJeff and Hannah HoodMr. Steve HowlandMr. Nicholas HuntMr. Gregg HunterMrs. Anna Jacka-ThomasMr. Eric JaenikeDr. Porter Jenkins,     In Honor of our freedomMr. Thomas Jon JensenMr. Guojie JiaMr. Richard JohnsonMs. Marjorie JonesMr. John JordanMr. Don KempelJohanna KleinMr. Lukas KoflerMr. Andrei KreptulDr. Jonathan Kroll,     In Honor of Jacob, Ellie, Joshua, Michelle, Levi, and RubaMr. Mark KronenbergHaris KurbardovikjMr. Don LadynMr. Noah LaineMr. William LangMr. Gaofei Lei,     In Honor of Ludwig von MisesMr. Herman LeusinkMr. Robert LewisMr. James MackeyMr. Chris MalamisuroDr. Allen MartinMr. Edward S. MatalkaMr. David Mateer,In Honor of freedomMr. Duke McClure,     In Honor of my economics professor who forever changed the way I see the worldMr. Keith McClardMr. Jeff McGannMr. Ryan McLinDr. Lawrence McQuillanMs. Nancy L. MeinersDr. Justin MerrittMr. Kenneth MetcalfeMr. Peter J. MichelL. MillerVladimir MonachovMr. Thomas MooreMr. Brent MorrowMr. August NapotnikMr. Andrew NappiMr. Christopher NawrotMr. Jacob NemchenokMr. Christopher Nizza,     In Honor of Ron PaulMr. Timothy O'LearyMr. Mark PackardMr. Glenn ParishMr. Walter PaulsonMs. Chrystyna PeddeAnonymousMr. David PomeroyMs. Selene PrideMr. Charrier QuinonesMr. Melvin Raab,     In Memory of Melvin C. Raab, Sr.Mr. Ethan RamseyMr. Brett RiggsMr. Edward RobertsonMr. Zackary RogersMr. Ezio Romanò,     In Memory of Luigi EinaudiMr. Joaquim Saad de Carvalho,     In Memory of Maria Helena F. SaadMr. Bruce SammutMr. Jason SaxonMr. Gary SchladerMr. Andrew Schoenherr,     In Memory of Howard SchoenherrMr. William SchwartzMr. Seth ShookMr. Stephen SkarbekMr. Peter SkurkissJay SmithMr. Stephen SmithMr. James SnyderGalen SoreyMr. Mark Spartz,     In Memory of Joseph Matthew Spatz and Grandpa Robert MergenMr. Jose StelleDr. and Mrs. Benjamin F. StickleMs. Marquita StoryMr. Emanuel Mark StrategosMr. Jason SylvesterMr. Samuel TamayoMr. Joseph TaylorMr. Dmitry TeyblyumMrs. Lina ThomasMr. J. Brian TraceyMr. Erik TukuaDr. Kirk Christian ValanisMr. Piet van den Boomen,     In Honor of Fam van den BoomenMr. Robert VestalMr. Robert A. VincentMr. Eric Von KaenelMr. Steve WallaceMs. Haley WatsonBlair WestfallMatt and Melissa WilliamsMrs. Susan WilliamsMr. James WilsonMr. David WilsonMr. Andrew WiltMrs. Sydney WisselDr. Jaime Yáñez Peña,     In Honor of la dignidad y la libertidad PeruanaMr. Aaron Yeargan

     

    Thursday, September 30 Mr. Richard AlbarinoAldo AlesiiMr. Bryan AmadorMr. Norman E. Andrews,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Ryan ArnoldMr. Daniel AronsonMr. Ben AycriggMr. Don BabnewMr. Bill BaergMr. Justin BakerMr. Theodore BakerMr. Eric BauerMr. Julio BaylacMs. Lisa BellRena Ben-AvrahamMr. Dale BensonMrs. Mary BettinsonMr. Heinz BitterliMr. John BooneMr. Jeff BowmanMr. Paul W. BramerMr. Patrick BrannanMr. Gary BrogochDr. David BrunellMr. Jay BurtonMr. Bobby CampbellMr. Gregory CarrMr. David CatesMr. Alberto Luigi CesarettiMrs. Kristy ChandlerMr. Gregory CitarellaMr. Duane CochranMr. Mark ColemanMr. Lawrence ColucciDr. Pearl CompaanMr. Dominic CompozMr. and Mrs. Michael E. Coughlin,     In Memory of Bernard CoughlinMr. Victor CoxMr. Richard CunniffMs. Natalie Danelishen,In Memory of Leo BeaneMr. Michael DarnellMr. Gerald P. DaveyMr. Robert DaveyMr. Alfred R. DavieMr. Alan DavisMr. Dennis De FordDr. Ovidio De LeonMr. John DePasqualeMr. Michael DietrichMr. Lawrence DixonMr. Eugene DoroshMr. Brian DoyleMr. Richard A. DrosslerMr. Richard C. Duell, lllMr. Donald E. DuffAnonymous,     In Honor of David GordonMr. Kenneth DunnMr. James EavesAnonymousMr. Craig EvansAnonymousMr. Gabriel FancherMr. Shawn FedinatzMr. Kyle FennerMs. Mary Lynn FerkalukMr. David FitzgeraldMr. Charles FlynnMr. Brock FlynnMr. Alan ForresterMs. Colette FosterMr. Trent FowlerMr. Dick FriedenMr. David GarciaMr. Alan GardnerMr. Joe GarlockMr. Eric GlennMr. John GoodMr. Michael GoodmanMr. Robert GrahamMr. Matthew GrajewskiMr. Ron GreenhoughMr. John G. GrossMr. Richard GullottiMr. James R. HartjeMr. Paul HaugenMr. Patrick HepnerMr. Gregory HigleyMr. Jeffrey HillMr. Rollin HilliardMr. Nathan HinelineRachal HislerMr. Clyde HughesMr. Pavel IlcikMr. Zachary IngersollMr. Daniel A. JeffreMr. Kevin JenkinsMr. Donald A. JessMs. Elizabeth JohnsonAnonymousArrash KamranMr. David KeaheyMr. Brian KeaneMr. Robert KeithMr. Joseph KingMr. Kevin KnappMr. Jiri KneslMr. Alexandros KonstantinidisMr. Nathan KreiderMr. Matthew W. Krogdahl,In Memory of Percy and Bettina GreavesMr. David LandwehrMr. Evan Larson,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Mark LautmanMr. Branndon LawsonMr. Carsten Lehn Toft,     In Honor of MisesMr. Mathew LloydSy LuuMr. Rick MaddrenRoleigh MartinMrs. Margaret MassariMr. Charles McCagheyMr. and Mrs. Thomas McCrary, Jr.Mr. Alec McDowellMr. Eugene McGowanMs. Leeann L. MeansMr. Charles MercerMr. John MillerMs. Kathryn MillerMr. Andres Minondo,     In Memory of Luis SamayoaMr. Robert Monteath-WilsonMr. Brandon MuellerWael MuslehMr. Travis NorthwayProf. Aleksandar NovakovicMr. Juan OlaecheaMr. Eric OlsonPat PalmerBorjan PanovskiMr. David PetersMs. Pamela PhillipsAnonymous,     In Memory of Ronald S. HertzMr. Lionel PlataMr. Carlos PonceMr. Vladimir PopovicMr. Jason RandolphMr. Brian RaphaelKerri ReinboldMr. Will ReishmanMr. Robert ReynoldsMs. Marcia RichardsonMr. James RicksMr. Raymond H. RondeauMr. Graham RowanMr. Robert L.M. RussellMr. Karl RydenMr. Steven SadlerMr. Mike SalzaMr. Christopher SauerweinMr. Jeffrey ScamponeMr. Michael ScarbroughMr. Michael SchedlerMr. William Schelinski,     In Honor of Ronald L. WieckMr. Nick SchiefenMr. Ron SilvaMs. Carroll SimpsonMr. Ian SinclairMr. Teemu SintonenMr. Dennis SipsyMr. Riley SizeloveMr. Robert SmithMr. Erik SmittMrs. Connie SnipesMs. Cathleen SpearsMr. Daniel C. SteeleMs. Suzanne StephanKameron StevensonMr. Peter StipanovichMr. Peter StollmackMr. Michael TedescoSam TeelMr. Robert Thomson,     In Honor of all who have died in the fight for freedomThrasher IP Law, PCMs. Kaitlin TierneyMr. Christian TolinoMr. Jim TuckerMr. Emilio Turbay GarcíaMr. Christopher Twomey,     In Honor of Ludwig von MisesMr. Christopher P. ValleMr. Adrian van den EndenMr. Tim Van HussMr. William VetterMr. Alexander VossMr. Lawrence WaldmanMr. Doug WhiteMr. James WildeMiss Kerri Ellen WilderMs. Arianna WilkersonMr. Michael R. WilsonMr. Andrew WilsonMr. Duke WilwaycoMr. Riley WipfMr. PG Wist     Mr. Micheal J. Wyatt, In Honor of John D. WyattMr. George YoungMr. Matt Zimmer

     

    Wednesday, September 29 Mr. Peter AdamsMr. Norman E. Andrews,     In Memory of Ludwig von MisesAnonymousMr. Florin-Paul ArmeneanMr. Chris BeachlerMr. Chris BennettMrs. Nikolina Bilić PoljanićMr. Steven BirchfieldMr. Daniel BjorndahlMr. Gregory BoschMr. Nick BrennfoerderMr. William BrownMs. Brenda BrowningMr. Michael Brusser,      In Honor of Thomas SowellMr. Charles C. Burridge,      In Honor of Lew RockwellMr. Tom CairnsMr. David CalhounMr. Anthony CarmonaMr. Carl ChambersMr. James ChanceyMr. Luke ChenMr. Michael ChristiansenMr. Pierre CôtéMiss Melissa Crockett,      In Honor of Donald J. Trump, the most gifted natural economist in the history of the United States of America.Ms. Kristine A. CrossMr. Bradley CrumMr. Rodney DavenportLini Dedo,      In Memory of баба ми ЕвдокияAnonymousMr. Dan Derby, IIIMr. Michael DiamondP. DickinsonMr. Neal DowlingMr. Craig A. DownsMr. Matthew DrakeMr. Scott DunstanMs. Faith ElliottMr. Grier EllisMr. Randy Enderle,      In Memory of Gail D. VillariMs. Elise EntzenbergerMr. John FisherMr. Wayne FordMrs. Tamara GoforthMr. Robert GonzalesMr. Santiago GonzalezMs. Diana GreigMr. Gene GryzieckiMr. Benjamin HainesMr. Christopher M. HalfenMr. Hal Hamilton, Jr.Mr. Nicholas HankoffMs. Rosalind HarbinMr. Ralf HeinAnonymousMr. Lars HellmanMr. Mikal HendeeMr. Caleb HerodMr. Mike Hogan,     In Memory of Terry HoganJay HuchowskiMr. Adam JenningsMr. David JohnstoneMr. John V. Jones, Jr., PhD, LPC-SMr. Justin JozokosMr. Justin KastenMr. Justin KeeneyMr. Hugh KendrickMr. Christos KolovosMr. Christo KostovMr. Sanjay KothariMs. Debbie Lai,     In Honor of our Almighty God’s memory!Mr. Russell V. LambertiDr. Paul LeslieMs. Heather LockhartAnonymousMr. Mark MacheyMr. Malcolm MackMr. Miguel MalagonMr. Joseph Matarese,     In Memory of Teresa MatareseMr. Jeff McCallMr. Jon McDonaldDonnell McAuliffeMr. Athel W. Miller, IIMr. George Miller-DavisMr. Eric MingeeMr. Daniel Muehl-MillerMr. Robert MüllerMr. John MurrayAnonymousMr. Mohammad NaumanMr. Hoang Duc NguyenMs. Wanjiru NjoyaMr. Patrick O'DonnellMr. Michael O'NeillMr. Mikko OjanenJaime OrtizMr. Norm PierceMr. Rodney PilbrowMr. Daniel PlattMr. Paul PrestonMr. Jonathan RasoDr. Michael RawMr. Attila RebakMr. Tim ReganMs. Katherine ReignerMr. Robert RenkMr. Derek RethmanMr. Anthony RicciardiMs. Sarah RichardsJoelle RichardsonMr. Pierre RobertMs. Jane Robinson,     In Honor of G. Edward Griffin – Happy Birthday!Mr. John B. RoemerMs. Ann RohanMr. Ryan RosenkingMr. Frederic Rousseau,     In Honor of the Mises InstituteMr. Thomas Ruane,     In Memory of Michael L. Ruane, MDMr. Aaron RushingDr. George SaundersMr. Jeffrey ScamponeAnonymousMr. David SchwendingerMr. Joseph SeawellMr. Stephen SebastianMs. Mary SherryMr. Michael SimonMr. Derek SimpsonMr. John SlayMr. Dan SlickerMr. Timothy SmithMr. Noah SmithMr. James SondgerothKees SpaanMr. William SpringerMs. Claudia StaplesMr. Joseph StarnesMr. John TateMr. Anthony TiliacosMr. Carlos Tirado AngelMr. Gregory ToddMr. Jeff TunstallMs. Wendy VanCleve,     In Honor of Kurt FullerMr. Alex VanderwellMr. Michael WatsonMr. Alan WeierMs. Christina WelchMs. Gina Wells,     In Honor of Ludwig von Mises birthdayMr. Robert WemerMr. Marcin WielochMrs. Lupita A. WiggansMr. John WilliamsMr. Shawn YeagerMr. Herbert Yussim

     

    Tuesday, September 28 Mr. Carlos AdaroMr. Dallas AdolphsenMr. Michael AyresMr. Armando AzpuruaParrish BegnaudMr. John BlaineyDr. Walter E. Block,     In Memory of Murray RothbardMr. Dave BowersMr. Douglas CableMr. Robert CaldwellMr. Bobby CampbellMr. James CarlyleMs. Melissa CarrollMr. Derek CarterMr. Brad CliffordMr. Ethan CoeMr. Gary CookMr. Reginald Cook,     In Memory of military veteransMr. Edgar CrossmanMr. Frank CrowtherMr. Spencer CuretonMr. Crisanto DelgadoMr. Eric DurtcheMr. Mark EcklerMr. Richard EdmistenMr. Harry Elliott,     In Memory of Ayn RandMr. David EvansJaime Fernandez DelgadoMs. Karen Fitzgerald,     In Honor of Dr. Thomas SowellMr. Travis FrydenlundMr. Jorge Gadea AlfaroDr. Dennis P. GilmanMs. Lynnette HansmannMr. Geoff HarpurMrs. Ellen HathawayMr. Gordon ImrothMr. Dan Johnson and Ms. Randee LaskewitzMr. Richard JohnstonMr. Paulo Jorge PereiraMr. Rudy KaethlerMr. John KallielMr. Jason KellyMr. Michael KingPepijn KnetschMr. Greg LefflerMs. Carol MarangoniMr. Marc MayfieldAnonymousMs. Carrie McPhersonMr. Dale MillerMr. Joe MoracaMr. Vernon MoretMr. David MuellerMr. Benjamin NadelsteinAnonymousMr. Gregg ObbinkMr. Michael PattersonMr. Neal PhenesMr. Peter PintoMs. Roberta Privette,     In Memory of Mary ArgerosMr. John PruittMr. Michael ReddSascha RichertMr. Andre RIvetMr. Clark RollinsMr. Gabe L. RoyerYahya Saleem-BeyMr. Edward ScherrerMr. Myles ShivesMr. John SotirakisMr. Bill StampMr. David StefanMrs. Pamela StoutMr. Carlos Tapang,     In Memory of Crisostomo TapangMr. Stephen TempleMr. Andrew TomashaskaMr. Alan TownsonMr. Scott P. TreaseMr. Edward TuttleMr. R. David Van TreurenMr. Gregory VisscherMr. Fabian von Schilcher,     In Honor of Satoshi NakamotoMr. Howard WallaceMr. Vern WestgateMr. Newton WhiteMr. John Williams,     In Honor of all the countless millions who have died under the boot of communismMs. Jennifer WisnoffMr. Elmer A. Wright,     In Memory of Grand ChildrenMr. Viktor YoshimuraMr. Pedro Zapata Gil

     

    Monday, September 27 Mr. Abdelhamid AbdouMr. Meldon AchesonMr. John AdlerDr. Richard Adler,     In Memory of Nancy AdlerMr. Robert AdrianMr. and Mrs. J. Ryan AlfordMr. Leandro Alonzo BurguenoMr. Christian Alvarez,     In Honor of all the libertarian people that are involved in the ideas battle in LatinoamericaAnonymousMr. Michael ArchieMr. Richard Armstrong,     In Memory of Zechariah FarrEdgard BaqueiroMr. Durwood BarronDon BarzykDr. Jeremy BellMr. Davis Bennett,     In Honor of Dr. Ron PaulMr. Thomas BertrandAnonymousMr. Stuart BeverleyMr. Dennis M. BlairMr. Michael BlevinsMr. Jeremy M. BolesMr. Michael BonenbergerGosse BoumaMr. Melvin BrandlMr. Ryan BreenMr. Keith BrilhartMr. Caleb BrownMr. Scott BurkhardtMr. Michael BurkhartMr. Brian BurleyMr. Matthew J. CannonMr. Scott CarlMr. Sammy CartagenaMark CasamentoBobby CatheyMr. Johnny ChinMr. Alex CombsMr. Robert CourserMr. Marc DAngeloRobin DeaMr. Ethan DemilioMr. Jose De SouzaNikola DimitrovMr. Aleksandar DjuricicMs. Maureen Dowst, CPA, PLLCMr. Kent DrinkwaterAnonymousMr. Caleb EarlMr. Bryce EickholtErol EraOr EzraMr. Tom FachanMr. Donald FannonMr. Thomas FelixMr. Justin FischerMr. Tony FulgenziMr. Frank GalushaMr. Aron GahaganMr. Allen GindlerAnonymousMr. David GleasonMr. Robert GordonDr. Marvin GrahamMs. Charlotte Kay GrahamMs. Elizabeth GravelyMr. John GriecoMr. Tyler GrossmanMr. Matthew GunterMr. Luis Gustavo FelippiMr. Randall HansenMr. R. Reid HansonMr. Sheldon HayerMr. Logan HazanMr. Jack HendersonMs. Amandah Hendricks,     In Memory of FreedomMr. Joseph HenningerMr. Daniel HerltMr. Terrill HerringMr. James HickeyMr. Philip HillMr. Chris HindmarchMr. Nathan HinesRW HobertMr. Stephen HolohanMr. Daniel HolwayMr. Timothy HotchkissMr. Hal HowertonMr. Curtis M. HowlandMr. Bill HoyerMr. Mark HunterMr. Jeffrey JacobiMr. Bob JonesDorian JonesMr. Jeremy JonesMr. Peter J. KaliskyMr. Charles KapelaMr. Brandon KarpelesMrs. Marnie KerrisonDr. Ricardo Almeida KilsonMr. Thomas KirwanMr. Jacob KlaserAnton KovalenkoMr. Kenneth KuhnMr. John H. LandMr. Shawn LazarDr. Nicolau Leal Werneck,     In Honor of the central-planners out thereMr. Andrew LeaverMr. Kevin LeCureuxMr. Jean LesperanceMr. Jared Lindquist,     In Honor of Hoppean.orgThiago LoMr. Richard LodatoMr. Matthew LorenceMr. Jacob LovellZoran LowMr. Michael LukeDimitrios LypourlisMr. Aaron MaciasMrs. Caroline MacriBenedict MaliakkalMr. William MalisMr. Gabriel MarinMr. Kris P. MarinMr. Neal MarstonMr. John MasonMr. Samuel MatthewsMr. Roy McCollumMr. James E. McCullenZeke MckeeMr. Frank McLeanAnonymousMarco MessinaMs. Susan MeyersMr. Todd MillerMr. Zach MillsMs. Gail MitchellMr. Samuel A. MitchellMr. Michael MilovancevMr. Mark MorettiMr. Jack MosesMr. Richard MuldoonDr. James W. MulhollandDr. Lyle MullerMs. Helen NardiMr. Connor ObrienBoo O’ConnerMr. Marcus OmlinMr. Robert OnderMr. Michael PageMr. John W. PanchukMr. Nilo PascoalotoMr. Enrique Pascual ManzanoMr. Alvin PlummerMr. Joshua PolkMr. James PottsMs. Margareta RaducanMr. Bruno RaphenonMr. Richard ReevesMr. Kurt RescharMs. Susanna ReynoldsIvo RibeiroMr. James RobinsonMr. Richard RossMr. David RoyleQuentin SalleyMr. Rajiv SarafMr. James SawyerMr. Joshua SchubertMr. Pete SecorMs. Julie Seiffert JastoMs. Karen SelickMr. Mikhail Serfontein,     In Honor of Jurie and Uta SerfonteinJesse ShattuckMr. Eduard SherstnevHelder Simoes,In Honor of Nuno NevesMr. Andrew SmithHochiu SoMs. Deborah SolomonMr. Donald SolowAJ TyvandMr. Byron L. StoeserMr. Allen Stokes,     In Honor of Ludwig von MisesMr. David Stroh, JD,     In Memory of Edwin J. StrohMr. Laron TamayeRoxane TeleshaMr. Michael ThomasMr. Thomas Timpone,     In Honor of John AdamsMr. Joseph TorsielloMr. Michael TownsendRoman TraberMr. Aaron TuttleMr. Steve Tuttle,     In Memory of Ed LampittMr. Hank Van GasseltMr. Lionel VasquezMr. Ian VigusMr. Nicholas WalkerMr. Jason Watson,     In Honor of Michael Malice and Tom WoodsMr. David WengerMr. Ronald L. WestMr. Christopher WestleyMr. Todd WilliamsMr. Joe WithrowMs. Elaine WoodriffMr. Roger WoodwardDC WornockMr. Christopher C. WrenMr. Jeffrey A. YerkesMr. David ZientaraMr. Robert Zumwalt

     

    All donors will be listed on our home page this week. Recurring donors of $5 or more, or one-time donors of $60 or more, will receive a free copy of The Middle of the Road Leads to Socialism by Ludwig von Mises.

    Mises Wire
    enOctober 03, 2021

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    Thanks to Our Fall Campaign Donors

    "Thank you!" to the generous supporters, below, who donated to our Fall Campaign. The best people in the world support the Mises Institute. Will you join them?

    The goal of our Fall Campaign is simple—to increase our Membership and our influence. Please take time to donate TODAY.

     

    Saturday, October 3 Mr. Kelly BeanMr. Chris BecraftViera BibrDr. Chad BigonyMr. Heinz BitterliMr. John BlaineyDr. Walter E. Block,in honor of MurrayMr. Yann BongiovanniMr. Kristopher BorerMr. William C. Brennan,memory Kraig McKownMs. Rebecca BrewingtonMr. Gary BrogochMr. Petter BrolinMr. Michael BrusserMr. Steven BuerkleMr. Scott BullardMr. Scott BurkhardtMr. Michael BurksFrans Buzek and Liliana Mateus AldanaMr. Robert Calabro,    in memory of deceased members of the Calabro and Iannuzzo familiesMr. Thomas CaldwellMr. David CarlsonMr. Wayne ChapeskieMr. Alec ChevalierMr. Johnny ChinBogdan CholakovMs. Linda ChynowethGordon P. Clark, MDMr. William Colburn,    in honor Dr. Ron PaulMr. Fabrizio ComperMr. Lynn ConeMr. Richard F. ConwayMs. Cheryle CooperMr. Matthew CoppedgeMr. Shane CoulesMs. Kristine A. CrossMr. David CrouchAnonymousMr. Steven De Klerck,    in memory of Ludwig von MisesMs. Jane DelgerDr. Kenneth DeLongMs. Jennifer DenBleykerMr. Paul J. DietrichDr. Thomas J. DiLorenzoMr. Lawrence DixonMr. Tom DouglasMr. Igor DrabMr. Andrej DrapalMr. Elias EconomouMr. Brenton ElisbergMr. Adam FavaroMr. Alan FanningMr. Joseph D. FeiferMr. Joe FertittaMs. Eileen Findlay,    in memory of Peter Burke FindlayMs. Sandra FormanczykMr. André FortinMr. and Mrs. James E. FosterMr. C. Scott FreemanMr. Josef FrendreisMr. Lee FridayMr. William FullerMr. David GallerMs. Carol GarciaMr. Gary T. GeddensMr. Mark GilmoreMr. Stephen GinnettiMr. Artem Glushchuk,    in memory of FreedomMrs. Tamara GoforthMs. Janice GottliebMr. Chester GranardMr. Peter GrigorMr. Richard GrimesMrs. Joan GrindelMr. Matt GrubbsMr. Tommy GustMr. Christopher Hammond,    in memory of Gerald E. Hammond, MDMr. Ethan HammondsMr. Hill HamptonWou Sang HanMr. Geoff HarpurMr. Richard G. Hartman,    in memory of LaVerne and Joyce HartmanOtto HavelMr. James Hayman,    in honor of Tom WoodsMr. Kevin HedgesAnonymousMr. Dan HendershotMr. Shane M. HendrenMr. Luke HenkeniusMr. Sebastian Hernandez CarmonaMr. John HicksMs. Rosemary HolmMrs. Tara HopwoodMr. Timothy HotchkissAnonymousMr. James A. Howe,    in honor of MurrayMr. Aaron HowellMr. Marvin HughesMr. Richard Humphrey, III,    in honor of Dr. Randall HolcombeMr. Matthew ItzoMr. Bruce JalaMr. David JonesMr. John KaschMr. Marcel KepplerMs. Karen Killinger-HumesMr. Dylan KizyMr. Paul KlarenbergMr. Kevin KnappMr. John KnoxDr. Rudolph KohnMr. William KolpaskyMr. Greg KuruvillaMr. Rick LahrsonMr. Matt LanterMr. Nathan LantsMr. James LazearMr. Glenn LeeMr. Andrew LeeMr. Yevgen Lemberg,    in memory of Natalia LinetskayaMyra LewinLivia LillMr. Jeff LindsayMr. Barry LinetskyMr. Tim LipusMr. Paul LockmanMr. Thomas LonerganMr. Phillip LuchettaMr. John LummusMr. Mark MarekMr. Alexander MarkesinisMr. James MartinMr. Jorge MateoMr. Warren MatthewsMr. John McCartyMr. Mark McGrath,    in memory of MajGen Smedley D. Butler, USMCMr. James McKibbinMs. Suzanne McMaken,in honor of Pauline and Jesse GalindoMr. Caleb McmillenMr. Doug McNabbMs. Rebecca McNameeAli MecklaiMr. Charles A. MertesMs. Kathryn MillerMr. Reuben MillerMr. David MitchellMs. Vickie MoehlmanMr. Charles L. MorrealeArne and Jonalee MortensenMr. Arthur NationMr. Alexander NazarenkoMr. John NelsonMiss Ruxandra NistorescuMs. Wanjiru NjoyaMr. James Norman, Jr.Mr. and Mrs. Kevin A. NorthMr. Don NorthamMr. Brian OdonoghueMr. Jerry O'NeilMr. Michael OrtonMr. Rick O'SteenMr. Allen OvereemMs. Nicole PapakostasMr. Allen Pegues,    in memory of James Cary Pegues, Jr.Mr. Justin PerryMr. John PhelanMr. Rodney PilbrowMr. David PlanchardWessel PorschenMr. Jacob PorterDr. and Mrs. Francis M. Powers, Jr.Mr. Robert PrellAnonymousMiss Kelly QuesenberryMr. Saul RackauskasMr. Richard Reese, IIIMr. Will ReishmanAnonymousMr. Richard RochelleMs. Rosemarie RotellaMs. Rita RussellMr. Christopher RymanMr. Al SadaghianiMr. Gerard SalamoneDr. Steven SandersMr. Paul SantucciDavid and Elaine SarosiMr. Bernard P. ScheurleMr. Jack SchlichtingMr. Robert SchwanbeckMr. Charles SebrellDiann Shook-CrenshawMr. Nikiforos SkoumasDr. H. Leland Smith,    in memory of Dr. Hans SennholzMr. Isaac SmithMr. Frank SmithMr. Jay SmithDr. James SpeightsMr. David StanowskiMr. Timothy E. StevensMr. Robert J. StewartMr. Michael StewartMr. James SummersMr. Robert SzymaszczykMr. Trent N. TalbertMr. Ryan TaylorMr. James TaylorMr. John TeitenbergMr. Charles Tronolone,    in honor of Lew Rockwell and Dr. Ron PaulMr. Richard UbertoGoran UgrinoskiMr. Don Van GorpMr. Mitchell A. VanyaMr. Paul C. VerdereseMr. William VetterMr. Robert A. VincentMr. Michael VliesMr. Robert VogelMr. Edward WalterMr. Jack WellsNatalie and Dustin WenzMr. Ronald WestMr. Andrew WestheadMr. Benjamin WiegoldAnonymousMrs. Lupita A. WiggansMr. Kenneth WilcoxMr. Edward WilkesMr. Jon WilliamsMr. James WittesMr. Michael G. Wood,    in memory of Yami Frances WoodMr. Larry N. Woods,    in memory of Robert LeFevreZongxiong Ye

     

    Friday, October 2 Mr. Richard AlbarinoMr. Arthur E. AlbinJohn F. Ambrose, MDMr. Michael BaerresenMs. Alexandra Ballantine,    in honor of Jacob HornbergerMr. Bruce BarberaMr. Brad BarsnessMr. Alex BassoMr. Meridan BennettMr. Andrew BerselliLeslie Blouin,    in honor of Murray RothbardMr. Eddie BlueMr. Martin BlythMr. Walter Bradley,    in memory of my father, Walter T. Bradley, Jr.Mr. Daniel BradyMr. Nicolaas BruijnMr. Andrei G. BucurMr. Charles C. BurridgeMr. John BusenitzMr. Mauricio CanedoMr. Juan Cano DiazMr. Yuk Ming CheungAnonymousMr. Brandon CillaMr. Edward ClarkMr. Richard ClarkeMr. Mark ColemanMr. Harry CollisMs. Susan CortesMr. Donald K. CowlesMr. Eric CrowleyMs. Melissa D'ArcheMs. Margaret A. DaggsMr. Andrew DiabMr. Bill DonabedianMr. Daniel DonovanMr. Constantin DragomirovMr. David DustinMr. Bill DyerMr. Jerry EdwardsMrs. Courtenay EllisonMr. Clint EtzelMr. Bob EvansMr. Katherine FarleyMr. Franklin Fiedler,    in memory of Juanees RossMs. Sandra Filosof-SchipperMr. Armando FloresMr. Thomas FordMr. Steven ForresterMr. Martin C. FoxMr. Michael GaffneyMr. Pedro GaivaoMr. Robert Garretson,    in honor of Christian GarretsonDr. Teresa GasallaDr. Marvin GrahamMr. Jonathan GuntherMr. Mark HannaMr. Samuel HarkinMs. Lucy HarrisonMadison HartMr. David HauensteinMr. Bret HayesMr. Jack HendersonMr. Paul HerrickRobert Heuermann, M.D.Janez HlebanjaMr. Axel HoebekeMs. Melanie HolzmanMr. Michael Houze,in memory of David JacksonMr. Richard HutchingsMr. Raymond IsbellMr. Daniel A. JeffreMr. Johnathan JenkinsMr. Peter L. Johnson,    in honor of Robert Murphy, Israel Kirzner, and Gerald O’DriscollMr. Dan KellyMr. Don KilcoyneMr. Garett KleinschmidtMr. Eric KlierVasko KohlmayerMr. Francis KuhlmanMr. Steven La Bella,    in loving memory of R. Nelson NashMr. Russell V. Lamberti,    in honor of Ludwig von MisesMs. Candace LamoreeMs. Vicki LamppinMr. John H. LandKerri LandisHenri Le BihanMr. Dewey LevieMr. Carl LöwegrenDr. Joshua Malay,    in memory of Odne StokkaMr. Gabriel Marin,    in honor of Dr. Ron PaulMr. Frank MartinMr. Sladan MastilovicMr. Clinton McGrathMr. Michael J. McKayMr. Kent McKeeMr. James McKibbinMr. Edward MelanMr. Michael MillerAnonymousMr. Reuben MillerMr. Aleksandar MojovicMr. Vladimir MorgensternMr. Eric MorrisMr. Brian C. MulliganAnonymousMr. Matan NatansonTeri NewhallMs. Alison NicholsMr. Micha NiskinMr. John OglesbyMr. Aaron OlsonMr. Antonio Ortega AlbonicoTalat OzyagcilarMr. Donald PadalisDr. Pedro Alfredo PerezDr. and Mrs. Philip PiaseckiMr. Charles PickmanMr. James PillionMr. John R. PorterMr. Jordi PosthumusMr. Aaron PrinceMr. Alexander ProffittMr. Kevin PursleyMr. Andrew QuinnMr. Richard RandallMr. Daniel ReindersMr. Jose ReveloMr. Jon RobertMr. Ian RossiDr. Peter RoweMs. Susan RushMr. John E. RushingMr. David W. SandersMr. Larry SchmerbeckMr. Benjamin SchmittMr. Allan SelbyMr. Christopher SeyfertMr. Jesse ShattuckMr. Jeffrey Shaw,    in memory of Karl HessMr. Eduard SherstnevMr. Bob SimeralMr. Michael SimonMr. and Mrs. Thomas W. SingletonMr. Walter SmithMr. George F. Smith,    in honor of Preston Scott NicholsMr. Richard SobotaMr. David StallsmithMs. Claudia StaplesMr. Sebastian-Oliver SternAnonymousMr. Gregory StrebelMr. Adam SylvesterMr. Seth ThompsonMr. David Tubbs,    in memory of Donald TubbsAnonymousAlex VerlindenMr. Michael Von HattenMr. Grover WallsMr. Michael Waters,    in memory of Tom SparksMr. Jack WellsMr. Robert WemerMr. Richard WestrupMr. Marcin WielochMr. Stephen WindahlMr. Frank WiseMr. PG WistMr. Norris WoodMr. Michael WoodsJungho YooMr. Thomas Young,    in memory of R. Nelson NashMr. Warren Y. Zeger,    in honor of Prof. Sylvester Petro

     

    Wednesday, September 30 Mr. Mariano BasMr. Julio BaylacMr. Arnes BegicMr. Ron BertiMs. Jacqueline BlackMr. Christopher BondMs. Judith BoveMr. Paul BowenMr. Paul BraccoMr. Richard BradtMr. Joseph BrittonMr. Edmund BrooksMr. Joseph Buczek,    in honor of Dr. Ron PaulPer and Susanne BylundDr. Athanasios Chymis,    in memory of Demetrius Kolias, PhDMr. John CiccotelliMr. Eugene ColliganMs. Teresa L. CosperMr. Trevor DaherSamir DeebMr. Javan DeGraffMr. Nikolaas de JongDr. Adolfo De UbietaDr. Ljubomir DimitrovskiMr. Thomas DoughertyAnonymousMr. Minh DuongMr. Geoff DurhamMr. Omar ElkhatibMr. Justin EndertonMs. Nina ErdmannMr. Norman FaccoMr. James FedakoMr. Bryant FisherMs. Sheila GallagherMr. Philip GarlandMr. John GermanyTy GiesemannMr. Gregory GordonAnonymousMr. Ryan HartMr. Daniel HerltDr. and Mrs. James M. HerringTerry HuffmanCurran HydeMr. John JordanMr. Kyle KeeganMr. Peter KeoughMr. Ricardo KilsonMr. William KittelsonMr. Alexandros KonstantinidisMr. Lawrence KuhlmanMr. Brent KupferMr. Jeremy LeenknechtMr. Thomas LevinsMr. Carl LocignoMr. Thomas LonerganHarmon Lowman, IIIMr. Christopher Manning,    in honor of Dr. Ron PaulDr. Karl MaritatoMr. Steve MarriottMr. Elias MassartMr. William MielochMr. Kevin MileyMr. Steve MillerMr. David MisiscoMr. Edwin MorilloMr. Ryan NadeauMr. Jon NallMr. James O'BrienMr. James ObermeyerMr. Christopher OhnstadMr. Glenn ParishMr. Amit Reuveni,    in honor of Ohad OsterreicherMr. Rodolfo RoballosMr. Mark SchmielMr. Ryan SearfoorceMr. Matthew SenfieldMr. James Michael Smith,    in honor of Dr. Ron PaulMr. Bernhard W. StalzerDanielle StanleyMr. David SteuberAnonymousMr. Gregory StrzempekMr. Alan SwopeMr. James TaylorMr. Stephen TempleMr. Daniel TeskeMr. Robert TokarzMr. John B. TrolingerMr. Patrick Underwood, Jr.Mr. Ger van GilsMr. David Van SlyckMr. Thomas VarnadoMs. Anna VinogradovaMr. Brad WastlerMr. Austin WaungMr. Bruce WeddendorfMr. Christopher WeimannMr. Lee O. Welter,    in memory of Douglas Arthur “Art” TumaMr. Dean WilsonMr. Robert WimsattMr. Michael WithrowMs. Elaine WoodriffMr. David Zientara

     

    Tuesday, September 29 Mr. Abdelhamid AbdouMr. Adnan Al-Abbar,   in honor of Dr. Haidar KhajahCiro AndradeMr. Donald ArmstrongMr. Igor AyalaDr. J. Duncan BerryMr. Philip BoggsMr. Daryl BortzMr. Yani BrankovMr. Donald Burger,   In honor of Ludwig von MisesMs. Dorothea BurstynMr. Carroll BusherMr. Dennis M. CampbellMr. James CarlyleMr. Ricky CarneyMr. Russell CaseySheryl CastelloMr. Bobby CatheyMr. Luke Ciardi,   in honor of Ludwig von MisesMs. Victoria ClickMr. Thomas Colella,   in memory of Al ColellaMr. Kevin CourtneyMr. Harry CoxMr. Stephen DavidsonMr. Peter denDulkMr. Matthew DeNicolaMr. Frank Dieterich,   in memory of Murray N. RothbardMr. Robert F. Dillman, Jr.Ms. Farrah DomekaMr. Mike Dumitriu,   in honor of Hans Hermann HoppeMr. Ian DunlapMr. Mark EcklerMr. Harry ElliottMr. Eric EnglundMr. J. Guillermo Figueroa,    in memory of Joseph KeckeissenMr. Jan M. Fijor,   in memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Tony FulgenziMr. J. Bruce Gabriel,   in memory of Ludwig von MisesMr. Dennis GarrardMr. Patrick GasmenMr. Frank GrahamMr. Gene GryzieckiMr. William HanekampMr. Sheldon HayerMr. Sean Hernandez,   in honor of Tank ManMs. Katherine HigginsMr. Jeffrey HillMr. Daniel HolwayMr. Justin HolzerMr. Troy HudsonMr. Douglas HunterMr. Gregg HunterMr. Jay JacksonMr. Nik JazbinsekMr. Hrvoje Jelić,   in memory of Olga JelićMr. Franklin KellerMr. Ben KnowlesMr. Joe KosterichMr. Nathan KreiderMr. David KushMr. Barron LataquinMr. Junior Leslie,   in honor of Ludwig von MisesMr. Mike Lev,   in memory of YK ALMr. Charles LewisMr. Phillip L. LindseyMr. John LinskeyMr. Michael W. MaceMr. J. Stuart MacLeanMr. Attila MadarasCarole MannyMr. Efthimis Maramis,   in memory of Murray Newton RothbardMr. Anthony MarescoDr. Stephen MarmerMr. Neal MarstonLee MbuguaMr. Boone McBrideMr. John McCartyMr. Brett McClain,   in memory of Perry McClainMr. Kary McFaddenMs. Catherine E. MellorMaurizzio MenneaMr. Ralph Miller,   in memory of Ralph LoydMr. George Miller-DavisMr. Mark MoersenMrs. Jane Moffitt,   in memory of Edward L. MoffittMr. Jack MosesMs. Maria Gabriela MradMr. Edward MurrayDr. Patrick NewmanMr. Ohad OsterreicherMr. Steven OswaldMr. William J. OttMr. Ralph PascualyMr. Dennis Pavick,   in memory of Melinda and Caroline CassidyMs. Signa PendegraftMr. Alvin PlummerMr. Rich PrestonMr. Tsvetalin RadevMr. James RadtkeChonzom RapgayDr. David J. RappMr. Jonathan RasoDr. John J. RayDr. Matthew ReverMr. Brendan RiceMiss Gyneth G. RichardsMr. Vincent RichardsonMr. Brett RiggsMs. Ann RohanMr. Scott RossMr. William RusherNemrod SaldanasLourdes SalvadorMr. Michael Schinstock,   in memory of Jack SchinstockMr. Mike SchmidMr. David SchwendingerMr. Rajiv ShahRic StejbachMr. K.G. StephensMr. Peter StipanovichMs. Susan Stoppkotte,   in memory of Craig WeeksMs. Molly StryjewskiMs. Nicole TateMr. Jonathan ThompsonMr. Stephen VickeryMr. R. Jeffrey White,   in honor of Ronald R. WhiteMr. Chris WilsonMr. Michael R. WilsonMr. Joseph Withrow,   in honor of Isaiah JosephMr. Bennett WoodwardMs. Emily WoofendenMr. Robert Zumwalt

     

    Monday, September 28 Ms. Alyssa BaileyMr. Andrius BalandisDr. Francis Xavier Bardavío AraMr. Thomas BertrandMr. Randy BleyerMr. Mark BloomMr. Randy BoringMr. Boris BorissovAnonymousMr. Charles BorregoMr. Trevor BrownMr. Richard BrowningMr. Thomas J. BurlingameMr. Richard CausleyMr. Paul CerinoMr. Juan Carlos CervelleraHong ChenMr. Bruno Cormouls-HoulèsMr. Everett DavisMr. Dennis De FordMr. and Mrs. Allen DempsterDr. Atanu DeyMr. Paul DohertyMr. Eugene DoroshMr. Kent DrinkwaterMr. Romain DurandMr. Joshua EnderleMr. Dirk EnkMr. Mike EverettMr. Bart FrazierMr. Pedro GaivaoMr. Robert GaleMr. Surajit GoswamiMr. Robert HartnettMr. Stanley HeardMr. Adam HeinrichMr. Nathan HinesMr. François HodlerAnonymousMr. Andreas Huebner and    Mrs. Maria Jose Silva RomanMr. Paul IsherwoodMr. Michael ItzoMr. Daniel A. JeffreDr. Porter JenkinsMr. Guojie JiaMr. Brian JohnsonDr. James JusticeMr. Peter J. KaliskyMs. Kaye KamonMr. Kevin KellMr. Cory KleinMr. Jim KnowlerBernard and Joan KoetherMr. Greg KrabbenhoftMr. Alex KulikowskiDr. Dennis KulondaMr. Matthew LaRocheMr. Jon LawrenceMr. Charles LebedaDr. Paul LeslieMr. Matthew LorenceMr. William LupienMs. Susan LussosMr. Aaron MaciasDr. Allen MartinMr. John McCartyMr. Curtis McGirtMs. Christina MehrenMr. Jip MeijerMr. Peter J. MichelMr. Don MurphyMr. Matthew MurphyMr. Christopher NawrotMs. Summer NorrisMr. Charles NovyAlbrecht Fürst Oettingen-SpielbergMrs. Carrie ORourkeMs. Terri OrtegoMs. Rachel PettitMr. Eugenio PozzoMr. Philip ProdanovicAnonymousMr. Jason ReichertMr. Danny Roberson,    In memory of Voltairine de CleyreRev. Charles RobertsMr. Andrew RobertsMr. Holger RöderMr. Frank RooneyMr. Carlos RossiMr. Anthony RozmajzlMr. Glenn M. RuffusMr. Brae Sadler,    In honor of Dave SmithMr. Michael ScarbroughMr. Edward ScottMr. Vincent ScrivensMrs. Margaret ScsasznyMr. Kurt SeidlerMr. John ShemiltDr. and Mrs. Paul L. ShelterMr. Michael SimonMr. Walter E. StepkoMr. Daniel ȘterbuleacMr. John SullivanMr. Dale SummersMrs. Nancy H. SwansonMr. Daniel S. TaylorGiovanni TestaMiss Eryn ThompsonMr. Henry TilestonMr. Joshua TurnerMr. and Mrs. Chase VentersMr. Garret WallimanMr. Steven G. WaltherMr. Gavin WaxMr. Paul F. WeberMr. Ronald R. WhiteMr. Daniel M. WinterrowdMr. Roger Woodward

     

    All donors will be listed on our home page this week. Recurring donors of $5 or more, or one-time donors of $60 or more, will receive a free copy of The Dollar Dilemma by Ron Paul.

    Mises Wire
    enOctober 04, 2020

    Nationalism and Secession

    Nationalism and Secession

    [Published in Chronicles, Nov. 1993, p. 23–25]

    With the collapse of communism all across Eastern Europe, secessionist movements are mushrooming. There are now more than a dozen independent states on the territory of the former Soviet Union, and many of its more than 100 different ethnic, religious, and linguistic groups are striving to gain independence. Yugoslavia has dissolved into various national components. Slovenia, Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia now exist as independent states. The Czechs and the Slovaks have split and formed independent countries. There are Germans in Poland, Hungarians in Slovakia, Hungarians, Macedonians, and Albanians in Serbia, Germans and Hungarians in Romania, and Turks and Macedonians in Bulgaria who all desire independence. The events of Eastern Europe have also given new strength to secessionist movements in Western Europe: to the Scots and Irish in Great Britain, the Basques and Catalonians in Spain, the Flemish in Belgium, and the South Tyrolians and the Lega Nord in Italy.

    From a global perspective, however, mankind has moved closer than ever before to the establishment of a world government. Even before the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the United States had attained hegemonical status over Western Europe (most notably over West Germany) and the Pacific rim countries (most notably over Japan)—as indicated by the presence of American troops and military bases, by the NATO and SEATO pacts, by the role of the American dollar as the ultimate international reserve currency and of the U.S. Federal Reserve System as the “lender” or “liquidity provider” of last resort for the entire Western banking system, and by institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Moreover, under American hegemony the political integration of Western Europe has steadily advanced. With the establishment of a European Central Bank and a European Currency Unit (ECU), the European Community will be complete before the turn of the century. In the absence of the Soviet Empire and its military threat, the United States has emerged as the world’s sole and undisputed military superpower.

    A look at history reveals yet another perspective. At the beginning of this millennium, Europe consisted of thousands of independent territorial units. Now, only a few dozen such units remain. To be sure, decentralizing forces also existed. There was the progressive disintegration of the Ottoman Empire from the 16th century until after World War I and the establishment of modern Turkey. The discontiguous Habsburg Empire was gradually dismembered from the time of its greatest expansion under Charles V until it disappeared and modern Austria was founded in 1918. However, the overriding tendency was in the opposite direction. For instance, during the second half of the 17th century, Germany consisted of some 234 countries, 51 free cities, and 1,500 independent knightly manors. By the early 19th century, the total number of all three had fallen below 50, and by 1871 unification had been achieved. The scenario in Italy was similar. Even the small states have a history of expansion and centralization. Switzerland began in 1291 as a confederation of three independent cantonal states. By 1848 it was a single (federal) state with some two dozen cantonal provinces.

    How should one interpret these phenomena? According to the orthodox view, centralization is generally a “good” and progressive movement, whereas disintegration and secession, even if sometimes unavoidable, represent an anachronism. It is assumed that larger political units—and ultimately a single world government—imply wider markets and hence increased wealth. As evidence of this, it is pointed out that economic prosperity has increased dramatically with increased centralization. However, rather than reflecting any truth, this orthodox view is more illustrative of the fact that history is typically written by its victors. Correlation or temporal coincidence do not prove causation. In fact, the relationship between economic prosperity and centralization is very different from—indeed, almost the opposite of—what orthodoxy alleges.

    Political integration (centralization) and economic (market) integration are two completely different phenomena. Political integration involves the territorial expansion of a government’s power of taxation and property regulation (expropriation). Economic integration is the extension of the interpersonal and interregional division of labor and market participation.

    In principle, in taxing and regulating (expropriating) private property owners and market income earners, all governments are counterproductive. They reduce market participation and the formation of economic wealth. Once the existence of a government has been assumed, however, no direct relationship between territorial size and economic integration exists. Switzerland and Albania are both small countries, but Switzerland exhibits a high degree of economic integration, whereas Albania does not. Both the United States and the former Soviet Union are large. Yet while there is much division of labor and market participation in the United States, in the Soviet Union, where there was virtually no private capital ownership, there was hardly any economic integration. Centralization, then, can go hand in hand with either economic progress or retrogression. Progress results whenever a less taxing and regulating government expands its territory at the expense of a more expropriative one. If the reverse occurs, centralization implies economic disintegration and retrogression.

    Yet a highly important indirect relationship exists between size and economic integration. A central government ruling over large-scale territories—much less a single world government—cannot come into existence ab ovo. Instead, all institutions with the power to tax and regulate the owners of private property must start out small. Smallness contributes to moderation, however. A small government has many close competitors, and if it taxes and regulates its own subjects visibly more than these competitors do, it is bound to suffer from emigration and a corresponding loss of future revenue. Consider a single household, or a village, as an independent territory, for instance. Could a father do to his son, or a mayor to his village, what the government of the Soviet Union did to its subjects (i.e., deny them any right to private capital ownership) or what governments all across Western Europe and the United States do to their citizens (i.e., expropriate up to 50 percent of their productive output)? Obviously not. Either there would be an immediate revolt and the government would be overthrown or emigration to another nearby household or village would ensue.

    Contrary to orthodoxy, then, it is precisely because Europe possessed a highly decentralized power structure composed of countless independent political units that explains the origin of capitalism—the expansion of market participation and of economic growth—in the Western world. It is not by accident that capitalism first flourished under conditions of extreme political decentralization: in the northern Italian city states, in southern Germany, and in the secessionist Low Countries.

    The competition among small governments for taxable subjects brings them into conflict with each other. As a result of interstate conflicts, historically drawn out over the course of centuries, a few states succeed in expanding their territories, while others are eliminated or incorporated. Which states win in this process of eliminative competition and which ones lose depends on many factors, of course. But in the long run, the decisive factor is the relative amount of economic resources at a government’s disposal. In taxing and regulating, governments do not positively contribute to the creation of economic wealth. Instead, they parasitically draw on existing wealth. However, they can influence the amount of the existing wealth negatively.

    Other things being equal, the lower the tax and regulation burden imposed by a government on its domestic economy, the larger its population tends to grow (for internal reasons as well as immigration factors), and the larger the amount of domestically produced wealth on which it can draw in its conflicts with neighboring competitors. For this reason centralization is frequently progressive. States that tax and regulate their domestic economies little—liberal states—tend to defeat, and expand their territories at the expense of, nonliberal ones. This accounts for the outbreak of the “industrial revolution” in centralized England and France. It explains why in the course of the 19th century Western Europe came to dominate the rest of the world (rather than the other way around), and why this colonialism was generally progressive. Furthermore, it explains the rise of the United States to the rank of superpower in the course of the 20th century.

    However, the further the process of more liberal governments defeating less liberal ones proceeds—i.e., the larger the territories, the fewer and more distant the remaining competitors, and thus the more costly international migration—the lower a government’s incentive to continue in its domestic liberalism will be. As one approaches the limit of a One World state, all possibilities of voting with one’s feet against a government disappear. Wherever one goes, the same tax and regulation structure applies. Thus relieved of the problem of emigration, a fundamental rein on the expansion of governmental power is gone. This explains the course of the 20th century: with World War I, and even more with World War II, the United States attained hegemony over Western Europe and became heir to its vast colonial empires. A decisive step in the direction of global unification, therefore, was taken with the establishment of a pax Americana. And indeed, throughout the entire period the United States, Western Europe, and most of the rest of the world have suffered from a steady and dramatic growth of government power, taxation, and regulatory expropriation.

    What then is the role of secession? Initially, secession is nothing more than a shifting of control over the nationalized wealth from a larger, central government to a smaller, regional one. Whether this will lead to more or less economic integration and prosperity depends on the new regional government’s policies. However, the sole fact of secession has an immediate positive impact on production, for one of the most important reasons for secession is typically the belief on the part of the secessionists that they and their territory are being exploited by others. The Slovenes felt that they were being robbed systematically by the Serbs and the Serbian-dominated central Yugoslavian government, and the Baltics resented the fact that they had to pay tribute to the Russians and the Russian-dominated government of the Soviet Union. By virtue of secession, hegemonic domestic relations are replaced by contractual—mutually beneficial—foreign relations. Instead of forced integration there is voluntary separation.

    Forced integration, illustrated by such measures as busing, rent controls, antidiscrimination laws, and “free immigration,” invariably creates tension, hatred, and conflict. In contrast, voluntary separation leads to social harmony and peace. Under forced integration any mistake can be blamed on a foreign group or culture and all success claimed as one’s own, and hence there is little or no reason for any culture to learn from another. Under a regime of “separate but equal,” one must face up to the reality not only of cultural diversity but in particular of visibly distinct ranks of cultural advancement. If a secessionist people wishes to improve or maintain its position vis-á-vis a competing one, nothing but discriminative learning will help. It must imitate, assimilate, and, if possible, improve upon the skills, traits, practices, and rules characteristic of more advanced cultures, and it must avoid those characteristic of less advanced societies. Rather than promote a downward leveling of cultures as under forced integration, secession stimulates a cooperative process of cultural selection and advancement.

    Moreover, although everything else depends on the new regional government’s domestic policies and although no direct relationship between size and economic integration exists, there is an important indirect connection. Just as political centralization ultimately tends to promote economic disintegration, so secession tends to advance integration and economic development. First, secession always involves the breaking away of a smaller from a larger population and is thus a vote against the principle of democracy and majoritarian ownership in favor of private, decentralized property. More importantly, secession always involves increased opportunities for interregional migration, and a secessionist government is immediately confronted with the specter of emigration. To avoid the loss of its most productive subjects, it is under increased pressure to adopt comparatively liberal domestic policies by allowing more private property and imposing a lower tax and regulation burden than its neighbors. Ultimately, with as many territories as separate households, villages, or towns, the opportunities for economically motivated emigration would be maximized, and government power over a domestic economy minimized.

    Specifically, the smaller the country, the greater will be the pressure to opt for free trade rather than protectionism. All government interference with foreign trade forcibly limits the range of mutually beneficial interterritorial exchanges and thus leads to relative impoverishment, at home as well as abroad. But the smaller a territory and its internal markets, the more dramatic this effect will be. A country the size of Russia, for instance, might attain comparatively high standards of living even if it renounced all foreign trade, provided it possessed an unrestricted internal capital and consumer goods market. In contrast, if predominantly Serbian cities or counties seceded from surrounding Croatia, and if they pursued the same protectionism, this would likely spell disaster. Consider a single household as the conceivably smallest secessionist unit. By engaging in unrestricted free trade, even the smallest territory can be fully integrated into the world market and partake of every advantage of the division of labor, and its owners may well become the wealthiest people on earth. The existence of a single wealthy individual anywhere is living proof of this. On the other hand, if the same household owners decided to forego all interterritorial trade, abject poverty or death would result Accordingly, the smaller a territory and its internal markets, the more likely it is that it will opt for free trade.

    Secessionism, then, and the growth of separatist and regionalist movements in Eastern and Western Europe represent not an anachronism but potentially the most progressive historical forces. Secession increases ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural diversity, while in the course of centuries of centralization hundreds of distinct cultures were stamped out. It will end the forced integration brought about as a result of centralization, and rather than stimulating social strife and cultural leveling, it will promote the peaceful, cooperative competition of different, territorially separate cultures. In particular, it eliminates the immigration problem increasingly plaguing the countries of Western Europe as well as the United States. Now, whenever a central government permits immigration, it allows foreigners to proceed—literally on government-owned roads—to any of its residents’ doorsteps, regardless of whether these residents desire such proximity to foreigners. “Free immigration” is thus to a large extent forced integration. Secession solves this problem by letting smaller territories have their own admission standards and determine independently with whom they will associate on their own territory and with whom they prefer to cooperate from a distance.

    Lastly, secession promotes economic integration and development. The process of centralization has resulted in the formation of an international, American-dominated government cartel of managed migration, trade, and fiat money; ever more invasive and burdensome governments; globalized welfare-warfare statism; and economic stagnation or even declining standards of living. Secession, if it is extensive enough, could change all of this. A Europe consisting of hundreds of distinct countries, regions, and cantons, of thousands of independent free cities (such as the present-day “oddities” of Monaco, San Marino, and Andorra), with the greatly increased opportunities for economically motivated migration that would result, would be one of small, liberal governments economically integrated through free trade and an international commodity money such as gold. It would be a Europe of unparalleled economic growth and unprecedented prosperity.

    Mises Wire
    enAugust 21, 2020

    Government

    Government

    [Excerpt from chapter 3 of the Bastiat Collection.]

    I wish someone would offer a prize—not of a hundred francs, but of a million, with crowns, medals and ribbons—for a good, simple and intelligible definition of the word “Government.”This section was first published in 1848.

    What an immense service it would confer on society!

    The Government! What is it? Where is it? what does it do? what ought it to do? All we know is, that it is a mysterious personage; and assuredly, it is the most solicited, the most tormented, the most overwhelmed, the most admired, the most accused, the most invoked, and the most provoked, of any personage in the world. I have not the pleasure of knowing my reader, but I would stake ten to one that for six months he has been making Utopias, and if so, that he is looking to Government for the realization of them.

    And should the reader happen to be a lady, I have no doubt that she is sincerely desirous of seeing all the evils of suffering humanity remedied, and that she thinks this might easily be done, if Government would only undertake it.

    But, alas! that poor unfortunate personage, like Figaro, knows not to whom to listen, nor where to turn. The hundred thousand mouths of the press and of the speaker’s platform cry out all at once:

    “Organize labor and workmen.”“Do away with greed.”“Repress insolence and the tyranny of capital.”“Experiment with manure and eggs.”“Cover the country with railways.”“Irrigate the plains.”“Plant the hills.”“Make model farms.”“Found social laboratories.”“Colonize Algeria.”“Nourish children.”“Educate the youth.”“Assist the aged.”“Send the inhabitants of towns into the country.”“Equalize the profits of all trades.”“Lend money without interest to all who wish to borrow.”“Emancipate Italy, Poland, and Hungary.”“Rear and perfect the saddle-horse.”“Encourage the arts, and provide us with musicians and dancers.”“Restrict commerce, and at the same time create a merchant navy.”“Discover truth, and put a grain of reason into our heads. The mission of Government is to enlighten, to develop, to extend, to fortify, to spiritualize, and to sanctify the soul of the people.”“Do have a little patience, gentlemen,” says Government in a beseeching tone. “I will do what I can to satisfy you, but for this I must have resources. I have been preparing plans for five or six taxes, which are quite new, and not at all oppressive. You will see how willingly people will pay them.”

    Then comes a great exclamation: “No! indeed! Where is the merit of doing a thing with resources? Why, it does not deserve the name of a Government! So far from loading us with fresh taxes, we would have you withdraw the old ones. You ought to suppress:

    “The salt tax,“The tax on liquors,“The tax on letters,“Custom-house duties,“Patents.”

    In the midst of this tumult, and now that the country has two or three times changed its Government, for not having satisfied all its demands, I wanted to show that they were contradictory. But what could I have been thinking about? Could I not keep this unfortunate observation to myself?

    I have lost my character for I am looked upon as a man without heart and without feeling—a dry philosopher, an individualist, a plebeian—in a word, an economist of the English or American school. But, pardon me, sublime writers, who stop at nothing, not even at contradictions. I am wrong, without a doubt, and I would willingly retract. I should be glad enough, you may be sure, if you had really discovered a beneficent and inexhaustible being, calling itself the Government, which has bread for all mouths, work for all hands, capital for all enterprises, credit for all projects, salve for all wounds, balm for all sufferings, advice for all perplexities, solutions for all doubts, truths for all intellects, diversions for all who want them, milk for infancy, and wine for old age—which can provide for all our wants, satisfy all our curiosity, correct all our errors, repair all our faults, and exempt us henceforth from the necessity for foresight, prudence, judgment, sagacity, experience, order, economy, temperance and activity.

    What reason could I have for not desiring to see such a discovery made? Indeed, the more I reflect upon it, the more do I see that nothing could be more convenient than that we should all of us have within our reach an inexhaustible source of wealth an enlightenment—a universal physician, an unlimited pocketbook, and an infallible counselor, such as you describe Government to be. Therefore I want to have it pointed out and defined, and a prize should be offered to the first discoverer of the will-o-the-wisp. For no one would think of asserting that this precious discovery has yet been made, since up to this time everything presenting itself under the name of the Government is immediately overturned by the people, precisely because it does not fulfill the rather contradictory requirements of the program.

    I will venture to say that I fear we are in this respect the dupes of one of the strangest illusions that have ever taken possession of the human mind.

    Man recoils from trouble—from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose then between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the enjoyment from assuming their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the enjoyment that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be—whether that of wars, taxes, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc.—monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought that has given them birth. Oppression should be detested and resisted—it can hardly be called trivial.

    Slavery is subsiding, thank heaven! and on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy.

    One thing, however, remains—it is the original inclination that exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself.

    The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our discretion has become too refined for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the Government—that is, the Law itself. What can be better calculated to silence our scruples, and, which is perhaps better appreciated, to overcome all resistance? We all, therefore, put in our claim under some pretext or other, and apply to Government. We say to it,

    I am dissatisfied at the proportion between my labor and my enjoyments. I should like, for the sake of restoring the desired equilibrium, to take a part of the possessions of others. But this would be dangerous. Could not you facilitate the thing for me? Could you not find me a good place? or check the industry of my competitors? or, perhaps, lend me gratuitously some capital, which you may take from its possessor? Could you not bring up my children at the public expense? or grant me some subsidies? or secure me a pension when I have attained my fiftieth year? By this means I shall gain my end with an easy conscience, for the law will have acted for me, and I shall have all the advantages of plunder, without its risk or its disgrace!

    As it is certain, on the one hand, that we are all making some similar request to the Government; and as, on the other, it is proved that Government cannot satisfy one party without adding to the labor of the others, until I can obtain another definition of the word Government, I feel authorized to give my own. Who knows but it may obtain the prize?

    Here it is:

    Government is that great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.

    For now, as formerly, everyone is more or less for profiting by the labors of others. No one would dare to profess such a sentiment; he even hides it from himself; and then what is done? A medium is thought of; Government is applied to, and every class in its turn comes to it, and says, “You, who can take justifiably and honestly, take from the public, and we will partake.” Alas! Government is only too much disposed to follow this diabolical advice, for it is composed of ministers and officials—of men, in short, who, like all other men, desire in their hearts, and always seize every opportunity with eagerness, to increase their wealth and influence. Government is not slow to perceive the advantages it may derive from the part that is entrusted to it by the public. It is glad to be the judge and the master of the destinies of all; it will take much, for then a large share will remain for itself; it will multiply the number of its agents; it will enlarge the circle of its privileges; it will end by appropriating a ruinous proportion.

    But the most remarkable part of it is the astonishing blindness of the public through it all. When successful soldiers used to reduce the vanquished to slavery, they were barbarous, but they were not irrational. Their object, like ours, was to live at other people’s expense, and they did not fail to do so. What are we to think of a people who never seem to suspect that reciprocal plunder is no less plunder because it is reciprocal; that it is no less criminal because it is executed legally and with order; that it adds nothing to the public good; that it diminishes it, just in proportion to the cost of the expensive medium which we call the Government?

    And it is this great chimera that we have placed, for the edification of the people, as a frontispiece to the Constitution. The following is the beginning of the preamble:

    France has constituted itself a republic for the purpose of raising all the citizens to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.

    Thus it is France, or an abstraction, that is to raise the French, or flesh-and-blood realities, to morality, well-being, etc. Is it not by yielding to this strange delusion that we are led to expect everything from an energy not our own? Is it not announcing that there is, independently of the French, a virtuous, enlightened, and rich being, who can and will bestow upon them its benefits? Is not this supposing, and certainly very presumptuously, that there are between France and the French—between the simple, abridged, and abstract denomination of all the individualities, and these individualities themselves—relations as of father to son, tutor to his pupil, professor to his scholar? I know it is often said, metaphorically, “the country is a tender mother.” But to show the inanity of the constitutional proposition, it is only needed to show that it may be reversed, not only without inconvenience, but even with advantage. Would it be less exact to say,

    The French have constituted themselves a Republic, to raise France to an ever-increasing degree of morality, enlightenment, and well-being.

    Now, where is the value of an axiom where the subject and the attribute may change places without inconvenience? Everybody understands what is meant by this, “The mother will feed the child.” But it would be ridiculous to say, “The child will feed the mother.”

    The Americans formed a different idea of the relations of the citizens with the Government when they placed these simple words at the head of their Constitution:

    We, the people of the United States, for the purpose of forming a more perfect union, of establishing justice, of securing interior tranquility, of providing for our common defense, of increasing the general well-being, and of securing the benefits of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity, decree, etc.

    Here there is no chimerical creation, no abstraction, from which the citizens may demand everything. They expect nothing except from themselves and their own energy.

    If I may be permitted to criticize the first words of our Constitution, I would remark that what I complain of is something more than a mere metaphysical allusion, as might seem at first sight.

    I contend that this deification of Government has been in past times, and will be hereafter, a fertile source of calamities and revolutions.

    There is the public on one side, Government on the other, considered as two distinct beings; the latter bound to bestow upon the former, and the former having the right to claim from the latter, all imaginable human benefits. What will be the consequence?

    In fact, Government is not impotent, and cannot be so. It has two hands—one to receive and the other to give; in other words, it has a rough hand and a smooth one. The activity of the second is necessarily subordinate to the activity of the first. Strictly, Government may take and not restore. This is evident, and may be explained by the porous and absorbing nature of its hands, which always retain a part, and sometimes the whole, of what they touch. But the thing that never was seen, and never will be seen or conceived, is, that Government can restore more to the public than it has taken from it. It is therefore ridiculous for us to appear before it in the humble attitude of beggars. It is radically impossible for it to confer a particular benefit upon any one of the individualities which constitute the community, without inflicting a greater injury upon the community as a whole.

    Our requisitions, therefore, place it in a dilemma.

    If it refuses to grant the requests made to it, it is accused of weakness, ill-will, and incapacity. If it endeavors to grant them, it is obliged to load the people with fresh taxes—to do more harm than good, and to bring upon itself from another quarter the general displeasure.

    Thus, the public has two hopes, and Government makes two promises—many benefits and no taxes. Hopes and promises that, being contradictory, can never be realized.

    Now, is not this the cause of all our revolutions? For between the Government, which lavishes promises which it is impossible to perform, and the public, which has conceived hopes which can never be realized, two classes of men interpose—the ambitious and the Utopians. It is circumstances which give these their cue. It is enough if these vassals of popularity cry out to the people—“The authorities are deceiving you; if we were in their place, we would load you with benefits and exempt you from taxes.”

    And the people believe, and the people hope, and the people make a revolution!

    No sooner are their friends at the head of affairs, than they are called upon to redeem their pledge. “Give us work, bread, assistance, credit, education, colonies,” say the people; “and at the same time protect us, as you promised, from the taxes.”

    The new Government is no less embarrassed than the former one, for it soon finds that it is much easier to promise than to perform. It tries to gain time, for this is necessary for maturing its vast projects. At first, it makes a few timid attempts: on one hand it institutes a little elementary instruction; on the other, it makes a little reduction in the liquor tax (1850). But the contradiction is forever rearing its ugly head; if it would be philanthropic, it must raise taxes; if it neglects its taxing, it must abstain from being philanthropic.

    These two promises are forever clashing with each other; it cannot be otherwise. To live upon credit, which is the same as exhausting the future, is certainly a present means of reconciling them: an attempt is made to do a little good now, at the expense of a great deal of harm in future. But such proceedings call forth the specter of bankruptcy, which puts an end to credit. What is to be done then? Why, then, the new Government takes a bold step; it unites all its forces in order to maintain itself; it smothers opinion, has recourse to arbitrary measures, repudiates its former maxims, declares that it is impossible to conduct the administration except at the risk of being unpopular; in short, it proclaims itself governmental. And it is here that other candidates for popularity are waiting for it. They exhibit the same illusion, pass by the same way, obtain the same success, and are soon swallowed up in the same gulf.

    We had arrived at this point in February.This was written in 1849. At this time, the illusion that is the subject of this article had made more headway than at any former period in the ideas of the people, in connection with Socialist doctrines. They expected, more firmly than ever, that Government, under a republican form, would open in grand style the source of benefits and close that of taxation. “We have often been deceived,” said the people; “but we will see to it ourselves this time, and take care not to be deceived again!”

    What could the Provisional Government do? Alas! Just that which always is done in similar circumstances—make promises, and gain time. It did so, of course; and to give its promises more weight, it announced them publicly thus:

    Increase of prosperity, diminution of labor, assistance, credit, free education, agricultural colonies, cultivation of waste land, and, at the same time, reduction of the tax on salt, liquor, letters, meat; all this shall be granted when the National Assembly meets.

    The National Assembly meets, and, as it is impossible to realize two contradictory things, its task, its sad task, is to withdraw, as gently as possible, one after the other, all the decrees of the Provisional Government. However, in order somewhat to mitigate the cruelty of the deception, it is found necessary to negotiate a little. Certain engagements are fulfilled, others are, in a measure, begun, and therefore the new administration is compelled to contrive some new taxes.

    Now I transport myself in thought to a period a few months hence and ask myself with sorrowful forebodings, what will come to pass when the agents of the new Government go into the country to collect new taxes upon legacies, revenues, and the profits of agricultural traffic? It is to be hoped that my presentiments may not be verified, but I foresee a difficult part for the candidates for popularity to play.

    Read the last manifesto of the Montagnards—that which they issued on the occasion of the election of the President. It is rather long, but at length it concludes with these words: “Government ought to give a great deal to the people, and take little from them.” It is always the same tactics, or, rather, the same mistake.

    “Government is bound to give gratuitous instruction and education to all the citizens.”

    It is bound to give “A general and appropriate professional education, as much as possible adapted to the wants, the callings, and the capacities of each citizen.”

    It is bound “To teach every citizen his duty to God, to man, and to himself; to develop his sentiments, his tendencies, and his faculties; to teach him, in short, the scientific part of his labor; to make him understand his own interests, and to give him a knowledge of his rights.”

    It is bound “To place within the reach of all, literature and the arts, the patrimony of thought, the treasures of the mind, and all those intellectual enjoyments which elevate and strengthen the soul.”

    It is bound “To give compensation for every accident, from fire, inundation, etc., experienced by a citizen.” (The et cetera means more than it says.)

    It is bound “To attend to the relations of capital with labor, and to become the regulator of credit.”

    It is bound “To afford important encouragement and efficient protection to agriculture.”

    It is bound “To purchase railroads, canals, and mines; and, doubtless, to transact affairs with that industrial capacity which patronizes it.”

    It is bound “To encourage useful experiments, to promote and assist them by every means likely to make them successful. As a regulator of credit, it will exercise such extensive influence over industrial and agricultural associations as shall ensure them success.”

    Government is bound to do all this, in addition to the services to which it is already pledged; and further, it is always to maintain a menacing attitude toward foreigners; for, according to those who sign the program, “Bound together by this holy union, and by the precedents of the French Republic, we carry our wishes and hopes beyond the boundaries that despotism has placed between nations. The rights that we desire for ourselves, we desire for all those who are oppressed by the yoke of tyranny; we desire that our glorious army should still, if necessary, be the army of liberty.”

    You see that the gentle hand of Government—that good hand that gives and distributes, will be very busy under the government of the Montagnards. You think, perhaps, that it will be the same with the rough hand—that hand which dives into our pockets. Do not deceive yourselves. The aspirants after popularity would not know their trade if they had not the art, when they show the gentle hand, to conceal the rough one.

    Their reign will assuredly be the jubilee of the tax-payers.

    “It is superfluities, not necessities,” they say “that ought to be taxed.”

    Truly, it will be a happy day when the treasury, for the sake of loading us with benefits, will content itself with curtailing our superfluities!

    This is not all. The Montagnards intend that “taxation shall lose its oppressive character, and be only an act of fraternity.” Good heavens! I know it is the fashion to thrust fraternity in everywhere, but I did not imagine it would ever be put into the hands of the tax-gatherer.

    To come to the details: Those who sign the program say, “We desire the immediate abolition of those taxes that affect the absolute necessities of life, such as salt, liquors, etc., etc.

    “The reform of the tax on landed property, customs, and patents.

    “Gratuitous justice—that is, the simplification of its forms, and reduction of its expenses,” (This, no doubt, has reference to stamps.)

    Thus, the tax on landed property, customs, patents, stamps, salt, liquors, postage, all are included. These gentlemen have discovered the secret of giving an excessive activity to the gentle hand of Government, while they entirely paralyze its rough hand.

    Well, I ask the impartial reader, is it not childishness, and worse, dangerous childishness? Is it not inevitable that we shall have revolution after revolution, if there is a determination never to stop till this contradiction is realized: “To give nothing to Government and to receive much from it?”

    If the Montagnards were to come into power, would they not become the victims of the means that they employed to take possession of it?

    Citizens! In all times, two political systems have been in existence, and each may be maintained by good reasons. According to one of them, Government ought to do much, but then it ought to take much. According to the other, this twofold activity ought to be little felt. We have to choose between these two systems. But as regards the third system, which partakes of both the others, and which consists in exacting everything from Government, without giving it anything, it is chimerical, absurd, childish, contradictory, and dangerous. Those who proclaim it, for the sake of the pleasure of accusing all Governments of weakness, and thus exposing them to your attacks, are only flattering and deceiving you, while they are deceiving themselves.

    For ourselves, we consider that Government is and ought to be nothing whatever but common force organized, not to be an instrument of oppression and mutual plunder among citizens; but, on the contrary, to secure to everyone his own, and to cause justice and security to reign.

    Mises Wire
    enSeptember 21, 2019

    The History of Sin

    The History of Sin

    [Excerpt from "The Fall and Rise of Puritanical Policy in America," Journal of Libertarian Studies 12, no. 1 (1996): 143–60]

    America was colonized by Europeans seeking economic and religious liberty, with many of the colonies founded explicitly along theocratic lines. The most notorious of these groups, the Puritans, founded the Massachusetts Bay Colony. They adopted wide-ranging sumptuary legislation including restrictions on alcohol and tobacco. Despite the natural advantages of a small homogeneous group based on voluntary association, many of the measures proved to be unworkable and ineffective and had to be modified or replaced by decrees to maintain moderation.Gary North, Puritan Economic Experiments (Fort Worth, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1988). It is the Puritan impulse for social reform that drives the cycle of reform, prohibition, and repeal. Over time this cycle has produced Puritanical social control that has been secularized, centralized, and has achieved a kind of permanence within government bureaucracy.

    The American Revolution was an expression of political and economic independence, primarily precipitated by the British domination over trade and taxes. Americans did not want to pay British excises on the products they consumed. But equally important was the desire to eliminate British control over international trade that enriched the English at American expense. “Sinful” goods like alcohol, tea, and tobacco were targets of British colonial policy. Tobacco farmers, for example, were forced to export their tobacco to England at extremely unfavorable terms.John S. Bassett, A Short History of the United States: 1492-1929 (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1932), p. 143.

    The success of the radical American Revolution ushered in a multitude of reforms honoring individualism at the expense of traditional hegemony. Slavery was abolished in several Northern states and freedom to manumit slaves was established in several Southern states. After writing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson set about abolishing entail, eliminating primogeniture, and establishing religious freedom in Virginia, the first time this had ever been done in so complete a form. Freedom of religion was established in several other states and many established churches lost their state monopoly.

    The late eighteenth century produced not only the American Revolution but also the Industrial Revolution. The new republic grew in size and population and prospered economically. Manufacturing, agriculture, and trade thrived in the northeast. The plantation economy of the South prospered and expanded, while the Northwest Territory was explored and settled.

    The freedom from British dominion and the economic growth that followed the war resulted in fundamental changes in the production and consumption of alcohol. New England lost its advantage in the production of rum while western grain farmers developed an advantage in the production of whiskey. With the rise of whiskey, the long term trend of lower prices for spirits continued. Lower prices combined with the new prosperity and freedom to generate increased consumption of alcohol.

    Consumption of spirits continued to increase after the Revolution, peaking during the 1820s. Despite the fact that consumption was greater than ever before or since, America was not a nation of drunkards, and public drunkenness was not common. Alcohol consumption in America was comparable to European patterns.W.J. Rorabaugh suggests that problem drinking was rare. The two types of drinking most prominent were dietary drinking, which involved numerous small servings throughout the day as a substitute for food and water, and communal binge drinking in which the entire town might get intoxicated in celebrations, such as Independence Day, harvest, weddings, and public events such as elections, generally less than once per month. See W.J. Rorabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic: An American Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979), pp. 5­21.

    Not all Americans felt the same way about the progress and freedom generated by these revolutionary spirits. Many of these grumblers had benefited from English colonial rule as administrators, tax collectors, and bureaucrats. Others benefitted from playing key roles in the system of triangular trade which saw New Englanders sell their rum and other products, while African slaves were transported on the “middle passage” to the West Indian sugar islands where the slaves were sold in order to purchase molasses, the necessary ingredient for the burgeoning New England rum industry.Many of the smaller towns of New England, especially Boston and the Rhode Island ports benefitted materially from the production of rum and the slave trade, see Bassett, A Short History, pp. 140-145.

    The Revolution thus posed a threat to some members of the ruling upper classes who controlled colonial society. A primary symbol of this threat to their hegemony was alcohol consumption. In colonial America, politicians controlled the issuance of licenses to sell spirits, the wealthy owned the taverns, and the clergy monitored consumption in the taverns. Spirits were expensive enough that only the wealthy could regularly afford these goods in large quantities. Public intoxication was viewed as a kind of status symbol.

    The elite’s first line of defense against alcohol consumption by the lower classes had been the licensing of taverns. However, this measure had already lost much of its clout by 1764 when Benjamin Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette labeled the tavern a “Pest to Society.” John Adams had led a crusade in 1760 to restrict or reduce the number of licenses in Massachusetts but was ridiculed by the public and defeated in his effort. As the “seedbed of the Revolution,” the tavern was greatly strengthened (by victory over England) against the elites who sought to control alcohol consumption with policies of regulation and taxation.

    The first anti-alcohol movement in the Republic turned to the British example of imposing excise taxes on spirits. After various anti-spirit measures failed at the state level, temperance advocates began calling for federal action, but no action was forthcoming until the overthrow of the Articles of Confederation. Alexander Hamilton had advocated the use of high excise taxes on spirits in the Federalist Papers and lobbied hard for such a tax as the Secretary of the Treasury.

    The excise tax was eventually passed by Congress under the pressure of a budgetary shortfall, but was angrily opposed by citizens of the west and south. By 1794 hostilities erupted into open warfare known as the Whiskey Rebellion. This widespread revolt was concentrated in western Pennsylvania, but also effected parts of Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, South Carolina and had support in parts of New York, the Northwest Territory, and in the Southwest.See Mary K. Tachau, “The Whiskey Rebellion in Kentucky: A Forgotten Episode of Civil Disobedience,” Journal of the Early Republic, Vol. 2 (Fall 1982), pp. 239-259. The rebels called for secession, sacked the federal tax commissioners, made advances on Fort Pitt, and threatened the federal arsenals at Pittsburgh and Frederick Maryland.

    To surpress the revolt and collect the tax, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton nationalized the militia and sent a massive army into western Pennsylvania to crush the nucleus of the rebellion. Larger than most armies of the Revolutionary war, the “Watermelon Army” had more soldiers than western Pennsylvania had men of military age and was probably more than ten times the number needed to suppress the revolt. Despite this massive demonstration of federal commitment to tyranny and union, the suppression of open revolt was anything but a decisive triumph for the “friends of order” over the “friends of liberty.”

    The excise tax remained difficult to collect, as western farmers continued to oppose the excise tax resulting in the costs of collection exceeding the revenue collected in the West. The Rebellion also solidified Jeffersonian opposition to the Hamiltonian nationalists. The majority of Americans now recognized that the Hamiltonians held a Tory ideology and were using the same methods and tactics as the British had used earlier. The friends of order had more in common with the enemies of the Revolution than with most Americans. Jefferson’s Republican government abolished the whiskey excise and all other internal taxes, establishing libertarianism as the dominant ideology in national government for the period 1800–1860.On this see Thomas P. Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion: Frontier Epilogue to the American Revolution (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986). It has been shown that the western farmers’ economic rationale for fighting was more as consumers of whiskey than as producers. See David O. Whitten, “An Economic Inquiry into the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794,” Agricultural History 49, No. 3 (July 1975), pp. 491-504.

    The war was not, however, a total loss to George Washington and his supporters. The cost of the army was very large and much of the money was spent in the west. The visiting soldiers and newly cash-rich residents began a buying spree in western land. George Washington personally owned large holdings in the western lands, and decided to start selling his lands just prior to the Rebellion. Of course, the buying spree meant that Washington’s own holdings dramatically increased in price. As Thomas Slaughter observed, “the coincidence was certainly a propitious one for his finances.” Even Washington, who had gobbled up the largest and choicest parcels of land while in public service, noted that “this event having happened at the time it did was fortunate.”Slaughter, The Whiskey Rebellion, p. 224.

    The puritanical counterrevolution that would eventually undermine the libertarian structure of the Early Republica had its beginnings in the early temperance movement. One of the great contributors to the early temperance movement was Benjamin Rush, physician and signer of the Declaration of Independence. Rush published pamphlets that condemned the use of alcohol as both unhealthy for the individual and destructive to society. His views, while of questionable scientific validity, were used by temperance leaders to confirm their faith that both science and God were on their side. Rush’s position as doctor and patriot rendered his message highly effective among the intellectual classes, culminating in the conversion of Jeremy Belknap, a minister from Boston who later became President of Harvard College. Rush also promoted the anti-alcohol crusade by requiring his doctrines be taught at his medical school.

    Churches, however, were the principle players in the puritanical counterrevolution.This religious ideology is not necessarily inconsistent with the economic self-interest of the churches. Traditional Christian churches held that sin was a voluntary act even when temptation was involved. In early 19th century America, reformed or “heretical” Christians began a mass movement to make a preemptive strike at sin. These Christians believed that sinful objects were the source of temptation and consequently the cause of sin and thus had to be removed from society.This perspective on sin is analogous to an objective theory of value in economics. From the “objective” viewpoint, value and sin are innate aspects of the good, while from the subjectivist point of view, economic value and sin are matters of individual choice. They felt that alcohol hindered their ability to reorganize and purify society in their image. Quakers and Methodists were the first churches to declare their anti-alcohol beliefs and form the early temperance movement.

    This new religious perspective can be characterized as post-millennial evangelical pietistic protestantism. They were militantly zealous and emphasized preaching from the Bible. They were also pietistic in stressing Bible study, devotion, personal religious experience, and like the 17th century German religious movement, pietism, they opposed formalism and intellectualism. Most important to this counterrevolution was the doctrine of millennialism, a prophecy or belief in an ideal society that would be created by revolutionary action. Post-millennialists hold the “reformed” or “heretical” view that man himself must purge the world of sin and imperfection and establish the Kingdom of God on Earth as a prerequisite of Jesus’s second coming.Orthodox Christians, such as Catholics, Calvinists, Lutherans, and mainstream Protestants, are typically a-millennialist in that they do not believe in a literal 1000-year Kingdom of God on Earth. Pre-millenialists hold that Jesus will come again, defeat the forces of evil, and establish a Kingdom of God on Earth. Pre-millennialists are notorious for their incorrect predictions about the end of the world. Obviously, post-millennialist belief provides a wide latitude in terms of policy prescriptions. Rothbard considered the spread of post-millennialism to be a crucial factor in ideological change in America because it was post-millenialism ideology that would become the driving force behind the drive for prohibition and other efforts to drive out sin and imperfection using the coercive arm of the state.Rothbard writes about the earlier post-millennialist, Joachim of Fiore, a twelfth-century Calabrian monk who attempted to establish a heretical communist society and almost converted three popes to his beliefs. Post-millennialism continued to spring up in medieval Europe, especially in Germany and among the Anabaptists. This history is described in Norman R.C. Cohn, The Pursuit of Millennium: Revolutionary Messianism in Medieval and Reformation Europe and its Bearing on Modern Totalitarian Movements (London: Harper & Row, 1961). According to Rothbard post-millennialism is also an important component of secular movements such as Karl Marx’s communism. Adolph Hitler's Nazism and Third (1000 year) Reich could also be interpreted as a secular derivation of Joachim’s millennialism and original thesis that history would be divided into three, rather than the traditional two periods of christian doctrine. See Murray N. Rothabrd, “Karl Marx: Communist as Religious Eschatologist,” Review of Austrian Economics 4 (1990), pp. 123-79.

    Geographically, post-millennialist evangelical pietism emanated from New England where the Puritans first settled. The Puritans (who had already experimented with theocracy, witch hunts, and prohibitionism) and the Separatists evolved into the Congregational and Unitarian churches which were the state-established churches of New England. This Yankee influence spread into western New York, the Midwest, and Great Lakes region and eventually south and west as New Englanders, their clergy, and educators migrated with the nation’s expansion.Much of this migration was concentrated in areas claimed by Massachusetts and Connecticut in the Treaty of 1783. On the dispersion of the prohibitionists, see Whitney R. Cross, The Burned-over District: The Social and Intellectual History of Enthusiastic Religion in Western New York, 1800-1850 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1950); Peter H. Odegard, [1928] Pressure Politics: The Story of the Anti-Saloon League (New York: Octagon Books, 1966).

    The first anti-alcohol organization was the Massachusetts Society for the Suppression of Intemperance, which was formed in response to the intemperance associated with the War of 1812. The American Temperance Society was organized in 1826. By 1833, the temperance movement had over one million members, largely comprised of New England evangelicals from the Baptist, Congregationalist, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches.Ironically, both the anti-alcohol movement and anti-slavery movement were centered in Boston which dominated the early colonial triangular trade in rum and slaves. This surge in prohibitionist sentiment is related to religious revivalism of the Second Great Awakening. Religious revivalism was very strong in the 1820s and 1830s throughout New England. Revivalism had always meant reform of the individual and society, but Americans saw themselves as a special case. Americans had defeated the savage Indian, nature, and the British. America was the proverbial city on the hill, an example to the world, and the most likely place for God to establish His Kingdom on Earth.

    Increased alcohol consumption may have also stimulated the temperance movement. Rorabaugh estimated that the consumption of alcohol increased from 3.5 pure gallons per capita in 1770 to almost 4 gallons in 1830. This increased consumption was the result of lower production costs, lower taxes, and higher incomes. Drinking was part of virtually every aspect of life for many in the early Republic and was a symbol of the American spirit.Rorabaugh, The Alcoholic Republic, p. 9. While it is dubious that alcohol causes sin, “sinful” behavior is clearly associated with alcohol use. Given their superstitions, heretical religious views, and limited knowledge, it is not surprising that reformers would base their efforts on this association. Early success with private prohibitionism, such as the signing of pledges of moderation and abstinence also provided reinforcement for this association.

    An added push for religious revivalism was provided by church privatization in New England. The Congregationalist Church was disestablished in 1818 in Connecticut and in 1824-1833 in Massachusetts. This period of church privatization and religious revivalism is described as follows:

    During the first half of the nineteenth century, religion in New England was changing in dramatic fashion. On the one hand, the number of preachers demanded in Connecticut and Massachusetts with respect to the population increased by more than half even as real preaching salaries almost tripled. The increase in total pastors reflected a fivefold increase in dissenting preachers. From 1800 to 1840, the proportion of dissenting preachers in these two states increased from under 20 percent to over 50 percent.Kelly Olds, “Privatizing the Church: Disestablishment in Connecticut and Massachusetts,” Journal of Political Economy 102, No. 2 (April 1994) p. 291.

    Despite the timing of privatization and religious revivalism, it is not possible to say definitively that privatization caused revivalism.In fact, many social and economic factors contributed to revivalism and the Second Great Awakening. For example, natural factors and natural disasters also contributed to revivalism. See Michael Barkun, Crucible of the Millennium: The Burned-Over District of New York in the 1840s (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1986), esp. chapters 6 and 7.

    However, this separation of church and state involved not only the disestablishment of churches but also a movement from tax-funded churches to the voluntary funding of churches. In 1800, 90 percent of churches in Massachusetts and Connecticut used taxation but only 30 percent did so by 1840 in Connecticut and by 1850 in Massachusetts.Olds, “Privatizing the Church,” p. 291. Economic theory can therefore provide some support for a causal connection between privatization and religious revivalism. A monopoly church with taxing power would be expected to reduce output below competitive levels and charge monopoly prices for its “services.” We would therefore expect an increase in output after the privatization-demonopolization. Theory also predicts that new firms would enter the industry and supply competing products.Again see Olds, “Privatizing the Church,” for his evidence that the established churches did have state authority, practice price discrimination, and increase output after disestablishment (privatization), and that alternative churches expanded faster than the established churches after privatization.

    As temperance groups formed and grew, several important changes took place. Initially temperance efforts were voluntary efforts to promote moderation in alcohol consumption. Members of the temperance groups were expected to lead by example and provide education and assistance to others. Over time, however, alternative groups were established that advocated abstinence from spirits and moderation in beer, wine, and cider. Eventually, even these groups were replaced with total abstinence societies in which members were required to sign an abstinence pledge. As the work of reform became more difficult over time, reform leaders became frustrated and dissatisfied with voluntary efforts and began to advocate the use of government to enforce temperance throughout society.Thornton, The Economics of Prohibition, pp. 43-45.

    Temperance forces began to organize coalitions to pass restrictive legislation. Their first reform measure was typically to replace the license system with the more restrictive local option laws which gave communities the right to prohibit local liquor sales. Other restrictive policies included minimum-quantity purchase laws (which require the individual to buy at least 15 or 28 gallons of spirits at a time) and local prohibitions. These policies were difficult to enforce and had few if any beneficial effects. The failure of these policies to satisfy prohibitionists ultimately led to the call for state-wide prohibition.

    State prohibitions were adopted in many northern states and territories between 1851 and 1855. These prohibitions were based on Maine’s law which was authored by the zealous prohibitionist, Neal Dow. The “Maine Laws” allowed for search and seizure, reduced the requirements for conviction, increased fines, created mandatory prison sentences, and called for the destruction of captured liquor.

    The rapid success of the Maine Laws was shortlived as the rapidly growing immigrant populations opposed such laws. The Maine Laws also suffered several important setbacks in court. Enforcement was difficult because professional police forces existed in only a few large cities where the law was least popular. In the emerging Republican party, prohibition was considered a divisive issue and was not enthusiastically embraced at the national level.Interestingly, the decrease in alcohol consumption that resulted from temperance and prohibitionist efforts created a 500+ calorie deficit in the adult diet leading to declines in demographic-health measures during a period of high economic growth. See Mark Thornton, “Alcohol Consumption and the Standard of Living in Antebellum America,” Atlantic Economic Journal 23, No. 2 (June 1995).

    One event seemed to have sealed the fate of the Maine Laws. Neal Dow, who was mayor of Portland, Maine in 1855, was accused of personally profiting from the government-controlled sale of alcohol.

    An angry mob assembled at the liquor agency on the night of June 2, 1855, after the existence of the liquor had become common knowledge. The mob demanded destruction of the liquor and threatened to break into the agency if the demands were not met and Neal Dow arrested for violation of his own law. Dow, who was always quick to look to force in defense of morality, assembled the local Rifle Guards. In the confrontation which followed with the stone-throwing mob, Dow ordered his troops to fire when several rioters broke into the liquor agency.Ian R. Tyrrell, Sobering Up: From Temperance to Prohibition in Antebellum America, 1800-1860 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1979), pp. 295-299

    Dow was labeled a murderer and a fanatic, and the prohibition movement which he was instrumental in crafting quickly diminished in political significance.Frank L. Byrne, Prophet of Prohibition: Neal Dow and His Crusade (Gloucester, MA: Peter Smith, 1969), pp. 60-69.

    The rise of the Republican party was the result of a long series of attempts to form a coalition strong enough to challenge the dominance of the Democratic party. Forged from the Whig and No-Nothing Parties, the Republicans naturally captured the prohibitionist-abolitionist radicals and thereby dominated “Yankeedom.” This coalition of mercantilist parties did not directly satisfy the prohibitionist faction, but they were able to institute taxes on alcohol and tobacco that appeased the reformers and helped the Republican party to dominate American politics for decades. After the Civil War, prohibitionists became increasingly political and better organized at the national level. Their progress included the formation of the Prohibition Party, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-Saloon League.

    During the period between the Civil War and the Progressive Era the post­-millennial crusade became increasingly secular. According to Barkun, the “slow nineteenth-century separation of a secular from a religious vision of the perfect society” accelerated after (and possibly because of) the Civil War and that by “the end of the nineteenth century, millennialism was dominated by secularizing tendencies” so that “by the very time that it succumbed in religious circles its secular version triumphed in the society at large.”Barkum, Crucible of the Millenium, pp. 2, 151, 29.

    With respect to prohibitionism, this period is best classified as one of “modified” prohibition. State prohibition waned to such an extent that by 1875 only three states remained “dry.” Although there was a brief resurgence in state prohibitions in the 1880s, only three states remained dry by 1904. Modified prohibition consisted of local option, high license fees and restrictive regulations. These coalition-building and seemingly pragmatic policies ironically helped establish the conditions under which national prohibition would be promoted and enacted.

    The scientific veneer of modified prohibition was provided, in part, by political economist Richard T. Ely.See Murray N. Rothbard, “World War I as Fulfillment: Power and the Intellectuals,” Journal of Libertarian Studies (Winter 1989), pp. 81-125, for more on Ely and other progressives academics. In a report to the Maryland legislature, Ely argued for a modified prohibition that consisted of local option and an annual auction of licenses for large exclusive territories (retail monopolies) for the sale of alcoholic beverages. He argued this would greatly reduce the number of establishments selling alcohol and maximize public revenue. He argued that such businesses would be easier to tax and regulate because of the greatly reduced number of establishments and the fear of losing expensive liquor licenses for violating regulations. He further argued that concentrating the liquor business via modified prohibition “drags it before the public where all its evils must be conspicuous.”Richard T. Ely, Taxation in American States and Cities (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell & Co., 1888),pp. 280-288.

    Modified prohibition was promoted as the pragmatic alternative to prohibition because it resulted in fewer saloons, higher government revenues, and reduced public drunkenness. According to The Nation, “the same story that has been told of every State in which high-license or tax laws have gone into effect. That is, they provide ‘corroborative evidence of the practical wisdom of this method of fighting the liquor evil.’” The Nation also opposed the policy of prohibition because it was not “a proper or practical method of liquor regulation,” and that “no amount of amendment or addition can make the Prohibitory Law a success.” They concluded that when in the majority use local option, but when in the minority use high taxation to control drinking and make drinkers pay for their sins. “The lesson which has been taught over and over again (is) that prohibition laws cannot be enforced except where public sentiment in their favor predominates.”The Nation, January 12, 1888, Vol. XLVI No. 1176, pp. 24-26; February 16, 1888, No. 1181, p.127; January 31, 1889, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1231, p. 83; March 14, 1889, No. 1237, pp. 214-5; April 25, 1889, No. 1243, p. 336; June 27, 1889, No. 1252, p. 515.

    Despite testimonials of its success, modified prohibition caused a plethora of problems such as black market production, smuggling, monopoly pricing, reduced quality, corrupt retail practices, graft, and political corruption. While not as evident as the problems caused by prohibition, modified prohibition did indeed drag the evils before the public. Indeed, the problems of modified prohibition were already obvious when Pennsylvania enacted its modified prohibition. The law attempted to limit corrupt practices stemming from modified prohibition by including a restriction on brewers that prevented them from financing the high license fees charged to saloon operators.The Nation, February 16, 1888, Vol. XLVI, No. 1181, p. 127. Also with respect to high taxes the National Municipal Review (January, 1935, p. 63) noted that “High taxation thus becomes the chief foundation of the illegitimate trade.” Tun Yuan Hu found this illegitimate trade to be “deeply disturbing” but he believed it could be “driven out” by reducing taxes. See The Liquor Tax in the United States, 1791-1947: A History of the Internal Revenue Taxes Imposed on Distilled Spirits by the Federal Government (New York: Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 1950), p. 86.

    The political success of modified prohibition would suggest that true prohibitionist sentiment had all but died out in the late nineteenth century. The federal excise tax on distilled spirits had been increased by 120 percent between 1868 and 1894, most non-prohibition states had enacted local option laws by 1900, and most states and local jurisdictions had enacted high license fees.Hu, The Liquor Tax, Appendix II, p. 3, shows that the federal excise tax on distilled spirits was fifty cents per tax gallon in 1868 and one dollar and ten cents in 1894. Elsewhere, Hu notes that 37 states had local option laws by 1900 (p. 49). The Nation (January 12, 1888, Vol. 46, No. 1176, p. 25) describes the high license fees in several states. Ely, Taxation, notes that in Savannah, Georgia a liquor dealer would pay a Federal license of $25, a State license of $50, a County license of $100 dollars, and a City license of $200. The bar-keepers license in Charlotte, North Carolina was $1000 (pp. 203-205). However, instead of dying out, the prohibition movement was preparing to achieve the ultimate goal of national prohibition by organizing against the saloon, developing institutions and coalitions, and experimenting with new political techniques.

    Women were an important source of support for prohibition. The leaders of the women’s suffrage movement were prohibitionists and encouraged their members to swell the ranks of prohibition organizations. The alliance was clear; women would support prohibition (and vote for it when and where they could) while prohibitionists would in turn support the women’s suffrage movement. Women would get the vote and sober husbands, while prohibitionists would reestablish social control and dry up society. In 1873, the Women’s Christian Temperance Union was formed to institutionalize this alliance.

    In 1869, the Prohibition Party was formed. Often characterized as ineffective, it played a key although often neglected role in the ultimate success of national prohibition. Its electorial success was indeed limited, but the Prohibition party provided a valuable training ground for prohibitionists in politics. The Party also introduced ideas, such as child-labor laws, direct election of senators, the income tax, woman suffrage, and national alcohol prohibition, that were absorbed into major party platforms and enacted into law. The Prohibition Party also was a major factor in the major party realignment that occurred during the 1890s in which the Democratic party embraced prohibition.

    The Anti-Saloon League was formed in 1895 as a political arm of the post-millennial evangelical protestant churches. By 1904, the League had organizations in forty-two states or territories. When Prohibition was enacted, the Anti-Saloon League could claim affiliation with over 30,000 churches and 60,000 agencies. It is important to note that the League, which was the prime mover toward national prohibition, explicitly emblemized the most prominent institution of “sin,” the government-licensed and heavily taxed saloon.Cf. Jack S. Blocker, Retreat from Reform: The Prohibition Movement in the United States, 1890-1913 (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1976), p. 157; Odegard, Pressure Politics, pp. 20-21. The central forces of prohibitionism were the Congregationalist, Quaker, Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian churches. These churches, their ministers and their flocks had radiated out from New England into western New York, the mid-west, and by the turn of the century eventually throughout most of the western and southern states. It is this geographic and demographic dissemination that enhanced the potential for national alcohol prohibition.

    The League completely split with the voluntary and educational efforts of past temperance movements. Coercion, propaganda, and intimidation of political candidates were the new tools. Professional reformers were paid to propagandize (often from the pulpit), in many instances making outrageous claims against blacks and Catholics. At its height, the League published over forty tons of propaganda literature each month. The League was able to shield its big contributors from public exposure by refusing to comply with the disclosure requirements of the Corrupt Practices Act.As a result, Warburton found little evidence for determining the extent of commercial rent­seeking against alcohol. Clark Warburton, The Economics of Prohibition (New York: Columbia University Press, 1932), p. 263. See also Odegard, Pressure Politics, pp. 74, 181, 210; This absence of data should not be taken to infer a lack of commercial interest in promoting prohibition.

    The League was able to refine, strengthen, and spread the prohibitionist ideology. The ideology that emerged during the Progressive Era was forged from the experience of “modified prohibition” and symbolized in the very name of its most powerful and effective political institution, the Anti-Saloon League. As Timberlake described, the saloon became the object of national opprobrium under modified prohibition:

    The liquor industry became thoroughly involved in political corruption through its connection with the saloon. The root of the trouble here was that the ordinary saloonkeeper, confronted by overcompetition, was practically forced to disobey the liquor laws and to ally himself with vice and crime in order to survive. Unable to make a living honestly, he did so dishonestly.James H. Timberlake, Prohibition and the Progressive Movement: 1900-1920 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1963), p. 110.

    Modified prohibition forced many saloons to offer breweries exclusive selling rights in exchange for payment of their annual license fees. Saloons would also disobey blue laws, serve poor quality and watered-down liquor, and employ prostitutes, professional gamblers, and pickpockets in order to generate sufficient revenues under modified prohibition. Of course all of these practices often necessitated the bribery of police and public officials.

    The success of Prohibition depended vitally on defining its goal as ridding America of the crime and vice-ridden saloon that was corrupting both the political leadership and the poor immigrants who relied on the saloon as a center of entertainment, politics, and much more. Indeed, destroying the saloon would achieve an underlying goal of prohibitionists — providing the old-stock protestants with a method of social control over the “drinking class” who were largely recent Catholic immigrants from countries such as Ireland, Italy, and Germany.

    The only major remaining hurdle in the establishment of national alcohol prohibition was government revenue. The tax on alcohol products was the second largest source of revenue for the federal government prior to Prohibition. However, as Boudreaux and Pritchard have demonstrated:

    The income tax proved a viable alternative to liquor taxation for raising revenue, thus making prohibition possible. To be sure, the ideology of voters and politicians mattered, but Congress could not afford the cost in foregone tax revenue (hence, foregone wealth redistribution) that an ideological vote for prohibition entailed until the income tax demonstrated its revenue-raising potential.Donald J. Boudreaux and A.C. Pritchard, “The Price of Prohibition,” Arizona Law Review 36 No. 1 (Spring 1994), p 2.

    They also argue that the shortfall of income tax revenue during the early years of the Great Depression led to the repeal of Prohibition and restoration of alcohol tax revenues.

    In support of this tax substitution thesis, it should be recalled that it was the Prohibition party that first called for an income tax and that prohibitionists widely supported the income tax. It is also noteworthy that a tax revolt was gathering momentum in the early years of the Great Depression. The revolts began as a movement against property taxes in cities such as Chicago. Prior to Prohibition, local governments raised a great deal of revenue from high license fees, revenue which was lost with Prohibition. The repeal of Prohibition would not only lower alcohol prices, but would also reestablish revenue from license fees, thus relieving cities’ overreliance on property taxes. As Beito notes, “by the end of 1933, the effectiveness of the tax-resistance movement had started to wane.”Beito provides an excellent history of tax revolts during the Great Depression. He finds that the tax revolts ultimately failed because of a failure to develop a coherent anti-tax ideology and an overreliance on a strategy that stressed “good government.” David T. Beito, Taxpayers in Revolt: Tax Resistance During the Great Depression (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), p. 140.

    The Progressive era also saw the prohibitionists launch their “war” against narcotics, tobacco, marijuana, gambling, prostitution and other “imperfections” in society. In each of these wars, prohibitionists and progressives sought to stamp out “vice,” establish means of social control (particularly over immigrants and inferior races), and to provide a path toward order and perfection of society.

    During the Progressive Era the prohibitionist movement had become secularized, achieved the precedent of nationalized prohibition, and expanded its scope to cover marijuana and narcotics. The elitist, twentieth century Hamiltonians had established their control over American society.

    The Lost Fifth Volume of <em>Conceived in Liberty</em>

    The Lost Fifth Volume of <em>Conceived in Liberty</em>

    Murray Rothbard was a genius. One aspect of this was his writing as an American historian. He was every bit as significant a scholar here as he was as an economist and philosopher.

    For example, there is his stunning four-volume history of early America from Jamestown to the end of the American Revolutionary War. His brilliance and originality are on display, as he deftly handles a huge amount of research including a vast array of hitherto unknown facts.

    Murray is, as always, a power-elite analyst, and looks at family and financial interests of famous men, as well as their motivations and real ideologies. Standard historians shun this as politically incorrect, but in Murray’s hands, it explains so much.

    Murray writes, of course, from a libertarian perspective, and also brings to light little-known libertarian writers and activists. History has seldom been this exciting.

    But there is one tragic note. Conceived in Liberty was supposed to be a five-volume work, ending with the adoption of the Constitution. And, indeed, Murray wrote the fifth volume, the most revisionist of all. He did it in longhand on legal yellow pads, and used a dictating machine a friend had given him. His wife Joey would use the recording to type the manuscript.

    I know that sort of machine, since my father had one. As you spoke into the microphone, it would inscribe clear plastic discs with your recorded words. Murray dictated the entire book, but when he finished it over many days, all the discs were gibberish.

    Even experts couldn’t fix the disaster, so Murray — frustrated — put his huge handwritten manuscript aside, to take up other projects. He intended to get back to the fifth volume, but died before he could do so.

    Murray left all his papers and books to the Mises Institute, honoring me as his literary executor. But I was never able to decipher his handwriting; not even Joey could do so, nor others I consulted. I hated the situation, but saw no way out of it. Then the young professor and Rothbardian Patrick Newman came upon the manuscript while he was doing other work in the Mises Institute archives, and astoundingly, he was able, with great difficulty, to read Murray’s handwriting.

    So you can imagine the celebration that ensued. We were all thrilled with the book. It is compelling, radical, original, brilliant. It revivifies the first four volumes of Conceived in Liberty, and is a delight to read, with a great introduction by Patrick, who also edited Murray’s hitherto unpublished book, The Progressive Era. As you can imagine, we’re very proud of our former student. I can almost hear Murray exclaiming, “Attaboy, Patrick!”

    The fifth volume, entitled The New Republic, 1784–1791, charts the course from the freeing of the 13 states from British mercantilism to their shackling with a new American form of it.

    For Murray sees the Constitution, not as a document enshrining liberty, but as the charter of a new, powerful, centralized government designed by Madison, Hamilton, and their cohorts in a coup at Philadelphia.

    The centralizers convinced the Continental Congress to wage a traditional, centrally planned, hugely expensive war, rather than a volunteer, libertarian guerrilla action. This ensured many evils, from paper money inflation to high taxes, from conscription to price controls and seizure of goods. Ironically, it was the guerrilla leaders who actually won the war, and not General Washington, as Murray demonstrates.

    Even the post-war Articles of Confederation mixed centralizing provisions with libertarian ones. The centralizers dishonestly dubbed themselves “Federalists,” and their libertarian opponents “Antifederalists.”

    They proved to be effective propagandists in lying to the people of the 13 states, and intimidating their leaders. Eventually the Constitution was ratified by 12 states, with only little Rhode Island refusing. So the central government threatened a trade war, and Rhode Island succumbed.

    The Antifederalists, a minority, became strict constructionists to fight for freedom under the Constitution. But virtually all their predictions about future power grabs came true.

    To get the Constitution passed, however, the opponents were able to demand a Bill of Rights. But the wily Madison made them as weak as possible, ignoring the stronger protections that the opponents wanted.

    The fight for freedom continues to this day, of course, despite our giant warfare, welfare, and police state. As the fifth volume, like the rest of Conceived in Liberty, makes clear, we have an extraordinary American heritage. Heroes, known and unknown, are our inspiration. Villains, too, we must know about.

    The fifth volume completes Murray’s great work, lost for decades, yet as relevant as the day he finished it. Regular American historians, ignorant of non-Keynesian economics and biased by statism, are a bane. Won’t you help us publish this corrective? It must be priced for students, sturdily bound, and widely distributed.

    Your tax-deductible donation of any amount to the fifth volume will help. Donors of $100 or more will receive a free copy of the book. If you can make a $500 donation, you will be listed in the front of this handsome work as a Donor; $1,000 as a Patron; $5,000 as a Benefactor.  

    You’ll love the Foreword by Judge Napolitano and Preface by Tom Woods.

    Help us with your generous donation to fill in this gap in American history. Help us honor Murray. Help us teach real history, instead of the usual pap.

    Mises Wire
    enMarch 25, 2019

    Young Murray Rothbard: An Autobiography

    Young Murray Rothbard: An Autobiography

    [Editors note: Recently the Mises Institute received a box of documents belonging to Murray Rothbard from our friend Justin Raimondo. We will make new material available online as we work through the collection. The following is an autobiographical essay written while Murray was still a high school student. Fans of Rothbard will not only appreciate some of the personal details about his parents and upbringing, but also how his formative years clearly influenced his later work, including his critiques of public education. He also offers some of his political views he held during World War II, long before he became "Mr. Libertarian."]

    My Parents and Their Influence 

    In order to understand the magnitude of the influence exerted on me by my parents, it is necessary to learn something of their character and background.

    My father has a very interesting and complex character, combined with a vivid background. Born near Warsaw, in Poland, he was brought up in an environment of orthodox and often fanatical Jews who isolated themselves from the Poles around them, and steeped themselves and their children in Hebrew lore. As is common with lower middle class families, there were some people who were eager to better their lot and acquire culture and western civilization. One example was my grandmother, whose ambition was confined primarily to her children, whom she imbued with her own unfulfilled cravings.

    When my father immigrated to the United States, at the age of seventeen, he had only this spirit to urged him forward. He had a great handicap in that he did not know any established language, since he had spoken only Jewish in Poland. The isolation of the Jews precluded any possibility of their learning the Polish tongue. In addition, my father has little talent for languages, Despite these obstacles, he broke away from old nationalistic ties, and through sheer will and force of character, he has obtained an extensive knowledge of the English language, has no trace of an accent, and displays a vocabulary that would shame many native Americans. Furthermore, he has by dint of ability and perseverance, risen from an impoverished immigrant to a citizen of merit and responsibility. From the very moment he set foot in America he has been imbued with an intense love of this country, and feels a lasting gratitude for the opportunities and privileges accorded to him. This intense reverence for America and all it stands for sometimes tends toward an extreme nationalistic spirit.

    My mother's background, though different, is just as colorful. Her family abounded in the traditions and characteristics of the old Russian aristocracy. My grandmother's family, especially, had reached the highest pinnacle that the Jews in Czarist Russia could have achieved, One ancestor founded the railroads in Russia, one was a brilliant lawyer, another was a prominent international banker; in short, my mother's family was raised in luxury and wealth, My grandfather, even though lower in the Russian social ladder, was still respected and beloved as a, member of the upper middle class. Unfortunately, the kindness of his heart was his undoing, and he lost nearly everything due to his lack of business sense, and to the fact that he persistently gave away large sums of money, sometimes neglecting his family's interest. Finally, my mother's family was forced to immigrate to America.

    For my mother it was a climactic change. She had been brought up without any necessity of facing the realities of life, and consequently she shut herself up in a dream world of books and literature, much as Keats had escaped to a dream world of beauty. Both my parents have always had a profound admiration and great powers of analysis of literature, and my intense interest in books very likely is an inherited trait; although my parents encouraged it in my childhood.

    Unfortunately, the literature which influenced my mother to the greatest extent was Russian literature. To this day she has an extensive knowledge of Russian writings. This literature is morbid and depressing, and preaches a type of negative idealism, which encouraged my mother's dream world.

    As I said, the new situation was drastic for my mother. She suddenly came face to face with reality. Here was a test for the adaptability which is very necessary for an immigrant. My mother met this test well, but she did not conquer it completely, as in my father's case. She managed to find occupation and to become accustomed to American life, but she has never fully understood or known American customs and beliefs. She is still bound to Russia and its mode of life by strong ties.

    The reason for this lack of complete adaptability was largely emotional and physical. She loved teaching and its ideals dearly.  Her great thirst for knowledge, however, over-taxed her limited stamina, and she was forced to give up her lofty aims, and even to lose literature, in a sense, since her resulting poor memory caused her to lose the enjoyment of books.

    Consequently, she came to the United States in a despairing mood, her ambition crushed, and adopted an attitude of bitter resignation. Thus, the spark of ambition which is primary for the adaptability of an immigrant was missing.

    It is truly remarkable, and immensely fortunate from my stand­point, that my parents possess intelligence and profundity of character to a great extent. One of the traits and interests which I have learned directly from my parents is an ability and intellectual pleasure in analyzing people, including myself. Very often my parents and I have long talks, where I present my analyses of different people, after which both my parents add their own comments. They have taken great care, however, although encouraging me to analyze character, not to present their opinions before mine, and so to unduly influence my judgment, Many times I frankly analyze both myself and my parents, and these efforts are always met with interest and understanding.

    The moments of my life that afford me the greatest enjoyment and instruction are the long discussions which I frequently have with my parents, The mutual understanding is so strong as to be ever silently present, a mute god seen appreciatively by us all. The relationship between my parents and myself has been a constant source of wonder and admiration for me, They are a brother and sister to whom I can always come for guidance and sympathy, which are backed by tender devotion, a keen insight, and intelligence. A statement made by a waiter in the hotel where I was staying this summer all-1ays comes forcibly back to me. "Gee!" he said. "You and your father are like brothers aren't you?" I could only nod my head in silent approval.

    The discussions include every valuable topic, philosophy, literature, politics, and character analyses and self-analysis, which are a source of inspiration to all of us. Our tastes in books vary widely, and offer interesting topics for debates. I prefer American and English writers almost exclusively, but I am resolved to concentrate more on Continental literature in order to widen my scope. My mother is mainly interested in Russian writers; whereas my father has universal taste, with stress laid on English and Continental authors. To show an example of my parents' liberalism and open­mindedness, in recent years I have influenced them more than they have influenced me, opening new vistas of modern American and English writings, Specifically, my father and I have become extremely interested in John Buchan, and we have both decided to read as many of his works as possible.

    My father's mind is precise, analytical, and scientific; though he is emotional, he shuns an excess of emotionalism, Because of this paradox, he has been unwilling to read poetry, despite my persistent efforts.

    When the family discussion turn to politics, my father and I take the lead, since my mother is not sufficiently interested in the subject to discuss it eagerly, and, I must confess, sometimes heatedly. My father went through all political stages in his life. According to Clemanceau’s definition, my father has both a head and a heart. Said the Old Tiger, “A man who is not a radical at twenty has no heart; he who is one at thirty has no head." My father was a radical at twenty, but he was quick to profit by his folly, strange as it appears, I always attempt to gauge my beliefs and actions by his experience, I think it is one of the cardinal faults of youth that it never profits by the experience of others. At any rate, my father taught me the intricacies of politics without prejudice, at least as without prejudice as politics could ever hope to be. However, when I became mature enough to form my own conclusions, I was not too much surprised to find that I agreed with my father on basic political principles.

    Sometimes, in my opinion, my father becomes a little imperialistic. However, my father would scorn that statement since he dislikes political labels. “Labels," he has often said to me, "mean nothing. They are only an inept means of classification, used by unintelligent people.” Radicals use them almost exclusively, classifying people as "liberals; conservatives, reactionaries, Communists; or Fascists." They conveniently leave no room for plain Americans, or people who believe in democracy. My father, contrary to the bigoted opinion of many unintelligent people with whom we come in contact, believes in progress and change. Change must be slow, however, or else our delicate system of free enterprise will be hurt. "There are no people who do not believe in change," said my father once," the only difference between them is the rate of change in which they believe," Given a due amount of reflection, that statement appears clearly and surprisingly true.

    Our attitude toward socialism is a common one. A belief in free enterprise is a basic one with my father, and has remained with me ever since I have formed ·a political philosophy. There can be no progress under a socialistic system. Under it, all incentive is lost, and initiative is: destroyed, as a result of the loss or competition. The "oh, I can always work for the government" theory will be all-pervading, and the United States which depends on growth will become stagnant. In addition, socialism inevitably leads to a great concentration of power in the government, which leads irretrievably to totalitarianism, Probably the man in America who has come nearest to representing my political beliefs is Wendell Willkie.

    My parents' disbelief in religious customs and traditions stems partly from reaction to the religious fanaticism of Old World Jews, and partly from an intelligent outlook, which if it does not deny the existence of a Deity, repudiates out-worn traditions. Antique customs are acceptable only to fanatics or people who never stop to think and examine their beliefs. Thus, I was brought up with only rare entrances to temples or synagogues and with no adherence to orthodox customs. My: mother's parents, who are steeped in European traditions, are orthodox, but my frequent first-hand observations of their adherence to religious traditions does not cause me to change my non-religious views. Consequently, in my religious beliefs, I am a mixture of an agnostic and a reform Jew. I do not think that the human race can determine whether or not there is a Deity; certainly, if there is one, our prayers will not be more successful if we are governed by out-moded customs.

    My father is the type of person who sets a goal for himself and never ceases until he reaches that goal. When he has reached, it he always sets his energies on another objective. Thus, he can never be emotionally satisfied or content, as long as there are more fields to traverse, or more possible goals. People such as my father make progress possible. However, my father is unhappy because he has never been able to climb to the top in his field, or to make any lasting contribution to science or scientific progress. His greatest hope, and my mother's too, is to see me reach the heights in any field which I choose. The hope that their child achieves more than themselves, is, I think, typical of parents. My parents, however, have confirmed their desires by action. They have spared no expense or sacrifice to give me all the advantages that I could require. I only hope that I will be capable of fulfilling their fondest dreams, and prove that all their sacrifices were not in vain.

    Early Childhood

    My parents are firm believers in a liberal home education, and have always encouraged my persistent search for knowledge. I was a very inquisitive and inquiring child; if I saw anything which puzzled me, I didn't rest until I had received a satisfactory answer. I pestered my parents unmercifully, but they were always on hand to answer my questions.  While still in my infancy, I made my first acquaintance with literature. Well, it could hardly be called literature, but it opened undreamed-of horizons for me. I was looking at an oatmeal box and saw the letters H-O. My parents explained to me what they meant, and at the age of seventeen months I mastered the alphabet. From then on, I amazed my parents by composing endless lists of poems. I was so filled with the splendor of words that verses flew from lips. When horizons of books were opened to me, I formed an intense love of reading. I read avidly and continually, gradually acquiring a grasp of literature which was advanced for my years. For example, when I was five years old, I was using the dictionary and Encyclopedia Britannica intelligently. My incessant reading finally resulted in impairing my eyesight.

    At the age of five, I formed my first acquaintance with the beauties of nature. My father brought home one of his business associates, Mr. Larry LeJeune. Mr. Le Jeune had a wide knowledge of nature, but he was especially versed in the characteristics of every variety of tree. We took a walk through a park, and I listened in open-eyed awe and wonder to his enchanting description of the trees around us. These commonplace objects, which had appeared to be drab and uninteresting, took on a new aspect of greatness. It is true that I never developed as great an interest in nature, as in literature, but I always think of that walk, whenever I come upon a tree.

    A series of accidents has bred in me a strong fear of high places. When yet an infant, I fell out of a second-story window, miraculously unhurt. A few years later I fell off a high chair, hitting my head against the wheel. In addition, I fell from a swing and a doctor's table. All these events has resulted in a fear of heights, which is still great today. A “keep my feet on the ground” policy is literal in my case.

    In my childhood, I was not much of a social success. I was always cowed and bullied by my playmates, until I finally took recourse in books. Each succeeding year this situation became more acute. At first it was a result of my natural shyness and timidity. At the delicate age of five, we moved to Staten Island, abounding in race prejudice, which added to my troubles. I was indifferent to kindergarten since I learned nothing new there, except the noble art of rope jumping, which seemed silly and ridiculous, although the other children took great delight in it. My social maladjustment persisted through public school.

    School

    A deep honesty and conscientiousness has always marked my school work. This trait is a manifestation of the inherent honesty of my character. My mother had a strong influence in its development. From my earliest days, my mother impressed me with the value of honesty. I remember how I was greatly shocked when I found that my mother had told a lie. Although I now realize that lies are sometimes necessary to spare someone's feelings, I still cannot reconcile myself to this fact. Honesty, in its broader sense, involves conscientiousness to a large extent, I cannot recall a time, except in the case of absence, that I have handed in an assignment late, or failed to do extra work if I thought it necessary. When I am absent, I try to make up my work as quickly as possible. My parents were like that in school, also. They always strived for accomplishment in the best way that they knew.

    The unhappiest period in my life was the time when I labored under the evils of a public school system. Since I was superior to the rest of the class, I was "skipped" with disconcerting rapidity. Skipping is basically unsound because the pupil misses the valuable intellectual and social foundations acquired in the lower grades. In addition, the result of skipping is to place the pupil in a class of children much older than himself, with the consequences that the student can never adjust himself properly with the other members of the class. In my case the result was disastrous. Instead of overcoming my pre-school shyness, I was more bullied and beaten; this time by boys much older than I was. Consequently, the unhappiness which I felt in early childhood was nothing compared with the misery which I bore in public school.

    Another great evil of the public school system is that it wreaks havoc on a child of superior ability. The entire method of teaching, the poor quality of the courses, the prevalent regimentation, and narrow-mindedness, all contrived to hamper me greatly. I felt myself imprisoned in a steel cage. My mind, which wanted to soar onwards, was chained to the earth, by an endless repetition of things that I knew, as well as by trifling but amazing public school restrictions. I have never been able to figure out why I had to sit with my hands folded, or why, if there was one malefactor in the group, the whole class was punished. The individual was completely forgotten in this system. No attention was given to individual needs and problems. He was swallowed up in a mass of fifty other souls. How well I remember how I chafed at the multiplication cards which the teacher held up before the class. Two times two equals four, three times two equals six; to me it all seemed a futile waste of time.

    I was in the fourth grade when all the aforementioned evils developed at a great speed. Then, I was striving to break my bonds; but in a few years I might resign myself to the system, and become mentally lazy, actually no better than the others around me. The need for immediate action was apparent.

    I remember with amusement my parents' first attempt to solve my social problem. They engaged a boxing instructor for me. My parents, with characteristic thoroughness, obtained the best one they could find. I believe he was a trainer of some lightweight champion. However, it was soon apparent to all concerned that my career was not along pugilistic lines. I'm afraid that my attempt to become a boxer was a dismal failure. However, my parents soon perceived that my difficulty was more emotional than physical. They made every possible attempt to adjust my problems through the help of the school authorities. By reading their replies, it is only now that can fully understand the incompetency of the Public school faculty. In their attitude concerning me they displayed a total ignorance of any fundamental psychology. The reason I was unhappy, they said, was that I persisted in thinking and playing differently from the rest of the group. If I would only conform to the rest of the class, my adjustment would naturally follow. They concluded that the fault was all mine, and that I exaggerated my troubles, anyway. The individual teachers, in addition, were highly eccentric and used their pupils as outlets for their emotions and idiosyncrasies. One teacher, who suffered from high blood pressure, delighted in pinching and cuffing the students on general principles. Another engaged in biting sarcastic ridicule of individual students before the class. In recent years, the public school authorities have endeavored to segregate the bright children from the average. However, a pre-requisite for the success of such a plan is a large amount of ability and sympathy on the part of the teachers.

    After the failure of my parents' efforts, they determined to seek outside information. Even today, I marvel at the exhaustive research conducted by my parents, in order to decide upon the best course to follow. They have kept a file of correspondence and other data relating to that period, and it is a tribute to their tireless perseverance and thoroughness. Every conceivable source was tapped. Every means of advice was used. They sought the guidance of psychologists, friends, journalists acquainted with the subject, and student and parent associations. I distinctly remember visiting the office of Dr. John Levy, eminent psychologist in the field of child guidance, I clearly recall the actual contour of the room where I sat alone, and the unintelligible murmur of adult voices emanating from the next room. The most momentous decision that has yet affected my life was being reached. Dr. Levy recommended unequivocally that I be transferred to a private school. He advised that I go to as small a school as possible in order to satisfy my pressing needs for individual attention and emotional adjustment.

    Acting on Dr. Levy's advice, my parents decided, in the second term of the fourth grade, to place me in Riverside School. My entrance into this school opened vast new horizons before my eyes. The importance of my transfer from public to private school cannot be overemphasized. My mind at last was free from all worthless intellectual and physical restrictions. I was free to think! I finally received a great amount of individual attention, since there were only seven students in the class. The teachers always endeavored to guide and advise me in any problems that I faced. I could express my ideas in class freely, without the psychological intimidation, which oppressed me in public school. The courses, moreover, were superior, and the teachers seemed omniscient before my inexperienced eyes. Above all, in the two years that I stayed in Riverside, I became completely adjusted to the group. In them I found equals in intelligence, and consequently, similar interests. Thus, it was easy for me to cooperate and become 

    an indissoluble unit of the class, without, however, losing my individual identity. I discovered, with gratified wonder, that the other children liked me. I had never before sensed a friendly feeling toward me by other children. The fact that many of them were my own age also made social adjustment easy.

    Toward the end of the sixth grade my fervent enthusiasm for Riverside began to wane. It had served well as a reaction to public school, but its scope was becoming too narrow. I saw that the courses and the teachers were not as excellent as I had first thought. Furthermore, I suffered from a lack of competition. A certain amount of competition is necessary to any progress, material or spiritual. With only six others in the class, competition, or any exchange of intelligent ideas, was limited.

    A specific reason for leaving Riverside was that the 7th and 8th grades were combined in one class. The full value of the junior high would be lost in such an unsound combination. For these reasons, my parents and I began looking for another private school, with a higher scholastic standing and a greater number of students. My parents thoroughly investigated many private schools. I remember my mother's account of her first visit to Birch-Wathen. She was deeply impressed and enchanted by the teachers and courses in that school. Her judgment is valuable because she has a teacher's ability to decide on the merits of teaching methods. The class that impressed her most was an English class conducted by a Miss Pendleton, which wrote compositions on the subject of fences. My mother greatly admired the challenge to the imagination in the problem, "what do you see in a fence?" It was a source of chagrin to my mother in the next two years that I did not have Miss Pendleton as an English teacher.

    I entered Birch-Wathen in the 7th grade. I remember my first day there vividly. At the foot of the stairs in the hall, I was introduced to Russell Bliss, also a new student. Instinctively, we clung to each, with the natural impulse of two children facing a new world. We walked up the stairs solemnly, led by a sympathizing teacher. The "ice was broken" by the friendly, cheerful greeting of the 8th grade teacher, Mr. Hubbard. From that day on, I have esteemed and appreciated Birch-Wathen highly.

    I was completely happy in this school. I made friends quickly and found myself an integral part of the class. The class was large enough to be a strong social unit, and its superior intelligence supplied friendly competition and opportunity for political and economic debates. Probably the greatest debate ever witnessed in the eighth grade was the famous argument over the undistributed profits tax. The discussion lasted two history periods with Mr. Hubbard as referee. Both sides compiled facts and figures, plus weighty arguments to support their claim. Dave Zabel, Alan Marks, and myself denounced the tax, while Jim Denzer, Jim Heilbrun, and David Cohen supported it. Our side won convincingly, and received an overwhelming majority vote of the class. Later, when the heat of battle had died away, Jim Denzer admitted that he didn't believe in the tax, anyway. However, I prefer to take that as an excuse for our victory.

    I found Birch-Wathen in the quality of its courses and teachers far superior to Riverside. I was grateful to the method which allowed me to delve into research problems, exploring many streams of thought, all blending into the sea of the actual subject. I found that many assignments covered a large period, so that the student could compile and organize his material. I especially admired Mr. Hubbard. In my opinion, Mr. Hubbard is an example of a perfect junior high teacher. Every student graduating from the eighth grade glows with inspiration and enthusiasm due to his friendly, challenging teaching method. His favorite question was" Why?" He forced students to find out knowledge for themselves. This was manna to my inquiring mind. Another endearing part of his teaching was his irrepressible humor. With a genial twinkle of his eye, he would point to one student and suddenly shout out the name of another poor soul dozing in some other part of the room. He kept us constantly in an uproar, and we all looked forward to his classes as a source of entertainment as well as instruction. He instituted the delightful and unorthodox practice of urging a chocolate bar for everyone during lunch hour. Several times, during his history periods, we brought radios into school to listen to news reports. In addition, Mr. Hubbard has a remarkable collection of humorous incidents, throughout the country’s schools, and read some selections at the end of each year.

    Suffice to say that we thought of Mr. Hubbard as the optimum in teaching. I have found that feeling true of every junior high student. However, his unique method is not as good for high school, since his failure to explain his subject is a burden to those who are not exceptional. His method, which was excellent for junior high, becomes extreme and impractical in high school.

    An advantage of Birch-Wathen is that the transition from elementary school to high school is small. Naturally, more work is required in high school, and the courses are entirely changed. However, the basic system of teaching, namely, the encouragement of research and intellectual freedom and development, is still there. In addition, my graduation did not cause a departure from my happy social adjustment, but an increase in scope and interests with the same friends. I believe that the character of this class, with which I have worked for the past six years, is worthy of a brief analysis:

    Our class has always been the victim of self-scorn. The tragedy of the situation is that we fail to realize our own potential value. It cannot be denied that the class, as a whole, is brilliant. The fact that we have not always shouldered enough responsibility is due in part to our innate sense of humor, which makes us laugh at everything, including ourselves. We scoff at ourselves, call ourselves stupid, and let it go at that. We close our eyes to our own value, because it is easy to do so. But the “stuff from which kings are made" is undoubtedly there. I have every reason to hope that our latent gifts will soon blossom, and become acknowledged by all.

    I have not developed an outstanding preference for one subject in high school. In general, however, history and English have given me the greatest enjoyment. I remember the amazement and consternation which I caused the class when I stated my confirmed beliefs in the type of world that should emerge after the war. I was the only one in the class who believed that Germany should be kept in a perpetual state of subjection, and I was alone in my pronouncement that the Versailles treaty failed because it was too weak. I delighted in the ensuing debate with the other members of the class. I also liked to place myself in difficult historical situations, and see how I would have met those problems. In American history, for example, I decided I would have tried to settle slavery by popular sovereignty.

    My interest in English is explained by my interest in literature and its analysis. In addition, I enjoy creative writing, and I believe I have improved, in recent years, in the ability to express my ideas.

    Although I have been bred in a scientific tradition, and I am favorable to theoretical science, I have a dislike for laboratory work, which excludes me from that line of endeavor.

    I am grateful to Birch-Wathen for the knowledge it has given me, and for the complete social adjustment which it has made possible. I didn't know true emotional or intellectual happiness before I came to Birch-Wathen. I echo the stirring words of its Alma Mater “You have shown us the portals to rich knowledge and truth. And have given us mortals, friendships so dear to youth!”

    Summers

    Until the age of eleven, I spent my summers with my parents in mountain or seashore hotels, My recollection of these early summers is hazy, since we usually spent three weeks at best away from the city. In general, however, my social activities were broader and happier than they were in school. The reason probably was that any difference in intelligence was not conspicuous in summer recreation. Thus, the attitude between other children and myself was usually good. When I reached the age of eleven, my parents and I decided that, I should go to camp. My enthusiasm for this project was great, and my parents felt that I would learn to live and get along with, other people. My father, however, was rather skeptical, "I'll try anything once," he remarked drily.

    The director of the camp asserted that he was an idealist, motivated solely by a humanitarian interest in children. He was a forceful-looking man, with a shining goatee and an imposing stature, and he managed to convince us of the, superior qualities of his camp. To be sure, this camp was not an ordinary one. It was one of the best in New York, and was recommended highly by Parents' Magazine. My parents, who made sure of its high rating, never rush blindly into any venture. Indeed, the food was excellent, and could not be excelled anywhere. However, after the first novelty wore off, I saw that the camp's qualities ended there. The heralded activities were almost, nil; the campers could only sit and mope all day. Mr. Robbins, the idealistic director, turned out to be an ineffectual materialist, with a blustering temper. I found that most campers lost weight solely because the bunks had the effect of a Turkish bath. However, I do owe my passion for chess to the camp. It was the only possible activity during many long hours of stagnation. The fact that no camper was sunburned offered conclusive proof that he hardly ever saw the light of day.

    My father, in addition to his other qualities, is a brilliant wit. The main centers of camp life were the rec (recreation hall), the mess (dining room), and the bunks (sleeping quarters). Commenting on the camp as a whole, he said “It's a wreck, it’s a mess, it’s the bunk!" I am convinced that camps are mainly excuses for parents who wish to rid themselves of their children during the summer. If they had their children's interests at heart, they would not blind themselves to the glaring disadvantages of camp. “A racket,” my father termed it, and I heartily agree with him. If the best camp in New York was in such a deplorable condition, what are the conditions in camps of lower quality? I shudder to think of them. I believe that camps are only excusable when they assist poor families. In all other cases I condemn them whole-heartedly.

    This disappointing summer in camp was my last, and ever since, I have had an uninterrupted succession of immensely happy summers. I gained invaluable friends during the summer, just as I developed what I hope to be lasting friendships in Birch-Wathen. My transformation from a lonely, maladjusted child to a happy, sociable one was complete. Some of my school friends decry my summer activities, which consist of an enjoyable vacation at a seaside hotel. They claim that I do nothing useful there. However, I consider it useful when I can further my own happiness, and at the same time increase the pleasure of others by social companionship. It is always useful to establish a firm relationship with society.

    Relatives

    I have already dealt with my home, school, and summer environment. My relatives come under a special category. Many of them are definitely Communist sympathizers, or pinkish radicals. Consequently, my father frequently becomes involved in heated political debates. When they cannot help but see the logic of his arguments, they just call him a reactionary, a Republican (an abhorred word, for some reason) and hide behind the shield of those generously distribute labels. I usually take part in these discussions with vehemence and a certain amount of relish. Once, in the days of the Spanish Civil War, my parents and I visited the house of an uncle, a Communist party member. Naturally, his guests were all Communists, and were vigorous in their denunciation of Franco. I startled the assembly by asserting that the republican government of Spain was elected by a minority of the people, and quoted a letter in the Times to that effect. I was immediately bombarded on all sides, but I managed to hold my own against overwhelming odds. A favorite trick of the people, when someone quotes a respectable and reliable paper such as the Times, is to cry vehemently "Do you believe everything you read in the papers?" Then they proceed to counter with grandiose statements from tabloids such as In Fact, whose editor has been listed by Max Eastman as a front for Communist organizations.

    My father's family in general are shrewd individualists, and as such, have little thought of family loyalty. They are endowed with common sense but are unintelligent. My mother's family, in contrast, has a strong sense of family devotion and loyalty. However, they do not have the common sense of my father's relations, with a few exceptions, there is little intelligence among them.  Indeed my mother and father represent the pinnacle of intelligence in their respective families. I know my mother's family very well, and I usually look on with quiet amusement at their futile worries and panics. However, this feeling is mingled with a reverent admiration for their gentle nobility of character, which reminds me strongly of the weakness and courage of Louis XVI.

    In my dealings with my relatives, I have learned not to get angry or indulge in heated personal arguments. From them I have learned the important value of tolerance. Tolerance also involves open-mindedness and a willingness to listen to other people's ideas whatever they may be.

    Interests

    I have many varied interests and hobbies. Although I can trace the development of most of them, others evolved without my conscious knowledge, and with no definite or marked beginning. My interest in music has passed through several definite stages. At: first, at the age of ten, I enthusiastically adopted piano lessons. My reason was not any great love for music, since I was barely interested in it. I started piano lessons merely because of my intense curiosity and my desire to enter new fields of endeavor. Once I had learned the rudiments of music, and some of its characteristics, I lost interest in my musical career. My finger manipulation was poor, and I saw a new horizon of music listening open before me. Whatever I had learned in piano practice helped me to understand and evaluate music. I have been a fair judge of rhythm ever since it was drilled into me by my piano teacher. Therefore, since it was clear that I was not cut out to be a musician, I gave up piano lessons after two years, and devoted my musical activities to becoming an enthusiastic spectator.

    At first I did not have much discrimination, and I accepted all types of music without attempting to formulate any special favorites. However, I was soon able to judge works of music and listen with a more critical outlook. I soon came to the conclusion that I liked swing music as well as, if not better than, classical music. The reason for my extensive interest in swing music is purely that. I obtain pleasure from hearing it. If I were able to derive inspiration from any form of music, I would be interested primarily in classical music. However, it is impossible for music to hold any inspiration for me. As a source of enjoyment, therefore, I think that swing is at least equal to classical music.

    Likewise, painting has never interested me to any great extent because I can receive no inspiration from looking at a great work of art. If I tried, I could probably become expert in criticizing the technical qualities of a painting, but I could never become uplifted by it. In fact, of all the creative arts, literature is the only one that can inspire or elevate me forcibly.

    In contrast to the development of my interest in music, I cannot account definitely for my devotion to sports. It did not result from any single event or start in any given period. I only know that I have become a voracious follower of sports, in all its phases and forms. Consequently, my knowledge of both major and minor sports is widespread. The public should realize the full importance of athletics in American life. Not only does it provide an interesting diversion for care-worn people, but it also serves to build up a nation's stamina.

    However, my interest for violent athletics stops with the newspaper and the sidelines; when I seek personal athletic recreation, I prefer quieter games such as table tennis and chess. I have a definite reason for my attraction to chess. Chess, aside from its entertaining features, teaches farsightedness, circumspection, ability to think and act fast, and analysis of problems. I think that the main fascination that chess holds is that the player is a general directing his forces. There are all the difficulties, strategies, and tactics of modern warfare. Chess embodies all the challenging intellectual problems of war, without its horrible bloodshed and slaughter.

    My character consists of many, strange, contrasts. Although, I am devoted to reading and quiet pursuits, I have a keen enjoyment of dramatics. I have always excelled in acting, and I revel in a dramatic portrayal of moods and, ideas. In addition, when I find, any article which I particularly like, I enjoy reading it for my parents, with all the drama that I can put into my voice, although I realize that my parents probably would much prefer to read it themselves. If I were in their position, I certainly could concentrate better by reading the article myself. However, my relish is so great that I continue in my unwelcome course. I also like to sing for my parents, who bear this great torture with good grace.

    I have always had a keen interest in political and economic problems, and in current events, as a source of knowledge and of discussion. I think that it is the duty of every American citizen to acquaint himself with these problems, in order to contribute intelligently to any national effort, in time of war or peace.

    A Look Into the Future

    As I turn my eyes from the past and present to the future, I am unappalled by the fact that my course is undecided at present. I have many fields of interest, and it is difficult to choose one for specialization. However, I know that I will do my best in any field I choose. Society can only benefit if each individual makes his greatest effort. This fact is apparent in wartime, but it applies also to peace conditions.

    I do not believe that the advent of war has changed my outlook. War has only brought it into sharper focus and crystallization. I am even more determined mow to do my utmost to serve this nation.

    I face college with keen interest and anticipation. I welcome the greater freedom and the necessity for self-discipline which are the characteristics of college. Some people believe that the only way to be free of parental restriction is to go to an out-of-town school. In my case, however, any misunderstandings can always be solved by, intelligent and reasonable discussion. Therefore, I am not hampered by unnecessary parental restriction, and I feel free to choose a college solely on its own merits. College becomes increasingly important in wartime, for the need for a comprehensive education of youth becomes greater.  A college training enables anyone to cope, to a greater degree, with any national problems he or she is called on to face.

    With all men and women striving for the common welfare, I see, in the future an America, perhaps a world, in war or in peace, sounding the call of progress, of civilization, of humanity, and taking care that "government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth!"