So because some people propose a false and illogical (in your mind anyways) connection between natural selection and eugenics…any connection between Austrian Economics, Anarcho-Capitalism and conspiracy theories are bunk?
Alright then, you explain to me how anarcho-capitalism or Austrian economics are connected to conspiracy theories. “Both think government is bad” won’t cut it.
What is a conspiracy theory? Is that the opposite of a coincidence theory?
Let’s ask Wikipedia:
But isn’t the oldest trick in the book to undermine your opponents, to label them fringe, kook or crazy?
Even the description from Wikipedia is a ridiculous strawman. What superhuman power and cunning? Money and political power? What is superhuman about that?
Well, let me give you an example of how much money and power you’d have to have to pull, say, the World Trade Center attacks off in such a fashion: http://www.cracked.com/article_15740_was-911-inside-job_p2.html
It may be a comedy website, but it raises a good point nonetheless. It strikes me as cognitive dissonance to believe government is incompetent and ineffectual except when planning conspiracies, when it is virtually infallible with unlimited resources.
We know people respond to incentives. We also know, thanks to Hoppe’s work, that the higher you go in a democratic government, the more evil (ie, power seeking, special interest serving) you are likely to be.
Taking those two facts into account, lets just look at two small facts regarding 9/11. 1) We know its a fact that years before 9/11 Dick Cheney and other Neo Cons stated that they needed a ‘new pearl harbor’ in order to pursue their agenda. 2) We know that George Bush stated in 2000 he wanted to be a “war president”.
So we have power hungry, evil people, in charge of a monopoly, which allows them sole control of the justice system, who say they would love for a 9/11-like event to happen.
Let’s put that statement in another context.
Let’s assume I have successfully lobbied the state for a monopoly on bananas, because I cant make any profit thanks to South American importers.
So we have a power hungry person, in charge of a state monopoly, which allows him sole control of banana sales, who has said he doesn’t like competition, because it reduces his profits.
If the price in bananas were to rise, would any sensible Austrian accept my explanation that, “its just a bad growing season, what an unfortunate thing, I have to raise the price”?
Of course not. It doesn’t mean I couldn’t theoretically be telling the truth, but it means that we probably shouldn’t run around ridiculing those who say that I raised prices on bananas on purpose, and gave a false explanation because I could afford to, what with the power of the state at my back and all.
You have established motive for the US government to commit the WTC attacks. You have not established means or opportunity. You could say I killed Paul Samuelson, because I think Keynesian economics is a load of bunkum, but you’d still have to establish I had the means and opportunity to do so.
Read it again.
Tell me, which is the more logical position?
People who come into the position of monopolistic and ultimate dispute resolvers by virtue of their superior ability to act as power hungry demagogues will tend to use this power to get what they want.
or
People who come into the position of monopolistic and ultimate dispute resolvers by virtue of their superior ability to act as power hungry demagogues will hope that rare and unusual events come into being and evolve in the exact manner as they had hoped.
they pretty much have unlimited resources, its called the printing press… and as far as government competency, i have always been impressed with their expertise in mass murder.
Good point. Obama (and Bush before him) is remarkably efficient when it comes to satisfying the wants of special interests and expanding government.
All history is one big conspiracy.
If you are interest in reading a book that talks more about the actual functions of the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, something like Rothbard’s Mystery of Banking/The Case Against the Fed are much better books (although both of them do talk about history, the books seem more concerned with economics, the process of money creation, and how banks function). On the other hand, The Creature from Jekyll Island talks more about “unorthodox” history that talks about a banker plot to take over the world and its talk of economics/money creation is much more simplified and uninformative.
Personally, I like MOB better than the CFJI because it is shorter, talks more about economics, its history discusses more about business cycles/history of banking than including random challenges to conventional history, and it appears to be a much more reliable source for research/recommendation for someone to read. For someone unprimed in libertarian readings, giving them the Creature from Jekyll Island will most likely fixate them in the mainstream belief that libertarians are a bunch of alex jones crazies who think the sun is flat.
It’s totally wrong and confused.
In fact what happens is that the government pays its employees 100$ by borrowing cash on the open bond market. The banks then buy the bonds in exchange for cash, which they can print into existence because the Fed protects them from bank runs with its < 1% discount window for short term loans. If the banks do not want to take the risk of buying government bonds at interest rates that the Fed finds acceptable, the Fed can directly buy bonds from the banks in what are called “open market operations”, thus exchanging them for cash that the Fed prints into existence, and lowering the rate of interest.