WEBVTT

NOTE Man, Economy and Liberty

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:12.000
It gives me great pleasure to introduce to you now Murray Rothbard, and I've been doing a little soul searching and thinking as to how I can best introduce Murray to things such as this.

2
00:00:12.000 --> 00:00:18.000
And I thought there were really only two ways. One is to just sort of say, here he is folks.

3
00:00:18.000 --> 00:00:24.000
And the other is to give a full introduction of the sort that he deserves, which would take about a half hour.

4
00:00:24.000 --> 00:00:31.000
And since he's only got a half hour to speak before lunch, I've decided to just say, here he is folks.

5
00:00:54.000 --> 00:01:01.000
Thank you all very much. This is a real surprise for me. I thought that the secret was kept at tight control and grand unusual in the movement.

6
00:01:01.000 --> 00:01:10.000
And I was informed I would be here coming in this morning at ungodly hour, of course, to come in on Walter's paper on fractional reserve banking.

7
00:01:10.000 --> 00:01:17.000
I prepared on that. I've got some stuff on that, but anyway, the rest of them have to wing it.

8
00:01:17.000 --> 00:01:30.000
The seizure of the, oh, Sam Walters' paper, first place, he mentioned about the Hotel Diplomat, the first Louis Herring Scholars' Conference, which almost ended in disaster.

9
00:01:30.000 --> 00:01:37.000
And, but the activist wing of the conference wanted to seize Fort Dix.

10
00:01:37.000 --> 00:01:45.000
I argue that it's not only irrelevant to the conference, but also likely to fail.

11
00:01:45.000 --> 00:01:49.000
Of course, that turned out to be right.

12
00:01:49.000 --> 00:01:54.000
I know it's a very good point, what we made about the banking cartel.

13
00:01:54.000 --> 00:01:58.000
It's a good point, and we should think about it further.

14
00:01:58.000 --> 00:02:01.000
And what's about the economics and moral arguments fitting in together?

15
00:02:01.000 --> 00:02:04.000
So reconfirming each other, checking each other.

16
00:02:04.000 --> 00:02:14.000
There is, of course, a problem with an anarchist or an anarcho-capitalist. How do you fit that in with government or whatever, in position of 100% reserved banking?

17
00:02:14.000 --> 00:02:29.000
And the first thing to say, I think, on that is that not all law is government, as several people pointed out, and I think Randy Hogan pointed out, law comes before government.

18
00:02:29.000 --> 00:02:34.000
Government, and of course government messes it up, we'll get to that in a minute.

19
00:02:34.000 --> 00:02:43.000
And so what we're talking about is a legal question, not a governmental question, not a question of agency, of who should be enforcing the law.

20
00:02:43.000 --> 00:02:49.000
Number two, a second aspect of that is that the libertarians of course always focus on government as the major criminal,

21
00:02:49.000 --> 00:02:54.000
the major organized criminal, which it is, the major robber, the major, and sanctioned robber,

22
00:02:54.000 --> 00:03:00.000
Major murderer, major kidnapper, major regulator, controller, and all that.

23
00:03:00.000 --> 00:03:04.000
But also, of course, we should also remember there are private criminals once in a while.

24
00:03:04.000 --> 00:03:08.000
Because New Yorkers are quite familiar with it.

25
00:03:08.000 --> 00:03:14.000
And a lot of private people commit fraud and theft, etc., etc.

26
00:03:14.000 --> 00:03:21.000
I think on the fractional reserve front, the point I would emphasize even more than the fact that the bank is inherently bankrupt,

27
00:03:21.000 --> 00:03:31.000
Fractional Reserve Bank, which of course it is, but it's also engaging in, what I call, implicit thefts or embezzlement, and so that makes it an even stronger, I think, moral position.

28
00:03:31.000 --> 00:03:41.000
Even if the Surgeon General left, the Surgeon General had a warning on like, each bank note, this is dangerous for your pocketbook.

29
00:03:41.000 --> 00:03:46.000
As Walter says, it's not likely to be a bank note very much longer.

30
00:03:46.000 --> 00:03:53.000
Also, the idea of a voluntary fractional reserve banking system seems very bizarre to me.

31
00:03:53.000 --> 00:04:02.000
It's very much like people claim the state is really voluntary because it's conceivable that 10 people can get together and form a quote state unquote and read quote tax themselves unquote.

32
00:04:02.000 --> 00:04:09.000
And this somehow repeats the idea that the state, the existing and all existing past and present states are coercive.

33
00:04:09.000 --> 00:04:18.000
That's even irrelevant. Existing, past, present, and likely future fractional reserve banking is deceptive. It's fraudulent.

34
00:04:18.000 --> 00:04:29.000
I would also say on that that it's not only banks that have done this. It's not only a theoretical point, but also an historical point.

35
00:04:29.000 --> 00:04:36.000
First of all, the law of warehousing has always been in very bad shape, and only is corrected in recent years.

36
00:04:36.000 --> 00:04:47.000
And the point is, it seems to me very clear that a warehouse owner, when he accepts something to be put, a deposit there for safety, doesn't own the damn property.

37
00:04:47.000 --> 00:04:52.000
It seems to me very clear that this is a law, a bailment contract and not a sale of some sort.

38
00:04:52.000 --> 00:05:05.000
And that if I put a chair on a warehouse for deposit, I have a warehouse receipt to tell me I can call and get the chair or beam the chair at any time.

39
00:05:05.000 --> 00:05:13.000
I'm still the owner of the chair. This warehouse man is simply guarding it. He's the safe keeper of it.

40
00:05:13.000 --> 00:05:24.000
And he gets paid for his service of guarding it. So what's happened is in some warehouses, when I deposit a chair in a warehouse, there's no problem.

41
00:05:24.000 --> 00:05:32.000
There's not much temptation for embezzlement or theft because if I come back three weeks later and say I like my chair, here's the deposit.

42
00:05:32.000 --> 00:05:35.000
Well, I haven't got that chair. I've got another chair. This is good.

43
00:05:35.000 --> 00:05:38.000
It might be blue instead of green, but what difference does it make?

44
00:05:38.000 --> 00:05:42.000
I would, of course, hit the ceiling and call it John Worms and something like that.

45
00:05:42.000 --> 00:05:47.000
By the way, this is an argument that had a libertarian circle for many years.

46
00:05:47.000 --> 00:05:52.000
Since an existing situation of stateism has a monopoly on protection, is it permissible?

47
00:05:52.000 --> 00:05:55.000
Is it morally permissible to call a cop if you're being loved?

48
00:05:55.000 --> 00:05:58.000
My answer is absolutely yes.

49
00:05:58.000 --> 00:06:21.000
The problem has the fungible goods, in other words, goods which are homogeneous. You really don't care whether it's your particular bushel of wheat that you've deposited, as long as it's the same kind and grade and so on.

50
00:06:21.000 --> 00:06:34.000
And so the first fraction, well not the first, but one of the first fractional reserve issuers were not banked so much as rain elevators, rain warehouses which keep kept wheat, corn and oats.

51
00:06:34.000 --> 00:06:42.000
And where a grading system came in, number two spring wheat, you get your hundred bushels, you don't care if it's specific hundred bushels with your mark on it.

52
00:06:42.000 --> 00:06:49.000
And so in that situation, rain elevators were tempted to start engaging in Buzzelner, what's kindly called fractional reserve banking.

53
00:06:49.000 --> 00:06:56.000
Banking. In other words, to issue phony warehouse receipts, which are not represented by the bushels of wheat.

54
00:06:56.000 --> 00:07:04.000
Think warehouse receipts, in other words. And then they lunged it out, speculated on the grain exchanges, and lunged them out, and received money on it.

55
00:07:04.000 --> 00:07:15.000
And as a matter of fact, in Chicago in the 1860s, there were about 600 or so grain merchants, and they were using grain elevator receipts as if they were money.

56
00:07:15.000 --> 00:07:19.000
They were exchanging them. They were meeting and exchanging for settlement rain accounts.

57
00:07:19.000 --> 00:07:23.000
So they functioned as money in a limited sense.

58
00:07:23.000 --> 00:07:29.000
But the way the weight-elevators got away with it, they kept the whole thing very secret.

59
00:07:29.000 --> 00:07:32.000
They didn't tell anybody. There was no order, of course.

60
00:07:32.000 --> 00:07:39.000
They didn't tell anybody how many receipts they had in comparison to how many bushels of rain they really had in their warehouse.

61
00:07:39.000 --> 00:07:48.000
And finally, I think what happened was, in 1872, there was a fire in one of the warehouses.

62
00:07:48.000 --> 00:07:53.000
They found out, lo and behold, that 300,000 bushels of warehouse receipts were outstanding,

63
00:07:53.000 --> 00:07:56.000
with 60,000 bushels of wheat in the warehouse.

64
00:07:56.000 --> 00:08:00.000
And of course, everybody hit the ceiling when this knowledge came out.

65
00:08:00.000 --> 00:08:06.000
So the rain elevators were considered, and since it was a fungible item,

66
00:08:06.000 --> 00:08:14.000
Legal theorists consider the depositing of wheat in grain elevators as not a bailment, but an actual sale and repurchase agreement.

67
00:08:14.000 --> 00:08:20.000
So the wheat elevator person is not an embezzler, but simply, quote, a boob of wheat.

68
00:08:20.000 --> 00:08:24.000
And so this is a defect in warehouse launches, which since then has fixed up.

69
00:08:24.000 --> 00:08:30.000
So now it's considered that you're a thief, and not just have gone into debt.

70
00:08:30.000 --> 00:08:34.000
If you don't pay up, if the wheat isn't there, you don't redeem it.

71
00:08:34.000 --> 00:09:04.000
So, unfortunately, in banking it didn't work that way. Banking for purely historical reasons, even though the argument was made that this is a bailment, deposit of gold or money in a bank, the judges ruled against it, the majority of judges, it was a split decision, and from then on it got incorporated into the law that it's not a bailment, it's simply a debt. You're just an entrepreneur, you happen to go bankrupt once in a while, but it's of course not the same thing. Walter used the argument of parking lots.

72
00:09:04.000 --> 00:09:08.000
You haven't heard that one yet. The traditional argument was a bridge.

73
00:09:08.000 --> 00:09:14.000
You have a bridge across the river. You know each person has an... each taxpayer or whatever, a citizen has an equal access to the bridge.

74
00:09:14.000 --> 00:09:20.000
It isn't guaranteed. It might be, you know, 2,000 people trying to get on the bridge and only room for 100.

75
00:09:20.000 --> 00:09:24.000
And so there's nothing wrong with that. It's simply an entrepreneurial decision of the bridge owner.

76
00:09:24.000 --> 00:09:29.000
However, of course, there's no claim. You're not getting your property back if you want to walk or ride on the bridge.

77
00:09:29.000 --> 00:09:33.000
It's a very different situation. This is your property and you want it back and somehow it isn't there.

78
00:09:33.000 --> 00:09:38.000
There seems to be a much different stature than not being able to get on the bridge.

79
00:09:38.000 --> 00:09:44.000
Of course, there's also government bridges and maximum price controls of zero on driving, things like that, which cause congestion.

80
00:09:44.000 --> 00:09:48.000
That's another topic.

81
00:09:48.000 --> 00:09:55.000
So finally, I conclude with one gentleman raising questions.

82
00:09:55.000 --> 00:09:58.000
Larry White's book on free banking in Britain.

83
00:09:58.000 --> 00:10:05.000
Now, I came on with that. I used to accept the argument in the book on free banking in Scotland.

84
00:10:05.000 --> 00:10:09.000
I since then looked deeper into it and came to the conclusion he was all wrong on this.

85
00:10:09.000 --> 00:10:18.000
If you look at the book, he tries to prove that free banking in Scotland was significantly better, different and better than free banking in England.

86
00:10:18.000 --> 00:10:26.000
His only proof of that is that there were fewer bank failures in Scotland. He doesn't say anything about less inflationary, anything of that sort.

87
00:10:26.000 --> 00:10:31.000
That's the tip number one. I have nothing against bank failures. As a matter of fact, bank failures are usually pretty good.

88
00:10:31.000 --> 00:10:36.000
And the fact that there were a few bank failures is a cause for suspicion rather than a congratulation.

89
00:10:36.000 --> 00:10:46.000
So looking at it more closely, I found out that the banks in Scotland pyramid on top of the Bank of England, just as the English banks did.

90
00:10:46.000 --> 00:10:52.000
They were not free in any sense. It would be used by any libertarian or free market person.

91
00:10:52.000 --> 00:10:55.720
in Scotland, they kept almost all their reserves, such as they were in the Bank of England,

92
00:10:55.720 --> 00:10:59.000
a very small proportion of reserves though, right, and the Bank of England would bail

93
00:10:59.000 --> 00:11:02.720
them out if they got into trouble, they kept very little gold on hand, if you try to, not

94
00:11:02.720 --> 00:11:06.360
only that, but if you try to get the gold, you wouldn't get it, in other words, it was

95
00:11:06.360 --> 00:11:10.200
the custom of Scotland, you couldn't get the gold if you tried to redeem your deposit or

96
00:11:10.200 --> 00:11:16.720
note in gold, so free banking in Scotland was neither free nor legitimate banking in

97
00:11:16.720 --> 00:11:17.720
any sense.

98
00:11:17.720 --> 00:11:21.480
I just got one quote on this, one pamphlet was written in this period in Scotland, they

99
00:11:21.480 --> 00:11:48.480
Any southern fool south of the Scottish-English border who had the temerity to ask for a hundred sovereigns might, if his nerves supported him through the cross examination of the bank counter, might think himself lucky to be hunted only to the border.

100
00:11:51.480 --> 00:11:59.480
I wanted to do this because in my panic of 1819, my first work, Riccardo was a correspondence between Riccardo and Condi Raguet.

101
00:11:59.480 --> 00:12:04.480
He was a very bright American economist who was indeed in favor of 100% reserve banking.

102
00:12:04.480 --> 00:12:11.480
Riccardo was asking him, how come in the United States you have these banks that don't pay up when they're supposed to pay up?

103
00:12:11.480 --> 00:12:14.480
And in England they pay up if they, you know, or else go bankrupt.

104
00:12:14.480 --> 00:12:19.480
Riccardo's, Raguet's trying to explain to Mr. Riccardo, you see Mr. Riccardo's a little different here.

105
00:12:19.480 --> 00:12:26.480
Most people in town have either stockholders of a bank or depositors of the bank or they owe money to the bank.

106
00:12:26.480 --> 00:12:28.480
Everybody else is written out of town on a rail.

107
00:12:28.480 --> 00:12:34.480
So that's the sort of gold standard or whatever they had in the property rights they had in Scotland.

108
00:12:34.480 --> 00:12:37.480
So I think the book is all wet, to put it very bluntly.

109
00:12:37.480 --> 00:12:43.480
And pass on a Randy Hogan's paper.

110
00:12:43.480 --> 00:12:46.480
I'm in agreement with all the papers.

111
00:12:46.480 --> 00:12:48.480
I should say that right now. All the papers are read today.

112
00:12:48.480 --> 00:12:51.480
The usual situation for me to be in, I'll tell you that.

113
00:12:51.480 --> 00:12:57.480
So all I can do is gloss some, you know, make some extra points from here to there.

114
00:12:57.480 --> 00:13:06.480
The problem again with the Buchananite view of contractarianism, one of the problems is the idea that agreement,

115
00:13:06.480 --> 00:13:08.480
you start with agreement and you continue with agreement.

116
00:13:08.480 --> 00:13:14.480
The problem with that is, of course, that you're assuming the justice of the zero point.

117
00:13:14.480 --> 00:13:18.480
I was assuming the justice of the situation before you start the agreement.

118
00:13:18.480 --> 00:13:27.480
My favorite example of this, which of course is absurd, is that as the United States, let's say we've convinced everybody in the government

119
00:13:27.480 --> 00:13:31.480
that the government is immoral, et cetera, and private property rights should follow.

120
00:13:31.480 --> 00:13:34.480
They're just about to dissolve.

121
00:13:34.480 --> 00:13:38.480
And the New York state government turns all the private property, all the territory of New York,

122
00:13:38.480 --> 00:13:45.980
New York over to the private property of the Rockefeller family, which is not too absurd a conclusion.

123
00:13:45.980 --> 00:13:49.980
And then I was supposed to respect the property rights of the Rockefeller family because that was private.

124
00:13:49.980 --> 00:13:51.980
That's the sort of argument.

125
00:13:51.980 --> 00:13:54.980
But in other words, the question is, you're starting with the agreement.

126
00:13:54.980 --> 00:14:00.480
Supposing some guy's already stolen half the property of everybody else, why should he have to agree for any kind of social arrangement?

127
00:14:00.480 --> 00:14:02.480
Why shouldn't he be forced to?

128
00:14:02.480 --> 00:14:07.480
RANDY AND DOCTRINE

129
00:14:32.480 --> 00:14:37.480
I mean, it seems to me it follows obviously. Somehow they didn't make that step.

130
00:14:37.480 --> 00:14:42.480
They're interested in logic. Somehow they never got to that next logical step.

131
00:14:42.480 --> 00:14:47.480
On police protection, of course, again, Randy made an excellent argument.

132
00:14:47.480 --> 00:14:52.480
One point about police protection, I've always found it very easy to argue in New York City for private police

133
00:14:52.480 --> 00:14:57.480
because there ain't no government police protection here. We live in a state of anarchy in the bad sense.

134
00:14:57.480 --> 00:15:00.480
Anarchy in the Bad Sense

135
00:15:00.480 --> 00:15:03.480
There are police, of course, but they don't do much

136
00:15:03.480 --> 00:15:10.480
They coup, which is a phrase known in New York as sleeping in Riverside in their cars in Riverside Drive

137
00:15:10.480 --> 00:15:12.480
They're supposed to be on duty

138
00:15:12.480 --> 00:15:19.480
They harass, of course, people who have to pay them exactions like those who want to uprate gambling parlors and things like that

139
00:15:19.480 --> 00:15:20.480
And that's about it

140
00:15:20.480 --> 00:15:24.480
If you're a private citizen, you're very lucky to get any police friendly in New York

141
00:15:24.480 --> 00:15:31.480
in New York, and also if you get robbed, traditional thing in police, they come and they say, yes, your house has been robbed, okay.

142
00:15:31.480 --> 00:15:37.480
And the next step is they fill out the insurance form. In other words, the police are essentially a very expensive form of insurance agents.

143
00:15:37.480 --> 00:15:41.480
They say, okay, you have insurance, yeah, okay, we'll fill out the form so you can collect the insurance.

144
00:15:41.480 --> 00:15:50.480
If you don't have insurance, they say you should have had it. That's it. There's none of this TV stuff of a fingerprinting and the rest of the nonsense.

145
00:15:50.480 --> 00:15:56.480
That's it. That's the police protection we get for an enormous amount of money, of course, coughed up to these bozos.

146
00:15:56.480 --> 00:16:05.480
And with roads, again, I just want to say about... make the point again that not only are government roads less efficient,

147
00:16:05.480 --> 00:16:13.480
they also supply you with traffic congestion at bus hours in midtown New York and that sort of stuff,

148
00:16:13.480 --> 00:16:17.480
because, of course, their price is effectively zero for important service.

149
00:16:17.480 --> 00:16:21.480
They claim it's not zero because you pay for the roads and your gasoline tax.

150
00:16:21.480 --> 00:16:24.480
But of course there's no fine-tuning of this thing.

151
00:16:24.480 --> 00:16:29.480
You pay the same gasoline tax for riding up there on whatever the route is in Westchester where there are no cars.

152
00:16:29.480 --> 00:16:31.480
It's a magnificent road, by the way. I recommend it to everybody.

153
00:16:31.480 --> 00:16:35.480
An eight-lane highway and no cars.

154
00:16:35.480 --> 00:16:40.480
I forget the number of it. Anyway, it's the Pound Ridge area.

155
00:16:40.480 --> 00:16:43.480
Courts, again, I'll run a reinforced Randy's point.

156
00:16:43.480 --> 00:17:13.480
not only was the common law originally private, all the good parts of the law, merchant law, merchant was developed by merchant courts because the kings didn't care about trade, admiralty law, the whole law of the sea was developed by private merchants, shippers and so forth, it was only they cared about the admiralty law, and all the rest of it, it's just really, and then of course the government nationalized it later, nationalized legal function, but all these courts originally privately worked out, after all the merchants were the only ones who knew anything about merchant law, what does the king know about it? So at any rate, and also nationally,

157
00:17:13.480 --> 00:17:31.480
The National Defense, I just want to reinforce, the only way Britain could have conquered India, a much larger country, of course, with many more people, is just to conquer the Maharaja. They couldn't go and conquer every individual Indian. It would have been absolutely impossible.

158
00:17:31.480 --> 00:18:01.480
And also, Randy also said that by making theoretical arguments about anarchy versus minarchy or whatever, I think, just look at it this way, I like the way I like to put it, supposing we all drop down from Mars or something, we suddenly find ourselves in a society, you know, a couple of thousand people or whatever, and we're trying to figure out what form of government we should have, and somebody says, look, here's what we do, let's give all of our guns to the Jones family over there, because they're big and tough and so forth, Jones brothers, all our guns, we'll turn over all our guns to them, we turn over all the decision-making power to the Jones brothers,

159
00:18:01.480 --> 00:18:06.480
and they can make all the decisions of who owns what and who's the rest against who and that's it.

160
00:18:06.480 --> 00:18:09.480
And that's the, of course, the minicast solution.

161
00:18:09.480 --> 00:18:13.480
We have a monopoly of violence in the hands of one institution, one group.

162
00:18:13.480 --> 00:18:15.480
It seems to me that nobody could get away with that.

163
00:18:15.480 --> 00:18:20.480
Even the Jones brothers could hardly have the gall to put forth this concept.

164
00:18:20.480 --> 00:18:24.480
It's only because we're stuck in archi, and we're stuck in many centuries of archi,

165
00:18:24.480 --> 00:18:26.480
that anybody can get away with this.

166
00:18:26.480 --> 00:18:29.480
We're habituated to the idea of government police and government decision making and all the rest of it.

167
00:18:29.480 --> 00:18:35.480
and the rest of it. I mean, nobody get away starting from the zero point. Nobody get away with this nonsense argument.

168
00:18:35.480 --> 00:18:45.480
And by the way, just one other point on that. One of my favorite things about, he said about, it would work if people realized it could work and we try it.

169
00:18:45.480 --> 00:18:51.480
In the thirties, they used to talk about the Soviet Union as a great social experiment. They talk in terms of scientific experiment, a laboratory.

170
00:18:51.480 --> 00:18:57.480
Well, so my answer is about trying anarchism. Give us a state. Give us New Jersey, for example.

171
00:18:57.480 --> 00:19:01.480
Try having totally free New Jersey and see what happens.

172
00:19:01.480 --> 00:19:06.480
Of course, the enterprise zone concept was a little bit like that.

173
00:19:06.480 --> 00:19:11.480
Of course, they only applied, they never got applied in very limited and crab fashion.

174
00:19:11.480 --> 00:19:13.480
You couldn't even recognize it. But basically, that's it.

175
00:19:13.480 --> 00:19:17.480
You want to try a free zone and see what happens.

176
00:19:17.480 --> 00:19:22.480
On Roger Garrison's paper, I just want to say that the mention of the typical textbook argument

177
00:19:22.480 --> 00:19:30.480
in a book argument, in micro-text, showing that prices of factors of production are determined by marginal productivity of the factors.

178
00:19:30.480 --> 00:19:35.480
They start with wage rates, and so wage rate have a marginal productivity curve, wage rates are equal to it.

179
00:19:35.480 --> 00:19:41.480
And then they leap from that on a fantastic cosmic leap, which is never recognized by any of these people, to interest rates.

180
00:19:41.480 --> 00:19:46.480
They do it the same way. Interest rate is on the y-axis, and quantity on the x-axis.

181
00:19:46.480 --> 00:19:50.480
And that way, interest rate is determined by marginal productivity capital.

182
00:19:50.480 --> 00:19:58.480
And it seems to me if they're being logical, they would put, not interest, but the prices of capital goods, prices of machines, prices of factories, and so on and so on.

183
00:19:58.480 --> 00:20:06.480
They don't do that. Somehow interest gets shoved in and nobody seems to question this. What an odd position.

184
00:20:06.480 --> 00:20:12.480
Also, I'd also like to point out that only time preference can explain interest on consumer loans.

185
00:20:12.480 --> 00:20:19.480
There's no productivity here. Somebody wants to borrow something so he can splurge right now and, you know, buying a TV set or something.

186
00:20:19.480 --> 00:20:26.480
or whatever, going on a trip to Europe, obviously there's no quote productivity involved in this

187
00:20:26.480 --> 00:20:32.480
and the pure time preference explanation is the only one that integrates, provides the same explanation

188
00:20:32.480 --> 00:20:36.480
for interest on producers' goods, interest in production as interest in consumer loans.

189
00:20:36.480 --> 00:20:42.480
Von Bawerk, of course, made that point and then kind of withdrew on it and fuzzed it up afterward.

190
00:20:42.480 --> 00:20:51.480
I'm delighted to hear about Mr. Sperry on neurophysiology from Emmy Grenander's paper.

191
00:20:51.480 --> 00:20:56.480
I never heard of him. I think this is great.

192
00:20:56.480 --> 00:21:01.480
I just want to point out there that the idea of the mind determines itself as a standard Thomist position.

193
00:21:01.480 --> 00:21:10.480
So that's without knowing biology, St. Thomas or either that, or whatever, inductive, deductive, whatever insight you want to make.

194
00:21:10.480 --> 00:21:40.480
The, again, I have very little to say on David's paper, David Gordon's paper. I think it's great. And the, I would say a little, I would say sort of, when he said at the end, that's Rollins' biographical point, if he can't see that slavery is evil, I would use a California, since David comes from California, Rollins comes from California, use the standard California jargon, which is, that's his problem, not mine. I tossed that out as an unimportant point.

195
00:21:40.480 --> 00:22:10.480
The Hans Hoppe's paper, I think, is absolutely magnificent. I urge you all to read it when it comes out, because I think it's a real breakthrough, using essentially a Thomistic kind of, or Aristotelian kind of self-contradiction argument, and was showing that anybody else who disagrees with us is caught in the self-contradiction, even though it's not a natural rights argument. It's a fantastic argument. It should appeal to modern philosophy,

196
00:22:10.480 --> 00:22:40.480
Hans-Werner Hans-Werner Hans-Werner Hans-Werner

197
00:22:40.480 --> 00:22:50.480
And Jim Sadassi's argument about property values fits in beautifully with Hans' argument about you can't protect property values,

198
00:22:50.480 --> 00:22:55.480
any kind of rational libertarian framework or any framework for that matter.

199
00:22:55.480 --> 00:23:06.480
And also David Gordon mentioned about animal rights in his comments and answering a question.

200
00:23:06.480 --> 00:23:12.480
and, well, I share Emmy Grenander's view that animals should not be tortured unnecessarily or whatever.

201
00:23:12.480 --> 00:23:18.480
I still affirm that there are no animal rights. I think my standard quip on that, which I think is really true,

202
00:23:18.480 --> 00:23:26.480
is animals get their rights when they petition for them. And until they petition for them, they don't deserve it.

203
00:23:26.480 --> 00:23:32.480
I also want to point out that there are some extremists on the rights front that also include vegetable rights.

204
00:23:32.480 --> 00:23:37.480
And if they're really serious about this, they kill themselves off very rapidly.

205
00:23:37.480 --> 00:23:44.480
The whole Hans's argument about you have to be alive to be participating in an argument for ethics would work very well.

206
00:23:44.480 --> 00:23:58.480
If you couldn't eat animals or eat vegetables, you'd be soon dead and sort of take care of these rights extremists.

207
00:23:58.480 --> 00:24:12.480
I don't, yeah, I guess that sums up my general reaction. I think this is a marvelous gathering, as I said, and nothing about it, and I think it's super, and not much I can say except thank you all. It's great.

208
00:24:12.480 --> 00:24:42.480
In most gatherings of this sort, where there is one person who has contributed so significantly, the great man speaks and his followers just sort of bow down and never question, but we run things a little differently here as you well know

209
00:24:42.480 --> 00:25:10.480
Is it not at all possible for you to imagine, in a non-governmental setting, the evolution of fractional reserve banking on a strictly voluntary basis?

210
00:25:10.480 --> 00:25:23.480
If you want to give your money to a bank that makes it clear to you that they're lending out 80% of it and that for that reason they don't have to charge you for parking your money there, they might be able to pay you something.

211
00:25:23.480 --> 00:25:27.480
Wouldn't you have a right to do so?

212
00:25:27.480 --> 00:25:31.480
Yeah, I think what would happen is, I mean, it seems to me the public would try to make it clear.

213
00:25:31.480 --> 00:25:38.480
In other words, I think one of the best, healthiest developments in banking in the last 20 years or so is the CD, you know, the certificate of deposit.

214
00:25:38.480 --> 00:25:42.480
When you buy a CD, you know that it's not there for six months or a year or something.

215
00:25:42.480 --> 00:25:46.480
You know that the bank is going to take it and lend it out and pay it back.

216
00:25:46.480 --> 00:25:52.480
It seems to me, to be clear about the whole thing, it would be much better to have a CD arrangement.

217
00:25:52.480 --> 00:25:54.480
You know that the money is not there. There's no confusion.

218
00:25:54.480 --> 00:25:57.480
You think the money is there and they think it's not there or whatever.

219
00:25:57.480 --> 00:26:04.480
And it seems to me CDs would develop as the standard kind of, quote, savings, unquote, in bank deposits.

220
00:26:04.480 --> 00:26:06.480
And I just don't think of what happens.

221
00:26:06.480 --> 00:26:11.480
I think as Walter mentioned, there are laws against calling banks to the question.

222
00:26:11.480 --> 00:26:14.480
I think the first law was passed in 1932.

223
00:26:14.480 --> 00:26:21.480
In 1932, in the middle of the magnificently healthy bank collapses, bank runs of the Great Depression,

224
00:26:21.480 --> 00:26:25.480
which, by the way, we almost had a chance to establish 100% reserve banking right now,

225
00:26:25.480 --> 00:26:28.480
because the whole fractional reserve banking system was going down the tubes.

226
00:26:28.480 --> 00:26:31.480
It was magnificent. Depositors were finally rising up.

227
00:26:31.480 --> 00:26:35.480
The Republican Party felt it was all a Bolshevik plot, as they called it in those days.

228
00:26:35.480 --> 00:26:45.480
And the communists were spreading rumors that the banks were unsound, so they passed a law saying, making it illegal to pass the spread rumor, to spread untrue rumors that the bank was unsound.

229
00:26:45.480 --> 00:26:49.480
Of course, what do you mean by untrue? It's up to the government to decide whether it's untrue or not.

230
00:26:49.480 --> 00:26:56.480
Now, you can make statements like I do that all banks are unsound. They don't mind that so much. It's specific statements they don't like.

231
00:26:56.480 --> 00:27:02.480
For example, the sort of society I would like to see is one where you can take out full-page ads.

232
00:27:02.480 --> 00:27:07.480
I remember Leland Yeager was quite charmed with this, and I wrote about this in his book that he edited years ago.

233
00:27:07.480 --> 00:27:12.480
You have anti-bank vigilante leagues, and the anti-bank vigilante would take out ads saying,

234
00:27:12.480 --> 00:27:17.480
Look, Chase Bank is bankrupt. Get your money out now. That's illegal now.

235
00:27:17.480 --> 00:27:22.480
In a world where that would be legal, we probably wouldn't need the specific enforcement of 100% banking.

236
00:27:22.480 --> 00:27:26.480
The market, in that sense, would take care of it.

237
00:27:26.480 --> 00:27:29.480
I've got a question in the same vein.

238
00:27:29.480 --> 00:27:33.480
Murray, do you see any significant difference between fractional banking notes

239
00:27:33.480 --> 00:27:36.480
that we're talking about here and commodity futures contracts?

240
00:27:36.480 --> 00:27:39.480
It seems to me that both represent nonexistent wealth,

241
00:27:39.480 --> 00:27:43.480
both represent an entitlement to ownership, not just usage,

242
00:27:43.480 --> 00:27:46.480
and both also represent future debt to the holder.

243
00:27:46.480 --> 00:27:51.480
My guess is that it's not the same thing at all because one is a future,

244
00:27:51.480 --> 00:28:03.480
Futures contracts are future contracts for the future, which are not relevant in the present, although there is a wing of the movement, by the way, which I don't understand about futures contracts in any detail.

245
00:28:03.480 --> 00:28:17.480
And as a wing of the movement, there's a gentleman here in New York who was organizing the American Board of Trade and a commodity forward exchange, who claims that futures agreements are evil and fractional reserve banking, and he substitutes forward agreements.

246
00:28:17.480 --> 00:28:29.480
agreements. I don't understand the difference between futures and forwards. I'm sort of out of that argument. But my offhand view is it would not be the same at all because it's precisely because it's a futures contract, not at any time of the, you know, any demand at any moment contract.

247
00:28:36.480 --> 00:28:41.480
Thanks, Murray, for indulging our questions and thanks for your talk.