WEBVTT

NOTE An Interview with David Gordon

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:09.440
Okay, I'm sitting here with David Gordon, who is famously the editor of the Mises Review,

2
00:00:09.440 --> 00:00:16.520
the quarterly publication that reviews literature and economics and philosophy and politics

3
00:00:16.520 --> 00:00:17.520
and a million other subjects.

4
00:00:17.520 --> 00:00:21.000
Right, David, how do you decide what books you're going to review anyway?

5
00:00:21.000 --> 00:00:26.800
Well, I don't have any really systematic way of doing it.

6
00:00:26.800 --> 00:00:34.700
I just pick ones that seem interesting as they come up. Sometimes I run into problems in

7
00:00:34.700 --> 00:00:42.240
that I read books and then intend to review them and then by the time it's time to do

8
00:00:42.240 --> 00:00:47.880
an issue with a magazine, it's quite some time and I have to go back and look at the

9
00:00:47.880 --> 00:00:52.720
book again because I do all the reading first before I write the reviews.

10
00:00:52.720 --> 00:00:54.480
Do you read the whole book?

11
00:00:54.480 --> 00:00:55.480
Yeah.

12
00:00:55.480 --> 00:00:56.480
Yes.

13
00:00:56.480 --> 00:01:03.000
And then I read all the books, and then when it's time to do the review, then I just pick

14
00:01:03.000 --> 00:01:08.320
various ones, the ones I've read, and do the reviews from.

15
00:01:08.320 --> 00:01:14.640
You know, it's funny, people have different techniques, you know, sometimes a person can

16
00:01:14.640 --> 00:01:20.880
start a review, start to prepare a review and be so engaged in the book, so riveted

17
00:01:20.880 --> 00:01:30.080
by it that, well, at least for some of us, you inadvertently find yourself, well, some

18
00:01:30.080 --> 00:01:34.400
of the, one of the things is you adopt the voice of, in your review of the, of the writer,

19
00:01:34.400 --> 00:01:38.880
that you can't be objective about it anymore. Do you, do you have that temptation?

20
00:01:38.880 --> 00:01:45.480
That's occasionally happened. I remember I was reviewing the book by Garrett Garrett's

21
00:01:45.480 --> 00:01:49.200
essays and I sort of took over a little bit of a style.

22
00:01:49.200 --> 00:02:07.200
I was doing another review of a book I was writing negative on by Walter Burns and I put in a little Garrett-Garrett style in that.

23
00:02:07.200 --> 00:02:13.700
I was thinking about a case. Did you ever read Mises' letter to Ayn Rand?

24
00:02:13.700 --> 00:02:15.000
Oh, yes, yes.

25
00:02:15.000 --> 00:02:20.200
Do you agree that he seems to adopt something of a Randian style?

26
00:02:20.200 --> 00:02:28.200
Oh, yes, especially when he's saying how she stressed the elites and he thought this was a very good idea.

27
00:02:28.200 --> 00:02:36.700
Of course, Mises himself was funny, although you don't find this too much in writers from other countries who are writing in English,

28
00:02:36.700 --> 00:02:43.700
Do you think that his letter to her was even punchier than...

29
00:02:43.700 --> 00:02:48.700
Yes, I think that's a good point. I mean, I think he obviously read the...

30
00:02:48.700 --> 00:02:53.700
He was really swept up in it. I guess that's what happens when you read an hour-long novel this year.

31
00:02:53.700 --> 00:02:57.700
You get sort of wrapped up into the world where you're the writer.

32
00:02:57.700 --> 00:03:05.700
Do you ever do this... Before you read a book, you've got a title, you've got the back cover and everything,

33
00:03:05.700 --> 00:03:18.700
Do you ever write down, before you've read the book, what big points you're seeking to address, you're seeking to find, or what the big scheme is?

34
00:03:18.700 --> 00:03:30.700
Well, it sometimes happens, say, when I get a particular book, if I know something about the subject, I'll know that the author is, I want to see what the author has to say about certain arguments.

35
00:03:30.700 --> 00:03:43.100
For example, I reviewed one recently by Martha Nussbaum, so I wanted to see, in her previous

36
00:03:43.100 --> 00:03:47.220
work, she doesn't mention any of the libertarian items.

37
00:03:47.220 --> 00:03:51.340
I want to see, is she going to say anything at all about this?

38
00:03:51.340 --> 00:03:59.260
She tends very often to just assume her views to be correct and not argue for them.

39
00:03:59.260 --> 00:04:05.260
So I wanted to check, is she going to give any arguments this time for the few, of course she didn't.

40
00:04:05.260 --> 00:04:11.260
So you tend to think, you tend to have something in mind that you want to, in particular, that you want to look at.

41
00:04:11.260 --> 00:04:20.260
Not always. Sometimes it works out that way. I mean, sometimes there are particular points that I'm interested in.

42
00:04:20.260 --> 00:04:30.140
And I'll look for those in the book, one thing that comes up, say, in books on political

43
00:04:30.140 --> 00:04:38.620
philosophy is in most mainstream writing these days in political philosophy, there's an assumption

44
00:04:38.620 --> 00:04:46.940
that there's something wrong with inequality, and particularly the assumption is that it's

45
00:04:46.940 --> 00:04:55.020
It's unfair that people get much more income or wealth than others simply because they

46
00:04:55.020 --> 00:05:01.940
happen to be born with talents or abilities that are valued by the market.

47
00:05:01.940 --> 00:05:07.660
I very often will look, what does the author say about that point, and I try to relate

48
00:05:07.660 --> 00:05:10.420
it to earlier reviews that I wrote.

49
00:05:10.420 --> 00:05:15.540
Yeah, this comes through in your reviews, and your reviews can be sometimes so intimidating

50
00:05:15.540 --> 00:05:35.540
Thank goodness I never wrote a book. I mean, you're an exacting reviewer in the sense that it's not enough that people arrive at the right conclusions. That is really clear from your review that you're glad for people to write libertarian books, but what you're really interested in is whether they've justified the position they're taking.

51
00:05:35.540 --> 00:05:47.540
Oh, yes. One thing I'm very keen on is the structure of the argument. I want to see, does the person know how to reason properly?

52
00:05:47.540 --> 00:06:00.540
Sometimes it's gotten me into trouble. Actually, the reviews that I've gotten most criticism on are the ones where I've been critical of books that are more or less on our side,

53
00:06:00.540 --> 00:06:14.540
People are always glad if I attack the anti-capitalist one, but sometimes I've criticized ones that are somewhat free market, because I didn't care for some of the arguments, and then people don't like that.

54
00:06:14.540 --> 00:06:30.540
I tend to be, perhaps not a very good habit of mine, but I tend to be, if I can find slight mistakes in details, I tend to jump on those, especially if I don't like the author very much.

55
00:06:30.540 --> 00:06:36.540
It's always fun to get my minor points.

56
00:06:36.540 --> 00:06:43.180
You know, there are some books, though, that, well, let me ask you if you agree with this,

57
00:06:43.180 --> 00:06:47.900
that there's some books that don't do well in justifying the position they're taking,

58
00:06:47.900 --> 00:06:57.020
but the position that they assert without proof or analytical substance, they assert

59
00:06:57.020 --> 00:07:01.300
a worldview that's so inspiring that it's worth reading.

60
00:07:01.300 --> 00:07:16.300
Oh, yes, very much so. I mean, I don't, I mean, say if an author is not aiming to be a professional philosopher, just giving a popular treatment, I don't sort of insist that they have all the fine points.

61
00:07:16.300 --> 00:07:29.300
I mean, if somebody's writing a, I wouldn't say, well, for example, Garrett. Garrett didn't consider various academic writers at the time. He did a very good job with what he was doing.

62
00:07:29.300 --> 00:07:33.760
So you really do have a different standard for somebody who's purporting to do philosophy

63
00:07:33.760 --> 00:07:38.560
or economic theory than you would from somebody who's just in a position of a public advocate.

64
00:07:38.560 --> 00:07:52.820
Oh, very much so. I try to take them for what they're attempting to do. For example, you've

65
00:07:52.820 --> 00:08:22.820
I mentioned Ayn Rand, I never did any reviews of her, but I mean, if I reviewed one of her fictional works, I wouldn't criticize her for philosophical mistakes, but I mean, say, if I were, I did, now, see, this is an example of how one has to make distinctions here, I think, say, there are some of the objectivist philosophies I reviewed, this wasn't immediately, I did a review once of a book by David,

66
00:08:22.820 --> 00:08:39.820
I would kill the evidence of the sense that that was a very good book. But then others, say, Leonard Peacoff, I hadn't thought his book, I reviewed his book, Philosophy of Eye and Rand, I didn't care for it very much in ominous parallels.

67
00:08:39.820 --> 00:09:06.820
I mean, he's done some lectures I've read on history of philosophy, they were much better, but he's, what, one thing very much turned me off on his book on philosophy, but Rand, he started off saying in the first page, well, something like, I'm the greatest expository of this philosophy, this is the definitive philosophy, so that I said to myself, well, let's see how good he really is.

68
00:09:06.820 --> 00:09:08.820
Yeah, you do like a challenge, don't you?

69
00:09:08.820 --> 00:09:22.580
2 books that come to mind as books that don't seem very analytically robust in some way

70
00:09:22.580 --> 00:09:33.060
but really are inspiring are Rose Wilder Lane's The Discovery of Freedom and another one is

71
00:09:33.060 --> 00:09:41.060
The Tanahill book that's getting a lot of new attention is written in the early 1970s called The Market for Liberty.

72
00:09:41.060 --> 00:09:43.060
These are two books.

73
00:09:43.060 --> 00:09:45.060
The Discovery of Freedom in particular.

74
00:09:45.060 --> 00:09:49.060
I remember reading as an undergraduate and thinking, well, that's not very compelling.

75
00:09:49.060 --> 00:09:54.060
And then I reread it recently and I thought, you know, this is a wonderful book.

76
00:09:54.060 --> 00:09:59.060
Yes, I think one thing that's very good on that is the style is very well written.

77
00:09:59.060 --> 00:10:18.060
I mean, I think one thing you bring out, I think is very right. Sometimes a writer can, by depicting a certain point of view, can really give you a sense of what it is to live in a world that would be organized in that way.

78
00:10:18.060 --> 00:10:33.060
I mean, they're not necessarily dealing with particular arguments, but you say if you read the Tannahills, you really get a sense of how a free market anarchist society might work.

79
00:10:33.060 --> 00:10:43.440
I think this is another book, when you mention Rose Wiley, say if you look at Isabel Patterson's

80
00:10:43.440 --> 00:10:48.540
God of the Machine, I think this is another book that has, she's really good at picturing

81
00:10:48.540 --> 00:10:58.580
certain episodes in history and showing how interferences with the market led to difficulties

82
00:10:58.580 --> 00:11:04.500
for the Societies, and how having a market freed up the energies of people.

83
00:11:04.500 --> 00:11:13.580
So I think, you know, I try in the review to give somewhat of a blend of popular and

84
00:11:13.580 --> 00:11:18.140
more scholarly works, you know, the kind that I'm, sort of, what I'm most interested in

85
00:11:18.140 --> 00:11:24.680
is doing refutations of scholarly works that I can attack, but that would be, I can't always

86
00:11:24.680 --> 00:11:27.700
do, that wouldn't be, that would be too narrow.

87
00:11:27.700 --> 00:11:33.700
I think this is good for me also, if I try to get some more popular books also.

88
00:11:33.700 --> 00:11:41.700
It's interesting, now that you mention this, I'm suddenly realizing that this is one strain that you pick up in your publication over time,

89
00:11:41.700 --> 00:11:46.700
is that you're actually easier on popular works than you are on scholarly works.

90
00:11:46.700 --> 00:11:50.700
Oh, yes, I mean, you know, I mean, it's...

91
00:11:50.700 --> 00:11:54.700
I haven't detected that before, but yeah.

92
00:11:54.700 --> 00:12:08.700
If someone isn't claiming to be a scholar, you really can't, you wouldn't be fair to really jump on.

93
00:12:08.700 --> 00:12:22.700
It strikes me that it is difficult for a writer, especially sitting down at a book, to strike the right balance between analytical proof.

94
00:12:22.700 --> 00:12:38.700
And you can really, I mean, it can be very dull, actually, if you're writing a book on political economy or politics or something, to go out of your way to demonstrate every point you're making.

95
00:12:38.700 --> 00:12:46.700
How do you strike the right balance between writing inspirational prose and writing analytically rigorous prose?

96
00:12:46.700 --> 00:12:56.380
Well, I think one thing that many people who are doing analytical writing could be made

97
00:12:56.380 --> 00:13:02.180
much more interesting than it is, so you can get it to be both analytical and somewhat inspirational.

98
00:13:02.180 --> 00:13:08.900
I think one way to do that is you do it kind of as dialectic, where you not only give your

99
00:13:08.900 --> 00:13:15.700
views but you get it as an argument, giving all the counterarguments on the other side.

100
00:13:15.700 --> 00:13:24.340
I think one failing in many analytical works or supposedly rigorous works is that the office

101
00:13:24.340 --> 00:13:35.940
will spend enormous amounts of time really repeating the same point or elaborating points

102
00:13:35.940 --> 00:13:41.620
that are very obvious over pages and pages and it gets to be very boring.

103
00:13:41.620 --> 00:13:51.620
Say, if you look, Nozick was one of the best at not doing this, although he went to the other extreme, where sometimes some of his most important points are just in the sides.

104
00:13:51.620 --> 00:14:05.620
But say, if you look at Rothbard and Man Economy and State's extremely interesting work, very rigorous, but you see what he does when he makes a point, he'll then go on to the next point and build it up systematically.

105
00:14:05.620 --> 00:14:09.620
He won't just keep on and on with the same point.

106
00:14:09.620 --> 00:14:17.620
Some authors, I think, must have taken inspiration from the character in The Hunting and the Snark, who says,

107
00:14:17.620 --> 00:14:23.620
what I tell you three times is true, although usually for a much higher number.

108
00:14:23.620 --> 00:14:32.620
You do get the sense when you read Rothbard that he's got so many thoughts, he's so creative,

109
00:14:32.620 --> 00:14:37.620
that he's in a rush to finish it in a wonderful way.

110
00:14:37.620 --> 00:14:40.580
I mean you sort of get swept along I mean you can't wait to finish making one

111
00:14:40.580 --> 00:14:43.660
point so you can make another point then make another point oh yes very much I

112
00:14:43.660 --> 00:14:48.160
met my greatest teacher Walter Starkey used to say that he's talking about the

113
00:14:48.160 --> 00:14:52.500
PhD thing he said it should be packed with matter you have it filled with

114
00:14:52.500 --> 00:14:59.940
different ideas yeah this is the way but a lot of writers don't do it that way so

115
00:14:59.940 --> 00:15:06.500
yeah just have the same point over and over the muses to seem to strike the

116
00:15:06.500 --> 00:15:12.960
I'm thinking about two books that are so different, Theory of Money and Credit, which is really

117
00:15:12.960 --> 00:15:19.540
this kind of comprehensive, careful look at monetary institutions, just point by point,

118
00:15:19.540 --> 00:15:22.340
and then in total contrast, liberalism.

119
00:15:22.340 --> 00:15:23.340
Oh, yes.

120
00:15:23.340 --> 00:15:31.380
Well, one thing I think Mises is one of the best, one gets the impression reading him

121
00:15:31.380 --> 00:15:39.540
and that he had the whole discipline of economics and social thought in his mind. He had exactly

122
00:15:39.540 --> 00:15:47.580
where he wanted each point to be. He had everything planned out exactly. He read everything and

123
00:15:47.580 --> 00:15:57.220
he had everything in order. I remember when I was an undergrad at UCLA, I had a course

124
00:15:57.220 --> 00:16:02.620
with Friedrich Hayek, philosophy of social science, he was a visiting professor, he would

125
00:16:02.620 --> 00:16:07.340
let, when he gave lectures, which he gave entirely without notes, you could, he was

126
00:16:07.340 --> 00:16:11.100
very systematic in this way, you couldn't print what he said, he was extremely...

127
00:16:11.100 --> 00:16:15.220
Really? Isn't there a German word that describes the capacity to sort of speak in publishable

128
00:16:15.220 --> 00:16:16.220
paragraphs?

129
00:16:16.220 --> 00:16:20.660
Yeah, yes, that's right, I think the, I forget what the word is, the Pope is supposed to

130
00:16:20.660 --> 00:16:21.660
have that.

131
00:16:21.660 --> 00:16:22.660
Yeah.

132
00:16:22.660 --> 00:16:28.660
Yes, you ask the Pope something, he'll just give you a page.

133
00:16:28.660 --> 00:16:43.660
A possible paragraph. That's brilliant. When choosing books to review, does the consideration of how popular this book is enter into things?

134
00:16:43.660 --> 00:16:48.660
I mean, there's so many books now that are published by academic presses that are so expensive nobody's ever going to read them, you know.

135
00:16:48.660 --> 00:16:52.980
Where as there are other books that are published by commercial houses or independent publishers

136
00:16:52.980 --> 00:16:57.260
like Mises Institute, that does that influence you?

137
00:16:57.260 --> 00:17:03.220
To some extent, say if a book has gotten an enormous amount of attention then I'll say

138
00:17:03.220 --> 00:17:06.060
well maybe I have to review it.

139
00:17:06.060 --> 00:17:12.460
I do try, I sometimes try to promote books, especially academic books that are not as

140
00:17:12.460 --> 00:17:16.940
well known as they should be and I think this is important.

141
00:17:16.940 --> 00:17:41.940
Now although the magazine is published by the Mises Institute, I think I'm still justified in featuring Mises Institute books, even though some people might say, well, I shouldn't do that because I'm writing for the Mises Institute, but I think these are very good books, so I try to emphasize them.

142
00:17:41.940 --> 00:17:47.380
It is interesting and a point worth making that you tend to review Mises Institute books

143
00:17:47.380 --> 00:17:52.060
not because they're published by the Institute, but despite the fact that they're published

144
00:17:52.060 --> 00:17:53.060
by the Institute.

145
00:17:53.060 --> 00:17:54.060
Yes.

146
00:17:54.060 --> 00:17:58.980
I mean, I think these are very important scholars.

147
00:17:58.980 --> 00:18:08.900
I think, say, if people were concentrating, if people in general academic life read, say,

148
00:18:08.900 --> 00:18:17.060
Hans Hoppe or Tom Woods rather than Rawls or Eric Foner would be much better off.

149
00:18:18.180 --> 00:18:23.380
I recall reading one time some book, it was a book about what books to read and the only thing I

150
00:18:23.380 --> 00:18:32.100
really was left with was the opening section of the book that said there are almost an unlimited

151
00:18:32.100 --> 00:18:37.140
number of books that you can read in a lifetime. We have to pick and choose, so we have to have a

152
00:18:37.140 --> 00:18:38.860
system for doing so.

153
00:18:38.860 --> 00:18:49.020
Oh, yes, it is, unfortunately, I tend to read quite a lot, but I find there are many more

154
00:18:49.020 --> 00:18:52.340
books that I want to read that I just can't get around to.

155
00:18:52.340 --> 00:18:56.420
There are just so many interesting titles that come out.

156
00:18:56.420 --> 00:19:03.740
I tend to look, I go very much by publishers' catalogs.

157
00:19:03.740 --> 00:19:11.060
I, if, say, there's certain books that are arousing a lot of scholarly interest, especially

158
00:19:11.060 --> 00:19:16.060
in philosophy, I'll tend to look at those and go through them.

159
00:19:16.060 --> 00:19:19.300
Do you remember that time we were hanging around in acres of books?

160
00:19:19.300 --> 00:19:24.820
Oh yes, yes, that was one of the very good, I have everything there.

161
00:19:24.820 --> 00:19:30.940
Yeah, that was a funny moment, and I'll just say it, that we were, you were kind of tagging

162
00:20:00.940 --> 00:20:11.100
So I played a little game with you and I said, I just grabbed a book randomly off the shelf.

163
00:20:11.100 --> 00:20:12.580
You don't remember this, do you?

164
00:20:12.580 --> 00:20:13.580
No.

165
00:20:13.580 --> 00:20:14.700
And I said, oh yeah, have you read this one?

166
00:20:14.700 --> 00:20:23.620
And you said, yes, actually on, I think it's footnote 415 on page 212, he makes an interesting

167
00:20:23.620 --> 00:20:25.700
point about something.

168
00:20:25.700 --> 00:20:27.940
And I opened it up and sure enough, that's exactly what I said.

169
00:20:27.940 --> 00:20:30.420
And I know the listener's not going to believe this story, but I was there.

170
00:20:30.420 --> 00:20:51.580
If you were going to tell people what books in the history of liberal ideas are out there,

171
00:20:51.580 --> 00:20:54.580
what are the ones that you would most want to draw attention to, given that everybody

172
00:20:54.580 --> 00:20:58.860
knows about, say, Human Action, Man Economy and State, or Atlas Shrugged, or these kinds

173
00:20:58.860 --> 00:21:03.860
What books do you think are really important but haven't received enough attention?

174
00:21:03.860 --> 00:21:18.860
Let me see. Well, I think one that of course at one time was very much studied is Herbert Spencer's Principles of Ethics.

175
00:21:18.860 --> 00:21:27.860
I think that has a lot of good stuff. Sometimes people tend to dismiss Spencer as a philosopher now, but that's an extremely good book.

176
00:21:27.860 --> 00:21:38.020
Book. One I think is that what a Mises shorter very short book called bureaucracy is extremely

177
00:21:38.020 --> 00:21:43.700
good because you really get really shows the difference between the market and the bureaucratic

178
00:21:43.700 --> 00:21:50.980
management. It gives it a very good brief presentation of its ideas. Now Omnipotent

179
00:21:50.980 --> 00:21:58.260
Government is an extremely good book. I mean, it gives you a real sense of the development of

180
00:21:59.700 --> 00:22:06.740
origins of the Nazi system, fascism in the 20th century. I think that's...

181
00:22:06.740 --> 00:22:08.580
Written the same year as Road to Serfdom.

182
00:22:08.580 --> 00:22:14.260
Yeah, yes, that's right, 1944. I mean, it's not, it didn't, it wasn't as popular as Road

183
00:22:14.260 --> 00:22:20.820
to Serfdom, but I think it's much more detailed in the economics in Road to Serfdom, and it

184
00:22:20.820 --> 00:22:41.940
much easier reading. Also, let me see, something that I was trying to think on, Murray Rothbard,

185
00:22:41.940 --> 00:22:48.500
I think, I don't know, I wouldn't describe this as neglect, but I think people, probably

186
00:22:48.500 --> 00:22:54.260
not as many people have read it as they should because it's at least somewhat expensive.

187
00:22:54.260 --> 00:23:02.020
Murray's history of economics, you see, I think many people might first say, well, I'm

188
00:23:02.020 --> 00:23:06.780
not a technical economist, I'm not that interested in the history of economics, but it's really,

189
00:23:06.780 --> 00:23:11.540
besides being a history of economics, a history of thought, really, a general intellectual

190
00:23:11.540 --> 00:23:18.900
Social History, and I think especially if you read his chapters on Marxism, it's really

191
00:23:18.900 --> 00:23:26.000
outstanding in showing the same pseudo-religious background of Marxism and Hegelian philosophy

192
00:23:26.000 --> 00:23:28.880
out of which Marxism came.

193
00:23:28.880 --> 00:23:38.320
So I think that's an extreme one that really more people should have a look at.

194
00:23:38.320 --> 00:23:39.320
What about Hayek?

195
00:23:39.320 --> 00:23:44.320
The Constitution of Liberty is very famous. What other books, what other works by Hayek do you think are worth?

196
00:23:44.320 --> 00:23:57.320
Well, the one I like very much is the Counter-Revolution of Science, you know, because it gives you sort of the background of the French positivist thought under Auguste Comte.

197
00:23:57.320 --> 00:24:07.320
And the first part is one of his most detailed statements of his views on methodology of social sciences and individuals.

198
00:24:07.320 --> 00:24:14.260
You know, there's a view nowadays that's, I think, wrong that Hayek somehow abandoned

199
00:24:14.260 --> 00:24:15.260
methodological individualism.

200
00:24:15.260 --> 00:24:21.080
He was sort of interested, became interested in complexity and studying methodological

201
00:24:21.080 --> 00:24:22.080
individualism.

202
00:24:22.080 --> 00:24:25.560
But I don't think he ever, he ever changed his real views.

203
00:24:25.560 --> 00:24:32.280
There's more of a continuity in Hayek than most people, most people think.

204
00:24:32.280 --> 00:24:50.280
One book, Oberon Herbert is a very good writer. Fowler Spencer, who extended him. I think Liberty Fund has a volume of his essays. It's very good. I think he's certainly a good one to read.

205
00:24:50.280 --> 00:24:55.280
What is the name of that?

206
00:25:25.280 --> 00:25:35.280
Bertrand de Chouvenel on power is very good. Some of his later stuff isn't as good, but on power and ethics of redistribution is very good.

207
00:25:35.280 --> 00:25:48.280
Yeah, ethics of redistribution, that's right. Yeah, I think we're carrying, I think we carry both those tiles, unfortunately they're in print.

208
00:25:48.280 --> 00:25:58.280
Felix Morley is, I'm not sure that it's in print, actually. Now, he's an interesting guy, right? Because wasn't he an editor at the Washington Post?

209
00:25:58.280 --> 00:26:14.280
Yes, he was. Yes, and he was, I think he was a supporter of non-intervention. Non-intervention is foreign policy, and then he became, he was one of the founders of Human Events, I think, also.

210
00:26:14.280 --> 00:26:32.280
But he was also, see he had studied at Oxford, he studied, Sir Ernest Barker was his tutor, he was a very good writer, he was from a quite famous family, you know, Christopher Morley was his brother.

211
00:26:32.280 --> 00:27:02.280
It's part of that whole generation, along with John T. Flynn, that they seemed to, in their youth, I don't know if Morley was among them, but in their youth they thought of themselves as progressives and liberals, and then the New Deal came along and this regimented society, authoritarianism, imposed from the top down, a new planning style regime, and they considered

212
00:27:02.280 --> 00:27:04.280
The Theory of Money and Credit

213
00:27:32.280 --> 00:27:42.680
What was more of a watershed in terms of the history of liberalism in the progressive era

214
00:27:42.680 --> 00:27:46.680
and American liberalism in the progressive era or the New Deal?

215
00:27:46.680 --> 00:27:51.780
I would say more of the progressive period because I think Murray Rothbard was very good

216
00:27:51.780 --> 00:27:58.580
at pointing this out that really the New Deal just continued and extended the trends, especially

217
00:27:58.580 --> 00:28:07.180
in World War I extended all the various programs but it really carried them out much further

218
00:28:07.180 --> 00:28:11.500
and I think sort of had a split in some of the progressives where some of the progressives

219
00:28:11.500 --> 00:28:17.060
recognized that they centralized, that they wanted to go more towards centralization and

220
00:28:17.060 --> 00:28:22.740
there were other, another part of the progressive movement was simply kind of favored some sort

221
00:28:22.740 --> 00:28:51.940
What books are you planning for the next issue?

222
00:28:51.940 --> 00:28:53.940
Can you tell us, what are you working on?

223
00:28:53.940 --> 00:29:03.940
Well, I'm not fully, I mean, there was a very good book, probably going to the next issue, although not absolutely.

224
00:29:03.940 --> 00:29:09.940
Certainly one by Doug Rasmussen and Doug Denial.

225
00:29:39.940 --> 00:29:45.500
This one chapter, a couple chapters give a very revisionist account of American entry

226
00:29:45.500 --> 00:29:52.460
into World War II and also discussion of Fritz Fischer in thesis on Or is the World One that's

227
00:29:52.460 --> 00:29:53.460
very critical.

228
00:29:53.460 --> 00:29:59.620
So it's ostensibly just a guidebook but it has some very interesting new stuff in there

229
00:29:59.620 --> 00:30:03.620
so that would probably be one of them.

230
00:30:03.620 --> 00:30:11.620
Good. And if an author wanted to get his or her book reviewed by you, what would he or she do?

231
00:30:11.620 --> 00:30:25.620
Well, I've had a few people write to me asking me for book reviews. If they do that, then I'll generally read the book. I don't always review, but I do read them.

232
00:30:25.620 --> 00:30:30.940
I've had authors complain that I haven't reviewed them.

233
00:30:30.940 --> 00:30:35.620
I sometimes wonder why anyone would do that if they read my review.

234
00:30:35.620 --> 00:30:38.900
What about an affectionate inscription on the title page?

235
00:30:38.900 --> 00:30:41.300
Does that help?

236
00:30:41.300 --> 00:30:45.940
Not as much as money, but it never hurts.

237
00:30:45.940 --> 00:30:48.420
Okay, I'll keep that in mind.

238
00:30:48.420 --> 00:30:49.620
Thank you very much, Dr. Gordon.