This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Leading Austrian Economist: Some Conspiracy Theories Are True
Many people are starting to appreciate the Austrian school of economics, and its recognition that unrestrained bubbles lead to economic crashes.
But many of those who respect Austrian economics dismiss all "conspiracy theories" as being crazy.
But in fact, leading Austrian school economist Professor Murray N. Rothbard wrote in 1965:
It
is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an
aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for
"conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of
responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny
imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by
the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by
the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was
responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there
is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such
misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that
the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general
welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in
any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the
system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological
propaganda.
And in 1977, Rothbard wrote:
Anytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who
our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests
interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and
conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory
of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist."
These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such
realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts
of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist
Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always
leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy
theorist" himself.
It is no wonder that usually these realistic
analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the
Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the
State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes
of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians
and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to
the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits
are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of
economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of
government begins to collapse.
Let us take an easy example.
Suppose we find that Congress has passed a law raising the steel tariff
or imposing import quotas on steel? Surely only a moron will fail to
realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists
from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign
competitors. No one would level a charge of "conspiracy theorist"
against such a conclusion. But what the conspiracy theorist is doing is
simply to extend his analysis to more complex measures of government:
say, to public works projects, the establishment of the ICC, the
creation of the Federal Reserve System, or the entry of the United
States into a war. In each of these cases, the conspiracy theorist asks
himself the question cui bono? Who benefits from this measure? If he finds that Measure A benefits X and Y, his next step is to investigate the hypothesis: did
X and Y in fact lobby or exert pressure for the passage of Measure A?
In short, did X and Y realize that they would benefit and act
accordingly?
Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist;
that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make
conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence,
if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied
for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it
was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who
enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs
and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess
to believe that all events — at least in government —are random and
unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice
and planning.
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and
bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or
practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to
make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the
Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore
X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a
hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y
really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British
journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's
policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further
evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of
external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly,
the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all
the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant
conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying
to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in
alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small
group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict...
Rothbard's points are well-taken: there are in fact
conspiracies involving powerful people. But people that go off
half-cocked with baseless allegations unsupported by the evidence do a
disservice to everyone, and do nothing but muddy the waters.
We must treat conspiracy theories like judges are trained to do: as claims to be proven or disproven based on the evidence.
»
- advertisements -
"(Y)ou can get most (all?) of his books for free in .pdf at mises.org."
Since price indicates demand, it would appear there's not much demand for his work.
That's the market for you, putting valuations on things again.
They sell plenty of hardcover and paperback books but feel that the information is more valuable than the return. Therefore they offer all of the items published by their organization for free in electronic format.
It doesn't seem to significantly impact their hardcopy sales.
The Mises Institute also has some fairly strong ideas about the concepts of intellectual property and their giving books away for free in electronic format is an implementation of their principles.
What are your principles?
Mises is a great source for the literature, but lets face it: mises.org itself is a ship of lunatics sailing to nowhere.
Pierre? Lou? Did one of you guys forget to sign in today?
Well lunatic did the Pentagon get hit with a missile? Were the planes remotely piloted?
I agree w/you PierreLegrand. What happened is all right there in the 9/11 Commission report.
6 of 10 members of the 9/11 Commission members are not satisified with the outcome of the commission.
Senator Max Cleland -- Regarding the 9/11 Commission "It is a national scandal."
www.patriotsquestion911.com
Oh, hi! Pierre, I like this new profile a lot. Much sexier. Why don't you provide us with links that actually work?
I'm not PL. He's just my hero. Click on my member profile and view my full nom de plume. ;-)
Obvious disinformation specialist.
muahahahaha....You guys are way too funny.
Hint prick he is trying to be clever and make fun of me but unfortunately for that poor pitiful prick the bunch of buttbuddies he is playing too are too busy hearing BlackHelicopters to get it. muahahaha...Y'all are way too fucking funny. Keep it up.
why would you think the planes were remotely piloted?
Because that is one of the fables of the Truther Lunatics...
"...and this is the part which is confounding me ... how do you as the terrorist have the level of sophistication to take over the controls of a sophisticated airliner jet plane to be able to fly accurately into targets like hitting dead center into the Pentagon which is a low building?"9/11 ABC News video - 894kB wmv download
Federal Aviation Administration records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss. His limited flying abilities do afford an insight into one feature of the attacks: The conspiracy apparently did not include a surplus of skilled pilots. [Cape Cod Times] "I don't know ... if perhaps some type of navigating system or some type of electronics would put two planes into the World Trade Center..."WMV video download (773kB)
"A big assed plane landed into the Pentagon, and another one was coming right behind it - a big four propeller huge grey plane."
Caution, the sound is very loud at the start. Turn your speakers down!
Based on this eye-witness account description of the second plane, it sounds like the following plane was a C-130-type aircraft equipped, perhaps, with radio control?
when you look at what happened on 9/11 and the circumstances surrounding it,contradictory eye witness reports, conspiracy theories, etc. its very easy to get confused. the bottom line is wtc7 came down at free fall speed which as ANY physicist will tell you is impossible unless the support columns were taken out.
and so unless anyone can show how it was done (even a credible theory would be nice) wtc was blown up, because as far as we are aware nothing, and i mean NOTHING could have callapsed wtc like that without explosives.
this is what is known in the real world as a 'smoking gun'.
so their is no point in replying to this post, because , you can't
There is a commission report covering the whole thing. Just like Al Gore said about AGW, with regard to 9/11 the debate is over. I wish more folks were as sharp as you.
I wish more people were as creative as you! Get the fuck out of here. Look at your goddamn posting times. Fucking impatient motherfucker.
Sometimes writers play it straight and sometimes not. You decide which way I'm playing it. (Hint: I generally respond to very few posters and have a rather interesting nom de plume.)
cognitive_asininity_ad_hominem
Great. You're obviously a Harvard graduate. Why don't you go outside and play hide-and-go-fuck-yourself.
I never graduated college. For somebody who doesn't appear to accept anything at face value (a viewpoint I endorse and encourage, question everything), you sure are accepting my agreement with Pierre at face value.
Don't worry I know how clever you are...does that make you feel better? hehe...poor pitiful fucker.
This is the best post you have ever made ever. Ever.
Let me add this for our less proactive readers:
http://mises.org/literature.aspx?action=author&ID=299
Now all Bates has to do is read them.
WHAT, Bates can read???
+1
I loved the "hostile epithet" part. That was a great read. Thanks GW.
----
Economics Teacher: Class, does anyone know what is the greatest conspiracy theory of all time?
Bueller: Tienanmen Square?
Let's not forget America's most recent Tiananmen...
The MSM 9/11 myth has a group of bored young Saudis making a mockery of the American military and thereby forcing our peace-loving nation to start two wars.
www.ae911truth.org
I've followed that site with interest for several years because on that terrible day I knew that the way those three steel framed buildings collapsed was completely inconsistent with the damage they sustained. I am very happy that we have the freedom of speech here in America that allows us to look at, and openly debate issues like this, but I do believe that there should be a proper investigation into the allegations that these architects and engineers are putting forward.
+1000
I've always thought an interesting thought experiment would be to ask: if 9/11 had occurred under Clinton's watch, would the high power investigation be led by a close associate of the president and had it returned the same verdicts, would the reaction of the conservatives have been to accept that the initial verdict was correct? My suspicion is that this would have been the reason that Clinton would have been impeached and removed from office, not Lewinski.
What has always bothered me about 9/11 was that not only was it highly convenient in advancing an agenda, but that the response to it was well-organized, rapid and sophisticated. This has been completely at odds with nearly every other action that the Bush administration did (Katrina, anyone). That it gave Bush the political momentum to go into Iraq, to lower interest rates to absurd levels and keep them there, and to create one of the most repressive security regime changes since WWII similarly lays out questions.
I agree highly with the investigative portions of such conspiracies - motive by itself is not guilt, yet I also find it interesting that most of the investigations of 9/11 were significantly hampered and obstructed, save those that were officially sanctioned. While I tend not to buy the more outlandish theories put out by the 911 folk, there are many, many threads that have yet, nearly a decade later, to be even begun to be unwound.
Really, what threads do you want to pull???
What was accomplished by Bush going into Iraq? (Psst I have my own answer but I am dying to find out why Truthers think he needed to stage 9/11 to get there)? And further anyone powerful enough to pull off 9/11 and hide the entire thing doesn't need 9/11 to invade a piece of shit country like Iraq.
Paul O'Neil the first Treasury Secretary under Bush recounts Bush and Cheney discussing an Iraq invasion as a high agenda item starting one week after Bush took office and nine months before 911. Have you read the Need for Another Defense Review, which is part of the Project for the New American Century and written by Cheney, Rumsfled, Wolfowitz and Pearle among others? Page 93 discusses the need to create a Pearl Harbor like event to take Mid-Easy oil.
Have you read any actual data surrounding 911? It seems like you have knee-jerk reaction without bothering to look at the scientific analysis. Do you even know that there is a ton of analysis where the official story contradicts the laws of nature? I don't understand why the truth has become a smear word. It seems like a catch-all to mindlessly discredit those who have done significant analysis. Although I recognize that "Truther" works well in a sound bite.
Truthers are a bunch of crazy fucking lunatics that beclown this site.
Are you Joseph Goebbels or another govie agent?
"Naturally the common people don't want war neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
You always come out of the wood work desperate to control everyone's perception of this event, just let go.
You see, governments need a false pretext to gain the support of the people - do you really think soldiers would march to their death for the truth in a republic? In addition, there is such a thing as war crime charges that any leader wants to avoid. Truth hurts, most are not brave enough to consider the possibilities - including you.
The comments on Boeing having remote control airplanes is accurate as is painting targets on buildings. In addition, 4 black boxes were found but they were not released (watch the latest Jesse Ventura Conspiracy Theory with an eye witness). Rumsfeld was on the exact opposite side of the Pentagon when the explosion there occurred conveniently in the newly renovated section that was reinforced for such an event (test).
Watch "Wag the Dog" and then understand what you think you saw in that context. Everything else was about plausible deniability, but there were many mistakes on that day so some of us do not need to wait 40 years until the classified documents are released. I wish they hadn't been so sloppy so that I could have just believed the official story.
WTC7 free fall speeds can not be explained (this steel structure building was not hit by an airplane), please go ahead and try since the commission did not even address it (because they couldn't come up with any possible explanation other than the truth). I am waiting.
As a structural engineer I can say with 99% confidence that neither of the twin towers would have fallen as they did unless under controlled circumstances. As for WTC7 100% sure. Thats all I can say for sure about thoses events, who brought them down is to date unclear to me.
"As a structural engineer I can say with 99% confidence that neither of the twin towers would have fallen as they did unless under controlled circumstances. As for WTC7 100% sure."
That is the whole point. Any talk of remote control planes is just a silly nonsequitur that PierreLegrand keeps harping on for no apparent reason. All 3 buildings were taken down in a controlled demolition; the evidence is indisputable. This doesn't necessarily imply that our government is the guilty party, but I must say that their continued actions to ignore and suppress the truth certainly don't inspire one with much confidence in their innocence.
You truthers are fucking hilarious...really. Perhaps you don't realize just how fucking sick you are?
So then you clownfucks have secret agents, who btw work for a government that cannot keep anything secret, sneaking into 3 buildings and planting explosives...all through the building. Then they ignite them while a raging inferno rages and not a single soul in a government unable to keep anything secret with a bunch of bumbling leaders keeps the entire plot secret.
Again what sort of drugs are you people taking?
Oh and the structural engineer who keeps thinking his declaration of his skills impresses me...it does not. You scare the fuck out of me. That someone so irrational is active in a hard science is fucking terrifying. Ayn Rand predicted fucks like you would be involved in building things and that those things would collapse on us.
Wow, that was a masterful argument. I guess the laws of physics don't really matter as long as you can keep coming up with edgy neologisms like "clownfuck" to defend your insane point of view.
Laws of physics? Oh you mean the idea that Rosie O'Donnell has about steel not melting??? Is that the law you speak of? Or are you talking about the laws of probabilities and if so have you an explanation regarding the probability of the government being able to keep a secret as big as planting explosives in NOT ONE, TWO OR THREE BUILDINGS BUT ALL THREE BUILDINGS ON MANY FUCKING FLOORS! Is that the law you are talking about clownfuck?
I fucking hate you truthers...you are WORSE then the towel headed freaks who took the towers down because you are ball-less freaks who invent theories so you won't have to face the truth that those very same towel headed freaks are extremely intent on murdering you in the name of a barbaric religion.
Why do you always come up with these silly nonsequiturs? Rosie O'Donnell? Seriously? THAT'S your argument against the laws of conservation of energy and free fall under gravity? LOL. Oh, and good luck with your crazy theory about all those "towel headed freaks" waiting to pop out from under your bed and murder you after mommy turns off the lights and closes your bedroom door.
So the planes were remotely piloted? Or was it a missile that hit the Pentagon? What brought down WTC7??? The world wonders eh?
Lunatics
Actually, commercial aircraft have been enabled for remote piloting since the 1980s using a software called Home Run. Developed to take control from the pilot of a hijacked plane and enable it to land as directed from the ground at any airport. None of the aircraft crews called the International coder for hijacking, which is 7777. After Home Run takes control of the aircraft, pilot codes cannot be issued.
Also, see Pilots for Truth and the analysis of the official telemetry data on Flight 77, from Regan National which was submitted to the 911 Investigation Committee as the official telemetry data for Flight 77. Oh and by the way, the Committee never had a single eye-witness testify publicly.
Clownfuck there were eyewitnesses to Flt77.
The Pentagon is bordered by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard, on the side where the impact occurred. Motorist Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[47] Omar Campo, another witness, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."[48] Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work and stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."[48] Daryl Donley witnessed the crash and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[49]
Any more hallucinations you care to share with us, Truther lunatic?
And for the other twits who believe this Truther bullshit here is a fucking video of the plane right before it hits. At 24 seconds the plane comes into 1 frame. But it is obviously a plane not a missile. Clownfucks. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAxyhbMotKM
That has got to be the most amazing pilot of all freaking time!!! Let's disco!
Doing what Hani Hanjour did isn't that difficult...he wasn't trying to stop so his speed didn't matter. Landing is difficult because you have to get right above the speed where the aircraft stops flying right at the moment your wheels are above the runway. If you are not interested in stopping it is merely a matter of pointing the aircraft where you want it to go.
Doing what you Truther lunatics are doing is a lot more difficult. You disrespect the memory of those who died and fought. Despicable fucks that Truthers are.
Pierre! Vous avez retourne!
No, I just mean that to have flown like that, defying basic laws of aerodynamics would have been truly a sight to behold. Kind of like watching Micheal Phelps - a > 0.000000007% chance of happening. Amazing!
What's a truther?
Go get 'em PierreLegrand! You're my hero!
Aren't you clever...
Why aren't you trying to plug a website, too? Like:
illuminati (backwards) dot com:
www.itanimulli.com
i would love to see what others are taught about US history. Even with open information exchange, the revisionism will persist...
I don't trust the US gov as far as I can throw them, but the fringes distract from the conversations that should be had...
keep up the chatter, PL. if you are rational, you aren't alone.
These truthers might even be plants by the Government to discredit the credible conspiracies. Tell me of a group of men who want to steal my labor through manuevers and I am all ears...tell me a bunch of incompetents remotely piloted planes and missiles into the WTC and Pentagon to start a war and I think you are a fucking lunatic for a variety of reasons. Let me count the ways.
All of this distracts from all the fuckers boldly taking our money from right in front of our eyes...why go through all that trouble when it is just that easy?
Your words are humble truth, oh great sage!