Who are the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?

[Galileo Galilei]

Gotta add Andrew Jackson!...He not only killed the Central Bank...but he PERSONALLY beat up their hired assassin with his walking stick after his revolver misfired!!


Irwin Schiff too (Peter's dada)...he is in prison for his brave fight

Jackson killed a lot of Indians. How exactly does the trail of tears promote liberty?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Murray Rothbard

Free markets follow directly from basic Libertarian Party principles, which include the Nolan Chart and the Oath rejecting initiation of force. These simple Libertarian principles are much simpler and more persuassive than Rothbard's long tedious texts, which often make you ending up wondering if free markets are really the way to go after all.

 

[muzzled dogg]

rothbard

 

[Young Paleocon]

Free markets follow directly from basic Libertarian Party principles, which include the Nolan Chart and the Oath rejecting initiation of force. These simple Libertarian principles are much simpler and more persuassive than Rothbard's long tedious texts, which often make you ending up wondering if free markets are really the way to go after all.

Oh I didn't realize the LP created libertarian ideas, how informative.

 

[rp08orbust]

Murray Rothbard

 

[danberkeley]

Cleveland had a much bigger audience. He was president you know. He was more a a defender becasue he set the record for most bills vetoed. He vetoed more bills than all the presidents precedign him combined. He defended the gold standard, even during the Panic of 1893. He expounded liberty and the Constitution in his veto messages.

Rephrase your question since it is unclear. Are you asking, "who WERE the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?" Or, are you asking, "who ARE greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?" In other words, what the fuck are you asking? How does Woods or DiLorenzo make it but not Rothbard? I'm sure Rothbard HAD a bigger audience than DiLorenzo. Likewise, I am sure that Rothbard HAS a bigger audience than Cleveland.

rothbard brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothbard+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Search

879 hits

origen brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=origen+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

12,200 hits

So now you're using Google hits?

Futhermore, it is obvious that within the RPF community, Rothbard HAS a greater audience than Origen. This is why your poll DOES fail. I knew who every single one of your options were EXCEPT Origen. You should have known that if you were going to ask RPFers, "[w]ho [ARE] the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty? ", you should have included Rothbard.

 

[Young Paleocon]

I'm not disputing Smith's wide range of influence, but you need to realize that before and during Smith's time there were influential people writing far more free-market oriented texts. Turgot for instance. Smith's pseudo-free market beliefs have led us down the path of the classical school and thus the monetarists, while also giving credence to the labor theory of value by not addressing subjective value in his Wealth of Nations. Though I'm not disputing his influence, I do believe he has confused and perverted many elements of the free-market making our job harder. Just my opinion though.

Once again, value systems and the rift created between exchange value and use value stem from Wealth of Nations, perverting free market ideas.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Oh I didn't realize the LP created libertarian ideas, how informative.

You again confuse creating with popularizing.

I'm sure there were plenty of cavemen who promoted liberty.

The Libertarian Party is one of the best ways to promote liberty because the basic arguments are simple for the masses.

They are also from a third party. If you aren't in a third party, most people zone out and call you a republican or a liberal or whatever group they oppose.

I sent my poll out to some non- Ron Paul groups, and was immediatley attacked by someone who thinks Austrian economists are republicans that promote Wall Street. That's because my poll didn't include any Libertarian Party leaders.

That is one weakness with Ron Paul, he is held down by republican baggage.

Another way to avoid republcian or partisan baggage, is to use the Founding Fathers or other distant historical figures who do not have partisan baggage.

 

[danberkeley]

You again confuse creating with popularizing.

I'm sure there were plenty of cavemen who promoted liberty.

The Libertarian Party is one of the best ways to promote liberty because the basic arguments are simple for the masses.

They are also from a third party. If you aren't in a third party, most people zone out and call you a republican or a liberal or whatever group they oppose.

I sent my poll out to some non- Ron Paul groups, and was immediatley attacked by someone who thinks Austrian economists are republicans that promote Wall Street. That's because my poll didn't include any Libertarian Party leaders.

That is one weakness with Ron Paul, he is held down by republican baggage.

Another way to avoid republcian or partisan baggage, is to use the Founding Fathers or other distant historical figures who do not have partisan baggage.

Ha! The Republican Party IS and has been a greater expounder and defender of liberty than the Libertarian Party.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Once again, value systems and the rift created between exchange value and use value stem from Wealth of Nations, perverting free market ideas.

Those ideas were already present and commom before Wealth of Nations. Wealth of Nations did not become an international classic because it droned out old ideas.

It became a classic because it explained that the free market created wealthy nations, and mercantile economies left nations in poverty.

It explained it in a way that gained widespread acceptance, which promoted liberty. The invisible hand of the market comes from Smith.

Smith's incorrect theory of prices has nothing to do with believing in a free market anyway.

Hayek is the true star regarding the theory of prices.

Rothbard just didn't like Smith, and was upset that he wasn't as successful as Smith.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Ha! The Republican Party IS and has been a greater expounder and defender of liberty than the Libertarian Party.

Ya, right, they started out with Abe Lincoln, the dictator. Tell me what liberty the republican party has ever brought me? Nothing but taxes, drug wars, regulation, licensing, wars and socialism.

They have become a cancer on the the graves of the Founding Fathers.

In history, all revolutions come from third parties.

 

[Young Paleocon]

Those ideas were already present and commom before Wealth of Nations.

Smith didn't right the wrong in his popular book though, he merely made it legitimate for Marxists, and the classical school to use. And I think Rothbard's beef is more along the lines of Smith being credited with the beginnings of all economic thought when there were the the Spanish scholastics, Cantillon, and Turgot who had come before Smith and who had solved many of the problems that Smith compounded.

 

[Conza88]

Gotta add Andrew Jackson!...He not only killed the Central Bank...but he PERSONALLY beat up their hired assassin with his walking stick after his revolver misfired!

He imposed martial law and cracked down on dissenters.

 

[danberkeley]

Rothbard just didn't like Smith, and was upset that he wasn't as successful as Smith.

Is that what he told you?

Tell me what liberty the republican party has ever brought me?

What liberty has the LP brought you?

Nothing but taxes, drug wars, regulation, licensing, wars and socialism.

They have become a cancer on the the graves of the Founding Fathers.

In history, all revolutions come from third parties.

So what? The Republican Party has had greater success expounding and defending of liberty than the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. The Reblican Party isnt all saints, but neither were:

Adam Smith
Thomas Jefferson - president
George Washington - Bank of the United States
James Madison - president
Grover Cleveland - president
Ayn Rand - Hated the Iranians.
Paul Craig Roberts - Expanded drug war.
Thomas DiLorenzo - Former neocon.
Thomas Woods - Former neocon.
Lew Rockwell - Worked in government

Your argument fails and your poll fails.

Anyway, just admit that your original question was unclear. You are probably one of the best expounders and defenders of liberty on this forum.

 

[Conza88]

Your argument fails and your poll fails.

If only he'd have the balls to admit it. It's as obvious as day. Him trying to rationalize it, is his digging his hole even deeper. lol

 

[danberkeley]

If only he'd have the balls to admit it. It's as obvious as day. Him trying to rationalize it, is his digging his hole even deeper. lol

Where is Milton Friedman?

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Smith didn't right the wrong in his popular book though, he merely made it legitimate for Marxists, and the classical school to use. And I think Rothbard's beef is more along the lines of Smith being credited with the beginnings of all economic thought when there were the the Spanish scholastics, Cantillon, and Turgot who had come before Smith and who had solved many of the problems that Smith compounded.

"Richard Cantillon (1680-1734), acknowledged by many historians as the first great economic "theorist", is an obscure character."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon

You really think this dude belongs in the top 20 of all time regarding the promotion of liberty? I could name 20 ancient Greek philosphers who did more for human liberty.

"His work is quoted by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations."

If Cantillon is good, then you should be happy Smith is quoting him.

"According to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Jevons was scarcely exaggerating when he entitled Cantillon's work as the "Cradle of Political Economy"."

Once again, Hayek seems to like this guy, that's good. Cantillon is lucky that Smith and Hayek became popular.

"According to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Jevons was scarcely exaggerating when he entitled Cantillon's work as the "Cradle of Political Economy".

He is certainly an interesting guy, but it is hard to promote liberty when few have heard of you. Wikipedia doesn't even list a single book that he wrote.

Turgot seems like an interesting fellow. But he lived at almost exactly the same time as Smith.

"Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, often referred to as Turgot (10 May 1727 – 18 March 1781), was a French economist and statesman. Today he is best remembered as an early advocate for economic liberalism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Robert_Jacques_Turgot,_Baron_de_Laune

This is great that he did that, but he does not belong in the top 20 promoters and defenders of liberty of all time.

"Turgot's best known work, Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses (Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth), was written early in the period of his intendancy, ostensibly for the benefit of two young Chinese students.[3] Written in 1766, it appeared in 1769–1770 in Dupont's journal, the Ephémérides du citoyen, and was published separately in 1776."

This is only a little before Wealth of Nations. Given how long Wealth of Nations is, and that Smith worked on it for many years, it's hard to buy that Smith owes much from Turgot's book.

 

[Galileo Galilei]

Where is Milton Friedman?

I thought the people here didn't like watered down libertarianism?

 

[Young Paleocon]

Smith and Turgot were friends and corresponded, and the fact that Hayek and Smith quote Cantillon and praise him only makes him more influential because he influenced two widely known economists.

 

[danberkeley]

I thought the people here didn't like watered down libertarianism?

Friedman did a lot to turn people towards "free markets" and liberty.