Available Now! (click cover)

America's Counter-Revolution
The Constitution Revisited

From the back cover:

This book challenges the assumption that the Constitution was a landmark in the struggle for liberty. Instead, Sheldon Richman argues, it was the product of a counter-revolution, a setback for the radicalism represented by America’s break with the British empire. Drawing on careful, credible historical scholarship and contemporary political analysis, Richman suggests that this counter-revolution was the work of conservatives who sought a nation of “power, consequence, and grandeur.” America’s Counter-Revolution makes a persuasive case that the Constitution was a victory not for liberty but for the agendas and interests of a militaristic, aristocratic, privilege-seeking ruling class.

Friday, December 03, 2010

TGIF: "A Free Market in Banking? Not Even Close"

Between the state and national governments, there has always been substantial regulation of money and banking in the United States.
Read TGIF: "A Free Market in Banking? Not Even Close" here.


D. Saul Weiner said...

It's a very good critique. Unfortunately, most people do not go for all of that nuance and analysis and are swayed by superficial matters.

It is a big mistake to refer to what the State is doing in the economic sphere as "regulation", since it implies that the State is bringing order to the economy, when we know that (at least most of the time) it is doing just the opposite. After all, how can anyone be against economic order? We must challenge this perception at the level of language.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sheldon,

Another good article.

On a related note, in a recent episode of Star Wars: The Clone Wars TV show, "Heroes On Both Sides", a major plot involves a vote by the Galactic Senate, on whether or not to deregulate the "Banking Clan". The problem, from a libertarian perspective, is that the "deregulation" is made out to be a bad thing (since the Banking Clan are bad guys - war profiteers). It's unfortunate because viewers (who aren't knowledgeable in libertarianism or Austrian economics) will come away thinking that only "bad" people want to deregulate banks.

It seems like a (no doubt, well-meaning) democrat decided to put his/her 2 cents into the current financial debate. What a missed opportunity!


Richard G.