It's a lot to read, but well worth the time. Any serious student of America history should own these volumes. Rothbard explodes many of the contemporary myths espoused today by would be historians. For example he proves by historical documentation, that the accepted myth that only 1/3 of the colonial population were in favor of the revolution, 1/3 neutral & 1/3 loyal to England, is WRONG! The letter from which this supposed fact was taken, by John Adams, is clearly referring to America attitudes toward the French revolution, not the American. In another letter, Adams estimated that the American Revolution was indeed supported by over two-thirds of the colonial population. A striking contrast to popular belief. He supported these findings by quoting from a book by John R Alden, 1954, "The American Revolution." This is an example of what you find in Professor Rothbard's books. He gives an extensive study of the religious and political issues of the time and spells out the prejudices of slavery and the evils of tyranny. Conceived in liberty will surly open your eyes to early American history in our day of revisionism and double-speak. These volumes should be the historical textbooks in our schools and colleges. I recommend adding them to your library and using them as a valuable source of truthful information.

Anything by the late Murray Rotbard is worth reading. He is a brilliant economist and he proves to be a great historian as well with this groundbreaking book set. Enough said.

Although, I am not finished reading this pleasingly large four volume book of American history, I can say unequivically that there is more historical value in this book than in all of my elementary (1-12) years of education. Presented in understandable language and in sufficent detail as to lend an entirely new perspective to "the discovery of America" and the subsequent conquering of her native peoples in the name of the monarchey. Will open the eyes of any patriot.

Murray Rothbard once again cuts through the popular dogma and conventional knowledge which government would prefer we all simply take on faith. In this case, the subject is money and the creation of it. Rothbard, an exceptional economist, showcases his ability to set aside the technical jargon and higher mathematics of the profession in favor of language accessible to everyone. In "The Case Against the Fed," Professor Rothbard examines the roots of money, as a commodity with subjective value which, because of wide-spread acceptance and other desireable qualities, becomes a medium of exchange for a people. Furthermore, he exposes the government's, via the Federal Reserve, monopolization of money. Rothbard shows how the Fed uses the power of the printing press to tax the people via inflation, to redistribute income, and to artificailly lower the interest rate leading to the infamous "business cycle" and the roller coaster of depressions and booms which our eceonomy is regualraly subjected to. Anyone who is concerned about the purchasing power of their income and about the unemployment which the business cycle regularly brings should read this book. Professor Rothbard portrays the federal government as what it is: the self-proclaimed, legitimate counterfeiter

Ever since the creation of the Federal Reserve Board ("the Fed"), the American economy has been subject to a cycle of boom and bust. Most recently, we saw a bubble in technology stocks in general and telecommunication stocks in particular, fueled by the creation of credit. But no one wants to blame the culprit -- the Fed. Why has an institution that was created allegedly to bring stability to the economy caused such havoc? Equally importantly, why is an institution that has so much power so unaccountable?

Murray Rothbard (1926-1995) provides in this book an outstanding discussion of money, banking, the Fed, and U.S. monetary policy. As usual, Rothbard sees the "big picture." There was no need for a central bank, however the Banksters ' in combination with Big Business and Big Intellectuals -- pushed for the creation of the Fed. Rothbard's discussion of the battles between the Rockefellers and the House of Morgan is fascinating. (See his Wall Street, Banks and American Foreign Policy for a more elaborate discussion of this great "conspiracy" in U.S. history.)

The foundation for this work is Austrian economic theory. Through fractional reserve banking ' which is little more than legal counterfeiting ' banks are permitted to print new money, thus creating inflation. Yet the central insight of Austrian theory is that this creation of money doesn't simply increase prices, but distorts the cycle of production as it works its way through the economy. This creates the boom and bust cycles that have plagued our economy.

For a more detailed discussion of many of the issues raised in this book, the interested reader should consult Rothbard's The Mystery of Banking.

This book, written by Murray Rothbard, an economist and historian of fairly well known repute, is a scathing attack on not only the Federal Reserve, but the interests that created this institution. Rothbard is an adept writer, as he takes a concept that can be fairly daunting and makes it accessible to the those readers without an economics background. I considered trying to earn a degree in Economics, but abandoned it when I found out that most of it is tied to higher mathematics. I'm more interested in the conceptual side. Rothbard cuts out math and focuses on the real meat of the issue, the concepts that govern money supply and inflation.

The book starts by discussing the biggest problem with the Federal Reserve system, which is fractional reserve banking. Rothbard explains how this system is only functioning because people believe that it works. If there was a run on banks tomorrow, the entire financial system would collapse, because there isn't enough "real" money in reserve to cover all of the bank notes in circulation. Rothbard believes that it is the Fed that causes inflation, and that the Fed is the sole source of inflation in society. It can be a confusing issue to explain, but Rothbard makes it easy.

The rest of the book is a detailed history of the creation of the central banking system. This part can be confusing due to the numerous names that Rothbard flies through as he traces the events leading up to the creation of the Fed at Jekyll Island in 1911. Several interesting points are made during this history. Rothbard says that the Progressive movement in American history was essentially engineered by the money interests to help destroy competition. The little guy couldn't afford to put up with all the regulatory laws passed by the government. This opened the way for the giants, such as Morgan and Rockefeller to monopolize industry. Another point that Rothbard makes is that the history of the United States from after the Civil War to World War Two has essentially been controlled by two financial camps, Morgan and Rockefeller. In this way, he supports views held by many that the big money trust controls the country and owns all of the politicians, an issue that is very much in vogue today, and can be seen in the minor success of Ralph Nader's run for the White House. The book winds up by saying that the only way to restore sanity is to go back to the gold standard, where all money is backed up by an equivalent amount of either gold or silver.

I'd recommend this book to anyone with an interest in finance and economics. This book is good for anyone who just wants to understand what fractional reserve banking is and how it works. Rothbard died in 1995, but he has left a good account of himself behind for all to enjoy.

Whole books could be written on Rothbard the Economist, or Rothbard the Historian. This book is about Murray Rothbard the Political Strategist and Polemicist. And that makes me happy, because it is *this* Rothbard that I personally recall so fondly from the old libertarian/anarchist trenches in the late '60s, early '70s, then again in the early '90s (when Rothbard and I last met).

Raimondo was there in those years 1978-1989 when I wasn't, when I largely fell away from the libertarian movement, and I enjoyed his coverage of those years in this book.

My only real gripe is that Justin sometimes lets his biases unfairly color his book, especially about periods where he wasn't personally present. One example is his "take" on Rothbard's alliance with Karl Hess in the late '60s. Hess was not quite so wooly or nutty as Raimondo paints him; you need only read Hess's writings in Rothbard's own "Libertarian Forum" newsletter from those days to see that Hess was a thoughtful Rothbardian anarchist during that period.

Anyway, thumbs up for Raimondo's biography of the heroic Murray Rothbard. But there are still more books to be written!

Energetic and well-written, Raimondo's biography chronicles the life of seminal libertarian scholar and polemicist, Murray Newton Rothbard (1926'1995). Whether writing economic and historical treatises or squabbling with fellow travelers, Rothbard remained a tireless, happy warrior dedicated to fighting the welfare-warfare state.

Raimondo insists that Rothbard was a "thinker of similar importance" to Karl Marx (p. 157), but Rothbard's undeniable genius notwithstanding, this description seems an overestimation. For the moment, Mises, Hayek, and Milton Friedman loom larger in the firmament. What Rothbard did produce, among his many other accomplishments, was a multidimensional argument for anarchocapitalism. In life, he was a happy warrior on behalf of that as yet unrealized vision. He has been proved correct in his assessments of the signal importance of World War I for constructing the modern state and in identifying Hoover's policies as anticipating the New Deal. Perhaps his optimism regarding the feasibility of a stateless society will some day be validated. In the meantime, Raimondo has written an excellent introduction to Rothbard's life's work.

I enjoyed reading this extensive biography of Murray Rothbard, which is obviously a labor of love on the part of the author. Through this book we follow the notable thinker, economist, and philosopher Rothbard from his roots in the Old Right, through a brief stint in Ayn Rand's Objectivism, then to the New Left, the nascent Libertarian movement during the 1970s, and then back to the Old Right after the fall of the Berlin Wall made anti-interventionism acceptable on the right once again. Through it all, we see that Rothbard's political odyssey wasn't floundering at all but was guided by the two views which he was most adament about, his advocacy of economic laissez-faire and his solidly anti-war position, which got him in trouble with some of the other laissez-faire advocates of his day. Ayn Rand, the New Left, and the William F. Buckley branch of conservatism are treated here with some disdain, which may turn off some readers of various leanings who are unaccustomed to Justin Raimondo's style of polemics. That caveat aside, this book should prove a fascinating read for anyone with the slightest bit of interest in somebody who was (in my biased opinion :) one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century.

Power and Market is Murray Rothbard's seminal critique of government intervention in the economy. Originally meant to be part of his magisterial Man, Economy, and State, it was published separately some years later. (For a discussion of this, see Justin Raimondo's An Enemy of the State: The Life of Murray N. Rothbard at 189-194.)

Unlike most Austrian school economists, Rothbard was an anarchist. In fact, he was the twentieth century's seminal figure in anarcho-capitalist thought. This means that Rothbard thought that not only roads and the like, but also national defense and courts could be provided without a state. (See his Society Without a State in the Libertarian Reader, ed. Machan, for a succinct presentation of his views.)

Rothbard starts out this work with a discussion of various types of government intervention in the economy. He divides them into three types: autistic (violent crime), triangular (tariffs, wage and price controls, licensing, etc.)and binary intervention (taxation and government spending). Following this is a discussion of antimarket ethics. There isn't an aspect of government intervention in the economy that escapes Rothbard's scalpel. As a whole, this is certainly an outstanding book. Take Rothbard's discussion of taxation. Many "right wing" economists support the sales tax on the ground that it doesn't discourage savings and investment. But it reduces people's income and thereby reduces savings and investment. It is a tax on income. [pp. 92-93.]

My main problem with this work is the sometimes simplistic discussion of complex problems and the leaps in logic. (I've discussed this is my review of The Ethics of Liberty.) Take for example the issue of immigration laws. "The advocate of immigration laws . . . really fears, therefore, is not so much immigration as any population growth. To be consistent, therefore, he would have to advocate compulsory birth control, to slow down the rate of population growth desired by individual parents." [p. 55.] Even in light of the entire 2 page discussion of immigration laws, I don't see how this follows. In this (and some other areas) the discussion is narrowly economic. Aren't there good reasons to restrict the type of immigrants? For example, if you have a society that is devoted to individual freedom and responsibility, isn't it wise to prevent immigration from those countries that don't support freedom?

If you want to know the essence of Rothbard, purchase this work; Man, Economy, and State; The Ethics of Liberty; and the Logic of Action.

I have no quarrel with Will Murphy's review of the book Power & Market, I would merely like to reiterate what Ludwig von Mises said of Carl Menger's Principles of Economics that "this book made an economist of me."

This volume is one of the most important economic works of the 20th century. For the most part, the bulk of this work is really nothing more than an extension of the chapter on "violent intervention" in "Man, Economy, and State." Unfortunately the initial publishers of that work balked at the radical views set forth, and therefore forced Rothbard to truncate his analysis. Nevertheless, we are fortunate enough to have this work, in he elaborates on his work in order to offer a complete praxeological critique of *all* governmental action. He classifies government intervention into 3 basic categories; autistic, binary, and triangular, and proceeds to refute arguments for all of them. Dealt with are the more commonplace statist policies such as licensing, antitrust, etc., as well as many generally off-limit areas. Indeed, probably the most startling and important aspect of this work is the lengthy refutation of virtually every significant justification of taxation, from the income tax to the Georgist single tax. Even common "conservative" myths are given no standing, as Rothbard demonstrates that there is really no such thing as a "neutral tax," and that all taxation, however applied, has sharply negative effects on the market economy. In addition to this, Rothbard develops a very stimulating refutation of common ethical arguments against capitalism, showing them to be incompatible with reality and economics. Although by and large the work is solid, I must say that I still disagree on several points with Rothbard's particular vision for a totally free, voluntary society. Nonetheless, we are not very far apart. Altogether, I have to say that this work is a landmark in economic theory, and should be on the bookshelf of every serious radical libertarian.

There are many treasures to be found in this excellent book. According to Rothbard, "laissez faire" economy is not enough. What we require is a theory of justice, because so long as we exchange legitimate rigths to property, it is a philosophical and ethical matter to see what are the standards to establish when a particular title to property is actually just. Economics alone could'nt tell us that. So he sets to build a theory of justice and he is remarkably successful as to that, in general, but not in particular instances. This is a systematic work. It begins with the idea that "natural law" is a correct notion, then continues determining that property is a necessary consequence of the recognition of "human rights" -or rather, that in fact, all "human rights" boil down to property rights- In this respect, the foremost right is that one which concerns one's own person and body. Property rights over exterior objects are the consequence of men mixing their bodies (their labor)with natural resources, whence the right to own land that one has worked on if it was vacant before. Rothbard doesn't support "feudal" land ownership that comes from military conquest and does not imply the owner labor mixed in it. When this happens, the real natural owner is the laborer, the serf or the slave.

I'd wish only that Rothbard were somewhat more humble about his doctrines and convictions. He dismisses everyone else are nitwits and fools. I prefer the temptative and inquisitive style of Nozick or more recently, Jan Narveson. For example, he reviews "alternative conceptions of liberty", criticizing -sometimes quite cogently, but not always- flaws in Mises, Nozick, Hayek and Isaiah Berlin. Even James Buchanan is set upon.

When he departs from his main subjects in his construction of libertarian ethics, he reaches sometimes inconsistent or even preposterous conclusions. For example, when it comes to criminal law, he says that punishments should be the affair of the victim, himself or his heirs, either through private companies to the effect or somehow -Rothbard was, let us remember, the "enemy of the state", the greatest anarcho-capitalist-. The victim could choose the enforcement of the law or even to omit exacting any punishment or relatiation at all. But now I say: let us imagine a murder victim who has no heir or whose legacy is repudiated. Is his death to go unpunished? And what if the heir is the murderer? I'm sure that Rothbard had a answer for that, but it is not in this book.

Another reviewer has remarked upon "children rights" in this book. But I ask you, what do these rothbardian libertarians find so interesting about blackmailers? Rothbard writes pages on end to stress that blackmailers are legitimate suppliers of a good to their (should we say...?) victims. So does Walter Brock in other writings. Well, you go on like this, rothbardians, and I'm sure you'll have a lot of fun, but all by yourselves.

In sum, it is not strange that Rothbard has not found academic recognition. Nevertheless, it is worth reading if you don't take him too seriously because his recklessness is precisely what allows him to show the inconsistencies of other more sedate theorists.

Murray Rothbard was the leading libertarian thinker of the 20th century. In 1982, he published THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY, his central work on political theory and ethics. This work was republished recently with an excellent introduction by Hans-Hermann Hope (the endnotes have been converted into footnotes, a big improvement).

This work is probably the best discussion of libertarian philosophy from an anarcho-capitalist perspective. In addition, Rothbard develops a theory based on natural law, thus distancing himself from other strands of libertarian thought.

The book is particularly comprehensive. Starting with a discussion of natural law, Rothbard turns to practical issues such as voluntary exchange, contracts, and the rights of children. He then discusses the concept of the state. He ends the work with discussions of different approaches to rights and a strategy for advancing liberty. The comprehensive nature of the work is also its greatest weakness. Rothbard discusses too many subjects in too few pages. For example, the difficult question of the rights of children takes all of 15 pages. Yet there is no more difficult question for any theory of rights than that question.

Rothbard's discussion of the rights of children is emblematic of the weakness and at times superficial nature of this work. Take Rothbard's discussion of when the parents' "jurisdiction" over a child ends. He states: "Surely, any particular age (21, 18, or whatever) can only be completely arbitrary. The clue to the solution to this thorny question lies in the parental property rights in their home. For the child has his FULL rights of self-ownership WHEN HE DEMONSTRATES THAT HE HAS THEM IN NATURE-in short when he leaves or 'runs away' from home." [p. 103; emphasis in the original.] First of all, it may be arbitrary to establish the age of emancipation at 18 rather than 17, but such decisions are found in all areas of life and are not thereby rendered "completely arbitrary." In any event, is it "completely arbitrary" to set it at 18 rather than 5? Moreover, Rothbard's "solution" is in most respects even more arbitrary. For example, if Junior Jones runs away when he is 8 years old, does that mean his parents cannot force him to stay? What if Junior is 5 and wanders off his parents' property and stays at the Smiths' house, asserting that he would prefer to live with the Smiths. Has he then demonstrated a "right to self-ownership" in nature? Would it be wrong for the Joneses to take him back? Rothbard uses a similar argument against Laissez-faire advocates of limited government who believe the state may provided limited protection services. Supposedly their views fail because how much or little services such a government might provide can only be "purely arbitrary." [p. 181.] This type of argument leads Rothbard to advocate abortion-on-demand, a position with which I strongly disagree.

For whatever flaws it contains, THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY it is certainly one of the most provocative books you will ever read.

This is a very powerful work to say the least. Rothbard pushes natural rights and the non-initiation of force arguments to the full extreme. Despite this, I still disagree with him on one major point; the necessity of government. Although the idea has only been lightly touched upon by theorists, government is possible without any initiation of force against the governed. In fact, it is this ideal government that is the only alternative to both anarchy and statism. Nevertheless, Rothbard keeps you on your toes at all times. It is impossible to challenge anarcho-capitalism without an indepth understanding of this book. Ultimately, the premises of this book are virtually irrefutable, it is only the conclusions that one may dispute.

Murray Rothbard, an "anarcho-capitalist," writes a brilliant promulgation of liberty, natural rights theory, and property rights all derived from a non-agression axiom.

This book is a great introduction to the "extreme" side of libertarianism, and although I don't agree with all of Rothbard's insight, I was blown away by his clear prose, meticulous logic, and thoughtful points that jump off every page.

Unlike the reviewer below who gave this book 1 star, I actually read it. Rothbard doesn't side step ANYTHING. He discusses economics from a refreshing free-market prespective, demonstrating the freedom such a market would allow. But more importantly, he tackles issues that many people think libertarians fear: roads, police, and the environment. His pollution solution is simple and derived from a Lockean theory of property rights: you own yourself; if pollution harms you, it is "invading" your property. Thus, pollution is a tort (something one can sue over), or it is illegal, because it is illegal to violate one's right to self-ownership without providing just compensation.

Property rights have a tradition grounded in John Locke's work on natural law theory. In fact, far from not defining property rights, Rothbard quotes extensively from Locke's "Civil Government" to define them AND he defends them throughout the entire book but extensively in the first chapter,"Property and Exchange."

Of course, if the reviewer from Mississippi State (who gave 1 star) needs someone to "define" property rights for him better than Rothbard did than perhaps he is beyond help. It also is nice if someone reads a book before they review it. Note: the reviewer claimed that Rothbard's ideas simply mean "one dollar, one vote." From an anarchist perspective there wouldn't be anyone to vote for.

Nevertheless, I can't say I agree with all of Rothbard's work. Anarcho-capitalism wins the moral argument, as Rothbard shows here and in "Ethics of Liberty," his in-depth scholarly work, but I am not sure it is a system that will ever come about without overthrowing the government, and hence using violence.

Perhaps I'm too pessimistic. But this book is still great for even miniarchists, or those interested in a clear articulation of libertarian solutions to current world problems from a natural rights perspective. There is no better philosopher to start with.

"For a New Liberty" is by far the best introduction to radical libertarianism that you can find. Beginning with the non-aggression principle, Rothbard builds a libertarian theory of natural rights and applies it to every aspect of social and political interaction. He picks apart the common justifications for government action, and then proceeds to make a case against even a minimal level of government. Although I am a bit skeptical concerning Rothbard's ideas concerning courts and law, his ideas are refreshing and challenging. Altogether, if you want to know what libertarianism is all about, don't start off with moderate libertarians like Milton Friedman or F.A. Hayek, but rather, pick up a copy of this work, and perhaps Ayn Rand's "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal." The former will give you a solid introduction to the politics of libertarianism, while the latter will give you this in addition to the proper ethical and moral foundations of individualism.

Among all the available introductions to libertarian thought, I think Murray Rothbard's _For a New Liberty_ is the best. In it, Rothbard sets out the principles of anarchocapitalism, a system of political-economy where property rights are sacrosanct and no government exists. This is important because most libertarians support some degree of government is necessary in order to preserve a person's right to self-ownership and property.

However, Rothbard argues that the very existence of the State violates man's rights and is incompatible with freedom, even in a democratic society. This is an problem many libertarian scholars have struggled with in attempting to justify limited government. Rothbard faces no such inconsistency.

First, Rothbard introduces the concept of man's rights, establishing that the only valid right can be the right to self-ownership and ownership of one's property. With these principles -- along with the traditional libertarian non-aggression axiom -- Rothbard offers meaningful solutions to the reams of problems in today's society. He makes a forceful case that our problems would be easily solved following principles of the free market, private property, and non-aggression. Education, welfare, free speech, pollution, crime...Rothbard tackles numerous issues with great insight and clarity. In my opinion, the only significant issue he doesn't really explore is healthcare, but hey...it's a short book. (For an excellent libertarian exploration of the healthcare issue [among MANY other things], see Dr. Mary J. Ruwart's definitive _Healing Our World_. Amazon sells it.)

Rothbard introduces many ideas in this book that would be dubbed "radical" by most -- the abolishment of government police services, courts, and national defense being the most obvious. But he also believes in unlimited free speech -- this means there would be nothing illegal about blackmail or libel in a libertarian society. To most, many libertarians included, these ideas are difficult to get one's head around.

Large chapters are devoted to education, welfare, private roads, crime & private security, ecology, conservation of resources, and national defense. Some have accused Rothbard of skipping out on the private police/courts system, but this book is not a 1000-page treatise. He offers theory and historical evidence to support his ideas, but truthfully such a topic requires many books on its own. A good and short adjunct to Rothbard's ideas here is Hans-Hermann Hoppe's brilliant article "The Private Production of Defense", from the Journal of Libertarian Studies. Some good books on the issue are _The Enterprise of Law_ and _To Serve and Protect_, both by Bruce Benson, and _The Structure of Liberty_ by Randy Barnett. I believe Amazon sells all of them.

I've read this book around ten times. Worth owning if you care about where the world is headed.

This is an excelent book for anyone who wants to understand what causes the regular boom and bust cycles. Rothbard uses mountains of economic data to convince the reader that it was economic intervention by the government, and the central bank, which caused and prolonged the Great Depression. The book starts off slowly given that it is laden with economic tables, and explanations. The second half is more interesting since it describes Hoover's interventionism, and wraps up everything delineated in the first part. A great book for anyone interested in economics, and politics, and of course anyone who enjoys Rothbard's clear writing style.

In "America's Great Depression", Professor Rothbard effectively demolishes the myths surrounding this tragic event. However, semi-literate pop-historians continue to ignore the fact that the depression was caused by government intervention. Rothbard's book stands out due to his refusal to reduce this complex event to a simple story of good (New Dealers, Socialists) versus evil ("capitalism"). Upon close examination of such accounts, it becomes clear that not only do "historians" get the facts wrong, they simply fail to comprehend them. Mainstream historians who refuse to even attempt to gain a basic understanding of economics have had their interpretations rendered embarrassingly obsolete by Rothbard. ...

This book is so good that I read it twice.

Rothbard shows us clearly that the real causes of Economic Depressions is GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION in the economy. Of course this is understood widely nowadays (at least among those who think). But 40 years ago it was popular to believe in other causes like "overexpansion of productive capacity" or other fallacies. Rothbard convincingly flushes these other theories down where they belong.

I believe the most lasting contribution of this book is to clearly show the basics of economics, in language that anybody can understand (Ludwig von Mises is considered the greatest ecnomist of the Austrian School of Economics, but have YOU ever tried to read his "Theory of Money and Credit?". I couldn't wade through it even with a dictionary in hand. Trust me, Rothbard is a better spokesman for free-market economics, in my opinion).