by Benjamin Marks, editor-in-chief, author of
“One question Catallaxy Files, CIS, IPA and Liberals are scared to answer”
and The Best Libertarian Film Is …

Professor Dr Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s achievements include, to name just three of thousands: his definition of government, as, “an expropriating property protector”; his ridicule of the “democracy” “principle”, with, if “the right to vote were expanded to seven year olds … policies would most definitely reflect the ‘legitimate concerns’ of children to have ‘adequate’ and ‘equal’ access to ‘free’ french fries, lemonade and videos”; and his mocking of the belief that markets require government:

Now, it is certainly correct that a market presupposes the recognition and enforcement of those rules that underlie its operation. But from this it does not follow that this task must be entrusted to a monopolistic agency. In fact, a common language or sign-system is also presupposed by the market; but one would hardly think it convincing to conclude that hence the government must ensure the observance of the rules of language. Just as the system of language then, the rules of market behavior emerge spontaneously and can be enforced by the “invisible hand” of self-interest. Without the observance of common rules of speech people could not enjoy the advantages that communication offers, and without the observance of common rules of conduct, people could not enjoy the benefits of the higher productivity of an exchange economy based on the division of labor. [Emphasis not Hoppe’s.]

I can’t emphasise the brilliance of that passage enough.

That a man of such unbeatable achievement was at the Australian Mises Seminar is thanks to Neville Kennard, founder of Kennards Self Storage, weekly columnist for, and past chairman and distinguished fellow of Greg Lindsay’s Centre for Independent Studies. Hoppe is in constant demand for speaking engagements around the world and we are amazed he agreed to travel to such an intellectually barren landscape as Australia; maybe he just needed to give his mind a rest. This is the first time anyone of Hoppe’s stature has deigned to visit us. The Workers Party — an Australian Rothbardian political party in the 1970’s (for more info, see — tried to entice Murray Rothbard to come over in 1975, but to no avail. So in that sense, we are doing better than the Workers Party, especially in light of the fact, as we shall see, that we still have so many of the Workers Party veterans involved and supportive.

However, despite the brilliance of Hoppe’s speeches, and my best attempts to put a shine on everything, the impossible to escape reality is that Australia still has: an income tax, a central bank, and, a growing government. Whether or not Hoppe is God, he is no Messiah. Probably, Hoppe’s presence on Australian soil is not the beginning of the libertarian revolution, but the beginning of a whole lot of people being very disappointed, complaining to each other and failing at university and losing their jobs because they can’t keep their opinions to themselves. I don’t know much about other countries, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Australia stays on its current statist trajectory, even after every other country in the world has accepted the truth of libertarian ideas and embarked on libertarian utopia. At least Hoppe will always be able to return to Australia to get away from the monotonous public spotlight — mobs of fans hanging on to his every word, baying for his autograph and begging to be mentioned in one of the footnotes of his future publications — which he must experience in literate countries.

Here is a nice comment on Hoppe from Justin Jefferson’s review of the conference:

Hoppe delivered his withering critiques of the state, money and banking in such a clear way, unfolding logic step by step, it made you wonder how such theory could be thought extreme.

But Justin Jefferson is hardly the typical Australian, even if he is a farmer from the Snowy Mountains.

The Sydney weather was so bad I don’t think Hoppe saw any sun. A weather report during Hoppe’s stay said there was only 45 minutes of sunshine the entire week. When he tells his usually supportive wife Gülçin about the Sydney weather, I doubt she will believe such an unlikely story. I hope that this does not spiral out of control and end their relationship.

It is a pity we could not have the Mises Seminar at a venue where Gülçin could have attended. The venue was a private club in the Sydney CBD. It is so exclusive that I am not allowed to tell you the club’s name. It has nothing to do with the content or radicalism of the event; rather than revolutionaries plotting to overthrow the government they probably thought it was a reunion of Austrian School old-boys; it is simply an ancient (and prescient) club rule. The venue was so old school that no women were allowed. This was fitting for our event, since the conference organisers believe there is no role for women in politics. But maybe future events should have a different venue and women should be allowed in at a heavily discounted rate. If women are as intelligent as men and we allow in women, then we will need a venue with at least double the capacity.

We had such an impressive list of speakers that I am tempted to launch into a rendition of “Dayenu.” If Hoppe had written The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, and had not travelled to Australia, it would have been enough for us. If Hoppe was our only speaker, it would have been enough for us. In fact, if any of the speakers were our only speaker, it would have been enough for us. We were spoiled to such an extent by the speakers that it almost made up for the statist world we live in. Thanks to our speakers, Australia has now moved up a few hundred places on the economic freedom events world rankings.

The speakers did not merely agree to associate with us; they paid their own way; they were the sponsors of the Mises Seminar. Two of the speakers gave even more of themselves: Neville Kennard, who we have already discussed and whose speech, “My Journey to Anarchy,” did not hold back; and the great Ron Manners of Mannkal Economic Education Foundation. Manners flew to Sydney the future of Westralia in the form of eight keen students. Manners believes that Australian social democrats, classical liberals and free-market advocates should all focus on their common enemies, and he practises what he preaches. That he himself is so entertaining and passionate means that everyone finds it easy to speak to him — except the government. With everyone competing for his attention, we were honoured to have his support. He delivered a great speech on the joy of making things difficult for the government. While you’re waiting for us to put online his speech, here’s the transcript of a mindbogglingly radical speech of his from 1994. Much more Ron Manners material will soon go up at

Mark Tier, the first genuine Australian Austrian economist (if anyone wants to argue that Roger Randerson was the first, please do), flew in from The Philippines. Tier, one of the founding fathers of the Workers Party, is so influential that when people advocate free-markets today, they are called free-Mark-Tiers. Tier’s speech on the Saturday was so good that it lived up to its title: “Smoker’s Rights are Human Rights are Property Rights: How to persecute an unpopular minority to subvert the rule of law, increase the power of the state, and replace the impartial arbiter of human rights with the whims of politicians and bureaucrats.” I don’t think a speech could have been more politically incorrect. The speech will be put online soon; in the meantime, here’s the end of Escape from L.A., which is so politically incorrect you have to see it to believe it. Tier is still as politically active as ever. His latest book is the soon-t0-be released Trust Your Enemies.

While we’re talking about firsts, we also had the first and most successful Workers Party candidate, Geoff McNeil, who travelled from Westralia. McNeil, along with the other Workers Party veterans, especially Andy Buttfield and Maureen Nathan, whose writings on the Workers Party I have been unable to find, should please write up and expand their reflections on the Workers Party.

Another international speaker we had was Dr David Hart, who is Director of the Online Library of Liberty, which puts free online in the most accessible form possible many great works and, if necessary, translates them into English. No one is doing more useful work for libertarian scholars than Hart. When I told Hoppe that Hart was speaking, he recalled that when he first went to the U.S. Rothbard said good things about Hart, so that shows better than anything I could say how impressive he is.

Travelling from Queensland was Viv Forbes, the most productive Australian free-market advocate for each of the last 36 years, since he attended the Workers Party launch in 1975. His very presence was highly valued; but he also spoke about the most impressive of all topics: his own free-market advocacy. I talk about him a bit more later in this essay.

Also travelling from Queensland we had Dr Chris Leithner, who delivered a biting talk reinforcing his great book The Evil Princes of Martin Place: The Reserve Bank of Australia, The Global Financial Crisis, and The Threat to Australians’ Liberty and Prosperity. It was made even more impressive by the fact that he risked having the Australian financial advisory licensing authorities or some such benevolent organisation revoke his business license or some such thing. His lawyers are having a good look at it and will tell us whether the video footage of his speech, which we had planned to make available freely online, should be destroyed, edited into compliance or is worth martyrdom.

Travelling from Victoria we had the great critic of Keynes, Dr Steven Kates. I appreciate that he attempted to engage with the Austrian school. I try to repay, with interest, the courtesy later in this essay.

Travelling from what Ronald Kitching called the Canberra Kremlin, we had Dr Ben O’Neill, a statistician who does not work for the government but probably trains those who will. He gave a great speech on made-up government law and natural law that cut to the heart of what Nietzsche called the coldest of cold monsters.

And then there was Andrew Dahdal, who argued so well that he almost convinced everyone in the audience to fund a campaign to take the government to court due to the unconstitutionality of fiat money. I am envious of his persuasive skills, especially given the total lack of support for my brief and in my opinion simpler argument that all government in Australia is unconstitutional.

We also had Sarah Correa talk about the war in Afghanistan. I am unsure what I can say about her speech legally, so if it is allowed to be put online I will allow it to speak for itself.

With permission, we will be making all the speeches available free online shortly, in quality so good that you will have an even better view than we did when we were there.

We had such an impressive list of attendees and speakers that the lowliest person at the 2011 Mises Seminar was the 2011 Keynote Speaker of the Year (according to the National Speakers Association of Australia). In recent weeks, in addition to performances in Sydney, he has been flown to Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth, Fremantle, Wagga Wagga and New York as the keynote speaker and main entertainment at prestigious events. Given the quality of our own speakers and attendees, the only way we could include him was to use him as assistant cameraman — not only without pay, but he also had to pay for his own conference registration and parking. Events don’t get more prestigious and cold-hearted and libertarian than this. And the interest in future Mises Seminars is such that we will not be able to include him at all next year.

The cameraman himself also donated his time, and also paid for his own conference registration and parking. But he has learnt a bit about the importance of financial incentives and money and is holding all the footage to ransom until all Australian market participants give him a large amount of money, since he is doing so much for them. He is also demanding YouTube gives him shares in their company before he uploads the videos. As a sign of goodwill, he has put up the first video of the Mises Seminar here. You can watch it in as good quality as your internet connect can handle. More will come shortly.

At a menial level, the Mises Seminar was a success. The location, the venue, the food, the cost, the speakers, the recommended reading, the schedule, the dress code and the name-tags were all a success. But the Mises Seminar was not about showing everyone that the organisers — Liberty Australia, Aussienomics and — can organise an event. As a free-market advocacy event, our speakers did a brilliant and generous job of advocating the free-market. But, from what I can tell, the audience was not good enough, and so the Mises Seminar has to be written off as a failure. If you want empty triumphalism, buy yourself a medal (or join the self-congratulatory   C      E      N      S      O      R      E      D   ).

We attracted over 140 people to hear the greatest free-market advocates from around Australia and the world. We should have been able to attract that much for any one of them. And the audience members that did show up were mostly already convinced. As the observant and insightful Nickolai Hubble of The Daily Reckoning Australia said, we were “preaching to the largely converted.” I tried unsuccessfully to reach out to the unconverted, but they weren’t interested. For example, here was my invitation to Gina Rinehart’s ANDEV group, which was considered good enough to be circulated to their internal list, which I am very thankful for and consider one of my greatest achievements. But no one from ANDEV officialdom turned up or even responded to my clearly credentialed and clearly constructive criticism.

The few unconverted we did manage to attract all refused to engage. As we will see, some of them expressed that they disagree, but they failed to point out why — that is, where they allege the error in our reasoning is.

We attracted one criminal gang member politician: The Hon Dr Peter Phelps, MLC. He is a far superior class of politician to what the CIS usually attract to their Consilium event, but that, like, say, Senator Cory Bernardi, isn’t saying much. Phelps commented on the event live on Facebook. Here are some of his public comments:

Friday, 7:02pm. At the Mises Seminar, getting some good, hard Austrian school into me.

So he knew what he was in for. But could he take it?

Friday, 9:34pm. Some Workers Party nutter at Mises Seminar calls #IPA #CIS and #andrewbolt “pinkos”.

I am the “Workers Party nutter” he is referring to. A few other people wrote to me in private objecting to this statement. I stand by my comments. I did not just call them pinkos; I called them pinkos in comparison to the Workers Party Platform. The Workers Party Platform stated, as I quoted from the lectern, that taxation is theft. Therefore, obviously, as everyone would surely agree, on the scale of opposition to government, the Workers Party Platform was much more radical than the position of the CIS, the IPA and Andrew Bolt today. Moreover, there is historical significance in my choice of the term “pinko”. Paddy McGuinness, in his 1978 landmark article in the history of the CIS, titled “Where Friedman is a pinko,” said:

The CIS is, as yet, a small body, which was set up to promote the kind of strongly free enterprise views often associated with Milton Friedman. Friedman, however, would look decidedly pink to many of its adherents, who are of the tough pro-capitalist, anti-socialist mould which has been popularised by writers like Ayn Rand. She is not one of their mentors, however — rather, it is the so-called “Austrian” school, as represented by economists like Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, which they follow.

Phelps appears to admit the truth of my comments:

Friday, 10:02pm. Oh, God. It’s all just wall-to-wall Rothbard. I feel like Labor Left at a Spartacist Conference.

A politician mentioned Rothbard! That has got to be some kind of progress. But then, the next day:

Saturday, 1:38pm. [In response to an attendee asking, “When are you coming to #occupymises?”] I’m not. Last night demonstrated that it was not an agenda for reform, but a prescription for irrelevance.

He had paid for the Friday and the Saturday — correction: his taxpayer-funded salary had. I always thought Phelps wanted to reduce the size of government, not reform it. And I thought Phelps would have at least been familiar with the major work of Hayek on strategy. But before we get to Hayek, Workers Party legend Bob Howard made a decisive point:

You can’t change public opinion by telling people what they already agree with.

Similarly, Mont Pelerin Society Treasurer from 1959 to 1969, Clarence Philbrook, said:

Of course the man least demonstrably ineffectual is he who advises others to do what he knows they will do without his advice.

To again delay quoting Hayek on strategy — it will be worth the wait —, I want to talk about another pinko who attended: Dr Steven Kates. He was given a speaking slot. He talked about the differences between the classical school and the Austrian school, managing to do so without pointing out precisely where he thinks the reasoning of the Austrian school is wrong. He refused to apply any economic reasoning to the areas he wants government to run and he said that suggesting he do so was a political question, not an economic one! Hoppe was the speaker following Kates, and responded masterfully in defence of the Austrian school. The recording will be up soon, so for now I just want to comment on his written comments on the Mises Seminar. Here is an excerpt:

But the politics and economics of the Mises people I met with are beyond any possibility of being implemented, and even if there were one chance in a thousand that they might be, I would be doing what I could to get in their way. But really, how realistic is this as a political program?

Libertarians favor the abolition of all States everywhere, and the provision of legitimate functions now supplied poorly by governments (police, courts, etc) by means of the free market. [This being from Murray Rothbard]

Aside from the fact that it will never happen, what is worse is that it seems beyond question that the existence of roving bands of enforcers-for-hire in competition with each other would reduce our freedoms, not increase them.

As for the economics, most of what was discussed derives from the economics of Hayek and Mises which I generally find consistent with my own. And while I am filled with dismay about the mismanagement of our economies by self-seeking government officials and Keynesian bunglers, I do not think that getting rid of central banks or ending fractional reserve banking or requiring banks to hold 100% of their deposits in cash will (a) ever be adopted by anyone anywhere, but (b) and more importantly, I don’t think they would make the minutest difference to the nature, frequency or depth of recessions other than to make them possibly even worse.

… I am all for political freedom but under no circumstances would I support the idea of replacing government with market forces.

The only passages critical of the content — rather than the prospects — of libertarianism in Kates’ comments are the two passages I emboldened. On the second emboldened passage, for now I just want to say that even fractional-reserve free-banking defender, George Selgin, disagrees:

If banks held 100 per cent reserves, they could redeem all their liabilities at once if they had to without precipitating a crisis. A 100 per cent reserve banking crisis is an impossibility.

As for the first emboldened passage: there is no economic reasoning in it. It shows his conclusion, but where is his reasoning? It is not in his recent book titled, “Free Market Economics,” page 12 of which contains:

It is almost impossible to emphasize just how important to an economy the generation of market prices is.

Yet Kates clearly does not want market prices in the very important areas he wants government to control. There is no evidence he has read Hoppe’s masterful The Private Production of Defense. I have made it ridiculously easy for Kates and other writers to read Austrian criticism of their positions in the middle and right columns of It is impossible to have a debate in the comments section of; it is filled with economic illiterates who don’t feel the need to be able to easily follow a comment thread or logical argument. Whenever someone of intelligence comments, like “Jono”, “Robbo” and Louis Hissink in the comments section to Kates’ article, they just get ignored, and because there is no tiered comment capacity, Kates can get away with his cowardice and poor reasoning. Here is a comment from Kates in the comments section:

Markets cannot and will not ever exist without government involvement. Given that is so, what should one do?

Kates has failed to argue why the market cannot and will not ever exist without government involvement. But even if he does not wish to provide any reasoning for such an important point, his decision not to criticise government in the areas he chooses not to remains questionable. As James Fitzjames Stephen said of “representative democracy”:

The waters are out and no human force can turn them back, but I do not see why as we go with the stream we need sing Hallelujah to the river god. [James Fitzjames Stephen, Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, ed. Stuart D. Warner (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1993), p. 156.]

In other words, as explained in the “BUT ANARCHISM WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED?” section in the middle column of, just because there will always be murders in the world, that is no reason for not opposing them or calling them criminal. Yes that is precisely what Kates’ argument amounts to. There were similar comments by others in the same comments section. Here is Rafe Champion:

My take on … the most radical libertarians is that they are speed bumps on the road to serfdom. They will put their bodies on the line to defend freedom but they will not make the effort to explain the first things that need to be done, using arguments that make sense to other people at large.

Well, in the middle and right columns of, you will at least see that we are making some effort, unless you think it looks effortless. But at the very least, you will see that we actually put more effort into explaining things than any other website ever. Here is a comment from David Leyonhjelm who was supported by “JC”:

People who call themselves libertarian but pursue an unrealistic purist agenda and criticise other libertarians who do not measure up to their standards are a frustration … I include the fiat money fanatics, gold standard obsessives and anti-war pacifists. Rothbard is a good example.

They are irrelevant when it comes to making a difference. More importantly, they impede those who are capable of making a difference.

Much of this I have responded to elsewhere in this article, and I realise that I haven’t yet quoted Hayek on strategy as I said I would. But to again delay quoting Hayek, there is something I would like to add here: what have the “relevant” “realists” done in the way of respecting and learning from history? What have they done to make available the work of Bert Kelly and many others? The answer: nothing. Compare nothing to this. Oh, and if he is interested in going the political route, what interest has he shown in the Workers Party, which I have put up all this material about? Leyonhjelm, who seems very confident in his own ability to make a difference, is evidently incapable of finding any way of exploiting all our historical work. We are not impeding him; he is refusing our assistance. It is worth noting that Leyonhjelm’s criticism of Rothbard is also applicable to Ron Paul, who, I daresay, has had more electoral success than Leyonhjelm.

We did manage to attract some members of the IPA. We appreciate their attendance, and to prove it, if they wish to publicly or privately write me any criticism, I promise to respond promptly. I have done much work making those authors they claim to like accessible. So I am at their service in many different ways. I have not seen any public response from any of the IPA attendees, but judging by what they have written publicly afterwards, they did not like it philosophically. For example, James Paterson, Mises Seminar attendee and IPA Review Associate Editor, has in one word dismissed Ron Paul for his “kookiness” in his recent holier-than-thou complaint, originally published on a government-funded website, about the “lacklustre” field of Republican presidential candidates. It is easy to extrapolate from this what Paterson thought of the Mises Seminar; that is, that he did not think about it at all, but just repeats clichéd dismissals he hears others say and adopts them as his own position. I personally and publicly invite him to state why he is no anarchocapitalist (and no Ron Paul fan), and same with the rest of the IPA. As Australia’s Ron Paul, Bert Kelly, said:

These people remind me of the boxer who proudly boasts he will take on allcomers as long as they don’t have a strong left or a vicious right hook.

Similarly, CIS and IPA supporter, Neville Kennard, said:

I wish the think tanks with their classical liberal positions would reply and respond to my views as to the benefits to them of such classical liberal vs anarchocapitalist debates. Are they too scared? They have the talent, the scholars, the finance … Perhaps they don’t have the guts.

What is the motive behind their silence towards Kennard? Surely cowardice alone can’t explain it.

And what is the motive behind their silence, and Leyonhjelm’s silence, and Kates’ silence and Phelps’ silence towards the major work of Hayek on strategy, “The Intellectuals and Socialism”? Here is an excerpt:

In every country that has moved toward socialism, the phase of the development in which socialism becomes a determining influence on politics has been preceded for many years by a period during which socialist ideals governed the thinking of the more active intellectuals. In Germany this stage had been reached toward the end of the last century; in England and France, about the time of the First World War. To the casual observer it would seem as if the United States had reached this phase after World War II and that the attraction of a planned and directed economic system is now as strong among the American intellectuals as it ever was among their German or English fellows. Experience suggests that, once this phase has been reached, it is merely a question of time until the views now held by the intellectuals become the governing force of politics.

The character of the process by which the views of the intellectuals influence the politics of tomorrow is therefore of much more than academic interest. Whether we merely wish to foresee or attempt to influence the course of events, it is a factor of much greater importance than is generally understood. What to the contemporary observer appears as the battle of conflicting interests has indeed often been decided long before in a clash of ideas confined to narrow circles. Paradoxically enough, however, in general only the parties of the Left have done most to spread the belief that it was the numerical strength of the opposing material interests which decided political issues, whereas in practice these same parties have regularly and successfully acted as if they understood the key position of the intellectuals. Whether by design or driven by the force of circumstances, they have always directed their main effort toward gaining the support of this “elite,” while the more conservative groups have acted, as regularly but unsuccessfully, on a more naive view of mass democracy and have usually vainly tried directly to reach and to persuade the individual voter.


Speculations about the possible entire reconstruction of society give the intellectual a fare much more to his taste than the more practical and short-run considerations of those who aim at a piecemeal improvement of the existing order. In particular, socialist thought owes its appeal to the young largely to its visionary character; the very courage to indulge in utopian thought is in this respect a source of strength to the socialists which traditional liberalism sadly lacks.

This difference operates in favor of socialism, not only because speculation about general principles provides an opportunity for the play of the imagination of those who are unencumbered by much knowledge of the facts of present-day life, but also because it satisfies a legitimate desire for the understanding of the rational basis of any social order and gives scope for the exercise of that constructive urge for which liberalism, after it had won its great victories, left few outlets. The intellectual, by his whole disposition, is uninterested in technical details or practical difficulties. What appeal to him are the broad visions, the spacious comprehension of the social order as a whole which a planned system promises.

This fact that the tastes of the intellectual were better satisfied by the speculations of the socialists proved fatal to the influence of the liberal tradition. Once the basic demands of the liberal programs seemed satisfied, the liberal thinkers turned to problems of detail and tended to neglect the development of the general philosophy of liberalism, which in consequence ceased to be a live issue offering scope for general speculation.

Thus for something over half a century it has been only the socialists who have offered anything like an explicit program of social development, a picture of the future society at which they were aiming, and a set of general principles to guide decisions on particular issues. Even though, if I am right, their ideals suffer from inherent contradictions, and any attempt to put them into practice must produce something utterly different from what they expect, this does not alter the fact that their program for change is the only one which has actually influenced the development of social institutions. It is because theirs has become the only explicit general philosophy of social policy held by a large group — the only system or theory which raises new problems and opens new horizons — that they have succeeded in inspiring the imagination of the intellectuals.

The actual developments of society during this period were determined, not by a battle of conflicting ideals, but by the contrast between an existing state of affairs and that one ideal of a possible future society which the socialists alone held up before the public. Very few of the other programs which offered themselves provided genuine alternatives. Most of them were mere compromises or halfway houses between the more extreme types of socialism and the existing order. All that was needed to make almost any socialist proposal appear reasonable to these “judicious” minds, who were constitutionally convinced that the truth must always lie in the middle between the extremes, was for someone to advocate a sufficiently more extreme proposal. There seemed to exist only one direction in which we could move, and the only question seemed to be how fast and how far the movement should proceed.


We need intellectual leaders who are prepared to resist the blandishments of power and influence and who are willing to work for an ideal, however small the prospects of its early realization. They must be men who are willing to stick to principles and to fight for their full realization, however remote.

The practical compromises they must leave to the politicians. Free trade and freedom of opportunity are ideals which still may arouse the imaginations of large numbers, but a mere “reasonable freedom of trade” or a mere “relaxation of controls” is neither intellectually respectable nor likely to inspire any enthusiasm.

The main lesson which the true liberal must learn from the success of the socialists is that it was their courage to be utopian which gained them the support of the intellectuals and therefore an influence on public opinion which is daily making possible what only recently seemed utterly remote. Those who have concerned themselves exclusively with what seemed practicable in the existing state of opinion have constantly found that even this had rapidly become politically impossible as the result of changes in a public opinion which they have done nothing to guide — unless we can make the philosophic foundations of a free society once more a living intellectual issue, and its implementation a task which challenges the ingenuity and imagination of our liveliest minds. But if we can regain that belief in the power of ideas which was the mark of liberalism at its best, the battle is not lost.

Even if they disagree with Hayek, why would they not write their reasons for going a different strategic route, at least for the private perusal of a concerned donor?

Should a future Mises Seminar be a sequel, remake, rerun or a different genre, format and/or medium?

In addition to the discounted price for female attendees, as discussed above, maybe there is also a good idea here for encouraging statists to attend: why not every libertarian conference registrant must bring one statist, included in the individual registration price?

Instead of a future Mises Seminar, maybe we should just get all the participants to stack big Liberal, Labor, Greens, Sydney Institute type events, and hijack them, or get kicked out of them and then we can go close by for dinner.

We should do more to include our philosophical opponents — Justin Jefferson has some ideas here — and more to celebrate veteran Australian free-marketeers. It would be a good idea to do a Festschrift for Viv Forbes, but I fear there is no one who could show him the respect he deserves. We could not aim any higher. It can be good to be ambitious. I get the feeling that with I have barely scratched the surface of Viv Forbes’ free-market advocacy, and I know almost nothing of his relationship with Bert Kelly (who is Australia’s Ron Paul, and deserves to be known internationally for his Bastiat-like columns, to name eight: 1, 23, 45, 6, 7 and 8) and Lang Hancock (who also deserves to be an international household name, and, it appears, soon will be).

Now that we have already had Professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe in Australia, thanks to Neville Kennard, the question arises: who, if Nev is equally magnanimous, we should get next year? Not that it is my decision, but after giving the matter due thought, I have found a suitable name that might even be comparable to Hoppe in 2011: Hoppe in 2012. The CIS do not appear to like him, so that is a very strong recommendation. Evidently, the CIS are not interested in being part of the big tent of free-market thought; they are dogmatic, immature and close-minded. If anyone cares to explain the position of the CIS to me, or to provide any criticism of Hoppe and, I would love to receive it and I will even help publicise it (if you give me express written permission). I do not talk about you behind your back; I am open, transparent, accessible and respond to all questions and criticism.

(in order of appearance on
  1. Acquiescence
  2. Sports Fans Should Be Libertarians
  3. Ron Manners’ Heroic Misadventures
  4. Government Schools Teach Fascism Perfectly
  5. Deport Government to Solve Immigration Problem
  6. The Drugs Problem Problem
  7. Self-Defeating Campaigning
  8. Gittinomics: Economics for Gits
  9. Exclusive Ross Gittins Interview on The Happy Economist
  10. Population Puzzle Solved
  11. An Open Letter to the CIS
  12. Principled Foreign Policy Options: Reinvade or Shut Up and Get Out
  13. WORLD EXCLUSIVE: Political Corruption Exposed!
  14. Feedback please: Is this worth doing?
  15. CIS and IPA Defend State Schooling
  16. A Thorough Review Without Spoilers of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps
  17. Dead Reckoning and Government: A Proposal for Electoral Reform
  18. Quadrant Defends State Schooling
  19. The MPS 2010 Consensus
  20. Slogans for Property Rights Funeral
  21. Government is Impossible: Introduction
  22. Government is Criminal: Part 1
  23. Exclusive John Howard Interview on Lazarus Rising
  24. Response to Senator Cory Bernardi and the IPA
  25. Earn $$$$$ by Justifying Government Against Anarchocapitalism: Survey
  26. Statism is Secrecy: WikiLeaks vs
  27. One question the Labor Party, the Liberal Party, the Greens, the CIS, the IPA, Ross Gittins, Ross Garnaut, Ken Henry, Gerard Henderson, John Quiggin, Clive Hamilton, Tim Flannery, Catallaxy Files, Club Troppo, Larvatus Prodeo, Phillip Adams, Robert Manne, Michael Stutchbury, Miranda Devine, Andrew Bolt and Dick Smith are scared to answer
  28. Libertarian Philanthropists Should Exploit Tax Evasion Convictions
  29. Ronald Kitching Obituary
  30. The Minarchist Case for Anarchism
  31. Libertarianism in a 300-word rant
  32. in the news again
  33. Libertarianism In An Executive Summary
  34. The Banking Bubble Blow-by-Blow
  35. WARNING: Libertarianism Is NOT ...
  36. Would Anything Possibly Convince You that You Are Living Under a Protection Racket?
  37. An Open Letter to Dick Smith
  38. at 42
  39. "My boyfriend calls himself a Marxist and votes Labor, what should I do?"
  40. "He says if I leave him due to politics, I should leave the country too."
  41. No Booboisie at Gülçin’s Galt’s Gulch
  42. "Hey, Mr Anarchocapitalist, show me a society without government"
  43. The Three Epoch-Making Events of the Modern Libertarian Movement
  44. Government is Criminal: Part 2 - Methodological Individualism
  45. Government is Criminal: Part 3 - Subjective Utility
  46. Government is Criminal: Part 4 - Praxeological Synonyms
  47. Government is in a State of Anarchy
  48. Limited Government is Absolute Government
  49. Why the 2012 double Nobel laureate is coming to Sydney
  50. Exclusive Oliver Marc Hartwich Interview on Hans-Hermann Hoppe
  51. A Critique of the Opening Two Sentences of the "About CIS" Page on The Centre for Independent Studies' Website,
  52. An invitation for ANDEV members to the Mises Seminar
  53. Sell the ABC to Rupert Murdoch: Lid Blown on ABC Funding Disgrace!
  54., The Centre for Independent Studies new blog
  55. The Unconstitutionality of Government in Australia (demonstrated in under 300 words)
  56. The Best Libertarian Film Is ...
  57. Launch Southeast Asian Military Operations to Free Australian Drug Dealers and Consumers
  58. Workers Party Reunion Intro
  59. Hoppe's Inarticulate Australian Critics: The Hon Dr Peter Phelps, Dr Steven Kates and James Paterson
  60. Vice Magazine Westralian Secession Interview
  61. Sideshow to Dr Steven Kates' criticism of the Mises Seminar: Davidson vs Hoppe on Adam Smith
  62. The Best Australian Think Tank Is ...
  63. Announcing a new magazine to rival Time and The Economist
  64. The exciting new Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
  65. Neville Kennard Obituary
  66. Contrarian Conformism
  67. An invitation for Dick Smith, the IPA and other Walter Block fans to the 2nd Australian Mises Seminar
  68. Westralian mining legend Ron Manners of Mannkal belongs in The Property and Freedom Society
  69. What would Bert Kelly think of the Mises Seminar and Walter Block?
  70. Bad news about the Mises Seminar
  71. Gina Rinehart Fan Club gives big to Australian political education
  72. Sam Kennard wins North Sydney by-election by unanimous consent
Powered by Hackadelic Sliding Notes 1.6.5