Well in that incredibly contrived scenario that you have stipulated without providing evidence, I suppose that one of two things will happen. Either people will stop trading in mutualist bank notes. Or else they will trade in them, but at a discount from their face value. Of course both of these things have happened in real-world cases where people dealt in multiple currencies at varying levels of trust. As for your second question, I am sure there are a lot of reasons. But I'm not sure what they would demonstrate about likely outcomes in a freed market for media of exchange; because of course the historical development of money, and the eventual adoption of metal currencies over alternative paths (or over a mess of many different moneys, being used in different contexts), had basically nothing at all to do with free markets, and everything to do with government systems of taxation, tribute, military salaries, currency monopoly, and [massive, lethal state violence as a subsidy to the extraction of precious metals](http://radgeek.com/gt/2011/10/04/all-that-glitters/). Of course, as has also been pointed out, most mutual banking proposals were not backed by promises of future labor. For whatever that's worth. Not even Warren's labor-note system was purely backed by promises of future labor; he more or less always included a specific peg to a universally marketable commodity.

In more uplifting news, I found the proper bibliographical source, and the correct wording, for an unsourced Karl Hess quote that I’ve been chasing for 9 months. This is extremely exciting.

is prepping an old Ubuntu machine to be reformatted and migrated to Windows Vista. I have my reasons, but I can’t help but find the whole process a bit demoralizing.

John,

The quotation you’ve pulled from Liberty here (“But prudence is understood to be a virtue . . .”) may well be representative of Schulder’s views, but the words you quote are not by Fred Schulder. The article you’re quoting from (“Who Is A Rascal?”) is by Steven T. Byington; Fred Schulder wrote the article immediately above it, “A Healthy Sign.”

The formatting that Anarchy Archives did on the issue unfortunately makes this less than clear, but Tucker more or less always put author’s signatures at the end of the articles, not above the headlines, as you can see in the original page layout.

Hope this helps.

is typing up some Karl Hess articles for an upcoming post at Fair Use Repository. To-day’s transcription: “An Open Letter to Barry Goldwater,” from Ramparts (October 1969)

Hayek’s published writing about Pinochet is an awful example of politically-motivated excuse-making. But it’s hard to know what in the world the out-of-left comparison to Robeson in the pull-quote here is supposed to be based on, other than wishful thinking about the people that the author would like to admire. Certainly if we are supposed to draw some kind of conclusion from what Robeson actually wrote and said about Stalin, it’s hard to imagine anything Hayek could possibly have published that would indicate a greater ”love” for Pinochet than what Robeson said in, say, ”To You Beloved Comrade” (1953):

”. . . Suddenly everyone stood—began to applaud—to cheer—and to smile. The children waved. In a box to the right—smiling and applauding the audience—as well as the artists on the stage—stood the great Stalin. I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Paul to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul, Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets. . . .

. . . Colonial peoples today look to the Soviet Socialist Republics. They see how under the great Stalin millions like themselves have found a new life. They see that aided and guided by the example of the Soviet Union, led by their Mao Tse-tung, a new China adds its mighty power to the true and expanding socialist way of life. They see formerly semi-colonial Eastern European nations building new People’s Democracies, based upon the people’s power with the people shaping their own destinies. So much of this progress stems from the magnificent leadership, theoretical and practical, given by their friend Joseph Stalin. They have sung—sing now and will sing his praise—in song and story. Slava – slava – slava – Stalin, Glory to Stalin. Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands. In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through the years, his contributions to the science of our world society remain invaluable. One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future. Yes, through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage. Most importantly—he has charted the direction of our present and future struggles. He has pointed the way to peace—to friendly co-existence—to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions—to the end of war and destruction. How consistently, how patiently, he labored for peace and ever increasing abundance, with what deep kindliness and wisdom. He leaves tens of millions all over the earth bowed in heart-aching grief. But, as he well knew, the struggle continues. So, inspired by his noble example, let us lift our heads slowly but proudly high and march forward in the fight for peace—for a rich and rewarding life for all. . . .”

Hayek wrote a lot of rubbish about Pinochet and about Chile. But as far as I can tell — and please feel free to tell me if there is something that I am missing — he never wrote anything that even comes within an order of magnitude of this.

You write: "Hayek loved Pinochet more than Paul Robeson ever loved Joseph Stalin."

Is this comparative judgment based on some evidence? Or on anything other than political loyalties and enmities? If so, on what?

I ask, because Hayek's published comments on Pinochet are really awful exercises in politically-motivated excuse-making. And Robeson was in many ways an admirable man and a great one. But admirable men can be dreadfully wrong, and if you are going to fling in an out-of-left-field comparative statement like this, then I have to wonder what it is supposed to be based on. If we are to look at his writing and his public statements, it is hard to think of what Hayek could possibly have said that would outstrip the kind of sycophancy that Robeson displayed in, say, "To You Beloved Comrade." A sample:

"Suddenly everyone stood—began to applaud—to cheer—and to smile. The children waved. In a box to the right—smiling and applauding the audience—as well as the artists on the stage—stood the great Stalin. I remember the tears began to quietly flow and I too smiled and waved. Here was clearly a man who seemed to embrace all. So kindly—I can never forget that warm feeling of kindliness and also a feeling of sureness. Here was one who was wise and good—the world and especially the socialist world was fortunate indeed to have his daily guidance. I lifted high my son Paul to wave to this world leader, and his leader. For Paul, Jr. had entered school in Moscow, in the land of the Soviets. . . .

". . . Colonial peoples today look to the Soviet Socialist Republics. They see how under the great Stalin millions like themselves have found a new life. They see that aided and guided by the example of the Soviet Union, led by their Mao Tse-tung, a new China adds its mighty power to the true and expanding socialist way of life. They see formerly semi-colonial Eastern European nations building new People’s Democracies, based upon the people’s power with the people shaping their own destinies. So much of this progress stems from the magnificent leadership, theoretical and practical, given by their friend Joseph Stalin. They have sung—sing now and will sing his praise—in song and story. Slava - slava - slava - Stalin, Glory to Stalin. Forever will his name be honored and beloved in all lands. In all spheres of modern life the influence of Stalin reaches wide and deep. From his last simply written but vastly discerning and comprehensive document, back through the years, his contributions to the science of our world society remain invaluable. One reverently speaks of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin—the shapers of humanity’s richest present and future. Yes, through his deep humanity, by his wise understanding, he leaves us a rich and monumental heritage. Most importantly—he has charted the direction of our present and future struggles. He has pointed the way to peace—to friendly co-existence—to the exchange of mutual scientific and cultural contributions—to the end of war and destruction. How consistently, how patiently, he labored for peace and ever increasing abundance, with what deep kindliness and wisdom. He leaves tens of millions all over the earth bowed in heart-aching grief. But, as he well knew, the struggle continues. So, inspired by his noble example, let us lift our heads slowly but proudly high and march forward in the fight for peace—for a rich and rewarding life for all. . . ."

In better news: there’s a mailing going out today. MA #31 includes essays on the corporate economy and state domination by Anthony Gregory and Anna O Morgenstern. ACS #18 includes an Introduction to libertarianism by Charles T. Sprading.

Every time I print out a monthly batch of booklets I discover new reasons to loathe Adobe and its products.