• "Well written, well researched, and the thesis put forth is well argued.... Woods has opened up an area of historical analysis that should invite further study."
    -Journal of American History

  • "During these times that challenge our freedoms there is no one more qualified to make U.S. history relevant to the fight against big government than Thomas Woods."
    -Barry Goldwater Jr.
    Former Member of Congress

  • "I strongly recommend Woods's work."
    -The Honorable Ron Paul,
    U.S. House of Representatives

  • "Written with great clarity and fluency, making the complex philosophical and theological concepts approachable."
    -Journal of American Studies

  • "A must-read."
    -Barron's

  • "An excellent reading source for anyone interested in financial markets, and much more so for anyone interested in learning about capitalism without all the misinterpretations being thrown about in the financial media."
    -Asia Times

  • "Provocative, well-written, and deserves to be read."
    -Catholic Historical Review

  • "An engaging and important contribution to scholarship on the history of American Catholicism."
    -Journal of the Historical Society

  • "Woods and [co-author Kevin] Gutzman appeal to both left and right in this constitutionalist jeremiad…. The authors' exegeses of the Constitution and court decisions, heavy on original intent arguments, are lucid and telling."
    -Publishers Weekly

  • "A marvelous read. Every chapter taught me something new and unexpected."
    -Tom Bethell, senior editor,
    The American Spectator

  • "The hottest book today is Meltdown, by my friend Tom Woods."
    -Judge Andrew Napolitano, senior judicial analyst,
    FOX News Channel

  • "Should be required reading."
    -Economic Affairs (London)

  • "Woods, one of the best classical liberal [libertarian] scholars of his generation, has once more placed us in his debt with this lucid and tightly argued book."
    -David Gordon, The Mises Review

  • "Tom Woods is one of my dearest allies in the struggle against wrong-headed and dangerous economic policy."
    -Peter Schiff

Lew Rockwell’s New Blog

Lew Rockwell now has a political blog, which he runs himself, in addition to the group blog at LewRockwell.com.  As usual with Lew, it’s well worth reading, and great fun to read to boot.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • Ridin’ Dirty

    As usual with Lew, his views are not subject to opposing opinions. Hence, the lack of a comments.

    And not surprisingly, considering the ‘house of cards’ upon which Lew’s ideological worldview is constructed.

  • Rocksteady_Organ

    @ Ridin’ Dirty, if you want to criticize Lew Rockwell’s thoughts, you can do so publically on Facebook. You’ll find that he cross-posts nearly everything there with things from the LewRockwell.com blog. There. Now go display your opposing opinions.

  • Ridin Dirty

    I prefer to expose the absurdity of Lew and Tom’s views on this site for now. For example,both of these fringe ideologues favor a demonstrably failed system — maximal-capitalism.

    Indeed, the genius von Mises rejected this fantasy.

    Equally irrational is Tom’s and Lew’s attack on a system that has bestowed more political and civil liberties than any other in recorded history — Liberal Democracy.

    Of course ,we still need to severely attenuate government fiscal and monetary abuses. However these shortcomings can best be addressed within the present civil and political framework (balanced budget amendment, eliminatoin of the FED, limiting government spending to 10-15% GDP, removal of commerce clause, general welfare clause, et al).

    In contrast, Tom’s far more unrealistic and dangerous view of ‘balkanization’ and destruction of the most effective system known for protecting against statist civil and political abuses at home while still being able to engage external statist threats abroad is welcomed by statist as an opening they can exploit to assume absolutist powers in the absence of the balances, decentralization, checks, and transparency present within the present system.

    Tom and Lew would both be better served if they spent more time learning the practical machinations of our Constitutional Federal Republic then irrelevant and counterproductive criticism of those practitioners who wield power. For example, instead of submitting or temporarily hiding (nullification) from profligate spending liberals who have used the Constitution to further their own destructive ends — why don’t Tom and Lew use this system to further their ends ? Why not undermine statism in one fell swoop in a grand display of Federal ‘nullification’ ?

    Wouldn’t it be easier and more effective in the long term to end statist economic abusesat its source in Washington rather than balkanizing the US into tiny vulnerable capitalist enclaves ?

    Easy answer. Save considerable minutia and anecdotal evidence of dubious practical value, these ideologues are clueless faith-based adherents to a failed system. I have seen them on the Left as well — Marxists.

    Tom can continue to sell books to impressionable young drones and old eccentrics on the extreme Left and Right.

    But step aside and let the grown-ups engage statists economic abuses within the Constitutional framework that protects his right to trumpet his fantasy utopian alternatives

  • Anonymous

    Yes, all of these aims can be accomplished through conventional means. What could be more obvious? We’re practically on the verge of repealing the commerce and general welfare clauses; everyone’s talking about it.

    I repeat: you would last five minutes on a neocon or progressive blog.

  • Ridin Dirty

    I advocate a balanced budget amendment, restrictions on government spending per GDP, the elimination of the Fed, removal of the commerce and general welfare clauses as possible actions to forestall statist economic abuses, and you criticize this as unrealistic.

    Yet, you advocate the utter rejection of the Constitution and with it our political and civil society for the fantasy of anarcho-capitalism that even von Mises rejected, and you characterize this as ‘reasonable’ ?!

    Your amusing if nothing else Tom.

    And I have no problems defending my views on progressive and neocon blogs. Their views are no less contradictory and untenable as yours.

  • cloakmanor

    “For example,both of these fringe ideologues favor a demonstrably failed system — maximal-capitalism.”

    In what fantasy world are you living in? Where is this “maximal capitalism” that has allegedly failed?

  • Ridin Dirty

    In what fantasy world are you living in? Where is this “maximal capitalism” that has allegedly failed? –cloakmanor

    IN what fantasy world has maximal capitalism succeeded ?

    Indeed, both Hayek and von Mises rejected this utopian absurdity.

    In sum, where is this ‘maximal capitalism’ that has allegedly succeeded?

  • Anonymous

    I am obviously beyond reason, so why do you bother?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_QLMTGAWBOVYUILBAP2YQAIDTHQ Eric Hyde

    Ridin’ Dirty, the obvious reason Mises wasn’t an an-cap is because he came before an-capism was a properly constructed political philosophy (for the most part). The same may not be said for Hayek, but name-dropping Hayek and Mises won’t accomplish anything. Perhaps Mises was inconsistent in his application of his economic theorizing? Have you considered that?

  • Ridin Dirty

    You want to lump me in within Hayek and von Mises and claim that we represent an ‘inconsistent application of economic theorizing’ that is fine with me kid.

    moreover, you haven’t answered my challenge of why ‘ancapism’ doesn’t have an ideological, geographical,cultural, political, military, social, et al ‘pot to piss in’ save the typical fringe faith-based hangers-on that occupy every failed extremist ideological view

  • Ridin Dirty

    Why do you rebut liberals when they are also beyond reason Tom?

    And why do I rebut your untenable fringe views on how best to undermine statist abuses?

    Indeed, why does a dog licks his balls?

    Because we can.

    for example, the means by which you offer to attack statist power is unsound. It will simply create a dynamic in which statism can re-emerge internally from a temporary hiatus with far less restaint and far more power.

    Similarly, your well-intentioned, yet naive, anarchist schemes will leave the American civil society far more vulnerable to external statist threats than ever before.

    The same coercive external statist threats that have undermined virtually all societies since time immemorial, and exist today outside your faith-based pacifist gaze

  • Anonymous

    Answer my question. I am obviously hopeless, according to you, so why come here and try to force your conventional opinions on me? What exactly do I, the site owner, stand to gain from constant abuse? Seriously, I am wondering how you think about this.

  • Anonymous

    But I ignore people who use stupid, MSM words like “fringe.” Gee, I’m not in the mainstream? Who in his right mind would want to be?

    If you’re going to spend your time posting your conventional views, at least be courteous. Is that so much to ask? You respond with indignation when people criticize you, even though I can find at least a dozen names you have called other people. Physician, heal thyself.

  • Ridin Dirty

    Answer my question. I am obviously hopeless, according to you, so why come here and try to force your conventional opinions on me? What exactly do I, the site owner, stand to gain from constant abuse? Seriously, I am wondering how you think about this. –Tom Woods

    Constant abuse?!

    Tom I am simply exercising my responsibility as an actor in a free society to question the veracity of the views you have offered for public scrutiny.

    Of course you have the option to ban my views as the moderators at Mises.org have done if likewise you don’t have the intellectual wherewithal or courage to defend your views

    Imagine that, getting banned by an anarchist website.

    The more I delve into the folly of anarchist dogma the more entertaining and amusing the journey.

    hi to my pappy in China!

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_FNOUJ4YRUCVFEBPYFJ3U45VDR4 Matthew

    Speaking of questioning the veracity of anarcho-capitalist standard bearers, I’d really like to see Lew Rockwell finally post an interview in his podcast series that has a guest with whom he vehemently disagrees. Its a minor point, since he is obviously free to conduct his show in any manner he likes, but I do wonder if the lack of disagreement in his shows results from an unwillingness to participate in debate on a one-on-one basis in real time, or rather, that he can’t get anyone of import to agree to engage him. Either case would be disappointing, because there is so much potential for great discussion to be had with people who exist outside of the relatively miniscule spectrum of Rothbardian/Hoppean anarchists.

  • Mark

    Rockwell did a good interview with Financial Sense Newshour yesterday:
    Link:
    http://mlatrader.com/?p=31

Find me on Google