Who are the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?

[Galileo Galilei]

Socrates
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates

Jesus of Nazareth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus

Origen; the Man of Steel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

John Locke
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke

Voltaire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire

Adam Smith
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith

Patrick Henry
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Henry

Thomas Paine
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Paine

Thomas Jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson

George Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington

James Madison
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Madison

Grover Cleveland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Cleveland

Friedrich Hayek
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Hayek

Ayn Rand
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

Ron Paul
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul

Paul Craig Roberts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Craig_Roberts

Thomas DiLorenzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_DiLorenzo

Thomas Woods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Woods

Lew Rockwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lew_Rockwell

Alex Jones
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio)

[Gaius1981]

John Locke, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Madison, George Washington and Ayn Rand, have most likely made the greatest impact.

Honorable mention to my favorite President though -- Grover Cleveland.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than no liberty whatsoever.

[Kludge]

John Stossel.

[BuddyRey]

Great poll, but it's missing Frederic Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Mary Ruwart, and Ian Freeman! :D

[Kludge]

Great poll, but it's missing Frederic Bastiat, Lysander Spooner, Murray Rothbard, Mary Ruwart, and Ian Freeman! :D

... And John Stossel.

[Young Paleocon]

Why is Smith on there?

[Galileo Galilei]

Why is Smith on there?

He wrote the single most influential book in the history on economics, which desroyed the notion of mercantile economics and promoted the free market.

[Truth Warrior]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists.html (http://www.lewrockwell.com/columnists.html)

[Zolah]

I'd kinda like to have seen Adam Kokesh on the list, either way I voted for Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul.

[Galileo Galilei]

Note - I didn't put Galileo on the list, because I didn't think it was fair to vote for myself.

:-)

In my opinion, Galileo is the greatest and most influential defender of liberty.

Galileo Galilei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

I know we have a James Madison who roams these parts, has he voted yet?

[Gaius1981]

I'd kinda like to have seen Adam Kokesh on the list, either way I voted for Voltaire, Thomas Jefferson and Ron Paul.

Somehow, putting Kokesh on the same list as Thomas Jefferson and Ayn Rand, seems very wrong. That angry young man has ways to go before he can be measured by those standards. :)

[Xenophage]

Where's Captain America? Where's Superman? WHAT THE HELL KIND OF POLL IS THIS?

[Young Paleocon]

Why isn't Bastiat, Say, von Mises, or Rothbard on here?

[Xenophage]

Why isn't Bastiat, Say, von Mises, or Rothbard on here?

Or mothafuckin' Thor! He's getting a movie soon.

[Galileo Galilei]

Why isn't Bastiat, Say, von Mises, or Rothbard on here?

I didn't put Bastiat on because he is not very well known, although his book the Law is a top three Libertarian book in my opinion.

[Galileo Galilei]

So far, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Woods are polling ahead of Jesus!

Christ almighty!!

[ronpaulhawaii]

So far, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Woods are polling ahead of Jesus!

Christ almighty!!

TW noticed :D

From FB, this AM (Strange how it reformats...)


Tom Woods (http://www.new.facebook.com/profile.php?id=84101326&ref=mf) Yep, it's me, Jesus, Socrates, and a few others. (Couldn't resist posting this.)

http://external.ak.fbcdn.net/safe_image.php?d=96496d3fce9e5e286edbd1406ba01eec&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ronpaulforums.com%2Flibertyfo restlogo1.png
(http://www.new.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=72072493712&h=of8E5&u=nOT_s&ref=mf)

Who are the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty? - Liberty Forest (http://www.new.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=72072493712&h=of8E5&u=nOT_s&ref=mf)
Source: www.ronpaulforums.com
Who are the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?

haha

[Xenophage]

Jesus is on this list?

I thought Goku killed him. Wtf.

[tremendoustie]

Liberty for the sake of liberty is no better than no liberty whatsoever.

I disagree. Morality is its own end. It is immoral to deprive another of liberty, therefore liberty is its own end.

[tremendoustie]

So far, Ron Paul, Thomas Jefferson, and Thomas Woods are polling ahead of Jesus!

Christ almighty!!

It's because the Christians put down RP, TJ, and TW, as well as Christ, and the atheists just put down RP, TJ, and TW.

I would like to see more votes for some of the earlier economic and philisophic theorists, though.

[Galileo Galilei]

TW noticed :D

From FB, this AM (Strange how it reformats...)



haha

What is the exact link of the info? I can't find it.

[Kludge]

TW noticed

Oh, Heavens. The poor bastard subjects himself to us?


A pity vote from me.

[Conza88]

This poll fails.

[sailor]

Spartacus.

[Invalid]

Mises?

How about Albert Jay Nock too.

[Conza88]

Mises?

How about Albert Jay Nock too.

A man's who life motto is: "Do not give into evil, but proceed ever more boldly against it."

Is unworthy of even being considered... :rolleyes:

And Albert Jay Nock, one of the men in the Remnant... no wayyyy hozzzayyy

[Invalid]

I voted for Hayek since he was the best choice on the list.

[Conza88]

He wrote the single most influential book in the history on economics, which desroyed the notion of mercantile economics and promoted the free market.

Wrong.

The Adam Smith Myth by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard104.html)

Most influential? Tell that to Keynes. Destroyed Mercantilism? GTFO.



The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon. Far worse was Smith's complete failure to cite or acknowledge his beloved mentor Francis Hutcheson, from whom he derived most of his ideas as well as the organization of his economic and moral philosophy lectures. Smith indeed wrote in a private letter to the University of Glasgow of the 'never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Hutcheson,' but apparently amnesia conveniently struck Adam Smith when it came time to writing the Wealth of Nations for the general public.[ii]


"In castigating Adam Smith for errors, therefore, we are not being anachronistic, absurdly punishing past thinkers for not being as wise as we who come later. For Smith not only contributed nothing of value to economic thought; his economics was a grave deterioration from his predecessors: from Cantillon, from Turgot, from his teacher Hutcheson, from the Spanish scholastics, even oddly enough from his own previous works, such as the Lectures on Jurisprudence (unpublished, 1762–63, 1766) and the Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)."


The mystery of Adam Smith, then, is the immense gap between a monstrously overinflated reputation and the dismal reality.

It continues...

[ronpaulhawaii]

What is the exact link of the info? I can't find it.

Click on his name on my post, and scroll down...

[Romantarchist]

This poll fails.


Yeah it does. How on Earth is Jesus not in 1st place?

[He Who Pawns]

where is SCHIFF??

[Bryan]

Bump for more votes. :)

[Galileo Galilei]

Wrong.

The Adam Smith Myth by Murray N. Rothbard (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard104.html)

Most influential? Tell that to Keynes. Destroyed Mercantilism? GTFO.








It continues...

You need to judge people in the context of their time. For Adam Smith's time, he was a Libertarian, and the most influential economist who has ever lived.

You need to consider the state of economics at the time, which was basically whatever the Kings of each country allowed (mercantilism).

Rothbard fails to grasp that concept in his writings.

Rothbard doesn't have ennough of a following to merit being on this list. Most people have never heard of him.

[Galileo Galilei]

Mises?

How about Albert Jay Nock too.

Nock was a greta writer. Unforunetly, few have read him and he is almost unknown to the public. You can't make a major impact on liberty is your books are not read and your name is not known.

Mises, likewise, is not well known, and he commits a lot of errors in reasoning. Hayek is far superior to Mises.

[weslinder]

I see a blatant omission from this poll. Some guy who ran for President in the sixties and inspired every libertarian for 30 years.

[Galileo Galilei]

Only one vote for Origen, eh?

Well, show me a more radical quote from history better than this one! Keep in mind that Origen, the Man of Steel, was the most famous intellectual in the entire Roman Empire at the time:

"It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic."

Contra Celsus (248 a.d.)

Shortly after writing this, Origen was captured by the Roman Emperor Decius, and brutally tortured, causing his death!!

Go ahead, find a better one.

Vote for the Man of Steel!!!

[Young Paleocon]

You need to judge people in the context of their time. For Adam Smith's time, he was a Libertarian, and the most influential economist who has ever lived.

You need to consider the state of economics at the time, which was basically whatever the Kings of each country allowed (mercantilism).

Rothbard fails to grasp that concept in his writings.

Rothbard doesn't have ennough of a following to merit being on this list. Most people have never heard of him.

I'm not disputing Smith's wide range of influence, but you need to realize that before and during Smith's time there were influential people writing far more free-market oriented texts. Turgot for instance. Smith's pseudo-free market beliefs have led us down the path of the classical school and thus the monetarists, while also giving credence to the labor theory of value by not addressing subjective value in his Wealth of Nations. Though I'm not disputing his influence, I do believe he has confused and perverted many elements of the free-market making our job harder. Just my opinion though.

[Galileo Galilei]

I see James Madison only has 9 votes. Need I remind the folk here of these quotes by the great James Madison:


"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad."


"The executive has no right, in any case, to decide the question, whether there is or is not cause for declaring war."


"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."


"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."


"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."

[sailor]

Rothbard doesn't have ennough of a following to merit being on this list. Most people have never heard of him.

Yes, Rothbard does not have quite the following of Paul Craig Roberts or Alex Jones. :rolleyes:

It seems to me you don`t know what you`re talking about.

[Galileo Galilei]

Yes, Rothbard does not have quite the following of Paul Craig Roberts or Alex Jones. :rolleyes:

It seems to me you don`t know what you`re talking about.

Alex Jones website www.infowars.com has more web traffic now than politico.com, dailykos.com, and rushlimbaugh.com.

It has 2/3 the traffic of cbsnews.com

www.alexa.com

[sailor]

Alex Jones website www.infowars.com has more web traffic now than politico.com, dailykos.com, and rushlimbaugh.com.

It has 2/3 the traffic of cbsnews.com

www.alexa.com

So??

Typical. Instead of admitting and coming clean you digg the hole you`re in deeper.

You are just full of shit. Rotbard doesn`t have enough of a following for the poll, but you include how many of his followers on the very poll? Jeez....

Just say you don`t like him, don`t bullshit.

[danberkeley]

Rothbard doesn't have ennough of a following to merit being on this list. Most people have never heard of him.

What the fuck are you talking about? Who the fuck follows Grover Cleveland? Your poll phails.


You included people from LRC. Who the fuck do you think influenced them more; Grover Cleveland or Alex Jones? Fail. It's a trick question. The answer is Rothbard. Anyone who follows Woods, DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, or Ron Paul, is indirectly influenced by Rothbard and is indirectly a follower of Rothbard.


I see a blatant omission from this poll. Some guy who ran for President in the sixties and inspired every libertarian for 30 years.

Goldwater?

[Galileo Galilei]

What the fuck are you talking about? Who the fuck follows Grover Cleveland? Your poll phails.


You included people from LRC. Who the fuck do you think influenced them more; Grover Cleveland or Alex Jones? Fail. It's a trick question. The answer is Rothbard. Anyone who follows Woods, DiLorenzo, Lew Rockwell, or Ron Paul, is indirectly influenced by Rothbard and is indirectly a follower of Rothbard.



Goldwater?

I'm sorry, the poll only allowed 20 people in it.

[Galileo Galilei]

So??

Typical. Instead of admitting and coming clean you digg the hole you`re in deeper.

You are just full of shit. Rotbard doesn`t have enough of a following for the poll, but you include how many of his followers on the very poll? Jeez....

Just say you don`t like him, don`t bullshit.

I read an article by Rothbard back in the early 1990s, where he suggested that we (the United Stated government) repudiate all the debt.

I thought that was a good idea.

He said that the South never paid back all theri debt after the Civil War, so why should we have to pay back all our today?

[SimpleName]

WOW! Ron Paul, Tommy J, and J.C. topping the list. Jefferson is probably the best example, but Paul has got my heart. He is so honest, fair, reasonable, and principled (Jefferson fudges his own opinions sometimes). I have more man love for that guy than I think I have ever had for anyone. He is a genius in my mind and someone I admire beyond what I previously thought possible.

Goldwater should surely be on there though. Closest victory liberty has had in the 20th century. Despite his more aggressive foreign policy (I see it more as being overly prepared in his case), he definitely deserves a spot with the rest of these guys. No Mises or Rothbard either? Probably better than Socrates and Voltaire.

[Galileo Galilei]

WOW! Ron Paul, Tommy J, and J.C. topping the list. Jefferson is probably the best example, but Paul has got my heart. He is so honest, fair, reasonable, and principled (Jefferson fudges his own opinions sometimes). I have more man love for that guy than I think I have ever had for anyone. He is a genius in my mind and someone I admire beyond what I previously thought possible.

Goldwater should surely be on there though. Closest victory liberty has had in the 20th century. Despite his more aggressive foreign policy (I see it more as being overly prepared in his case), he definitely deserves a spot with the rest of these guys. No Mises or Rothbard either? Probably better than Socrates and Voltaire.

Are you aware that Voltaire had his first best-seller in 1718 and keep printing best-sellers for liberty for 60 years, until he died in 1778.

His collected works fill 104 volumes.

Voltaire is by far the greatest prophet of the Enlightenment. Few in history have had his impact.

[Conza88]

Mises, likewise, is not well known, and he commits a lot of errors in reasoning. Hayek is far superior to Mises.

Hayek is > to Mises?

LMFAO!

Hayek is the weakest Austrian there is. You know fck all. :)

And this poll proves it.

[Conza88]

You need to judge people in the context of their time. For Adam Smith's time, he was a Libertarian, and the most influential economist who has ever lived.

You need to consider the state of economics at the time, which was basically whatever the Kings of each country allowed (mercantilism).

Rothbard fails to grasp that concept in his writings.

Rothbard doesn't have ennough of a following to merit being on this list. Most people have never heard of him.

You didn't read the link did you?

Smith = MARXISTS LOVE HIM AND HOLD HIM UP AS THEIR OWN. LTV mther fcker :eek:

[Galileo Galilei]

You didn't read the link did you?

Smith = MARXISTS LOVE HIM AND HOLD HIM UP AS THEIR OWN. LTV mther fcker :eek:

When Smith wrote, there were no such thing as Marxists.

1776 < 1848

Also, both Smith and Marxists reject monarchies running economies, and organized religion running economies.

Smith made an error regarding pricing, that tends to favor Marxism, but you have to remember that Smith was a pioneer. All pioneers make mistakes.

Smith was the first great economist who promoted the free market.

[Galileo Galilei]

Hayek is > to Mises?

LMFAO!

Hayek is the weakest Austrian there is. You know fck all. :)

And this poll proves it.

Once again, you fail to understand that to be great, you need to be persuassive, which requires an audience.

[danberkeley]

Once again, you fail to understand that to be great, you need to be persuassive, which requires an audience.

How exactly did you go about calculating who has the bigger audience?

[Galileo Galilei]

How exactly did you go about calculating who has the bigger audience?

Its not easy, you have to read 1000s of history books to make a fair judgement, which I have done.

You also must distiguish fame in their own time from fame after death.

Most people have an easier time determining who is still famous now than in their own time. But being famous in your own time is more critical in my opinion because once you achieve fame, you have a large audience. Typically, the most creative thinkers in history are those gain a large audience.

Of those on the list who were the most famous in their time, I'd say that Origen of Alexandria (185-254) is number one, the most famous. He was the first famous Christain in history who was known all over the Roman Empire. He was so well regarded that the wife of the Roman Emperor sought him out for personal teaching. This was in time time when Christianity was persecuted.

Origen wrote more books than any other single author in history, about 6000 of them (according to Epiphanius, his enemy), many which still remain. He employed many scribes. He memorized the entire Bible, and wrote multiple books at the same time, much like a chess grandmaster playing games against multiple opponents at once, moving around a circle making one move at a time.

Origen had 8 scribes in a circle. He wrote 8 books at one time, dictating a sentence or paragraph for each scribe for each book as he moved around the circle. He kept this pace up for decades, until the Romans nabbed him and had him tortured.

Origen also was fluent in several languages including Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, and others. He took different manuscripts of the Bible, and arranged them in parallel columns, 6 to 8, comparing the text by different scribes and in different languages, a gargantuan effort.

In those times, there were not many books. As you can imagine, Origen's books were distributed all over the Roman Empire, flooding the market.

Origen became known as Adamantius, the Man of Steel, and was very popular up until about 400 A.D. when the anti-Liberty, pro-Augustine pro-state forces started to attack Origen in death (even thought they borrowed a large chunk of their stuff from him). Augustine couldn't even read Greek! Then around 550, more anti-Origen forces launched another onslaught against Origen (who had now been dead 300 years).

Frankly, there was a war for liberty raging for 150 years, from the attacks of 400 by Methodius and Augustine, until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when Justinian clamped down on Origen. Origen's defenders fought vainly for liberty during these times, but then the dark age began.

You won't find any support for the crusades in Origen, but you will in Augustine.

Origen was a man who defended human liberty like no other has done before or since. He promoted the human soul to be free and to think, and to resist government authority. He promoted doctrines that lead to a free society, like mercy. Origen believed that the devil could be saved!

Origen also synthesized Greek philosophy with the Bible, so the ideas of Greek liberty could be learned by Christians.

To get an idea of what he was like, please check out:

Early Opposition to Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd10.html

Origen--Continued
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd11.html

The Eulogists of Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd12.html

Augustine and Origen Contrasted
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd20.html

This is what I mean by fame. Origen was the foremost intellectual in the world, from his time in the early 200s, well into the 500s. He changed world history forever. There has never been a man who ever lived who did what Origen did. We today, are all the better for it.

Even today, the part of Christianity that is good and promotes liberty can be traced back to Origen.

Rothbard is nothing but a pimple on an elephant's ass when come comes to comparing Origen with Rothbard's impact on the history of liberty

PS

Usually, the more famous people get, the less radical they get. Not so with Origen.

Origen said:

"It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic."

Contra Celsus (248 a.d.)

[danberkeley]

So you're saying that Grover Cleveland had a bigger audience than Rothbard AND was a greater expounder and defender of liberty?

[Conza88]

When Smith wrote, there were no such thing as Marxists.

1776 < 1848

Also, both Smith and Marxists reject monarchies running economies, and organized religion running economies.

Smith made an error regarding pricing, that tends to favor Marxism, but you have to remember that Smith was a pioneer. All pioneers make mistakes.

Smith was the first great economist who promoted the free market.

Not surprisingly you completely misunderstood my point.

Smith wasn't a pioneer. Smith was not the first great economist who promoted the free market.

Mistakes - he made and compounded on, when there right stuff was already available. Turgot.


On the other hand, Marxists, with somewhat more justice, hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx. Indeed, if the average person were asked to name two economists in history whom he has heard of, Smith and Marx would probably be the runaway winners of the poll.

As we have already seen, Smith was scarcely the founder of economic science, a science which existed since the medieval scholastics and, in its modern form, since Richard Cantillon. But what the German economists used to call, in a narrower connection, Das AdamSmithProblem,[i] is much more severe than that. For the problem is not simply that Smith was not the founder of economics.

The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon. Far worse was Smith's complete failure to cite or acknowledge his beloved mentor Francis Hutcheson, from whom he derived most of his ideas as well as the organization of his economic and moral philosophy lectures. Smith indeed wrote in a private letter to the University of Glasgow of the 'never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Hutcheson,' but apparently amnesia conveniently struck Adam Smith when it came time to writing the Wealth of Nations for the general public.[ii]



But if Smith had an undue appreciation of the importance of the division of labour, he paradoxically sowed great problems for the future by introducing the chronic modern sociological complaint about specialization that was picked up quickly by Karl Marx and has been advanced to a high art by socialist gripers about 'alienation'.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard104.html

Smith never defended liberty. His "works" helped Marxism and set back 'economics' hundreds of years.

[Galileo Galilei]

So you're saying that Grover Cleveland had a bigger audience than Rothbard AND was a greater expounder and defender of liberty?

Cleveland had a much bigger audience. He was president you know. He was more a a defender becasue he set the record for most bills vetoed. He vetoed more bills than all the presidents precedign him combined. He defended the gold standard, even during the Panic of 1893. He expounded liberty and the Constitution in his veto messages.

[Galileo Galilei]

rothbard brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothbard+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Search

879 hits

origen brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=origen+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

12,200 hits

[Galileo Galilei]

Not surprisingly you completely misunderstood my point.

Smith wasn't a pioneer. Smith was not the first great economist who promoted the free market.

Mistakes - he made and compounded on, when there right stuff was already available. Turgot.


On the other hand, Marxists, with somewhat more justice, hail Smith as the ultimate inspiration of their own Founding Father, Karl Marx. Indeed, if the average person were asked to name two economists in history whom he has heard of, Smith and Marx would probably be the runaway winners of the poll.

As we have already seen, Smith was scarcely the founder of economic science, a science which existed since the medieval scholastics and, in its modern form, since Richard Cantillon. But what the German economists used to call, in a narrower connection, Das AdamSmithProblem,[i] is much more severe than that. For the problem is not simply that Smith was not the founder of economics.

The problem is that he originated nothing that was true, and that whatever he originated was wrong; that, even in an age that had fewer citations or footnotes than our own, Adam Smith was a shameless plagiarist, acknowledging little or nothing and stealing large chunks, for example, from Cantillon. Far worse was Smith's complete failure to cite or acknowledge his beloved mentor Francis Hutcheson, from whom he derived most of his ideas as well as the organization of his economic and moral philosophy lectures. Smith indeed wrote in a private letter to the University of Glasgow of the 'never-to-be-forgotten Dr. Hutcheson,' but apparently amnesia conveniently struck Adam Smith when it came time to writing the Wealth of Nations for the general public.[ii]




http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard104.html

Smith never defended liberty. His "works" helped Marxism and set back 'economics' hundreds of years.

That's Rothbard's opinion. Rothbard is very loose with the facts, and he stole most of his ideas from Smith anyway. He is no different than Augustine stealing ideas from Origen and then attacking him.

Hutcheson was a great man, but he did not have the impact of Smith.

[max]

Gotta add Andrew Jackson!...He not only killed the Central Bank...but he PERSONALLY beat up their hired assassin with his walking stick after his revolver misfired!!


Irwin Schiff too (Peter's dada)...he is in prison for his brave fight

[rp08orbust]

Murray Rothbard

[Galileo Galilei]

Gotta add Andrew Jackson!...He not only killed the Central Bank...but he PERSONALLY beat up their hired assassin with his walking stick after his revolver misfired!!


Irwin Schiff too (Peter's dada)...he is in prison for his brave fight

Jackson killed a lot of Indians. How exactly does the trail of tears promote liberty?

[Galileo Galilei]

Murray Rothbard

Free markets follow directly from basic Libertarian Party principles, which include the Nolan Chart and the Oath rejecting initiation of force. These simple Libertarian principles are much simpler and more persuassive than Rothbard's long tedious texts, which often make you ending up wondering if free markets are really the way to go after all.

[muzzled dogg]

rothbard

[Young Paleocon]

Free markets follow directly from basic Libertarian Party principles, which include the Nolan Chart and the Oath rejecting initiation of force. These simple Libertarian principles are much simpler and more persuassive than Rothbard's long tedious texts, which often make you ending up wondering if free markets are really the way to go after all.

Oh I didn't realize the LP created libertarian ideas, how informative.

[rp08orbust]

Murray Rothbard

[danberkeley]

Cleveland had a much bigger audience. He was president you know. He was more a a defender becasue he set the record for most bills vetoed. He vetoed more bills than all the presidents precedign him combined. He defended the gold standard, even during the Panic of 1893. He expounded liberty and the Constitution in his veto messages.

Rephrase your question since it is unclear. Are you asking, "who WERE the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?" Or, are you asking, "who ARE greatest expounders and defenders of liberty?" In other words, what the fuck are you asking? How does Woods or DiLorenzo make it but not Rothbard? I'm sure Rothbard HAD a bigger audience than DiLorenzo. Likewise, I am sure that Rothbard HAS a bigger audience than Cleveland.


rothbard brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=rothbard+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Search

879 hits

origen brilliant prolific great
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=origen+brilliant+prolific+great&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

12,200 hits

So now you're using Google hits?

Futhermore, it is obvious that within the RPF community, Rothbard HAS a greater audience than Origen. This is why your poll DOES fail. I knew who every single one of your options were EXCEPT Origen. You should have known that if you were going to ask RPFers, "[w]ho [ARE] the greatest expounders and defenders of liberty? ", you should have included Rothbard.

[Young Paleocon]

I'm not disputing Smith's wide range of influence, but you need to realize that before and during Smith's time there were influential people writing far more free-market oriented texts. Turgot for instance. Smith's pseudo-free market beliefs have led us down the path of the classical school and thus the monetarists, while also giving credence to the labor theory of value by not addressing subjective value in his Wealth of Nations. Though I'm not disputing his influence, I do believe he has confused and perverted many elements of the free-market making our job harder. Just my opinion though.

Once again, value systems and the rift created between exchange value and use value stem from Wealth of Nations, perverting free market ideas.

[Galileo Galilei]

Oh I didn't realize the LP created libertarian ideas, how informative.

You again confuse creating with popularizing.

I'm sure there were plenty of cavemen who promoted liberty.

The Libertarian Party is one of the best ways to promote liberty because the basic arguments are simple for the masses.

They are also from a third party. If you aren't in a third party, most people zone out and call you a republican or a liberal or whatever group they oppose.

I sent my poll out to some non- Ron Paul groups, and was immediatley attacked by someone who thinks Austrian economists are republicans that promote Wall Street. That's because my poll didn't include any Libertarian Party leaders.

That is one weakness with Ron Paul, he is held down by republican baggage.

Another way to avoid republcian or partisan baggage, is to use the Founding Fathers or other distant historical figures who do not have partisan baggage.

[danberkeley]

You again confuse creating with popularizing.

I'm sure there were plenty of cavemen who promoted liberty.

The Libertarian Party is one of the best ways to promote liberty because the basic arguments are simple for the masses.

They are also from a third party. If you aren't in a third party, most people zone out and call you a republican or a liberal or whatever group they oppose.

I sent my poll out to some non- Ron Paul groups, and was immediatley attacked by someone who thinks Austrian economists are republicans that promote Wall Street. That's because my poll didn't include any Libertarian Party leaders.

That is one weakness with Ron Paul, he is held down by republican baggage.

Another way to avoid republcian or partisan baggage, is to use the Founding Fathers or other distant historical figures who do not have partisan baggage.

Ha! The Republican Party IS and has been a greater expounder and defender of liberty than the Libertarian Party.

[Galileo Galilei]

Once again, value systems and the rift created between exchange value and use value stem from Wealth of Nations, perverting free market ideas.

Those ideas were already present and commom before Wealth of Nations. Wealth of Nations did not become an international classic because it droned out old ideas.

It became a classic because it explained that the free market created wealthy nations, and mercantile economies left nations in poverty.

It explained it in a way that gained widespread acceptance, which promoted liberty. The invisible hand of the market comes from Smith.

Smith's incorrect theory of prices has nothing to do with believing in a free market anyway.

Hayek is the true star regarding the theory of prices.

Rothbard just didn't like Smith, and was upset that he wasn't as successful as Smith.

[Galileo Galilei]

Ha! The Republican Party IS and has been a greater expounder and defender of liberty than the Libertarian Party.

Ya, right, they started out with Abe Lincoln, the dictator. Tell me what liberty the republican party has ever brought me? Nothing but taxes, drug wars, regulation, licensing, wars and socialism.

They have become a cancer on the the graves of the Founding Fathers.

In history, all revolutions come from third parties.

[Young Paleocon]

Those ideas were already present and commom before Wealth of Nations.

Smith didn't right the wrong in his popular book though, he merely made it legitimate for Marxists, and the classical school to use. And I think Rothbard's beef is more along the lines of Smith being credited with the beginnings of all economic thought when there were the the Spanish scholastics, Cantillon, and Turgot who had come before Smith and who had solved many of the problems that Smith compounded.

[Conza88]

Gotta add Andrew Jackson!...He not only killed the Central Bank...but he PERSONALLY beat up their hired assassin with his walking stick after his revolver misfired!

He imposed martial law and cracked down on dissenters.

[danberkeley]

Rothbard just didn't like Smith, and was upset that he wasn't as successful as Smith.

Is that what he told you? :rolleyes:


Tell me what liberty the republican party has ever brought me?

What liberty has the LP brought you?


Nothing but taxes, drug wars, regulation, licensing, wars and socialism.

They have become a cancer on the the graves of the Founding Fathers.

In history, all revolutions come from third parties.

So what? The Republican Party has had greater success expounding and defending of liberty than the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. The Reblican Party isnt all saints, but neither were:

Adam Smith
Thomas Jefferson - president
George Washington - Bank of the United States
James Madison - president
Grover Cleveland - president
Ayn Rand - Hated the Iranians.
Paul Craig Roberts - Expanded drug war.
Thomas DiLorenzo - Former neocon.
Thomas Woods - Former neocon.
Lew Rockwell - Worked in government

Your argument fails and your poll fails.

Anyway, just admit that your original question was unclear. You are probably one of the best expounders and defenders of liberty on this forum.

[Conza88]

Your argument fails and your poll fails.

If only he'd have the balls to admit it. It's as obvious as day. Him trying to rationalize it, is his digging his hole even deeper. lol

[danberkeley]

If only he'd have the balls to admit it. It's as obvious as day. Him trying to rationalize it, is his digging his hole even deeper. lol

Where is Milton Friedman?

[Galileo Galilei]

Smith didn't right the wrong in his popular book though, he merely made it legitimate for Marxists, and the classical school to use. And I think Rothbard's beef is more along the lines of Smith being credited with the beginnings of all economic thought when there were the the Spanish scholastics, Cantillon, and Turgot who had come before Smith and who had solved many of the problems that Smith compounded.

"Richard Cantillon (1680-1734), acknowledged by many historians as the first great economic "theorist", is an obscure character."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon

You really think this dude belongs in the top 20 of all time regarding the promotion of liberty? I could name 20 ancient Greek philosphers who did more for human liberty.

"His work is quoted by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations."

If Cantillon is good, then you should be happy Smith is quoting him.

"According to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Jevons was scarcely exaggerating when he entitled Cantillon's work as the "Cradle of Political Economy"."

Once again, Hayek seems to like this guy, that's good. Cantillon is lucky that Smith and Hayek became popular.

"According to Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek, Jevons was scarcely exaggerating when he entitled Cantillon's work as the "Cradle of Political Economy".

He is certainly an interesting guy, but it is hard to promote liberty when few have heard of you. Wikipedia doesn't even list a single book that he wrote.

Turgot seems like an interesting fellow. But he lived at almost exactly the same time as Smith.

"Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, often referred to as Turgot (10 May 1727 – 18 March 1781), was a French economist and statesman. Today he is best remembered as an early advocate for economic liberalism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Robert_Jacques_Turgot,_Baron_de_Laune

This is great that he did that, but he does not belong in the top 20 promoters and defenders of liberty of all time.

"Turgot's best known work, Réflexions sur la formation et la distribution des richesses (Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth), was written early in the period of his intendancy, ostensibly for the benefit of two young Chinese students.[3] Written in 1766, it appeared in 1769–1770 in Dupont's journal, the Ephémérides du citoyen, and was published separately in 1776."

This is only a little before Wealth of Nations. Given how long Wealth of Nations is, and that Smith worked on it for many years, it's hard to buy that Smith owes much from Turgot's book.

[Galileo Galilei]

Where is Milton Friedman?

I thought the people here didn't like watered down libertarianism?

[Young Paleocon]

Smith and Turgot were friends and corresponded, and the fact that Hayek and Smith quote Cantillon and praise him only makes him more influential because he influenced two widely known economists.

[danberkeley]

I thought the people here didn't like watered down libertarianism?

Friedman did a lot to turn people towards "free markets" and liberty.

[Young Paleocon]

And in my post you were posting about I was merely saying that though Smith is influential, he got a lot of things wrong and legitimized the fallacies further.

[Galileo Galilei]

Is that what he told you? :rolleyes:



What liberty has the LP brought you?



So what? The Republican Party has had greater success expounding and defending of liberty than the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. The Reblican Party isnt all saints, but neither were:

Adam Smith
Thomas Jefferson - president
George Washington - Bank of the United States
James Madison - president
Grover Cleveland - president
Ayn Rand - Hated the Iranians.
Paul Craig Roberts - Expanded drug war.
Thomas DiLorenzo - Former neocon.
Thomas Woods - Former neocon.
Lew Rockwell - Worked in government

Your argument fails and your poll fails.

Anyway, just admit that your original question was unclear. You are probably one of the best expounders and defenders of liberty on this forum.

I thought the republicans destroyed liberty when they invaded the South?

The republican party has done far more to destroy liberty than to promote it.

The Libertarian Party, while it done only a small amount in favor of liberty, has done nothing against liberty.

A postive number is bigger than a negative number.

More crucially, the future of liberty lays in a centrist third party.

[Young Paleocon]

I thought the republicans destroyed liberty when they invaded the South?

The republican party has done far more to destroy liberty than to promote it.

The Libertarian Party, while it done only a small amount in favor of liberty, has done nothing against liberty.

A postive number is bigger than a negative number.

More crucially, the future of liberty lays in a centrist third party.

*Cough*? Wayne Allen Root

[almantimes2]

How are you guys voting for Multiple People? I see some people Who voted for like 4 different people in the results.
Not that it matters just curious.

[heavenlyboy34]

Ha! The Republican Party IS and has been a greater expounder and defender of liberty than the Libertarian Party.

roflmao!! ;):D

[Galileo Galilei]

Friedman did a lot to turn people towards "free markets" and liberty.

I am in agreement that Freidman is net pro-liberty, and he is very influential.

The question is, how much do you have to water down your liberty before it becomes non-important?

I rank Hayek ahead of Rothbard and Freidman because Hayek seems to have found a better balance between being radical but at the same time being relevant to the real world.

Real world:

Freidman > Hayek > Rothbard

Pure Theory/ Radical

Rothbard > Hayek > Friedman

Time will tell how these three men's ideas fare in the future. All have only passed away in the past 15 years.

I predict that Hayek ends up 100 years from now as the most remembered for liberty.

[danberkeley]

I thought the republicans destroyed liberty when they invaded the South?

The republican party has done far more to destroy liberty than to promote it.

The Libertarian Party, while it done only a small amount in favor of liberty, has done nothing against liberty.

A postive number is bigger than a negative number.

Again, the Republican Party has had greater success expounding and defending of liberty than the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. HOWEVER!, the Republican Party has had greater success desroying liberty than the Libertarian Party. I have no trouble clarifying myself.

Hell, Lincoln's act of freeing the slaves was greater than the LP doing nothing.

[Galileo Galilei]

*Cough*? Wayne Allen Root

You don't think Root is more Libertarian than the average republicrat?

I agree that Root is pretty watered down, which is idiotic strategy for a third party.

[danberkeley]

How is Rockwell ahead of Rothbard?
How is Woods, Jr ahead of Rothbard?
How is DiLorenzo ahead of Rothbard?
How is Ron Paul ahead of Rothbard?

What are your criteria for "greatest expounders and defenders of liberty"?
Is it "who's had the greatest influence"?
Is it "who has sold the most books"?
Is it "who's been the most prolific writer"?
Is it "who's ideas were more consistent"?
Is it "who's ideas were more coherent"?
Is it "who HAS the biggest audience"?
Is it "who HAD the biggest audience?"

You left the intepretation of you question very open, therefore, Rothbard's exclusion became a controversy that rivals those on Page Six.

[Galileo Galilei]

Again, the Republican Party has had greater success expounding and defending of liberty than the Democratic Party and the Libertarian Party. HOWEVER!, the Republican Party has had greater success desroying liberty than the Libertarian Party. I have no trouble clarifying myself.

Hell, Lincoln's act of freeing the slaves was greater than the LP doing nothing.

The slaves were freed by the 13th amendment, using the James Madison's Article V. Lincoln was dead by then.

[Young Paleocon]

You don't think Root is more Libertarian than the average republicrat?

I agree that Root is pretty watered down, which is idiotic strategy for a third party.

I think Root is an opportunistic liar just like the republicrats, who has no philosophic grounding and I don't see any difference between him and the republicrats only instead of an R or D it's an L.

[max]

He imposed martial law and cracked down on dissenters.

He did as a General during wartime, for a city that was being attacked by the British. I don't see a problem with that.

No different than a Mayor declaring an emergency during riots.

[Galileo Galilei]

How is Rockwell ahead of Rothbard?
How is Woods, Jr ahead of Rothbard?
How is DiLorenzo ahead of Rothbard?
How is Ron Paul ahead of Rothbard?

What are your criteria for "greatest expounders and defenders of liberty"?

Ron Paul is today's star for liberty. Rothbard never comes close in fame or influence. Ron Paul does nation TV interviews almost every day it seems.

DiLorenzo is a personal favorite of mine and still current, with potential. His books on Lincoln are brillaint and persuassive.

Woods, while I disagree with him on a number of things is a friend of mine, and he has best-sellers.

The two people on the list who are tomoorow's stars for liberty are Woods and Alex Jones, as both are in their mid-30s, and both are gaining a mass audience.

Jones has the bigger audience with his websites and films, but Woods has better academic credentials and might be more influential with intellectuals.

Jones two main websites get more combined hits than cbsnews.com at this time, amazing.

Another thing.

The liberty movement will just tread water if we let the govenrment get away with mass murder. Jones understands that. I'm not sure if the rest do.

[Galileo Galilei]

I think Root is an opportunistic liar just like the republicrats, who has no philosophic grounding and I don't see any difference between him and the republicrats only instead of an R or D it's an L.

It doesn't matter. He didn't get elected. He did a few TV interviews and is gone now.

[danberkeley]

The slaves were freed by the 13th amendment, using the James Madison's Article V. Lincoln was dead by then.

Like I said.

[Klash]

Jesus is an expounder and defender of liberty? This is part of the problem of our country. Christians are coerced by their "god", with the idea of hell, to abide by Christian morality but then turn and believe that they have free will. This same psychology can be seen in Christian citizens supporting government infringement of our rights. Coercing someone not to sin is not considered an infringement of an individuals liberty to some Christians, in their mind individuals still have the right to do it they just have to face the oppressive law; that is not freedom or free will.

[almantimes2]

Jesus is an expounder and defender of liberty? This is part of the problem of our country. Christians are coerced by their "god", with the idea of hell, to abide by Christian morality but then turn and believe that they have free will. This same psychology can be seen in Christian citizens supporting government infringement of our rights. Coercing someone not to sin is not considered an infringement of an individuals liberty to some Christians, in their mind individuals still have the right to do it they just have to face the oppressive law; that is not freedom or free will.

I agree. But in all fairness not all Christians believe in eternal damnation.

[Young Paleocon]

Jesus is an expounder and defender of liberty? This is part of the problem of our country. Christians are coerced by their "god", with the idea of hell, to abide by Christian morality but then turn and believe that they have free will. This same psychology can be seen in Christian citizens supporting government infringement of our rights. Coercing someone not to sin is not considered an infringement of an individuals liberty to some Christians, in their mind individuals still have the right to do it they just have to face the oppressive law; that is not freedom or free will.

I am not a Christian, however, even I can tell that organized religion, people and the acts carried out in the name of Jesus have perverted his original message.

[Galileo Galilei]

I agree. But in all fairness not all Christians believe in eternal damnation.

Origen did not believe in eternal damnation, as he believed even the devil could be saved.

If you are looking for Chritian Liberty, google Origen.

Island of Freedom
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/ORIGEN.HTM

origen liberty
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=origen+liberty&btnG=Search

652,000 hits

[Galileo Galilei]

Archive for the ‘Just War’ Category
Christian Participation in the Military: Origen in Contra Celsum VIII:73
without comments

I am writing a term paper on the Christian doctrine of war and military participation for my church history class. I am focusing on the era ranging from Pentecost to Constantine. I will be sharing some of my findings here. The theologian I wanted to quote today will be Origen of Alexandria. In book VIII of his work Contra Celsum, written against a Roman pagan named Celsum who wrote a treatise against Christianity, Origen addresses the criticism that Christians, by avoiding military service, neglect supporting the emperor and the empire and therefore are not doing what is befitting of good citizens. The is Origen’s response:

We may replay to this that at appropriate times we render to the emperors divine help, if I may so say, by taking up even the whole armour of God. And this we dod in obedience to the apostolic utterance which says: ‘I exhort you, therefore, first to make prayers, supplications, intercessions, and thanksgiving for all men, for emperors, and all that are in authority.’ Indeed, the more pious the man is, the more effective he is in helping the emperors–more so than the soldiers who go out into the lines and kill all the enemy troops that they can.

We would also say this to those who are alien to our faith and ask us to fight for the community and to kill men: that it is also your opinion that the priest of certain images and wardens of the temples of the gods, as you think them to be, should keep their right hand undefiled for the sake of sacrifices to those who you say are gods with hands unstained by blood and pure from murders. And in fact when war comes you do not enlist the priests. If, then, this is reasonable, how much more reasonable is it that, while others fight, Christians also should be fighting as priests and worshippers of God, keeping their right hands pure and by their prayers to God striving for those who fight in a righteous cause and for the emperor who reigns righteously, in order that everything which is opposed and hostile to those who act rightly may be destroyed? Moreover, we who by our prayers destroy all daemons which stir up wars, violate oaths, and disturb the peace, are of more help to the emperors than those who seem to be doing the fighting. We who offer prayers with righteousness, together with ascetic practices and exercises which teach us to despise pleasures and not to be led by them, are cooperating in the tasks of the community. Even more do we fight on behalf of the emperor. And though we did not become fellow soldiers with him, even if he presses for this, yet we are fighting for him and composing a special army of piety through our intercessions to God. [1]

There are several observations that must be made regarding the logic of Origen regarding his stance on this matter.

(1) Origen understands that prayer is more effective in winning a war than the sword. Therefore the prayers of Christians are more valuable because the pious appeal to the Christian God who can help the emperor. We can deduct from this that Origen saw human warfare as both physical and spiritual.

(2) Origen understood war to start with demonic activity and therefore must be ended by praying against that demonic activity. While a soldier may fight physically to preserve the pax Romana, the Christian prayed to preserve that peace. Origen cites 2 Timothy 2:1-2 where the author tells his audience to pray for the emperors and others in authority as his basis for this idea.

(3) Origen uses the logic of Roman religion when he rebuttals his opponent by reminding the reader that it was common amongst Romans to believe that religious priest should not participate in warfare, but rather should offer sacrifices to the Roman gods on behalf of the empire. Origen upholds the Christian doctrine of the priesthood of all believers and therefore teaches that Christians should be included under this umbrella. In other words, Christians are all priest to the Christian God and therefore serve the emperor and the empire through prayers to the Christian God. Also, Christians do not abdicate their responsibility as priest to serve as soldiers, which would be the mixing of two roles that all Romans understood to be uncouth.

(4) Origen does not attack the idea of war directly, nor does he suggest that Christians should not support the Roman state. He merely suggest that it is not the role of the Christian to do so through violence. Some have suggested that Origen actually laid the foundation for Augustine’s Just War Theory here by not denouncing war or the empire. Augustine and other simply built on that foundation after Constantine by suggesting that since the emperor is now a Christian, and the empire is now becoming Christian, the elements of war take on a whole new vantage point.

_______________________________________________
[1] Origen, Contra Celsum, VIII. 73

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:3y6SZidTMJsJ:pasagraphe.wordpress.c om/category/just-war/+origen+just+war+theory&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Conza88]

I thought the people here didn't like watered down libertarianism?

I don't and the Chicago School hardly porposes Liberty.

5th PLANK OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO has ANYTHING to do with MONETARY FREEDOM?

Gtfo.

And whilst we're on about your 'criteria'... I hate the cow, but how do you justiffy not putting Ayn Rand up there?

Book Sales? :confused: lol......

And Rothbard wrote 25 books, Smith? pfffffft... I'd buy Wealth of Nations just to wipe my ass with.

[danberkeley]

And whilst we're on about your 'criteria'... I hate the cow, but how do you justiffy not putting Ayn Rand up there?


Ayn Rand is up there in that list of options.

[danberkeley]

Ron Paul is today's star for liberty. Rothbard never comes close in fame or influence. Ron Paul does nation TV interviews almost every day it seems.

DiLorenzo is a personal favorite of mine and still current, with potential. His books on Lincoln are brillaint and persuassive.

Woods, while I disagree with him on a number of things is a friend of mine, and he has best-sellers.

The two people on the list who are tomoorow's stars for liberty are Woods and Alex Jones, as both are in their mid-30s, and both are gaining a mass audience.

Jones has the bigger audience with his websites and films, but Woods has better academic credentials and might be more influential with intellectuals.

Jones two main websites get more combined hits than cbsnews.com at this time, amazing.

Another thing.

The liberty movement will just tread water if we let the govenrment get away with mass murder. Jones understands that. I'm not sure if the rest do.

What about Rockwell? Your criteria seems to be quite arbitrary.

[glts]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Moroni

[glts]

Ezra Taft Benson

Proper Role of Government
http://www.laissez-fairerepublic.com/benson.htm

[Galileo Galilei]

Its not easy, you have to read 1000s of history books to make a fair judgement, which I have done.

You also must distiguish fame in their own time from fame after death.

Most people have an easier time determining who is still famous now than in their own time. But being famous in your own time is more critical in my opinion because once you achieve fame, you have a large audience. Typically, the most creative thinkers in history are those gain a large audience.

Of those on the list who were the most famous in their time, I'd say that Origen of Alexandria (185-254) is number one, the most famous. He was the first famous Christain in history who was known all over the Roman Empire. He was so well regarded that the wife of the Roman Emperor sought him out for personal teaching. This was in time time when Christianity was persecuted.

Origen wrote more books than any other single author in history, about 6000 of them (according to Epiphanius, his enemy), many which still remain. He employed many scribes. He memorized the entire Bible, and wrote multiple books at the same time, much like a chess grandmaster playing games against multiple opponents at once, moving around a circle making one move at a time.

Origen had 8 scribes in a circle. He wrote 8 books at one time, dictating a sentence or paragraph for each scribe for each book as he moved around the circle. He kept this pace up for decades, until the Romans nabbed him and had him tortured.

Origen also was fluent in several languages including Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, and others. He took different manuscripts of the Bible, and arranged them in parallel columns, 6 to 8, comparing the text by different scribes and in different languages, a gargantuan effort.

In those times, there were not many books. As you can imagine, Origen's books were distributed all over the Roman Empire, flooding the market.

Origen became known as Adamantius, the Man of Steel, and was very popular up until about 400 A.D. when the anti-Liberty, pro-Augustine pro-state forces started to attack Origen in death (even thought they borrowed a large chunk of their stuff from him). Augustine couldn't even read Greek! Then around 550, more anti-Origen forces launched another onslaught against Origen (who had now been dead 300 years).

Frankly, there was a war for liberty raging for 150 years, from the attacks of 400 by Methodius and Augustine, until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when Justinian clamped down on Origen. Origen's defenders fought vainly for liberty during these times, but then the dark age began.

You won't find any support for the crusades in Origen, but you will in Augustine.

Origen was a man who defended human liberty like no other has done before or since. He promoted the human soul to be free and to think, and to resist government authority. He promoted doctrines that lead to a free society, like mercy. Origen believed that the devil could be saved!

Origen also synthesized Greek philosophy with the Bible, so the ideas of Greek liberty could be learned by Christians.

To get an idea of what he was like, please check out:

Early Opposition to Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd10.html

Origen--Continued
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd11.html

The Eulogists of Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd12.html

Augustine and Origen Contrasted
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd20.html

This is what I mean by fame. Origen was the foremost intellectual in the world, from his time in the early 200s, well into the 500s. He changed world history forever. There has never been a man who ever lived who did what Origen did. We today, are all the better for it.

Even today, the part of Christianity that is good and promotes liberty can be traced back to Origen.

Rothbard is nothing but a pimple on an elephant's ass when come comes to comparing Origen with Rothbard's impact on the history of liberty

PS

Usually, the more famous people get, the less radical they get. Not so with Origen.

Origen said:

"It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic."

Contra Celsus (248 a.d.)

Correction:

Justinian condemned Origen in 553 at the Second Council of Constantine, not at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

[danberkeley]

Correction:

Justinian condemned Origen in 553 at the Second Council of Constantine, not at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

lol

[Freedom 4 all]

I don't really understand why Socrates is there.

[Xenophage]

I don't really understand why Socrates is there.

Me either, except that Socrates was probably the baddest ass raver in history and once danced to Darude's Sandstorm for 15 weeks straight before collapsing in an ocean of his own vomit whereupon ants founded the free nation of Socratikstan in his hair.

[Galileo Galilei]

Its not easy, you have to read 1000s of history books to make a fair judgement, which I have done.

You also must distiguish fame in their own time from fame after death.

Most people have an easier time determining who is still famous now than in their own time. But being famous in your own time is more critical in my opinion because once you achieve fame, you have a large audience. Typically, the most creative thinkers in history are those gain a large audience.

Of those on the list who were the most famous in their time, I'd say that Origen of Alexandria (185-254) is number one, the most famous. He was the first famous Christain in history who was known all over the Roman Empire. He was so well regarded that the wife of the Roman Emperor sought him out for personal teaching. This was in time time when Christianity was persecuted.

Origen wrote more books than any other single author in history, about 6000 of them (according to Epiphanius, his enemy), many which still remain. He employed many scribes. He memorized the entire Bible, and wrote multiple books at the same time, much like a chess grandmaster playing games against multiple opponents at once, moving around a circle making one move at a time.

Origen had 8 scribes in a circle. He wrote 8 books at one time, dictating a sentence or paragraph for each scribe for each book as he moved around the circle. He kept this pace up for decades, until the Romans nabbed him and had him tortured.

Origen also was fluent in several languages including Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Syriac, and others. He took different manuscripts of the Bible, and arranged them in parallel columns, 6 to 8, comparing the text by different scribes and in different languages, a gargantuan effort.

In those times, there were not many books. As you can imagine, Origen's books were distributed all over the Roman Empire, flooding the market.

Origen became known as Adamantius, the Man of Steel, and was very popular up until about 400 A.D. when the anti-Liberty, pro-Augustine pro-state forces started to attack Origen in death (even thought they borrowed a large chunk of their stuff from him). Augustine couldn't even read Greek! Then around 550, more anti-Origen forces launched another onslaught against Origen (who had now been dead 300 years).

Frankly, there was a war for liberty raging for 150 years, from the attacks of 400 by Methodius and Augustine, until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, when Justinian clamped down on Origen. Origen's defenders fought vainly for liberty during these times, but then the dark age began.

You won't find any support for the crusades in Origen, but you will in Augustine.

Origen was a man who defended human liberty like no other has done before or since. He promoted the human soul to be free and to think, and to resist government authority. He promoted doctrines that lead to a free society, like mercy. Origen believed that the devil could be saved!

Origen also synthesized Greek philosophy with the Bible, so the ideas of Greek liberty could be learned by Christians.

To get an idea of what he was like, please check out:

Early Opposition to Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd10.html

Origen--Continued
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd11.html

The Eulogists of Origen
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd12.html

Augustine and Origen Contrasted
http://hellbusters.8m.com/upd20.html

This is what I mean by fame. Origen was the foremost intellectual in the world, from his time in the early 200s, well into the 500s. He changed world history forever. There has never been a man who ever lived who did what Origen did. We today, are all the better for it.

Even today, the part of Christianity that is good and promotes liberty can be traced back to Origen.

Rothbard is nothing but a pimple on an elephant's ass when come comes to comparing Origen with Rothbard's impact on the history of liberty

PS

Usually, the more famous people get, the less radical they get. Not so with Origen.

Origen said:

"It is not irrational, then, to form associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were, "Scythian," and despotic."

Contra Celsus (248 a.d.)

Correction:

Justinian condemned Origen in 553 at the Second Council of Constantine, not at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

[Galileo Galilei]

I don't really understand why Socrates is there.

Have you ever heard of the Greek concept of liberty?

Cicero said; "Socrates broght philosophy down from heaven, to earth."

[Galileo Galilei]

Socrates is also the first great advocate for freedom of speech, which the ronpaulforum uses every day.

[danberkeley]

what about aristotle?

[Pennsylvania]

Glenn Beck

[Galileo Galilei]

what about aristotle?

Aristotle set science back 2000 years, until revived by Galileo, starting the Enlightenment.

I'd rank Thales, Pericles, Pythagorus, Aeschylus, Archimedes, Euclid, and Apollonius ahead of Aristotle.

[danberkeley]

Aristotle set science back 2000 years, until revived by Galileo, starting the Enlightenment.

I'd rank Thales, Pericles, Pythagorus, Aeschylus, Archimedes, Euclid, and Apollonius ahead of Aristotle.

what about as far liberty is concerneded?

[Galileo Galilei]

what about as far liberty is concerneded?

That's what I'm talking about. Ever read Prometheus Bound?

[danberkeley]

That's what I'm talking about. Ever read Prometheus Bound?

nope. but i read something about Neitsche in my philosophy textbook. he was a nutcase.

[Galileo Galilei]

what about as far liberty is concerneded?

Ever heard of the Pericles golden age of liberty? Ever investigated the link between science and liberty? Ever heard of Thales, the first Greek philosopher?

The fight for liberty goes back thousands of years. It seems like some here are a bit myopic. I could have added Ashurbanipal to the list as well. Or I could have listed Urukagina.

Others deserving merit include Polybius and Tacitus, or the greatest Roman Emperor of Liberty, Antonius Pius (ruled 138-161).

The first known use of the word meaning "freedom" or "liberty" first occurred under the reign of Urumagina, Ruler of Lagash, around 2300 B.C.

[danberkeley]

Ever heard of the Pericles golden age of liberty? Ever investigated the link between science and liberty? Ever heard of Thales, the first Greek philosopher?

The fight for liberty goes back thousands of years. It seems like some here are a bit myopic. I could have added Ashurbanipal to the list as well. Or I could have listed Urukagina.

Others deserving merit include Polybius and Tacitus, or the greatest Roman Emperor of Liberty, Antonius Pius (ruled 138-161).

The first known use of the word meaning "freedom" or "liberty" first occurred under the reign of Urumagina, Ruler of Lagash, around 2300 B.C.

nope, nope, and nope. are you a professor?

[Galileo Galilei]

Urukagina (c. 2350 BC-)

Urukagina, the leader of the Sumerian city-state of Girsu/Lagash, led a popular movement that resulted in the reform of the oppressive legal and governmental structure of Sumeria.

The oppressive conditions in the city before the reforms is described in the new code preserved in cuneiform on tablets of the period: "From the borders of Ningirsu to the sea, there was the tax collector." During his reign (ca. 2350 B.C.) Urukagina implemented a sweeping set of laws that guaranteed the rights of property owners, reformed the civil administration, and instituted moral and social reforms. Urukagina banned both civil and ecclesiastical authorities from seizing land and goods for payment, eliminated most of the state tax collectors, and ended state involvement in matters such as divorce proceedings and perfume making. He even returned land and other property his predecessors had seized from the temple. He saw that reforms were enacted to eliminate the abuse of the judicial process to extract money from citizens and took great pains to ensure the public nature of legal proceedings.

In this important code is found the first written reference to the concept of liberty (amagi or amargi, literally, "return to the mother"), used in reference to the process of reform. The exact nature of this term is not clear, but the idea that the reforms were to be a return to the original social order decreed by the gods fits well with the translation.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?Itemid=269&id=292&option=com_content&task=view

[Galileo Galilei]

nope. but i read something about Neitsche in my philosophy textbook. he was a nutcase.

Prometheus is a fictional character. He was crazy enough to assert his liberty.

[Young Paleocon]

Even though he was a socialist, why not Orwell?

[Galileo Galilei]

nope, nope, and nope. are you a professor?

No, but I have read 1000s of history books, covering all areas relating to liberty.

[danberkeley]

No, but I have read 1000s of history books, covering all areas relating to liberty.

you must be as old as galileo himself. how do you have so much free time?

[Galileo Galilei]

Even though he was a socialist, why not Orwell?

Who was a socialist?

[Young Paleocon]

George Orwell

[Galileo Galilei]

Even though he was a socialist, why not Orwell?

You don't think that Orwell's books 1984 and Animal Farm promote liberty?

Have you actually read these books?

1984 is anti-war and anti-state.

Animal Farm is anti-socialist and anti-communist.

So what if Orwell was a socialist. If he was, he was a different kind of socialist than today's Socialist party, because he had a lot of appeal to the right.

Also, 99.9% of what people know about Orwell comes from his two famous books, not from his personal life. There are a lot of famous books out there, that little do most people know, the author had some horrible personal attributes. For example, Sir Thomas Mallory, auther of the famous editions of King Arthur in the 1470s, was a convicted rapist. This fact has nothing to do with the heroic virtues exemplified in his world famous book.

[Young Paleocon]

You don't think that Orwell's books 1984 and Animal Farm promote liberty?

Have you actually read these books?

1984 is anti-war and anti-state.

Animal Farm is anti-socialist and anti-communist.

So what if Orwell was a socialist. If he was, he was a different kind of socialist than today's Socialist party, because he had a lot of appeal to the right.

Also, 99.9% of what people know about Orwell comes from his two famous books, not from his personal life. There are a lot of famous books out there, that little do most people know, the author had some horrible personal attributes. For example, Sir Thomas Mallory, auther of the famous editions of King Arthur in the 1470s, was a convicted rapist. This fact has nothing to do with the heroic virtues exemplified in his world famous book.

Yes, I was asking why he wasn't on the poll...I know all that. That was the point.

[Galileo Galilei]

Correction:

Justinian condemned Origen in 553 at the Second Council of Constantine, not at the Council of Chalcedon in 451.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

Correction:

I meant the Second Council of Constantinople in 553.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you.

[Xenophage]

You don't think that Orwell's books 1984 and Animal Farm promote liberty?

Have you actually read these books?

1984 is anti-war and anti-state.

Animal Farm is anti-socialist and anti-communist.

So what if Orwell was a socialist. If he was, he was a different kind of socialist than today's Socialist party, because he had a lot of appeal to the right.

Also, 99.9% of what people know about Orwell comes from his two famous books, not from his personal life. There are a lot of famous books out there, that little do most people know, the author had some horrible personal attributes. For example, Sir Thomas Mallory, auther of the famous editions of King Arthur in the 1470s, was a convicted rapist. This fact has nothing to do with the heroic virtues exemplified in his world famous book.

Orwell was a socialist but worried about the potential pitfalls of socialism.