You so-called Libertarians, who are actually anarchists, are just like communists in that you believe in some non-existent utopia. It's just that your utopia has no government, while the socialist utopia has an all powerful government. Libertarianism is the belief in a limited central government.

The question is when are you going to question the myth that a government need not exist??? The myth of a society without a Federal Reserve??? They are both here and will remain here. This is nation founded on the principle of a limited central government, not NO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. And it seems that people like you are the reason this movement goes nowhere fast. It's leaders think they have the political capital to slander, not critique, other Libertarians like Friedman, when all they do is turn people off to the movement. You start calling people names like "neo-con sheep" taken right from Saul Alinsky. Yet you try to claim to be intelectual. Study your history, Japan did not have to, launch an attack on the mainland at that time, by controlling Manchuria, and booting the French out of Indo-China, They had the capcity for astounding industrial growth. There was a lot more to WWII than 1939-1945.

No, with his theories the State practiced less coercion... Once again I will point you to his influence on ending the draft.

And if you are going to use Federal Withholding, then you must state the context in which it was enacted, and supported by Friedman. Yes I will use that line because without that money and without defeating the Axis powers we may very well be a conquered and occupied people.

Did Friedman use coercion, did he he force, no he used his intellect and charisma. Using this he persuaded many to agree with him. Now if you are going to argue anarchist line I could not agree with you more. But the earlier comments was that Rothbard has energized the Libertarian movement not the anarchist movement. People have be stating that Friedman was no Libertarian, a statist, which is far from the truth, he is not an anarchist, I'll agree with that, but then neither am I, nor was the site founded to be anarchist, as the site states "You have found the world center of the Austrian School of economics and libertarian political and social theory." Therefore stating that this site is the world center for a political and social theory of limited government, not anarchism.

And I will credit you for being truthful in saying that Rothbard believed in anarchism, abolishing the state.

And when I see the same thing on my paycheck, I see the failures of FDR, and Truman, the Republicans and Democrats. The failure to remove it as it was only instituted to help pay for WWII. And without it, we may all be speaking German or Japaneses here in the states. I see the countless Jews and Serbs that were not exterminated by Hitler and is allies. I see it as a Libertarian, not an anarchist.

What did he do?? Specifically.

The disappointment is that Rothbard failed to get get anything done because he was completely intolerant of the system in place. No matter how intelligent, no matter how correct his views may be, he could not get his theories into practice; THAT'S WHAT COUNTS. By viewing policies as being "zero sum" one cannot get to far within the system. Now I would rather no monetary expansion at all, but, given the circumstances that is NOT going to happen anytime soon, I will take Friedman's support of a 2% target, rather than have the Keynesians run roughshod over us.

And I would just ask, government policy was influenced or limited by any of this??? What government agency has been altered or eliminated by any of this???

<div id="idc-comment-msg-div-653911267" class="idc-message"><a class="idc-close" title="Click to Close Message" href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(653911267)"><span>Close Message</span> Comment posted. <p class="idc-nomargin"><a class="idc-share-facebook" target="_new" href="http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fmises.org%2Fdaily%2F6439%2FThe-Friedmanite-Corruption-of-Capitalism#IDComment653911267&t=I%20just%20commented%20on%20The%20Friedmanite%20Corruption%20of%20Capitalism%20-%20Thomas%20J.%20DiLorenzo%20-%20Mises%20Daily" style="text-decoration: none;"><span class="idc-share-inner"><span>Share on Facebook</span></span> or <a href="javascript: IDC.ui.close_message(653911267)">Close MessageConscription is a form of slavery, the ultimate exploitation of life and confiscation of individual freedom by the State through the use of force, you say "who cares" and you want to be taken seriously.

Sometimes it is better to tame a beast that proves to difficult to kill. I believe his supporting limited expansion earned him politicians ears', and that kept the beast of government tame. I do not give the man carte blanche, but what I do understand is that my life would be filled with a lot more misery if it weren't for Friedman, and although I wish he had done more for the cause of freedom, I do give him credit for the good he has done limiting US government. It would be far more oppressive without his influence.

What specific government policy has Rothbard been a primary player in changing???

And Friedman has also energized the modern libertarian movement, probably more so because he is less of an anarchist than Rothbard.

Remember Friedman's TALKING ended conscription in the US. His talking to Reagan helped to end the stagflation of the 70's, his talking got him into places that he could and did make a difference. My whole point in saying what I said was an attempt to see the myriad of good Friedman did. To use a religious example, take the Holy Trinity (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) together they are God, separate they are God. Because Jesus (the son) sinned does not make him any less, nor any more important...one does not say he is a Christian but only believes in the "Holy Duo" just because Jesus sinned. Just like one can't say Friedman and to a lesser extent Hayek are statists because they gave into the reality of government, and tried to limit it. To that extent I see none of the good Friedman was responsible for, and then a Saul Ilinsky type belittling of "Floppy Freddy". They all did great work they are all champions of the free market.

Remember Friedman's TALKING ended conscription in the US. His talking to Reagan helped to end the stagflation of the 70's, his talking got him into places that he could and did make a difference. My whole point in saying what I said was an attempt to see the myriad of good Friedman did. To use a religious example, take the Holy Trinity (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) together they are God, separate they are God. Because Jesus (the son) sinned does not make him any less, nor any more important...one does not say he is a Christian but only believes in the "Holy Duo" just because Jesus sinned. Just like one can't say Friedman and to a lesser extent Hayek are statists because they gave into the reality of government, and tried to limit it. To that extent I see none of the good Friedman was responsible for, and then a Saul Ilinsky type belittling of "Floppy Freddy". They all did great work they are all champions of the free market.

And just a note, many people believe it was Mise's intolerance that kept his popularity down. Although I do not agree with them, seeing the level of vitriol toward Friedman within this and other previous threads has me second guessing myself.

I just would like to ask, what did Rothbard do beside talk? Do you also realize it was Friedman's work that ended the draft, stating he didn't want "army of slaves" to a general who said he did not want to command "an army of mercenaries". I believe that to be walking the walk.