Freedom, Society, and State - Ludwig von Mises Institute

Mannhelm's Deja Vu (New York: St. Martin's Press,
1 9 7 6) com par esit wit h the C r 'e d i t Mob iIi e r s ca nda I
d uri n g the Gran tAdmin i s t rat ion and the Teapot Dom e
S can d a 1 un d e r Ha r din g . The parail e 1s be tween Tea po t
Dome and Watergate are especially striking. Also
noteworthy is Victor Lasky's It Didn't Start With
Watergate (New York: Dell, 1977) and David Wise's The
Politics of Lying (New York: Vintage, 1973). Both
chronicle the extensive Watergate-like activities in
every administration from Franklin Roosevelt tD Lyndon
Johnson. Also valuable are Michael Dorman's Dirty
Poli tics From 1776 to Watergate (New York: Delacorte,
1979), and Morton Halperin, et.al., The Lawless State
(New York: Penguin, 1976). Lest one think that such
activities are confIned to America, see John Barron,
KGB (New York: Bantam, 1974). And one should not
forget that it was precisely the rampant corruption in
the sixteenth century Italian city-states that prompted
Machiavelli to write The Prince. See George Sabine,
A His tor y 0 f Pol i tica 1 The0 r y (N ew Yo r k: Hen r y HoI t ,
1947), pp. 337-38. Finally, the interested reader
should consult Harry Elmer Barnes' (ed.), Perpetual
War For Per pet ualPe ace (Ca I d weI I: Ca x ton, 19 5 3 ) ,
WhICh presents an unorthodox interpretation of
America's entry into World War II. If correct, thIS
would certainly make the aetions of Franklin Roosevelt
the most serious abuse of power in US history.
(9)Alfred Cuzan, "Political Profit: TaXIng and
Spending in Dictatorships and Democracies," American
J 0 urn a 1 0 f E conom i csand Soc i 01 0 gy ( 0 c t 0 be r 19 81 ), pp •
329-40.
(lO)Kropotkin, "A Scientific Approach," pp. 227 and
230.
(11)See, for example, the argument by the individ
u a lis tanarchis t, J 0 hn Hen r y McKay, "Comm un is t s Ca nnot
be Anarchists;" Patterns of Anarchy, eds. Leonard
Krimmerman and Lewis Perry (New York: DOUbleday, 1968),
p. 31.
(12)Since individuals can own property they certainly
have every right to divest themselves of it and
voluntarily form a communal society if they so desire.
However, such a society is a result of the voluntary
contributions of each individual's personal property,
and as such it is st i 11 based on the recognition of
pr iva t e pr operty. Any member, of course, could therefore
withdraw from that arrangement any time he
des ired. See my "Notes Toward Understanding Capitalism
and Socialism," The Alternative (October 1972), p.
21 • (13)Murray Rothbard, "Anarcho-Communism,"
68