Glenn Beck’s show on Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom featuring Mises Institute Senior Fellows Yuri Maltsev and Tom Woods:
— crashed Hayek’s Wikipedia entry.
— sent the GOOGLE search phrase “The Road to Serfdom” to “volcanic” status and #1 on Google Trends.
— rocketed the audio version of The Road to Serfdom to #2 on iTunes.
— launched The Road to Serfdom to #1 on Amazon, where it still stands. (Buy it from the Mises store here.)
— pulled all sorts of Hayek books and Hayek-related books into the Amazon bestseller lists, including Ludwig von Mises’ Socialism, #2 in the “political doctrines/socialism” category. (Buy it from the Mises store here.)
Just a guess, but I’ll wager there was a spike in the sale of some of these as well.
Here’s Beck’s opening monologue and his discussion with Tom Woods from yesterdays “The Road to Serfdom” show:
UPDATE: Something I just noticed. You can now purchase the full Mises Store collection of Hayek books at a 15% discount.
{ 27 comments }
But did Tom Wood’s books get a bump???
Same question occurred to me, since he did hold the book up and announce the title.
I’m curious as well. Tom definitely deserves a little love.
Yes, it seems at least one did.
From LRC:
Thank you for posting this Greg. I know that many people in the libertarian community despise Beck, but I figure that part of being libertarian is the ability to view arguments on their merits. Beck has said some stupid stuff in the past, but his show on Hayek was good, and there are many good contributions he has made and can make to the popularization of liberty. Good post.And if anyone else reading this post has not read “The Road to Serfdom”, please buy it from the Mises Institute HERE
Thomas Woods’ forthcoming book Nullification is #92 at Amazon …
I’m not a fan of Beck, but that show will have an enormous effect.
I wonder why is it so hard to be inclusive here at Mises.org? What are you afraid of?
Perhaps some fear that Beck is yet another incoherent agent provocateur, like Sarah Palin, who is used to discredit valid, outside-the-mainstream ideas (in her case, individual liberty) by associating with them. These people tend to sound really coherent about their idea, until suddenly they burst into an incoherent super-nova on some other subject, leaving their supporters to either become apologists for them, find a new leader to rally around, or to quit and to home. (this is where Greenspan truly earned the title Maestro, turning from backing gold to fiat currency)
Also, even sans provocateurs, there is the fear of killing the validity of an idea because the “wrong” person holds it. My favorite example is when the CEO of Exxon came out a few years ago, making the same claim I had been making for years, which is that ethanol (and its government subsidy) is just another form of genocide. As soon as he said that, all of the do-gooders who hate Exxon were fit to be tied, as there was no way they could support anything he said.
Of course, other than creating a controlled echo-chamber of negligible value, there really isn’t any way to avoid either of these situations. Were just gonna have to act like Mises did, which was to ignore the obvious taint of various intellectual (or NOT) camps, while focusing solely on the idea and its validity.
Andras: “I wonder why is it so hard to be inclusive here at Mises.org? What are you afraid of?”
Because Beck has a very bad history in regards to war and the police state question. To many on this site, including myself, unjustified aggressive war is the most evil and un-libertarian thing one can do. In Beck’s case, to cheer and applaud unjustified aggressive war is to be anti-libertarian.
I very much applaud any mention of Hayek, and having Maltsev and Woods as guests, but it’s hard not to tack on the caveat of, “but I still don’t like Beck because of _______.” And the ______ can be any number of things, from his literal crying on live TV to his neo-con view of foreign policy to his strange blackboard ranting about non-existent conspiracies. Save for the Austro-libertarianism, I don’t want to be associated with those things at all.
Give Hayek, Mises, Rothbard all the press possible, applaud that, cheer it on, and ask for more. But applaud any trace of craziness and neo-conism is, to my mind, a mistake.
I am very interested in knowing what “war” you think he is supporting that was “unjustified” and “aggressive”. I consider myself a Libertarian, but it seems that for what ever reason most “Libertarians” do not have a sane approach to war and violence. Exactly what war was aggressive and unjustified? Our invasion of Afghanistan? Our invasion of Iraq? Our plethora of military operations world wide taking the fight to Islam? Why is it that war is such a dirty word in Libertarian circles? And worse, wars of aggression? Is there not a case to be made for self-defense and defending one’s self when your potential opponent notifies you of his intention to destroy you?
We can debate the “reasons” for invading Iraq but I do not believe it is a far leap to say that it was justified. Just as it was quite justified to invade Afghanistan. And if need be Iran. I do not see Beck’s comments on this topic to be so out of bounds that his current work of pulling the curtain back and showing us our history and pointing us in the direction of like minded individuals.
No, I think that for the most part because Beck is painted as a wing-nut by the Socialist and the Progressives, and the Communist in this country that it is difficult to view him as any thing other than a possible detractor to your message. And yes, I would like him to cry less, a lot less, but I would also like my President not to talk about “ass kicking”, but we work with what we have.
War is life. If you are not willing to fight for your Liberty, you really don’t deserve it. And to be boldly honest, as soon as someone says it is their stated goal to remove my Liberty from me and subjugate me, either to their ideology or their religion or their chains…it is time to just put a bullet between their eyes. Better now on my terms then later on theirs. By the way…that’s exactly what Islam is about and it’s exactly what most Democrats and Republicans are about…controlling me…and in my eyes there is absolutely nothing wrong with preemptive aggressive war to defend myself from that. Justified or not.
cl
I have no problem with a government declaring war on Iran. The Islamist cause is a dangerous one to libertarianism. It is about enslaving people to serve a bankrupt religious order that subjugates people. If America, my own Britain and Europe has the collective power to destroy people like Saddam, Bin laden, Ahmadjinenad??? etc, they should. The American War of Independence was waged to free people from the subjugation of an insane King, and it was entirely justified. We in Britain waged war against our own monarch and beheaded him when he became too tyrannical. It led to the perfect constitutional balance of 1688. If we can destroy these tyrants we should
CL,
When you write “I consider myself a Libertarian”, are you capitalizing “Libertarian” to state that you are a member of the Libertarian Party or was the capitalization simply stylistic and you are declaring that you adhere to the libertarian philosophy?
If the latter, what does “being a libertarian” mean to you? How can others know if one’s claim to “be a libertarian” is valid or not? Is one’s simple declaration enough or is there any philosophic “litmus test”? If simple declaration, then is the philosophy defined by the ideas and actions of all those who claim that title? Or is there an actual philosophy independent of those who claim the title? If there is an independent philosophy, then how much compatibility between the philosophy and the views of the claiming adherent must there be?
For example, if I say “I am a libertarian” and “I support raping children”, am I considered a libertarian simply for saying so? If yes, then is “libertarianism” now defined as including the advocation of raping children? Or am I just a “libertarian” with some unrelated ideas (raping children) and if so, how do you determine which of my ideas are “libertarian” and which are not? Or, if raping children is incompatible with “libertarianism” (i.e., the philosophy is defined independently of my own personal preferences/ideas), am I still a libertarian for holding views incompatible with the philosophy?
Curious,
Brian
“Why is it that war is such a dirty word in Libertarian circles? ”
War is a dirty word period!
1) It violates property rights
2) I kills and mutilates innocent people (see #1)
3) It destroys capital and wealth (see#1)
4) It destroys the moral values of men
5) It creates nothing but the seeds of hate for future generations
War is the solution of the ignorant, fearful, and insecure…it is the cry of the brute who is incapable of fighting a war of ideas.
The only justifiable act is that of self-defense. If “Republicans, Democrats, or Islamic terrorists” are on your front porch destroying your person or property, I’ll be right there fighting along side you. But in the meantime, you should worry more about the common thug down the street who wants to rob you (most likely when your not home).
“I consider myself a Libertarian…”
To be a true libertarian one must often step outside him or her self and question their emotions and beliefs and test them within the paradigm of libertarianism…its fundamental premise-respect of property rights. That includes the property rights of those who have different cultural, political, religious, lifestyle, etc, values than I do. (I don’t have to like them, but I have to respect their property rights.)
Cl you are not a Libertarian and you need to stop using the word to describe yourself and your beliefs. You may share some values that are libertarian but you do not understand nor accept the fundamental premise of property rights. To be libertarian is to be truly tolerant, mentally rigorous, and disciplined. I suppose that is why there are so few of us.
I hope some day you will join us…good luck:)
“War is life”
PS>War is not life…war is death….freedom is life!
CL,
I realize this is a bit late, but by chance I recently just came across your response. Let me reply.
The Iraq war is unjustified. Pakistan is unjustified. Afghanistan in it’s current state is unjustified. Going after Bin Laden is justified, but taking over the country and “nation building” (whatever the hell thats supposed to mean) with big oil proxies and their cronies is not. The saber rattling for war with North Korea and Iran is also stupid and unjustified. (Do I want them to have nuclear weapons? No. But I don’t want anyone, including the US government, to have them. Those weapons have only one purpose– not to destroy military targets, but to kill civilians. That is unacceptable, not to mention pure evil.)
Your response leads me to believe you are illogical and delusional. If you call yourself libertarian, I consider that not only wrong but sad. Under libertarian ethics, the only war that is ethical is a defensive one, not what you support. Preemptive war is the policy of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao. I want nothing to do with that.
War is life? Really? What kind of insane garbage is that? That sounds like the sort of thing an ethically bankrupt social darwinist Nazi would say. That statement alone is proof of your complete disregard of human life and liberty. War is the exact opposite of life, it is death. Anyone with sense knows this.
To close, I don’t consider you libertarian, I consider you crazy. Please seek psychiatric help. Good luck.
War on a Religion? Is that what free people do, spill blood for religous purposes? No, we don’t. You might want to read John Lockes Two Treatise on Government, and A Letter of Toleration. “The conquerer, it is true, usually, by the force he has over them, compels them, with a sword to their breasts to stoop to his conditions, and submit to such a government as he pleases to afford them; but the inquiry is, what right has he to do so?” Second Treatise Chapt XVI Of Conquest. Locke and the enlightenment philosophy are attached to the ideals of idealism, which are freedom and liberty of the individual. Immanuel Kant and his followers are still metaphysical and use religion as moral excuse to pick your pockets for the collective. The military industrial complex picks your pocket at the consent of metaphysicians who do not really believe in life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but rather beleive in some moral designs made by men who act in the name of a god.
I’m not “afraid”; I just remember how Republicans sang the praises of “smaller government” and a lot of other libertarian-sounding stuff in the ’90s, which they promptly repudiated after 2000 since they then had their hands on the big government they had professed to dislike so much. Now they’re out of power, and SHAZAM! they’re “libertarians” again. Methinks I see a pattern.
Beck has a history of saying one thing and then doing another. I was a fan of his till he trashed Debra Medina. I’m glad to hear he exposed his audience to Hayek. I’ll take any victories we can get.
He didn’t trash Debra Medina, she trashed herself. He asked her a yes or no question and she waffled. He asked her what she believed in and she couldn’t and wouldn’t answer it and tried to play games with the question. He didn’t trash her. I listened to that broadcast and the subsequent ones on this issue. You should do the same. He was 100% right, if you are asked a yes or no question and you can not give the answer…then shame on you. The people she was trying to represent deserve to know her opinions and what the thinks.
By the way, that’s pretty much what has keeps me from reaching out to help the local Libertarian party here in Louisiana…the whole 911 truth business. I wish it was possible to be involved in the Libertarian party and not have to deal with 911 truther mess. Debra Median is a 911 truther. Beck asked her and she didn’t say yes, and she didn’t say no. Had she just answered the question perhaps things would have been different. But to be honest, if I was a citizen of Texas I think I would want to know her position on that question. Personally I think it is ridiculous to think the government brought those buildings down, but other do and that is great. But to blame Beck for “trashing” a potential candidate who didn’t have the balls to answer the question? No, I am sorry JD, she trashed herself.
And no, I am not a Beck cool-aid drinker. I have called him out on this repeatedly, but on this one you are wrong and Beck is right. Debra Medina should have answer the question.
cl
This may sound silly to you all but it was the statistics of Hayeks books above, on account of Mr. Beck, that caused my father, a working economists himself to congratulate me on being “ahead of the curve”. Even though I have been prodding and engaging him with Austrian topics for over a year, it is the books new found notoriety which caused him to actually want to read it and he was thrilled to know I already had all of the major Austrian works on my computer, and moreover so that all of these old books were still in print thanks to LvMI.Therefore, while I agree with many of the above points made by others, Beck is a vehicle of change who is for the moment, heading in our directing. Even if Beck veers off again, as his disposition might suggest, it will not be before he has inspired many thinking men who will not be so easily turned.
the brief snippet of george bernard shaw was the best part. unbelievable.
Is it possible for Beck to pimp a book by Mises?
Is it possible for Beck to pimp a book by Mises?
Cl: i pretty much agree with you. I’m fine with the of killing Achaminejad, Hussein, Bin Laden, etc. However, i don’t want the State to aggress (ie. “taxation”) against people to pay for it. The funding to kill them should be provided voluntarily.
I agree with you patrick…taxing the people to pay for wars is not freedom for all…
“When I arrived at the museum, I was absolutely blown away,” GHD Hair Straighteners said Ralph. “Where on earth can you see so much history in one place, and actually talk to the folks who help to make it what it is?”
While visiting Wheels Through Time, Ralph met Dale’s father Bernie, who showed he and another group around the facility, highlighting many of the great stories of the people, places, and of course, machines that have made our sport what it is today. “I even recognized several motorcycles from stories in ‘The Vincent in the Barn’, which is how I heard about it in the first place,” said Ralph. After what seemed to be a short afternoon in the museum (sometimes, four and a half hours just isn’t enough), Ralph went on his way…
GHD IV Purple Styler
When he returned back to Lebanon, New Hampshire, Ralph realized that visiting the museum was indeed one of the highlights of his trip, and within a few days, he decided to jump online to make a donation to the museum. “I had such a great time, and I thought, since I believed so strongly in what they were doing, I’d make a small donation to help,” said Ralph. “Thats when I saw the 2010 Raffle Bike, and decided, why not make a donation and take a chance at winning a bike while I’m at it!”Friday, December 2nd was a big day for Ralph Juanes. It started like any other morning…waking up at home to a warm pot of coffee and scanning through the local newspaper. But within hours, Ralph’s ordinary morning would be no longer, as he and his wife Becky would be embarking on a trip that would soon change their lives.
Ralph and Becky Juanes hail from Lebanon, New Hampshire. Ralph is a clinical chemist at his local hospital, and works long hours in the emergency room. In his “off-time” he enjoys riding and wrenching on motorcycles, including his current ride — a 1980′s BMW RS. Ralph has a quite passion for motorcycles both old and new, and it was that passion that led him to the Wheels Through Time Museum in late October Cheap GHD Hair Straighteners of this year.
On a short weekend vacation in the Blue Ridge Mountains, Ralph decided to make his way toward Maggie Valley for a taste of good old American motorcycle history. Just a few weeks earlier, he’d picked up a new book called “Vincent in the Barn” by Tom Cotter at his local bookstore. As you can guess, Ralphs passion for motorcycle history took him from cover to cover of the book of “Barn find” motorcycles, reading several stories about Dale and Wheels Through Time along the way.
“Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century”, has a 4 and a half rating on Amazon. It seems to be a very interesting book to read. It is already on my wish list.
Comments on this entry are closed.
{ 3 trackbacks }