The archive.

Pollution and resource depletion are real, Rothbard concedes—but he denies that capitalism, technology, or acquisitiveness is to blame. Writing amid the first wave of 1970s environmental alarm, he insists that "the environment" be broken apart into distinct problems: aesthetic complaints about cities, fears of crowding, resource conservation, and pollution. Private ownership, he argues, already contains an automatic principle of conservation, since a mine or forest owner prices future yields into present decisions; overuse arises only where title is public, collective, or politically managed and no one can capture the value of restraint. Pollution he reframes not as an inevitable market byproduct but as an invasion of person and property, to be enjoined under common law. The remedy is juridical rather than administrative—strict property rights against polluters rather than taxpayer-funded programs.

Surely every man's private property in his own body is his most precious resource; and the fact that air pollutants injure that private property should be enough for us to obtain court injunctions preventing that pollution from taking place.

An object glimpsed in a dark corner might be a coiled rope or a snake, the ancient example, drawn from the skeptic Carneades, through which Schütz unfolds his theory of relevance. Why anything at all steps forward from the taken-for-granted field, how the stock of knowledge selects the types that interpret it, and why the interpretation matters for what one is about to do: these he sorts into thematic, interpretive, and motivational relevance, three aspects of a single phenomenon. Around them he builds a phenomenology of the natural attitude, sedimentation, familiarity and strangeness, embodiment, the 'empty place' whose unknown contents are already prefigured by their contours. Left unfinished at his death and here rendered into German from the English reflections of 1970, the manuscript reads as the hidden architecture beneath all his work on the life-world.

Die vorgängige Aufgliederung in Thema und Horizont ist die Grundlage für jede Geistestätigkeit.

English translation: “The prior articulation into theme and horizon is the foundation of all mental activity.”

Left with Arthur Spiethoff before Schumpeter sailed for Harvard, then set aside for decades, this posthumous and partly fragmentary manuscript, edited by Fritz Karl Mann, pursues a single question: what money essentially is. The answer inverts orthodoxy. Money is no commodity but a technical instrument of social accounting, and payment is at bottom a matter of crediting and debiting, of clearing claims through a social ledger. From general-equilibrium reasoning Schumpeter extracts a 'critical number' that fixes absolute prices and imposes the Geldligament, the specifically monetary constraint on the economy. He demolishes the 'deposit legend' that banks merely lend out entrusted funds, holds that every bank credit creates a deposit, contests Mises and Weber on socialist calculation, and turns Knapp's state theory of money into a cautionary tale of fruitless doctrine.

From a Salzburg lecture delivered in 1970 comes Hayek's most concentrated assault on constructivism—the seemingly innocuous belief that because human beings made their institutions, they may redesign them at will. The error, he argues, confuses human origin with deliberate design: reason did not precede culture but grew with it, so it cannot stand outside language, morality and law to remake them from nothing. Social order depends on inherited rules, mostly negative prohibitions, whose function exceeds the understanding of those who obey them; the market itself is neither miracle nor natural harmony but the unintended product of property and contract. Yet this is no defence of blind tradition. Legitimate criticism, he concludes, must be immanent, testing contested values against those a society still presupposes rather than rebuilding the whole from scratch.

Die Vorstellung vom Menschen, der sich dank seiner Vernunft über die Werte seiner Kultur erhebt, um sie wie von einer höheren Warte von außen zu beurteilen, ist eine Illusion.

English translation: “The notion of the human being who, by virtue of his reason, rises above the values of his culture in order to judge them, as it were from a higher vantage point, from outside, is an illusion.”

Presented frankly as a mystery story, this essay treats the explosive growth of Euro-dollar deposits as a conceptual puzzle before an empirical one. Machlup's verdict is a disciplined agnosticism: Euro-banks may have created dollar money, but the statistics cannot say how much, because the debate keeps confusing deposits with loans, credit with money, and flows with stocks. He polices those categories relentlessly — distinguishing legal form from economic function, primary from derivative deposits, genuine money creation from the interbank redepositing that inflates gross totals through London-Zurich-Milan chains. His preferred analogy is the American nonmember bank, holding claims on member banks as reserves and building liabilities atop them. Offshore dollars, he concludes, are real, regulation-sensitive, and largely invisible to any national money-stock measure — stateless money.

Words guide the attention of the audience; the use of the word "market" may divert attention from the important nonmarket aspects of the Euro-dollar system.

Two kinds of foreign money confront each other in this 1970 pamphlet: private investment that works through ownership, prices, and profit-and-loss discipline, and government aid allocated by political fiat. Hazlitt defends the first as an intensified form of trade—capital arrives with management, technical skill, and the market test of possible loss, and it answers the "taking money out" complaint by first creating the wages, purchases, and productive capacity that make any profit possible. Aid embodies the opposite principle. He treats the Marshall Plan as an emergency wrongly made permanent and Point Four as the globalization of that error, crediting West Germany's recovery to Erhard's currency reform rather than to grants. Financed by taxes, borrowing, or inflation, aid diverts capital, empowers planners, and pauperizes the recipients who come to depend on it.

We cannot grow rich by giving our goods or our dollars away. We can only grow poorer.

A uniform tax on all imports plus an equal subsidy on all exports is, for commodity trade, identical to a currency devaluation, an equivalence Haberler accepts as an analytical benchmark and then spends the chapter refusing as policy. The device breaks the moment it meets institutions: it omits services and tourism, invites exemptions, and never stays uniform, sliding toward commodity-by-commodity and country-by-country discrimination and, eventually, exchange control. On the microeconomic side he wields Ricardo to reject the GATT distinction between border-adjustable indirect taxes and non-adjustable direct ones; what matters is whether a tax alters relative costs, not whether it is nominally shifted. Tracing the idea from Keynes's 1931 tariff-and-bounty proposal through Hicks, Triffin, and European VAT practice, he concludes that a valid model equivalence is no sound recommendation.

I conclude that the border tax on imports and tax refund on exports is an inferior, messy, wasteful, and inefficient substitute for exchange-rate adjustments.

Liberal Catholicism was not the work of one man; it arose from the confluence of many springs. Engel-Janosi's essay reconstructs that current as a transnational Catholic response to the collapse of throne-and-altar certainties between the Enlightenment, Napoleon, 1848, and the Syllabus of 1864. He tracks its national forms—Lamennais, Lacordaire, and Montalembert seeking liberty of press and conscience under the banner "Dieu et la liberté"; Gioberti and the neo-Guelphs imagining the pope as leader of a federated Italy; Döllinger and Acton in Germany turning historical scholarship itself into a discipline of conscience, where popes and councils stand under the same moral law as everyone else. The hopes briefly raised by Pius IX's election died with 1848, and Quanta cura and the Syllabus turned condemnation into lasting rupture.

Das Mark aller Kulturgeschichte ist ethisch und nicht metaphysisch.

English translation: “The marrow of all cultural history is ethical and not metaphysical.”

Even the laissez-faire economist, Rothbard charges, harbors a contradiction: he defends market liberty yet keeps a tax-funded monopoly over police and courts, though the state can supply protection only by violating the very property it claims to guard. Concluding the treatise—here as the German translation of Power and Market (1970)—this volume sketches competing defense agencies and private courts, then anatomizes intervention itself. Following Oppenheimer, Rothbard divides the economic means from the political means and classifies every intrusion as autistic, binary, or triangular—price controls that breed shortages and black markets, licensing and tariffs as monopoly privilege, patents that curtail rather than defend property, and a taxation that, whatever its form, can never be made neutral.

Die einzigen Menschenrechte sind, kurz gesagt, die Eigentumsrechte.

English translation: “The only human rights, in short, are property rights.”

Strip a share of its metaphysics and nothing intrinsic remains—only a valuation sustained transaction by transaction. From that deflationary premise Granger and Morgenstern mount an empirical assault on market folklore, insisting first that 'prediction' be defined before it is tested. Deploying spectral analysis across daily, weekly, and monthly series, they find price changes broadly following a random walk—not because the future is unknowable, but because past prices yield no usable linear forecast. The book's discipline lies in its distinctions: absolute price versus relative movement, direction versus magnitude. Volume, they show, says nothing about whether a stock will rise or fall, yet tracks the size of its swings. Optimal-allocation claims, seasonal cycles, and profitable filter rules fall in turn.

The value of a stock is only what someone else will pay for it — in cash, in another stock or whatever it may be.

A privately owned railroad cannot enrich its owner unless it carries the public and their goods, and that homely fact carries Hazlitt's thesis that property used in market production already serves a public purpose more faithfully than state ownership. Grounding the argument in Adam Smith and illustrating it with Henry Ford's reinvested profits, he shows that income saved and put to work in tractors, furnaces and housing benefits society as fully as any nationalization. From property he turns to saving, mounting a sustained attack on Keynes's 'cake' analogy: saving is not permanent nonconsumption but the precondition of capital formation, and a world where thrift was sin would grow steadily poorer. His austere conclusion is that the rich do most good not through extravagance or expropriation but by living simply and investing productively.

What the advocates of all expropriation schemes fail to realize is that property in private hands used for the production of goods and services for the market is already for all practical purposes public wealth.

"It is high time," Rothbard announces, that someone blew the whistle on Women's Liberation. His 1970 polemic answers Betty Friedan and NOW with Austrian economics rather than sympathy: women's lower average wages, he contends, reflect interrupted careers, childrearing, turnover costs, and marginal productivity, not irrational discrimination—which a competitive market would punish anyway, since a biased employer forfeits profit and labor to rivals. He dismisses the feminist "brainwashing" thesis as unfalsifiable, recasts domesticity as a freely chosen division of labor, and reinterprets marriage as a contract binding men to support women and children. Turning from Friedanite liberalism to the anti-family "New Feminism" of Valerie Solanis and Robin Morgan, he treats objections to women as "sex objects" as an assault on heterosexual attraction itself. The result is a combative fusion of libertarian theory and cultural backlash.

Woman as “sex objects”? Of course they are sex objects and, praise the Lord, they always will be.