Economist Steven Kates speaks with Tom Woods on why the Keynesian attack on Say’s Law is the truly fundamental error in the Keynesian system.
A wonderful listen for fans of pro-capitalist economics.
For a more comprehensive coverage of all of these issues and why they matter, read Kate’s Free Market Economics: an Introduction for the General Reader.
Amy Peikoff (again) on Tucker Carlson Tonight discussing the connection between free markets and values–the ability to live the good life and be happy.
Here is the course description:
Property rights have long been a part of America’s political heritage. Indeed, the Founding Fathers wrote extensively on the importance of protecting property rights. But property rights are under attack in America today. Part of the reason for the success of these attacks is imprecise or fuzzy thinking. Even many advocates of property rights are unable to clearly define the concept, and thus, they are unable to provide a consistent and principled defense. In this course, we will examine the principles that underlie property rights, as well as the principles underlying attacks on property rights. Only by understanding these principles can we clearly defend property rights and refute the claims of their enemies. Who is the target audience? Business owners harmed by regulations Property owners restricted by land-use regulations Organizations involved in defending property rights.
Yaron Brook (Executive Chairman, Ayn Rand Institute) delivers the Adam Smith Institute’s fifth annual Ayn Rand Lecture arguing that the public are wrong to demonise financiers and bankers.
In this lecture Randy E. Barnett speaks on the topic of his latest book, “Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People”: The Constitution of the United States begins with the words: “We the People.” But from the earliest days of the American republic, there have been two competing notions of “the People,” which lead to two very different versions of the Constitution. Those who view “We the People” collectively think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group, which leads them to favor a “democratic” constitution that allows the “will of the people” to be expressed by majority rule. In contrast, those who think popular sovereignty resides in the people as individuals contend that a “republican” constitution is needed to secure the pre-existing inalienable rights of “We the People,” each and every one, against abuses by the majority.