For questions, advertising, link sharing, questions about donations, writing contributions, or any other contact with the staff at Bad Quaker Dot Com, please email badquaker at badquaker dot com.
Please include a basic topic in the subject line so we know you’re not spam.
Thank you for your interest in Bad Quaker Dot Com.
Subscribe to Podcast
Products Ben Stone Endorses
Our Friends
Hear Bad Quaker Podcasts along with other liberty content on The Liberty Radio Network
Ben I’ve been trying to register on your forum but cannot do so. I’ve tried three different browsers but it appears the captcha widget isn’t working correctly.
Bernie, it seems to work fine for me. Are you answering the test question below the captcha question?
Hey Ben,
Is there a address to send donations by mail?
Hey there Ben,
Love the podcast and especially the history lessons as I rarely have time to read up on such subjects. Keep up the good work as there ARE ears to hear truth out here. I just wish we didn’t live in a world where rational thinkers were a minority as it feels very lonely and bleak sometimes in a sea of false god/king/state/deity worshipers. I take solace in that it seems within recent years, folks are more apt to entertain different and obvious truth perspectives of our culture and existence.
I just need you to know that you and your guests have been very influential in my life and that spark will continue to disperse throughout.
Thank you.
Your friend in liberty/anarchy/whatever,
Kyle
Thanks for those kind words Kyle. And thanks for you support.
Ben, your Amazon link isn’t working. I came her to use it to support your show, but no link. Just text saying.:
“Amazon
You can support Bad Quaker Dot Com by using this link to Amazon “
I just listeded to podcast 243, as much as I like the message Ron Paul has, I agree that he sould not “fix” the government. As Ernie Handcock says “get a wooden stake and a mallet”.
Taryon
Sometimes online text can be a difficult medium to properly convey emotions, if I failed to convey the fact that this was merely a difference of opinion as opposed to an emotional condemnation then the fault lies with me and I apologize. The intent of the post was merely to offer another interpretation of what we both agree were tactical mistakes on the part of Rothbard within the context of his many attempts at triangulation. I honestly believe the impetus of this was Rothbard had too much faith in his own skills of persuasion, formidable as they were.
I don’t expect, nor would I even desire, anarcho-capitalism to be monolithic in terms of stance or opinion as the very notion is in many ways contrary to so much that we stand for. The aim was merely to offer a different perspective, and I reiterate that your podcast is among the most engaging, articulate, entertaining, and often profound defenses of liberty within the movement today. All of us, at times, are bound to disagree on the margins, but that does not compromise our solidarity on the principles of markets and liberty.
Jon
Thanks for clarifying that Jon. When I commented earlier I had just been dealing with a critic who was attacking Rothbard and and I was in the position of defending him. I suppose I allowed the one discussion to blend into the other.
Ben
First of all, I would like to state that I thoroughly enjoy the website and each and every one of your podcasts, as they are among the most articulate and profound defenses of liberty within the movement. However, your assessment of Rothbard, during pc237, as somewhat of a false prophet who didn’t really believe his own arguments, is one with which I profoundly disagree.
I find it far more plausible that the man who penned “Anatomy of the State” suffered not from a paucity of faith but from a surfeit of it. The reason Rothbard so often reached out to the margins of both parties and attempted to win converts to liberty was his own unwavering faith not only in his ability to persuade, but in the validity of his arguments. Have we all not either been, or been in the presence of, one who sees or believes something so clearly that he or she is at a loss to understand why others do not inevitably come to the same conclusion? This could apply to a mathematical genius delineating category theory, or a Faulkner scholar elucidating the many meanings of Absalom, Absalom! In terms of liberty, that man was Rothbard.
Secondly, the assertion that those who have faith in the tenets of liberty need not attempt to educate, convert, or advance the movement in any way struck me as especially specious from an articulate champion of the liberty movement who self defines liberty as his “mission.”
All of us within the movement attempt to promote and advance the cause of liberty hhowever we can. This is done not out of a crisis of faith, but as a consequence of the same self-interest which serves as the impetus for the free markets that are the foundation of a free society.
You seem very upset. And you’ve put a lot of energy into this post. It’s a shame your conclusions are so wrong. Perhaps it was the way I presented my statements. Perhaps you are of the impression that any criticism of Rothbard is a complete condemnation of Rothbard. Extremes are so unhelpful when based on emotion.
Ben