Podcast appearances and mentions of Thomas Hobbes

The fact that life is a bit of a grind for many people, and has been for some time, means we start to question the natural order of things. When you can pay your bills, have time to spend doing what you enjoy with the people you love, when there aren't glaring inequities, when the failure of the present system and the people who run it aren't up in your face, when you don't see homeless people and beggars and violence, then everything's good. You accept the status quo; things are chugging along nicely. Democracy, capitalism, everybody's getting their fair share, everything's fine. But when things start to go wrong, and go wrong the Western world over, you start to wonder. Thomas Hobbes was a 17th century political philosopher who formulated the social contract theory, whereby people collectively agree —you'll remember this from your political theory studies back in the days of yore— to surrender some of their individual freedoms and transfer their power to a central absolute authority. In exchange, that authority —in this case our government— provides security, maintains order, and guarantees the preservation of life. In modern life, we've wanted a bit more than the preservation of life, we've wanted a little bit of fun, some enjoyment. Be that as it may, without the social contract, Hobbes argues that man's life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. And when you look at his definitions, we're heading that way. Solitary he defines as the constant distrust that prevents people from forming lasting bonds or cooperation. He didn't know anything about social media at the time, but that's what you're starting to get solitary individuals who don't want to or don't know how to connect with others. Poor he defines as having no incentive to build, farm, or invest labour, as others will simply steal the fruits of your work. Nasty violence and conflict are ever present. Brutish life devolves into a primitive existence stripped of any kind of enjoyment, civilisation, art, culture. And short the perpetual threat and danger of a sudden violent death looming over everyone. It might not be violence that gets us, but if our healthcare systems are failing and you can't afford private care, death or a long unpleasant illness might be our version of Hobbes' short life. We are not there yet. If you've popped into the car and think, “bloody hell, she's a depressing tart, honestly, she does go on," consider me the canary down the coal mine. I'm warning we could well be on our way there. Look at his definitions and tell me I'm wrong. Solitary, poor, nasty as in violent, brutish where there's no time or money to enjoy the nicer things in life. So if the social contract is failing us, we need a better system. And what is a better system than an MMP government and capitalism? When MMP was voted in, it was voted in in anger. People were either devastated or appalled, or they'd seen New Zealand's old way of life completely destroyed by Rogernomics and by Ruth Richardson. Now, maybe it had to be done, but it was done pretty brutally, and people suffered as a result. So the public voted First Past the Post out as a punishment to those politicians, but also because the smaller parties that came up as an alternative, like Social Credit and New Zealand Party, despite getting 20% in the case of Social Credit, 12% in the case of the New Zealand Party, they had very few MPs or no MPs in Parliament despite having so many people. And in '78 and '81, Labour actually got more votes than National, but fewer electorates, so they stayed in opposition and National was in power. So with MMP, Ruth Richardson argues that we have a high level of representation, which is great, but a really low level of government, which is failing us. Helen Clark says MMP has produced a stop go, stop go system of policies which has been detrimental to New Zealand in the long run. So where do we go from here? I'd argue that we're at a point in the Western world where we're on a descent and we need to ascend. With MMP, we were trying to find a better way of doing things. We looked at what a First Past the Post government did and said, “No, we don't want this to happen again. So we're going to bring in MMP and things will be better.” I don't think they are. Having lived under both, I don't think they are. Capitalism well, what's the alternative to capitalism? Communism doesn't work and has caused far more harm to the ordinary person around the world than capitalism has, but there'd be others who'd argue against that. What do we do from here? We're willing to cede our own individual powers to an authority, a government, to live a better life. If we're not getting that better life, then where do we go from here? What alternatives do we have? If this system right now and I'm talking the Western world, not just New Zealand, because have a look at any other country and you can't really see a shining example of where democracy and capitalism is working. Is there anything better, or do we just have to wait for this system to recover? See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Send us Fan MailHereditary monarchy seems like a ridiculous way to pick a leader, yet it dominates most of human political history. We argue the reason is transaction costs: succession systems survive when they settle “who rules next” cheaply enough to prevent recurring civil war. • Why hereditary monarchy is historically prevalent compared with democracy and universal suffrage • Why “divine right” stories often rationalize a choice people already find tolerable • Thomas Paine's critique of hereditary succession and what it misses • Hobbes on the state of nature as what happens when sovereignty is contested • Succession as the master coordination problem of political order • Transaction costs applied to elections, enforcement, legitimacy, and rent seeking • Why elective monarchy can become an armed auction for total power • Bright line rules versus discretionary selection and why speed can beat “better” • How constitutional design lowers the cost of leadership transition when it works • The legitimacy problem and why dynasties converge on endogamy • The genetic consequences of endogamy and the Habsburg cautionary tale • Twedges, book recommendation, and a listener letter on board game “math trades” LINKS:Thomas Paine, Common Sense, February 1776Michael Munger, The Ugly Pig, 20224A.P. Martinich, Thomas Hobbes:  A Biography, 1999.Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan, 1651.Neal Schultz, Suicide Kings: Hereditary Monarchy, 2025Tbadel Barter AppCosmos Institute, Coasian Bargaining at Scale, 2025 UPDATE: An interesting, and more clearly articulated, application of the reasoning here.... https://aminga.substack.com/p/how-transaction-cost-economics-explainsIf you have questions or comments, or want to suggest a future topic, email the show at taitc.email@gmail.com !You can follow Mike Munger on Twitter at @mungowitz 

“Knowledge is Power, Francis Bacon”—we’ve all heard it over and over. But what did he mean? And was he right, or did he intentionally leave important things to know out of his thinking? He’s credited with developing the scientific method, and we should be grateful for this part of his legacy, but people have speculated from the start that he was a closet atheist. He was Thomas Hobbes’s mentor, what should we make of that? Join the pugsters for another free wheeling conversation, today with David Innes, author of, Francis Bacon. (We apologize for the poor quality of Chris’s microphone, there were “technical difficulties” as they say in the business.) Order Francis Bacon (Great Thinkers): https://a.co/d/0bDmLcxr Support the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8 Learn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/ Connect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

“Knowledge is Power, Francis Bacon”—we've all heard it over and over. But what did he mean? And was he right, or did he intentionally leave important things to know out of his thinking? He's credited with developing the scientific method, and we should be grateful for this part of his legacy, but people have speculated from the start that he was a closet atheist. He was Thomas Hobbes's mentor, what should we make of that? Join the pugsters for another free wheeling conversation, today with David Innes, author of, Francis Bacon. (We apologize for the poor quality of Chris's microphone, there were “technical difficulties” as they say in the business.)Order Francis Bacon (Great Thinkers): https://a.co/d/0bDmLcxrSupport the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8Learn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/Connect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

“Knowledge is Power, Francis Bacon”—we’ve all heard it over and over. But what did he mean? And was he right, or did he intentionally leave important things to know out of his thinking? He’s credited with developing the scientific method, and we should be grateful for this part of his legacy, but people have speculated from the start that he was a closet atheist. He was Thomas Hobbes’s mentor, what should we make of that? Join the pugsters for another free wheeling conversation, today with David Innes, author of, Francis Bacon. (We apologize for the poor quality of Chris’s microphone, there were “technical difficulties” as they say in the business.) Order Francis Bacon (Great Thinkers): https://a.co/d/0bDmLcxr Support the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8 Learn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/ Connect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

“Knowledge is Power, Francis Bacon”—we’ve all heard it over and over. But what did he mean? And was he right, or did he intentionally leave important things to know out of his thinking? He’s credited with developing the scientific method, and we should be grateful for this part of his legacy, but people have speculated from the start that he was a closet atheist. He was Thomas Hobbes’s mentor, what should we make of that? Join the pugsters for another free wheeling conversation, today with David Innes, author of, Francis Bacon. (We apologize for the poor quality of Chris’s microphone, there were “technical difficulties” as they say in the business.) Order Francis Bacon (Great Thinkers): https://a.co/d/0bDmLcxr Support the Theology Pugcast on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/thetheologypugcast?fbclid=IwAR17UHhfzjphO52C_kkZfursA_C784t0ldFix0wyB4fd-YOJpmOQ3dyqGf8 Learn more about First Pres. Battle Ground: https://www.solochristo.org/ Connect with WileyCraft Productions: https://wileycraftproductions.com/

¿Sabias que la palabra "soberanía" significa "poder supremo"? El filósofo Thomas Hobbes afirmaba que en un Estado debe existir una persona o un grupo de ellas, que concentren el poder supremo en favor de la ley. Ustedes ¿Saben qué características debe tener la sobería? Después de leer varias opiniones expertas sobre el tema, Victor Miklos nos comparte una reflexión profunda sobre este asunto, además de proponer una forma de mejorar a nuestro país. ¡Vámos a escuchar! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Good morning. A German holiday maker has successfully sued his tour operator alleging that he had spent 20 minutes every morning trying, without success, to find sun loungers by the pool. He was on the case at 6 a.m. but the loungers were already covered in towels, though they often remained unoccupied through the day whilst he and his family lay on the ground. The Court awarded him damages. Another tourist commenting on this story gleefully recalls an alternative solution to the problem: 'it soon stopped when some lads were going down in the middle of the night and throwing all the towels into the pool.' But our more law abiding litigant hopes that the fear of legal action will spur tour operators and hotels to devise fair and rational allocation systems for these highly contested spaces. As far as I know, Thomas Hobbes never took a package holiday, but having lived through the turmoil of the English civil war and its aftermath, he would not have been surprised by stories of so called 'sunbed wars': 'during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe' so he tells us in his great work Leviathan, 'they are in that condition called war'. Hobbes' father was a vicar, and his relationship to Christianity is complicated, as is perhaps not uncommon in such circumstances. But Hobbes' views are not so different from Augustine's, who was in the habit of noting that just as divine history begins with the story of Cain killing Abel, so world history begins with the story of Romulus killing Remus. For Augustine, it is 'every man against every man' as Hobbes puts it, and not just poolside. I know nothing about the personal beliefs of our German litigant, but I think he is a bit of a hero for spurning two obvious but unhelpful responses to this gloomy diagnosis of the human condition. One is to take the law into your own hands - throwing the towels in the pool - which could end rather badly of course. The other is just to grumble - and who doesn't enjoy a good grumble? Of all the things in the world which are unfairly and irrationally distributed, sun loungers are by no means the most significant. Houses lie empty, while children sleep on the streets. Food goes to waste while there is hunger. Medicines expire on shelves, and diseases go untreated. Christians have never needed to be told that humans can be deeply selfish, but everywhere the faith is truly alive there have been dreamers and prophets, from St Francis to Martin Luther King, who have contended that the world doesn't have to be determined by our flawed natures, even if we need to reckon with their existence and character. Who knows whether the sunbed wars will come to an end, but Mr Eggert - let's give him his name and due credit – by pushing the tour operators and hotels into action has given us hope for bloodless revolutions.

Harald Eia analyserer «Spillet» som et laboratorium for menneskenaturen: hvorfor vi søker fellesskap, hvorfor vi rangerer hverandre, og hvorfor det å bli ekskludert treffer så dypt. Pluss: «Volda-effekten», verdenspolitikk, Thomas Hobbes og solas undergang. Programleder: Lars Glomnes Produsent: Peter Daatland

Adrian Wooldridge speaks to EI's Paul Lay about his new book, Centrists of the World Unite! The Lost Genius of Liberalism. He believes that the West can only overcome its current malaise by rediscovering and reviving the liberal tradition.Image: Engraving of the frontispiece from Thomas Hobbes's ‘Leviathan' (1651). Credit: Alamy

Nachdem Ursula van der Leyen offen die Frage stellt, wie wichtig und wie realistisch es für Europa ist, das Völkerrecht zu verteidigen, und nachdem internationale Institutionen wie die UN und der International Criminal Court marginalisiert werden ist es Zeit, auch diesen Wendepunkt zu besprechen. Ralph Janik ist Völkerrechtler und mein Gast für dieses Gespräch über die Frage, ob das Völkerrecht tot ist, wie Macht eigentlich funktioniert und was das alles mit Gewalt und Zivilisiertheit zu tun hat. Ist es naiv, um Zeitalter von Trump und Putin über das Völkerrecht zu sprechen, oder ist es wichtiger denn je?Support the show

Paolo Sorrentino stellt nach „Il Divo“ und „Loro“ erneut einen Staatsmann in den Mittelpunkt: Toni Servillo schlüpft erneut in die Rolle eines großen Mannes, aber dieser will gar nicht groß sein. Mutig ist er nicht, eher technokratisch; entschlussfreudig ist er auch nicht, er zaudert und zögert, auch wenn alle anderen ihn zu raschem Handeln bringen wollen. In „La Grazia“ erlebt der Präsident Italiens seine letzten Monate im Amt: Ein Gesetz zur Sterbehilfe soll von ihm unterzeichnet werden, außerdem kann er Gefangene begnadigen. Aber sein Kopf steht woanders, denn er grübelt noch immer darüber, mit wem seine verstorbene Frau Aurora ihn damals vor 40 Jahren betrogen hat. „La Grazia“ ist zurückgenommener als die früheren Filme von Sorrentino. Melancholisch blickt der Film auf einen Regierungsstil, der heute immer weniger anzutreffen ist. Dabei wird jedoch nicht einfach die liberale Demokratie glorifiziert, sondern sichtbar wird auch, wie vormoderne Anschauungen von Autorität und Souveränität sich erhalten haben. Mehr dazu von Wolfgang M. Schmitt in der neuen Filmanalyse! Literatur:Carl Schmitt: Der Leviathan in der Staatslehre des Thomas Hobbes. Sinn und Fehlschlag eines politischen Symbols. Klett-Cotta.  Das neue Q&A gibt es mit einem Abo bei Steady, Patreon oder Apple.Steady bietet die Filmanalyse plus als Monats- und vergünstigtes Jahresabo an. Der RSS-Feed ist automatisch mit Spotify verknüpft, kann aber auch in alle Podcatcher eingefügt werden:https://steady.page/de/die-filmanalyse-abo/aboutApple-Podcast:https://podcasts.apple.com/de/podcast/die-filmanalyse/id1586115282Patreon (jedoch ist hier der RSS-Feed nicht mit Spotify verknüpft):https://www.patreon.com/c/wolfgangmschmitt/homeDie Filmanalyse +ABO kann man auch für ein Jahr verschenken: https://steady.page/de/die-filmanalyse-abo/gift_plans 

Jesús Huerta de Soto traces the Austrian school's intellectual roots from the Spanish scholastics to Rothbard, making the case that anarcho-capitalism is the natural endpoint of the classical liberal tradition.The Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture, sponsored by Yousif Almoayyed.The Austrian Economics Research Conference is the international, interdisciplinary meeting of the Austrian school, bringing together leading scholars doing research in this vibrant and influential intellectual tradition.Full Text version of the Lecture (Submitted by Prof. Huerta de Soto):Thank you very much to the Mises Institute and Joe Salerno for his kind introduction as well as for inviting me to deliver this “Ludwig von Mises Memorial Lecture” to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of Murray N. Rothbard's birthday. It is the second time I visit the Mises Institute to deliver this most important lecture: The first one was almost thirty years ago, back in April 1997, when I delivered a lecture on “The Scholastic Roots of the Austrian School”. In this second opportunity I am very happy to have been able to accept Joe's invitation and to come with a very well represented retinue of ten of my colleagues and doctoral students. All of them are teaching as professors or making their research at our more than twenty-year-old Doctoral and Master Programs in Austrian Economics at King Juan Carlos University back in Madrid, and which is the only one officially approved and with full validity inside the whole European Union. You have already had the opportunity to hear from each one of them a detailed description of the so-called “Madrid Austrian Research Hub” and of all the activities we are developing every year, including the 54 Doctoral Theses on Austrian Economics that have been read up to now in our program. And here you have also copies of the English version of our main books published by Routledge, Edward Elgar, and by the Macmillan Austrian Series edited by my Madrid Colleagues, the German professor Philipp Bagus and the Canadian professor Dave Howden. And you will have the unique opportunity to buy these books that, as you know, have a hefty price of almost 100 pounds each one, at the almost “stolen property” and symbolic price of 5 dollars per copy, thanks to the most generous help of the Spanish Jesús Huerta de Soto Foundation that is helping to finance our participation in this important event.And now what I will do in the next forty minutes is to try to summarize not only my main contributions, but also “The Libertarian Vision of the Scientific and Moral Truth” as we see it from our Austrian School Hub in Madrid. And I will do it by focusing on a series of fundamental points.Precisely, the youngest of all sciences, Economics is the one that has provided Humanity with the most important scientific contributionThe first one is that Economics, being the last science to arrive, or as Mises said, "the youngest of all sciences," has nevertheless achieved the milestone of providing Humanity with the most important scientific contribution. For the first time, and thanks to Economic Science, human beings have discovered and understood that voluntary social cooperation, free from all institutional and systematic external coercion, generates a spontaneous order that cannot be designed nor organized by anyone, and that peacefully and without limits drives the prosperity and expansion of Humankind.This transcendental message of Economic Science, on the one hand, resolves the impossible antithesis of attempting to apply, within the realm of interactions carried out by human beings endowed with free will, the manipulative approach of external entities that human beings have no choice but to use, supported by technology and the natural sciences, in order to dominate the subject of the material world. And on the other hand, this is a radically revolutionary message: for the first time, it has been scientifically demonstrated that states, in any of their forms, are neither necessary nor viable; that Society, understood as a process of voluntary human interactions, does not need anyone to govern it, because it regulates and organizes itself spontaneously; and that the attempt to coordinate Society on the basis of social engineering and state coercive commands is impossible, doomed to failure, and gives rise to all kinds of distortions, social conflicts and violence, that continually hinder and block human progress.Economic science is generalized into a complete Theory of Liberty that makes it possible to reinterpret History and promote the expansion of civilizationThe second point is that Economics has been generalized into a whole Theory of Liberty, understood as the most essential attribute and requirement of human nature. Liberty means that all human actions are carried out voluntarily, based on the principle of non-aggression, and free of external coercion or violence imposed and organized from above by the always minority group of human beings who, under whatever title, exercise any kind of political power.Moreover, Economics dismantles and turns upside down the erroneous and biased account of Thomas Hobbes and his followers. Neither was the "state of nature" a terrifying situation, nor did a supposed "social contract" ever exist or was it necessary to create and maintain a State that would impose order and guarantee peace. What happened was precisely the opposite: natural evolution consisted, above all, in the spontaneous discovery of the great advantages provided by voluntary exchanges and peaceful trade. Systematic and generalized violence, war, and terror arose only with the appearance of States, as coercive institutions composed of the most antisocial and violent human beings, who wanted (and still want) to live at the expense of plundering those citizens who earn their living by working and trading peacefully with each other (Oppenheimer, 1926).Thus, Economics, demonstrates that what Étienne de La Boétie named "voluntary servitude", is an anti-human aberration to which human beings have been subjected for centuries. And that it is not necessary to continue with the resigned habit of obeying the State; nor do governments enjoy an aura of prestige (but are literally "stripped" of any attribute of intellectual or moral superiority); nor is the caste—or “praetorian guard”—of intellectuals, “experts”, and acolytes that surround states and rulers to be regarded as untouchable; nor should we allow ourselves to be seduced and deceived by subsidies or perks, whether supposed or real, with which they seek to purchase the will and secure the loyalty of exploited human beings, so that they will consent, voluntarily and permanently, to their exploitation and servitude (De la Boétie, 1975).Economics is the Science developed by the Austrian School of Economics, which should in fact be known as the Spanish School, as it has its origins in the thinking of our scholastics of the Spanish Golden AgeThe third point is that Economic Science has reached its highest level of development thanks to the Austrian School of Economics. As you know, our school is based on the realism of its analytical assumptions, in the dynamic approach based on the entrepreneurial, creative, and coordinating capacity of every human being, and in the study of the spontaneous and self-regulated order of the social process of voluntary human interactions (Huerta de Soto, 2008). The institutional and multidisciplinary approach of the Austrian School is also very relevant. As a result of the spontaneous social process important institutions emerge which, in turn, make it possible and drive it forward: Law and property rights rooted in human nature and discovered and developed spontaneously outside the state; the family, a basic and essential institution, on which the expansion of Humanity is made possible and consolidated; moral principles, which act as a true "automatic pilot" for liberty and which human beings internalize and transmit from generation to generation, thanks to the family and other community or religious institutions; economic institutions, and in particular, money, which also evolves spontaneously outside the State, and which can and should be considered the social institution par excellence, since by overcoming the problems of barter, it enables the exponential multiplication of voluntary exchanges and human interactions, within which the rest of the social, linguistic, moral, legal, economic, and religious institutions are discovered, shaped, and perfected.Our fourth point is that the first theorists of the spontaneous order emerged in the field of law, led by the great jurists of classical Rome. They were the first ones to understand the organic and evolutionary nature of the social process, and so they became, without being aware of it, the first economists. Their tradition was kept alive throughout the Middle Ages thanks to the Catholic Church and, through thinkers such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Antoninus of Florence, and Saint Bernardino of Siena, eventually came to influence the Spanish scholastics of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries gathered around the University of Salamanca. As Rothbard demonstrated (Rothbard, 1976) these thinkers of the Spanish Golden Age should be considered the most immediate precedent of the Austrian School of Economics, which, precisely for this reason, should be called the Spanish School of Economics. And in fact, these Spanish scholastics were already able to articulate the following ten essential principles which constitute the theoretical foundation of the Austrian School:Firstly, the subjective theory of value developed by the Bishop of Segovia, Diego de Covarrubias, who as early as 1555 clearly explained that, although the objective nature of wheat is the same in Spain as in America, its price was higher in America because there human beings subjectively valued it much more highly; from this follows the correct relationship between prices and costs set out by Luis Sarabia de la Calle, in the sense that it is market prices that determine costs and not the other way around, as equilibrium theorists mistakenly believe; the Scholastics also realized that equilibrium models and prices lack realism and theoretical meaning because they presuppose a degree of knowledge “so complex that only God, and in no case human beings, could ever acquire it” (in latin “pretium iustum mathematicum licet soli Deo notum”), as already explained by the Jesuit cardinals Juan de Salas in 1617 and Juan de Lugo in 1643, more than three hundred years earlier than Hayek could conclude that “a science which assumes knowledge that can never be acquired is not a Science”; also the dynamic concept of competition is fundamental, understood as a process of rivalry among sellers based on the dynamic conception of market processes developed by Jerónimo Castillo de Bobadilla and Luis de Molina in 1589 and 1597, and that has nothing to do with the static model of "perfect competition" of equilibrium theorists; and also the important contributions of the Spanish Scholastics related with capital theory, business cycles, and the effects of fiduciary media generated by banks; so, particular emphasis should be placed on the rediscovery of the principle of time preference by Martín de Azpilcueta, following what Lessines had already stated in 1285; as well as on the fact that bankers commit mortal sin when they operate with fractional reserves, creating bank deposits as a form of virtual money (or chirographis pecuniarium, as Luis de Molina said in latin) that only exists in their accounting books and distorts the structure of relative prices, creating bubbles and deep economic crises that ultimately "bring everything crashing down," as Saravia de la Calle and Tomás de Mercado so vividly explained in the 16th Century; and in short, the Scholastic's idea that it is impossible to organize society through coercive commands due to lack of the information that would be required to give them coordinating content; as well as the discovery that inflation is a hidden and very harmful tax that arises from an act of tyranny, since it is neither known nor accepted by citizens, which would even justify the assassination of the King according to the theory of tyrannicide, a contribution originally made by the Castilian Comuneros eventually defeated by the tyrant King Charles V in 1521, and developed by Father Juan de Mariana almost a century later [in 1610].This entire line of proto-Austrian scholastic thought also spread throughout the Americas, especially in the newly founded universities of San Marcos in Lima and Mexico City in 1551 where brilliant disciples of these Scholastics, who had studied at the University of Salamanca itself, came to occupy prominent academic positions. Thus, for example, we should mention the cases of Bartolomé Frías de Albornoz in Mexico, and above all the great Juan de Matienzo, who became judge and president of the Royal Audiencia of Charcas and Lima from 1560 onwards (Popescu, 1997).Finally, the doctrine of our scholastics did spread even to North America two centuries later through the books of Juan de Mariana, who greatly influenced Thomas Jefferson and the founding fathers of the United States.However, the southern part of the continent ultimately proved unable to neutralize the wave of growing statism and centralization that first came with the arrivals of the Habsburgs in Spain, and which was intensified even further after the arrival of the Bourbons with Philip V at the beginning of the eighteenth century (Martínez Marina, 1820). How different and much more prosperous and libertarian might the historical evolution of Spain and Latin America have been, had the statist centralism of the Habsburgs and the Bourbons not prevailed, and had the far more libertarian, local, and decentralized traditional representative institutions of the kingdoms of Castile instead remained predominant—institutions that were dismantled, together with Europe's first libertarian revolution, beginning with the defeat of the Castilian Comuneros at Villalar on April 23, 1521 (Leonard Liggio, 2025).The most important and far-reaching contributions of economic scienceLet us now turn, in greater detail, to the most important contributions of Economics, as developed by the Austrian School.First, human cooperation takes place spontaneously, without the need for anyone to organize it coercively from outside. This is so because human beings are endowed with an entrepreneurial and creative capacity that continually drives them to discover the multiple opportunities for profit that arise in their environment. Each of these opportunities embodies a previous discoordination in human behavior that remains latent until it is discovered and overcome by the corresponding entrepreneurial act. This entrepreneurial act always arises from a creative tension and interpretation of events of the outside world that is essentially subjective and, therefore, cannot be reproduced by any artificial intelligence algorithm; in other words, the same objective events can be interpreted in multiple ways, even contradictory ones, without it being possible to postulate which is correct until the corresponding entrepreneurial process is completed in the form of a subjective profit. In any case, every entrepreneurial act involves, firstly, the creation of information that did not exist before (regarding the profit opportunity that arose from the previous discoordination that had gone unnoticed); secondly, the transmission of that knowledge (directly to the parties involved in the entrepreneurial act and indirectly through a series of institutions and signals such as market prices); and third and finally, the coordination of the previous maladjustments takes place when the parties involved learn motu proprio, that is, voluntarily and for their own benefit, to discipline their behavior according to the needs of others (for example, when they discover that they achieve their ends more effectively by specializing and trading peacefully the mutual results of their efforts). The discovery of the essence of this pure entrepreneurial act, with its elements of creation and transmission of information and the spontaneous coordination of the previous maladjustments continually generated by human coexistence, constitutes the most important contribution that Economic Science has provided to Humanity, and explains why the spontaneous process of voluntary social cooperation that drives the multiplication of human beings and the expansion of civilization does not require any statist system of institutional coercion.Another essential contribution of Economics is the concept of Dynamic Efficiency, understood as the process of unlimited expansion of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination that arises only within a specific institutional framework of moral and legal norms. This framework is the one grounded on the ethical principle according to which every human being has a natural right to appropriate the results of his entrepreneurial creativity; that is, a property right over what one has created and which did not previously exist, which is the most obvious and important human right. For this reason, (dynamic) Efficiency and Morality and Justice (properly understood) cannot be separated one from the other; or, as we might say, they are two sides of the same coin in the sense that only Justice and Morality induce and generate efficiency; and at the same time, what is dynamically efficient in economic terms cannot be neither unjust nor immoral. All of which, on the other hand, demonstrates the integrated order that exists in the social universe, and highlights the three levels of research (theoretical, ethical, and historical) that complement and reinforce with each other and are essential in our search for truth (Huerta de Soto, 2000).Finally, another key contribution of Economic Science is to have demonstrated the impossibility of socialism, or better, the impossibility of statism, in the sense that it is impossible for the State to achieve and coordinate what it promises for the following four reasons:First, because of the enormous volume of information required for such coordination, which the State cannot acquire because it is dispersed in the minds of the eight billion human beings who participate and interact in the social process every day. Second, given the tacit and inarticulate character of this information (and therefore its inability to be transmitted in an objective manner). Third, because the information that is generated is not "given," nor is it static, but instead changes continuously as a result of human creativity, making it impossible to transmit today information that will only be created tomorrow, and which is precisely the information that the organs of State intervention and the so-called “experts” would need today in order to direct society to achieve their objectives tomorrow. And fourth, and above all, because the coercive nature of State commands blocks the entrepreneurial activity of creating the very information which the State organization itself would need in order to give its commands a coordinating content. In sum, the State is always and everywhere violence and coercion; coercion blocks the entrepreneurial act of creation, discovery, and adjustment of discoordinated human behavior, while at the same time preventing the creation of the information and the emergence of free market prices that make economic calculation and social coordination possible. For this reason, statism is not only unnecessary but is also scientifically impossible.The impact of these essential contributions of Economics on the course of social evolution has so far been very limitedAll of these scientific contributions have so far achieved only a very partial, imperfect, and limited impact on the inertia of a social and political reality that has for centuries been characterized by the coercive power of States and rulers, and by the more or less resigned servitude of the citizens. And despite the very limited nature of this impact to date, which at best has materialized in a series of naïve and "liberal" revolutions aimed, with as much arrogance as lack of success, toward the impossible objective of trying to separate and limit the powers of states and rulers through political constitutions and "liberal democracies" (Rothbard, 2009); Humanity has been propelled as never before in those places and historical moments where it has managed, despite everything, to at least partially free itself from the State and open up some of the new channels of liberty shown by the teachings of Economics. Beginning with the Industrial Revolution, which was but the first chapter of the never-completed "Revolution of Liberty" inspired by Economics. And although what has been achieved in terms of prosperity and standard of living by the now eight billion human beings seems relatively significant—and indeed it is—we cannot even conceive of the standard of living and population size that could be achieved if Humanity were able to take full advantage of and fully implement the teachings of Economic Science.We can be few and poor in a context of servitude and submission to the State, or many and wealthy in a context of liberty (Hayek, 1988, p. 133). The globe is practically empty of human beings (the Earth's current population would fit into an area equivalent to that of the state of Alaska, with a population density equal to that of Brussels). And we cannot even imagine the prosperity that could be achieved in a free market daily driven by eighty billion, or even eight hundred billion, human beings. Economics explains and demonstrates that the increasing prosperity of an ever-growing population of human beings never results from deliberate and coercive State plans, nor from the egalitarian income redistribution, nor from increases in public spending, nor from subsidies, debt, or inflation, but only arises from the free market of the capitalist system. This consists of the process of voluntary exchanges among all human beings who, endowed with an innate entrepreneurial and creative capacity, are able to detect and assess, through the system of free prices, the relative urgency and necessity of each good and service, overcoming the relative scarcity of each and satisfying, every day and in the best humanly possible way, the desires and needs of billions of consumers. Entrepreneurs who succeed in this never-ending process of profit-seeking accumulate significant resources, which, in turn, are saved and invested in capital goods and new technologies that make human beings increasingly productive, boosting their wages and standards of living; a virtuous process of continuously expanding prosperity and population growth that, if not coerced or hindered by the State, has no limits.Therefore, it is crucially important for the future of Humanity that it be able to take full and maximum advantage of the lessons and essential message in pursuit of human liberty that Economics provides. But this will only be possible if we are able to unmask and carefully analyze the powerful forces of the pseudoscientific and counterrevolutionary reaction that has been mobilized to prevent the advance of the theory of liberty derived from Economic Science. Despite their diverse origins, they all converge on the same objective: to attempt to justify and preserve State coercion at all costs under the appearance of scientific legitimacy. They are driven by the "fatal conceit" (Hayek, 1988) of many visionaries, thinkers, and supposed "experts" who believe themselves to be clever enough to correct the spontaneous market order, of course, using the violence and coercive power of the State. Together with a privileged caste of rulers, bureaucrats and acolytes, they continually manipulate a Humanity that is sadly accustomed to serving the State. For all of them, it is vital that statism be maintained and that the message of liberty provided by Economics never prevail.Next, we will list the main reactionary pseudoscientific currents that have infiltrated Economic Science like a lethal virus and constitute, in Hayek's terminology, "the counter-revolution of science" (Hayek, 1955).Pseudoscientific reactionary currents opposed to Economic Science. The role played as “useful innocents” by many libertarian economists of the counterrevolutionary mainstreamFirst, positivism and scientism as pseudoscience. By "scientism" we must understand the improper application of the methods of the natural sciences to the field of Economic Science. Thus, while the natural sciences study their object of research as something external, measurable, and quantifiable, Economics studies the implications of the voluntary actions of human beings. And given the essentially creative nature of human beings, the supposed empirical "evidence" has, at best, only a superficial, partial, and always historically contingent value. In Bastiat's words, of "what is seen" —or rather, what is believed to have been seen— but not "what is not seen" (Bastiat, 1995); and at worst, it always entails the assumption, that human beings are an object of research that can be manipulated as the matter of the external world studied by the natural sciences. This inevitably introduces the idea that to improve the world, the State and its rulers must use their coercive power to manipulate and change the things they believe they see in their historically contingent "empirical photos." But these "empirical photos" cannot capture the underlying dynamic essence of spontaneous social processes, let alone what is already happening spontaneously to solve and coordinate every problem. Therefore, it is not surprising that from the very first steps of Economic Science promoted by the Austrian School, its most violent opponents were the "socialists of the chair" gathered around the German Historical School, reinforced in France by the empiricists of the school of Saint-Simon, the insane Comte, and Durkheim, who sought to create a new and alternative pseudoscience of society. And their unhealthy positivist and ultra-empirical influence has persisted to the present day, first through American Institutionalism and later through the massive compilation of empirical data, for example, in the work of Wesley C. Mitchell or Henry Schultz, the latter, as shown by Professor Salerno, having gone on to exert a decisive influence on his assistant Milton Friedman and, through him, even on the Chicago School itself (Salerno, 2023).Secondly, the pseudoscience of neoclassical economics is characterized by its claim that only its own approach constitutes true “science,” that is, the approach based on the principles of equilibrium, maximization, and constancy. Moreover, in addition to the lack of realism of its assumptions, it adds the reductionism of a mathematical language that has developed in response to the needs and demands of the natural sciences, but which is alien to Economic Science because it does not allow for the subjective concept of time or entrepreneurial creativity. Neoclassical economists develop their pseudoscience based not on real human beings of flesh and blood, but on "ideal types" that are like "robotic penguins" who, even in their most sophisticated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium models are limited to moving and reacting to events and State coercion as if they were characters of a sort of economic video game ("videogame economics"). Yet neoclassical pseudoscience, despite its apparent and ever-increasing sophistication, is not capable of accounting for the immense complexity of the real world and rebels against the idea of spontaneous market order in two ways that are equally harmful to human liberty: on the one hand, by promoting the coercive "social engineering" of central banks, States, and governments to use "fine tuning" to force reality toward to the mathematical optimum of their models; and, on the other hand, by labeling as "market failures" everything they believe they observe in reality that does not coincide, in their empirical studies, with their ghostly models of “perfect” equilibrium and adjustment (Milei, 2023); failures that, according to them, refute the "benefits" of the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty, and justify their elimination as soon as possible by a coercive State authority. Note also how neoclassical pseudoscience needs, and feeds upon, the empirical work of the previous pseudoscience, positivism, in order to justify its conclusions against human liberty and in favor of State coercion, so that positivists and neoclassicists join hands and end up reinforcing each other in their reactionary agenda.Third, Keynesianism and macroeconomics as pseudoscience. The very “macro” approach already entails, inevitably, an obvious bias in favor of justifying State intervention, aggression, and coercion against the spontaneous order of the market and human liberty. As F. A. Hayek pointed out in his Nobel Prize acceptance speech in 1974 (Hayek, 1978), macroeconomists ignore everything they cannot measure, specifically truly relevant economic processes and theories. At the same time, they believe that certain aggregate concepts—which lack genuine economic meaning—possess a “real” existence, that permits to collect empirical information or evidence that can be manipulated and statistically treated. Once again, macroeconomic pseudoscience goes hand in hand with positivist pseudoscience, and the two reinforce with each other in their counterrevolutionary reaction. Furthermore, Keynesianism is particularly harmful: not only does it flatly deny the coordinating capacity of creative entrepreneurship and the spontaneous market order, but it also builds as an alternative explanation a whole model—of course—of equilibrium with permanent unemployment, to justify the coercive intervention of the State in the lives of human beings in the form of all kinds of fiscal and monetary manipulations. Moreover, the macroeconomic and Keynesian pseudoscience feeds upon, and is reinforced by, the pseudoscientific approach of the Neoclassical School, to the point that, the so-called "neoclassical Keynesian synthesis" became, throughout the twentieth century, the main reactionary movement inside Economics. Keynesians and macroeconomists thus become the champions of that intoxication with statism, manipulation, and political power which constitutes the framework, orchestrated by governments and central banks, to which we have, regrettably, become accustomed and in which we are forced to live. This context repeatedly destabilizes the spontaneous market order, generates serious financial and economic crises and social conflicts, and continually hampers the prosperity and advance of civilization.We have left the quasi-religious mysticism of Marxist pseudoscience for last, because Marxism was scientifically dead even before it was born: in fact, it emerged with—and was theoretically demolished by—the subjectivist revolution led by the Austrian School of Economics. From the beginning, the Austrian School's development of time preference and capital theory revealed the contradictions and grave scientific errors of Marxism, while at the same time exposing its pronounced character as an intellectual fraud (Böhm-Bawerk, 1949). This intellectual fraud was historically illustrated by the collapse of the Soviet Union, and of virtually all other communist countries, after many decades of unspeakable human suffering for a large part of the world's population, all of which was perfectly consistent with the theory on the impossibility of statism developed by the Austrian School beginning with the von Mises of 1920 (Mises, 1936), and which was the final nail that forever sealed the coffin of the corpse of Marxist pseudoscience (Huerta de Soto, 2010).Finally, in this context, we must mention the destructive role played by a number of distinguished economists who, although they defend liberty and the market economy, could be described as a kind of "useful innocents" in Mises' terminology (Mises, 1947). This is so because, even though they officially oppose rampant statism and defend liberty, by accepting—even if only partially—some of the postulates of the reactionary pseudoscientific currents we have described, they ultimately end up, often without intending to and much to their regret, providing additional impetus to the statist reaction within our discipline; for example, when they insist on advising States with proposals aimed at making them more efficient and at helping them do somewhat better things that they should not be doing at all. By way of illustration, we should include in this category of “useful innocents”, for example, thinkers as the Karl Popper of The Open Society and Its Enemies (Popper, 1966, p. 366), who came to admire the “scientific capacity” and even the “humanism” of Karl Marx, and who proposed a statist strategy of “piecemeal social engineering”; or George Stigler, when he claimed that only empirical evidence could determine which economic system, socialism or capitalism, might function (Stigler, 1975, pp. 1-13); and, more generally, the members of the Chicago School, led by Gary Becker and Milton Friedman. Becker when defending that only economics developed within the strict limits of equilibrium, constancy, and maximization, typical of the neoclassical pseudoscience, constitutes true "economic science." And even more serious could be considered the case of Milton Friedman, whose very sincere love of liberty and intense and popular media support for free markets stand in sharp contrast to his pseudoscientific approach based on the aggregate method of economics of Keynesian origin, on positivist empiricism, and on the full acceptance of the unrealism of assumptions. Only in this way it can be explained Friedman's litany of scientific errors which, much to his regret, have invariably ended up reinforcing statist interventionism, to the point that Hayek himself was forced to conclude that after Keynes's The General Theory, the book that has done the greatest harm to Economic Science has been Friedman's Essays in Positive Economics (Hayek, 1994, pp. 145).The failure of democracy and classical liberalism: the triumph of statismAs we see, many classical liberals and advocates of liberal democracy have also acted as "useful innocents." The fatal error of classical liberals lies in the failure to realize that their program is theoretically impossible, because it incorporates within itself the seeds of its own destruction, precisely to the extent that it considers necessary and accepts the existence of a State (even if it is "minimal") understood as the monopolistic agency of institutional coercion. Therefore, the great error of classical liberals is very basic: they believe in a program of political action and economic doctrine that aims to limit the power of the State, while at the same time accepting it and even considering state's existence necessary. However Economic Science has already shown that the State is unnecessary, that statism (even in its minimal form) is theoretically impossible, and that, given human nature, once the State exists, it is impossible to limit its power. On the other hand, liberal democracy is a concept as naïve as it is impossible. Mises already warned us that democracy could only function if all its participants accepted the classical liberal principles, which is impossible because democracy itself encourages and amplifies vote-buying and the partisan use of power. So, the inevitable conclusion is that "liberal democracy" is a contradiction in terms as absurd as speaking (following Anthony de Jasay) of a “square circle,” of “hot snow,” or of a “virgin prostitute” (A. de Jasay, 1990). And even Hayek considered democracy unworkable if it is understood as the exercise of absolute power by majorities (Kratos in classical Greek). It should therefore come as no surprise that democracy once and again tends to be a perverse system based on lying and buying votes with money stolen through taxation.The fact is that the State attracts like a magnet the worst passions and vices of human nature, for instance, when individuals try to obtain rents produced by others using the State's coercive power. Moreover, the combined effect of the privileged groups, the phenomena of governmental myopia and vote-buying, the megalomaniacal character of politicians, and the irresponsibility and blindness of bureaucracies generate a dangerous, unstable and explosive cocktail, continually shaken by social, economic, and political crises which, paradoxically, are always used by the political caste to justify further doses of intervention and statism that, instead of solving problems, further aggravate them. Statism therefore corrupts the entire social body and at the same time blocks the spontaneous and free market solutions of social and economic problems.In fact, the State has become the "idol" that almost everyone turns to and worships. Statolatry is the most serious and dangerous social disease of our time. We are educated to believe that all problems can and must be detected and solved by the State. Our destiny depends on the State, and the politicians who control it are expected to guarantee everything our well-being may require. Human beings remain immature and rebel against their own creative nature, which makes their future always uncertain. They demand a crystal ball that assures them not only knowing what will happen, but also that any problems that arise will be solved for them. This "infantilization" of the masses is encouraged by politicians, as it justifies their own existence and ensures their popularity, position of dominance, and capacity to control. In addition, a whole legion of intellectuals, so-called "experts," and social engineers join in this arrogant intoxication of power. Not even the Church and the most respectable religious denominations have been able to realize that statolatry today constitutes the principal threat to the free, moral, and responsible human being; that the State is a false idol of immense power, worshipped by all, and that does not allow Humanity to be free from its control or have moral or religious loyalties beyond those the state can dominate. Furthermore, it is kept hidden from the public that the state is the true source of social conflicts and evils, and "scapegoats" (such as "capitalism" or private property) are blamed for the problems, and they become the goal of the most serious condemnations, even from moral and religious leaders, almost none of whom have realized the deception or dared to denounce that statolatry is the main threat in the present century to religion, morality, and, therefore, to human civilization.Perhaps the main exception within the Church is included in the brilliant biography of Jesus of Nazareth written by Benedict XVI. That the State and political power constitute the institutional incarnation of the Antichrist should be obvious to anyone with a minimal knowledge of history who reads the former Pope's considerations on the most serious temptation that the Evil One can present to us (and I quote Ratzinger literally): "The tempter is not so crude as to propose to us directly the worship of the devil. He merely proposes that we opt for the rational solution, that we prefer a planned and organized world in which God may have a place as a private spiritual matter, but must not be allowed to interfere in our essential purposes. Soloviev attributes to the Antichrist a book entitled The Open Road to World Peace and Prosperity; it becomes the new Bible, and its core message is the worship of well-being and rational planning," by the state (Ratzinger, 2007). And so, we should not be surprised that, for example, the great author of The Lord of the Rings, J. R. Tolkien, whose Catholic anarchism I fully share, went so far as to say that he would arrest anyone for simply daring to pronounce the word "State." Because the State is, always and everywhere, a reality of violence and systematic coercion against the most intimate essence of the human being, which is his capacity to act freely, creatively, and spontaneously; and so, it is unavoidable to conclude that the State is essentially immoral and that statism constitutes the principal threat to humankind.A theological digression: the dismantling of statism as a logical necessity inseparable from the work of GodAnd almost without realizing it, we can go ahead with a theological digression on how dismantling the State is a logical and moral necessity inseparable from the work of God. I fully understand that referring to God in this conference may come as a shock to many of those present, but I would ask that even those who do not believe in God, at least for dialectical purposes, make an effort of imagination and, for the next few minutes, imagine that God does indeed exist.And what do we mean by God? We must understand God to be a Supreme Being, Creator out of love for all things. And the most important creature that God has created is precisely the human being: in His image and likeness. And if there is a point of connection between God and man, it is precisely in the creative entrepreneurial ability: the capacity to discover, to see, and to create new things, goals and actions. But now I am going to go one step further and attempt to demonstrate that God is not only the Supreme, loving Creator of all things, but that—moreover—God is libertarian.And what does it mean to say that God is libertarian? It means that God, the Lord of all the Universe, has absolute power over it, and yet He chooses not to use force, but always leaves his creatures free. To the point that He gives human beings the freedom to rebel against Him; even though, again and again, God forgives human beings and allows them to rise up and begin anew.God always lets the universe He has created, flow in a spontaneous manner ("laissez faire, laissez passer, le monde va de lui même" could be the motto of our libertarian God). And this despite the fact that human beings tempt God again and again and demand that He manifest His absolute power, that He give us clear and indisputable signs of His existence and supreme power in order for us to believe in Him. But of course, God does not accept our challenge. Why? Because love and liberty are inseparable, and a forced conversion, for example by an evident cataclysm, would be completely contrary to that liberty with which God has created human beings out of love.Moreover, the Kingdom of God is not of this world; Jesus himself says this to a fearful Roman state official, who was also in charge of judging him: "My kingdom is not of this world." Does this mean that there are two types of kingdoms? The kingdoms of this world or States, which would be legitimate at their own level (remember "render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's"), and the Kingdom of God, of ("render unto God the things that are God's"). That is the standard interpretation that has prevailed until now, but I think is completely wrong. The Kingdom of God—which is the exact opposite of the kingdoms or States of this world—never makes systematic use of violence and coercion: it is a Kingdom that has already come to us and, moreover, has been given to us freely, in an act of immense mercy and love (Deus caritas est). And just as the hateful institution of slavery came to an end, the Kingdom of God will also dismantle the kingdoms of this world, the states of this world, or as St. Paul said, of every principality, power, and glory (Ephesians 1:21-23), because God is libertarian and man is made in the image and likeness of God.Ludwig von Mises, in his book Interventionism, introduced the term "destructionism" to refer to the economic and social effects of statism. If Evil (represented by statist destructionism in Mises' terminology) were to prevail, the human race and civilization would have disappeared long ago. The fact that, despite everything and the immense power of seduction of statism over humankind, the process of social cooperation continues to unfold and even prosper in certain historical periods and geographical areas, is a clear manifestation that God does not abandon the world nor leave libertarians alone in their struggle against the Evil; and that Good, represented by liberty, the principle of non-aggression, the spontaneous order of the market, entrepreneurial creativity and coordination, and above all, moral principles, always with God's help, prevails and is capable of overcoming Evil, represented by the fatal conceit of the statist ideal and the destruction that it produces.And now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human natureAnd now I will finish with some thoughts on anarcho-capitalism as the only possible system of social cooperation truly compatible with human nature. The most important intellectual and moral event that is taking place nowadays is the full fusion between Christianity and anarcho-capitalism. Because anarcho-capitalism is the only possible system of social cooperation that is truly compatible with human nature. Anarcho-capitalism is the purest representation of the spontaneous market order in which all services, including law, justice, and public order, are provided through a voluntary process of social cooperation. In this system, no area is closed to the drive of human creativity and entrepreneurial coordination; efficiency and justice in the resolution of problems are simultaneously enhanced, while the conflicts, inefficiencies, and discoordinations generated by the State are eradicated at their root.The progressive abolition of States and their gradual replacement by a dynamic network of private agencies different legal systems, and providing all kinds of prevention and defense services, constitutes the most important social transformation that will take place in the twenty first century. Without forgetting that exactly what prevents us from knowing with precision what the future without the state will look like, the creative nature of entrepreneurship, is what gives us the peace of mind of knowing that any problem will tend to be resolved and overcome, once the entrepreneurial effort and creativity of Humanity are devoted to its solution (Kirzner, 1985).Therefore, the revolution against the “Old Régime” carried out in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries by the old classical liberals, today finds its natural continuation in the anarcho-capitalist revolution of the twenty-first century. The message of anarcho-capitalism is clearly revolutionary. Revolutionary in terms of its goal: the dismantling of the State and its replacement by a competitive market process consisting of a network of private agencies, associations, and organizations. And revolutionary in terms of its means, especially in the scientific, economic-social, and political fields:a) First, Scientific revolution, in the field of Economic Science, which becomes the general theory of spontaneous market order extended to all social areas. And by contrast and opposition, the theory and analysis of the effects of social discoordination generated by statism in any sphere in which it operates, as well as the study of the transition process from the State towards liberty.b) Second, an Economic and social revolution, as we cannot even imagine today the immense human achievements and discoveries that could be made in an entrepreneurial environment totally free from statism. Today, and despite continuous governmental harassment, an unknown civilization is already developing, with a degree of complexity that is beyond the reach and control of the state, and which will achieve unlimited expansion once it manages to completely rid itself of statism. And when human beings become more and more aware of the perverse nature of the State that restricts them, and of the immense possibilities that are frustrated each day when the State blocks the driving force of their entrepreneurial creativity, the social demand to reform and dismantle the State will multiply creating a future that is largely unknown to us but that will elevate human civilization to heights that we cannot even imagine today.c) And finally, a political revolution in which, although day-to-day political struggle is important, it should not be the top priority. It is true that the least interventionist alternatives must always be supported, in clear alliance with the efforts of classical liberals in their long term impossible democratic limitation of the State (including reforms such as those proposed by Hayek in the third volume of Law, Legislation, and Liberty). But the anarcho-capitalist does not stop at this task, for he knows that he can and must do much more. He knows that the ultimate goal is the total dismantling of the State, and this goal leads all his imagination and political action in everyday life. And here we cannot fail to mention the unprecedented impact of our disciple and follower of our Master Program in Austrian Economics in Madrid, the President of Argentina, Javier Milei, who has done more than anyone else before to disseminate the principles of the Austrian School and the anarcho-capitalist ideal. Principles that he never ceases to quote and explain and defend once and again in all his public appearances, from the United Nations to the Davos Forum; and in all his meetings with other Heads of State, universities, and parliaments, to whom he even gives copies of the most important Austrian works by Mises, Hayek and even myself, as he did, for example, with the two popes, Francis and Leo XIV, with the French President Macron, the Italian Prime Minister Meloni, and even with Elon Musk. For us, it is a great honor that Milei has, to a large extent, emerged from the Austrian School of Madrid and that he continually keeps drawing inspiration from us. This is, without a doubt, much more important than incremental political steps in the right direction—which should of course be welcomed—and that should never fall into a political pragmatism that could betray the ultimate goal of achieving the end of the State (Huerta de Soto, 2010).And all this with tireless enthusiasm in the search for scientific and moral truth, an attitude that, inspired by the immortal work of Miguel de Cervantes, we could describe as follows: "It matters not whether they be giants or windmills, when the plume of our helm is stirred by the winds of tenacity and faith." And always creating a future that, although it may seem distant today, may at any moment witness giant steps that will surprise even the most optimistic among us. History has entered into an accelerated process of change which, although it will never stop, will open a whole new chapter when humankind finally succeeds in ridding itself definitively of the State, reducing it to no more than a dark historical relic of tragic memory.Thank you very much.REFERENCESBASTIAT, Frédéric: Selected Essays on Political Economy, Foundation for Economic Education, New York 1995.DE LA BOÉTIE, Étienne: The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude, Free Life Editions, Nueva York 1975.BÖHM-BAWERK, Eugen von: Karl Marx and the Close of His System, Augustus M. Kelley, Nueva York 1949."The Exploitation Theory," Capital and Interest, Vol. I: History and Critique of Interest Theories, Libertarian Press, South Holland 1959.HAYEK, Friedrich A. von: The Counter-Revolution of Science, Free Press, New York, 1955.Hayek on Hayek: An Autobiographical Dialogue (eds. Stephen Kresge and Leif Wenar), University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1994.Law, Legislation and Liberty, Vol. III: The Political Order of a Free People, Routledge & Kegan Paul, London 1979.The Fatal Conceit: the Errors of Socialism, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1988."The Pretence of Knowledge," in New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1978.HUERTA DE SOTO, Jesús: Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2010."A Hayekian Strategy to Implement Free Market Reforms," in Theory of Dynamic Efficiency, Routledge, Oxfordshire, 2010.Proyecto Docente, Chapter I: "Ciencia y Economía," Rey Juan Carlos University, Madrid 2000.The Austrian School: Market Order and Creative Entrepreneurship, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham y Northampton 2008.DE JASAY, Anthony: Market Socialism: A Scrutiny, published by the Institute of Economic Affairs, Occasional Paper no. 84, 1990.KIRZNER, Israel: "The Perils of Regulation: A Market Process Approach" in Discovery and the Capitalist Process, University of Chicago Press, 1985.LIGGIO, Leonard: "The Hispanic tradition of Liberty," published in Procesos de Mercado: Revista Europea de Economía Política, vol. XXII, nº 1, Summer 2025, pp. 403-420.MARTÍNEZ MARINA, Francisco: Teoría de las cortes o grandes juntas nacionales de los reinos de León y Castilla, Collado, 1820.MILEI, Javier: Capitalism, Socialism, and the Neoclassical Trap, in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume II (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.MISES, Ludwig von: Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis, Jonathan Cape, London 1936.Planned Chaos, Foundation for Economic Education, Irvington-on-Hudson 1947.OPPENHEIMER, Franz: The State, Vanguard Press, Nueva York 1926.POPESCU, Oreste: Studies in the History of Latin American Economic Thought, Routledge, London 1997.POPPER, Karl: The Open Society and its Enemies, Princeton University Press, Princeton 1966.RATZINGER, Joseph. Jesus of Nazareth: From the Baptism in the Jordan to the Transfiguration. Translated by Adrian J. Walker. Doubleday, New York, 2007.ROTHBARD, Murray N.: "New Light on the Prehistory of the Austrian School," in The Foundations of Modern Austrian Economics (editor Edwin G. Dolan), Sheed and Ward, Kansas City 1976, pp. 52–74.Anatomy of the State, Ludwig von Mises Institute, Auburn 2009.SALERNO, Joseph. "Milton Friedman's Views on Method and Money Reconsidered in Light of the Housing Bubble", in The Emergence of a Tradition: Essays in Honor of Jesús Huerta de Soto, Volume I, (editors Howden, D., Bagus, P.), Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2023.STIGLER, George: The Citizen and the State, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975, pp. 1-13.

What a pleasure it was to talk to Ruth Scurr, author of John Aubrey: My Own Life, about the great man himself, who was born four hundred years ago this month. Aubrey is best know for his splendid Brief Lives but he preserved a huge amount of knowledge which historians still rely on. There are many things we only know because of Aubrey—things about people Hobbes and Hooke, Stonehenge, architectural history. We also talked about Janet Malcom, the genre of biography, and modern fiction.HENRY OLIVER: Today I'm talking to Ruth Scurr. Ruth is a fellow of Gonville and Caius College in the University of Cambridge, where she specializes in the history of political thought. But more importantly, she is the biographer of John Aubrey, one of my favorite writers, who is celebrating 400 years of his birth this year. Ruth, hello.RUTH SCURR: Hi, Henry.OLIVER: Can you begin by giving us a brief life of John Aubrey?SCURR: So born in 1626, 17th-century antiquarian, collector, early fellow at the Royal Society. Well connected to scientific and the literary circles of his day. Someone who sees himself more as a whetstone: a person who could help sharpen other people's ideas. As a recorder, someone who treasured the details, the minutiae of the lives he encountered, and pass those details on to posterity.He's nonjudgmental, witty, kind, inventive. Very, very sociable. Very good friend. But he's hopeless at self-advancement. Begins his life as a gentleman, but he inherits debts from his father and he can never really achieve financial stability.Never marries, ends up homeless and worried about being arrested for his debts. And he has to sell his precious collection of books periodically through his life to raise some much-needed cash, but he keeps his manuscripts safe. And he does this at the end of his life by putting them into the Ashmolean Museum in Oxford, afterwards known as the Bodleian, and where they still are today.OLIVER: So how many manuscripts did he save for us?SCURR: Of his own manuscripts or other people's manuscripts?OLIVER: Other people's. Because he was collecting all sorts of precious things.SCURR: Oh, absolutely. He was the person who, when someone died, would go round if he could to their house and ask what was happening about the manuscripts. He's particularly concerned, obviously, with his friends. So he had a close relationship with Robert Hooke and he wanted to make sure that Hooke's many inventions and scientific contributions were recorded.And he has this wonderful line in the life of Hooke where he says, “It's so hard to get people to do right by themselves.” And in his childhood, he had seen the fallout from the dissolution of the monasteries. He'd become very troubled by the habit of using manuscript pages which had been displaced in the dissolution. He saw them being used in schools to cover textbooks. He saw them being used to—or he heard about them at least being used—to wrap up gloves or to create stoppers in bottles. And this really troubled him from, from a very early age.And I think he has another beautiful line where he says after the dissolution of the monasteries, whereas these manuscripts had been kept safe, they flew around like butterflies. And he wanted to catch them and preserve them and to stop people letting the papers and the precious manuscripts of their relatives do the same. So he was very instrumental in rescuing manuscripts, other people's manuscripts. And then fortunately with his own, he knew Ashmole and they had the shared astrology interest.Ashmole was a very different sort of person who basically said to Oxford, look, I'll give you my collections, but there has to be a museum for them. And luckily Aubrey was able to use that museum as a safe place for his own manuscripts.OLIVER: So we know things about Robert Hooke and Thomas Hobbes and all these other luminaries of the 17th century, thanks to Aubrey. What else do we know, thanks to him?SCURR: We know what Stonehenge looked like in his day because he was a very good draftsman. He drew pictures of Stonehenge. He'd grown up in Wiltshire, he'd known those stones from childhood. He understood that Avebury nearby was a comparable monument, and he took Charles II to see it, and persuaded the king to get the locals to stop breaking up the stones, to reuse the stones, which was the practice.He also made drawings of windows because he was possibly the first person as a historian of architecture to realize that you could date buildings by the style of their windows. So we have those drawings. He was also interested in the history of costume. He did a survey of Surrey, of Wiltshire.So these are all sort of focuses in his manuscripts and people who've used them come to really appreciate how pioneering Aubrey was. But of course he doesn't finish them. He doesn't publish those manuscripts. So it's very easy really to overlook the innovation and the contribution and the wonderful imagination that he had.OLIVER: You mean if he'd published a book, he would have a much bigger reputation?SCURR: Well, I think there's two things. Yes, but in a sense, you know, the Brief Lives have been published after his death in various forms. But I think one of the most engaging things about Aubrey is that he's a modest and self-effacing person. And I already mentioned the idea he had of himself as a whetstone to other people's talents.There aren't that many people—certainly not in my life, maybe there are in yours—but who would effortlessly describe themselves as a whetstone to other people's talents. Most people want to be at the center. They're happy to have clever and literary friends, but they want a place there at the table as well.And Aubrey really was very, very invested in helping other people to do right by themselves, as he said about Hooke. And he very movingly—this is one of the inspirations really for my book that I wrote about him—he spent all that time collating the information about other people's lives. And for his own life, he puts down a few lines, a couple of facts and everything.He says, well, this could be used as the binding of a book. You know, it's sort of waste paper really. So he doesn't write his own life. Other people's lives he's going to convey to posterity. He doesn't see his own life as really being at that level of needing the attention that he gave, for example, to Milton or to Harvey or Hobbes, as you mentioned.OLIVER: He's born the year after Charles I comes to the throne. So he obviously lives through a fairly terrible period of history and very tumultuous, changeable in lots of different ways. The new world, the new learning, new religion, new politics, everything is changing. And he's obsessed with the old ways. How did these historical events—is he reacting against his time? Is he just born in a lucky time in a way?SCURR: So he was a student in Oxford during the Civil War. And you are right. The upheaval is very disturbing for his generation. It means he gets called back from Oxford by his father because it's dangerous to be there. And he's really, really upset by that because, it's like us, when we were students or our students today. You finally get away from your family and there you are in this place with all these exciting peers and access to books that you've never had before or at least to that extent, libraries, et cetera.And suddenly there's a war on and you've got to go home. So there's that disturbance. Then there is the fact that actually he was close to Hobbes. Hobbes actually was a Malmesbury man, so Wiltshire, very near Aubrey. And had come back to visit the school where Hobbes had been, which was where Aubrey was at school. And so they had met in Aubrey's childhood, and then he would've been aware of Hobbes having to go into exile. And then Hobbes coming back, of course. And that's a very important time in his life.And it's not an accident that Hobbes asks Aubrey to write his life because Hobbes knows how careful Aubrey is. And he knows that Aubrey has information that he can convey in the life. So that is really the first life that he writes. And it's different from the others. There's a different sort of origin. And it's after he's done that, that he starts to think, well, actually, you know, I can think of at least 50, 55 other people's lives. And now I've got my hand in, I might start on those as well.So in that period of upheaval there are wonderful stories. Maybe we'll look at some of the Brief Lives, but there's this amazing story that he captures in the life of William Harvey, which is a description of Harvey having been at the battlefield in Edgehill and recording one of the people who had been fighting and wounded, surviving by having the good sense to pull a dead body on top of himself, to keep himself warm on the battlefield. Things like that, which make the war very much alive. This is brutal, this civil war. It's a long time ago and we think we passed over it, but the really brutal reality of war is captured in the Brief Lives through the anecdotes and the stories of that generation that Aubrey preserves.OLIVER: How English is he?SCURR: Well, as opposed to what?OLIVER: Welsh.SCURR: Okay. Well he goes to Wales often and is very interested in Wales. I think he sees himself as English. I think he's very invested in English customs and stories and people. He's not nationalistic in any sense like that. What he's interested in is the inherited ways of living.And he's very interested in language and different dialects. That's one of the other things; he starts to collect different words. He was very aware of the Cornish dialect, for example. So I'd say it's a very decentered England that's rooted in customs, traditions, inherited stories.And there's a big place there for both the future and the past. Huge excitement about The Royal Society, English science, what can be achieved through the sharing of knowledge. But again, Aubrey's not an insular person in that respect. So, he wished he could go on the Grand Tour when he was a student. He would really have loved to have done that. It's one of the things that he actually talked to Harvey about, going and traveling as his contemporaries, for example, John Evelyn did.But Aubrey actually says—this is very typical of Aubrey—that his mother persuaded him out of it. His mother didn't want him going off on the Grand Tour. She was afraid for him. And he regretted it later in life. But it's so typical of Aubrey that he would pay attention to his mother and her anxieties.OLIVER: This interest in the present and the past—so he loves all the history, but he's in the Royal Society. One thing I like in your book is the way he talks about, oh, my grandfather still dresses in the old ways, like he's an Elizabethan, but at the same time he's doing a very sort of Baconian project. He's influenced by Bacon. Is Aubrey a sort of paradox? Does this make sense in a way?SCURR: Only in so far as lots of other people are as well. I was just looking at the Harvey life, and there's a story there about how when Harvey was a student he was meant to be setting sail with some friends. And he's stopped and told, “No, you can't get on this boat. You have to wait.” And he says, “Well, what have I done wrong? Why can't I get on this boat?” He said, “No, honestly, we need to have a word with you. You are not going on the boat.” And then the boat sinks, everyone dies. And this is apparently because the guy who stopped him had a dream that he needed to stop Harvey going. Harvey told Aubrey that story.Harvey also is—as Aubrey sort of slightly inaccurately puts it, is the inventor of the circulation of the blood. And you think, well, that's going a little bit far, perhaps not actually the inventor, but certainly the first person to discover, to understand about circulating blood.So there's another example of someone's life includes, I wouldn't be alive unless somebody had had this premonition and dream that I was about to die. Which is from a completely different world, from the rational, scientific understanding of the body or the other scientific advances that are going on at the time.OLIVER: And Aubrey's happy to just sort of coexist with both of those because of his interest in astrology?SCURR: And not just astrology. He's very interested in astrology and nativities, as he called it. In some of the Brief Lives, you see the sort of recording of the information that would be needed to cast an astrological shape for the life.But he is also interested in the fact that people believe in fairies and ghosts. He doesn't look down on those beliefs. Nor does he say that he necessarily believes in the presence of fairies or the interventions of the supernatural. But he's got a very open mind in relation to that. And certainly being simultaneously interested in early astronomy and astrology together is, to us, very striking. But then I think it was much more normal.OLIVER: Why do you think he resisted ordination?SCURR: Because he said the cassock stinks. He considered ordination several times because he knew it would be a living, it would be a way of being able to have some income, probably not very onerous duties. Some of his friends say to him, “Come on, Aubrey, it really won't be that much work. You'll just get a curate who'll do it all, and you'll get the living, and then you won't have to be worrying all the time about your paycheck. You haven't got a paycheck. It would be a living coming to you.”And on one occasion, one of the reasons he gives for not doing that is he thinks well, what if there's another religious upheaval and I have to change sides again? What if Roman Catholicism comes back and I ended up on the wrong side of it?And, again, would it really have been that difficult to go with the flow? But I think, in his own way, he had found his way of living, which was intensely sociable. And perhaps he didn't want that constraint of being a member of the clergy around him.OLIVER: Do you think he was a nonbeliever?SCURR: Well. I don't know the answer to that. I don't think so at all. I think he probably was a straightforward Christian believer. I think perhaps he'd seen enough of the religious conflicts and wars to be afraid of fanaticism on both sides. And that would fit certainly with his relationship with Hobbes.I don't have any reason to think he's an atheist. He's got a beautiful way of writing about death and there's this wonderful line he has when he says, “God bless you and me in our in and out world.” So the fact that we refer to his works as the Brief Lives because they're short, but everybody's life is brief.And even those who live, as he did, into his 70s, it feels brief. And there's these very moving descriptions of him at funerals. I was thinking about this the other day because he often records where someone's buried. And I recently wrote my first entry for the Dictionary of National Biography. I did the one for Hilary Mantel, which was a great honor and extremely interesting.And when I came back to the Brief Lives, I thought, gosh, I wish I'd put at the end of that DNB entry where she's actually buried, that would've made sense to do that. And I didn't do it because the DNB is quite formalized; they've got their formula and you need to stick to it.But maybe I'll add it in. Because it seems to me very moving to record where people are actually buried. That would fit I think with her religious sensibility, with a regard for the afterlife, and with the rites of passage at the end of life.OLIVER: What is it that makes Aubrey such a good biographer?SCURR: So I think the modesty that is in his spirit, the noticing, the minutiae that he both notices and values and his wit. He has a sensitivity to these funny and revealing quirky stories about the people that he knows. Or he finds them in the stories he's told by people who did know them.There's an eyewitness account aspect to it as well. Or at least it's an oral history. “I was told this by . . .” He's extremely precise. He'll try to assemble the facts so far as he can, and then he'll tell you what people's close friends said about them, and he will do so very, very carefully so that you know this is a story that he's been told that he's passing on.And then he doesn't pass moral judgment. He doesn't adjudicate. And finally, he thinks of himself as doing all of this for posterity and that posterity, i.e. us or the people who come after us, will find things there and he's not going to tell them what to find. He's not going to shape the life and say, this is what you should think about it.He will give you the raw materials, he'll give you the stories, he'll give you a flavor of the details of the life, and then posterity can look there and can see, for example, the disagreements between Hobbes and Isaac Newton. There are people who've written lives of Hooke and Newton. And there are people who've written lives and you can be team Newton or team Hooke. Interestingly, Aubrey is team Hooke. He doesn't write a life of Newton. And he wants, as I said, to do well by Hooke. But his way of doing that isn't to say Mr.Hooke was fantastic and Newton robbed him of lots of his ideas. He says, let me show you, let me assemble and make a catalog, if I can, of all these hundreds of contributions that Hooke made.OLIVER: When did you discover Aubrey?SCURR: So I discovered Aubrey because I was reviewing for the LRB, The Biographer's Tale, and I had come across a really interesting—and it's still in the introduction to my book—a really interesting reflection on the difference between Aubrey and Lytton Strachey, a reflection made by Anthony Powell, and I had quoted it or alluded to it in my review. And I had gone and started to read Aubrey as a result of that. So I was led to it through reviewing, via Anthony Powell, and then into the Brief Lives.But then another very strange thing happened, which is I met for the very first time, Janet Malcolm, who is someone who became very important in my life. And because she knew or had been told that I'd written this review, she read the review before we met. And she said to me, she said, “Ruth, I read your review”—and I doubt Janet Malcolm was a massive fan of A.S. Byatt, to be absolutely honest. We never really discussed that further, but she said, “I read your review and I was really interested in this Aubrey. I was so interested in what you quoted about Aubrey and the difference between his biographical approach and Lytton Strachey.”And then it sort of stuck in my mind and suddenly as I was coming toward the end of my first book, which was a totally different book on Robespierre and the French Revolution, I just knew I wanted to write about Aubrey. And I think at the time my then-husband really thought I'd gone mad actually, because you're not supposed to do that, are you?I mean, you're supposed to stick in your period and certainly build on it. So, you know, a book on Marra or even Napoleon would've been okay, that would've made sense. But to circle back to the 17th century and write about Aubrey seemed extremely eccentric.OLIVER: Well, what was Janet Malcolm like?SCURR: Oh, Janet was absolutely wonderful. She has this reputation of being sort of terrifying. And, of course, I was extremely interested in her forensic examination of biography which we had very interesting conversations about. She was a deeply kind person, extremely nurturing of younger writers, and extremely funny as well.That's the other thing that you don't associate with her sometimes from this sort of public image of a very austere interviewer, The Journalist and the Murderer, In the Freud Archives, et cetera. Actually, she was a really warm and extremely witty person.OLIVER: A lot of historians don't think biography is real history. Why do you take biography seriously?SCURR: Well, Michael Holroyd writes Works on Paper—and I love Michael Holroyd so much. And he has this wonderful line—I won't remember it exactly—but it's about biography being the b*****d offspring of history and the novel, and both are ashamed of it.And I think some of those distinctions actually have broken down. I know lots of historians who are very interested in biographical writing. I think it depends. There are certain historical schools that maybe are not so interested in lives.And to be fair, the history of ideas is—which I belong to, and in a sense I'm a rebel from—is one of those. I remember there coming a point where I had spent so much time thinking about the constitutional ideas for the representative republic in the middle of the French Revolution, that actually the French Revolution could have been happening on Mars for all it mattered about the actual sequence of events. What mattered was the structure of the ideas.And it's difficult because the school I belong to in Cambridge wants to put the ideas into context all the time. But again, by context you don't really mean people's lives; more the discourses and the conversations and the ideas of the time that are the landscape, the intellectual landscape, if you like.So I rebelled at a certain point and I was like, well, you know, I'm actually going to go through the revolution day by day because that period is short. And I think it really matters, the lived experience there. I think many, many history books quote Aubrey with enormous respect and say, “as Aubrey says,” or, “according to Aubrey,” and pull those details forwards.I suppose some history is quite instrumental in its use of biography, so it wants to draw the reader in with a few anecdotes and a little bit of what does somebody wear on their head? And who was their first love, that kind of thing. But it's perhaps not very engaged with the real work of trying to capture the shape or the feel of a life.OLIVER: And of a temperament, right? I think one thing biography gives us is that sense that a lot of these big decisions or events in history are quite temperamental. As well as being based in ideas and events.SCURR: Oh, yeah. Absolutely.OLIVER: Your life of Aubrey, at one point you tried to write as a novel.SCURR: Yeah. I had to stop that quite fast.OLIVER: Why?SCURR: Because Aubrey is too important. I didn't want to make up things for him. As someone who's come right up to that line of the history and the novel, I do think it's very clear to be on one side or the other. And again, going back to Hilary Mantel, she wrote those wonderful Reith Lectures on historical fiction.And, like her, I think that it's not about ignoring the facts or embellishing the facts. It is about the gaps. It's about imagining what isn't in the record and should have been, and trying to reconstruct that inside the novel. But at the time, I felt that the gaps with Aubrey didn't actually matter that much.There was so much there that I could pull together to give a sense of him and his sensibility. Now actually, scholars in this field will all be very, very keen to advance our knowledge of those gaps. And that's wonderful. You know, what exactly was Aubrey doing when he visited France? You know, at the time I wrote my book that seemed very unclear.I think my colleague in Oxford, Kate Bennett, knows that now and will write her own biography. And she will fill in many of these gaps that I sort of happily included in the form that I'd found for his life because giving him that first person voice, I was able to focus on the evidence that I thought had been very underused at that point.OLIVER: Now Kate Bennett did a wonderful edition of the Brief Lives with lots of excellent footnotes and investigations. And you wrote that it gave us a new understanding of Aubrey.SCURR: Absolutely. And of the lives themselves. And Kate and I got to know each other and became friends while we were both writing our books. And people we knew before we met were very keen to sort of set us against each other. So they would wind us up. I would meet someone and they'd say, “Ruth, there you are. You've written a book about the French Revolution and now you are going to write a book about Aubrey. But don't you know there is a scholar in Oxford who spent her entire academic life working on Aubrey?” And it built up a picture of fear that you shouldn't trespass on somebody else's ground.And then people would do a sort of reverse thing to her that they would say, “Oh, Kate, gosh, you've been working a long time on Aubrey and where is your Clarendon edition after all? And did you know there's somebody in Cambridge who's going to write this popular book about Aubrey?”Anyway, finally we met at a conference and we really actually just liked each other and we decided it's fine. I was doing my thing. She's doing something very different. And we became friends, and I see that as a triumph over a sort of more traditional, maybe even dare I say, male and territorial approach to academic life and to knowledge in general actually.OLIVER: Yeah. Because the two books are great complements to each other. They're not rivalrous in that sense.SCURR: Absolutely not. Kate's book, it's not just an addition. It's as much as you can ever do. It's a reconstruction of the manuscript as Aubrey left it and intended it with all the gaps and the notes to himself to fill this in. And his changes of mind and his deletions and all of that. And so it's an astonishing thing. Because it's not just a copy of it. It takes you in, it helps you understand what he was intending with those collections, as you called them, my pretty collections.And so that edition that she had been working on for a very long time came out in 2015, the same year as my book came out. And it felt like an amazing year for Aubrey. And now, we'll be celebrating the 400th anniversary of his birth. But that year, 2015, was a very special, obviously for us, but I think for Aubrey more broadly.OLIVER: How much of an influence has Aubrey had on English biography?SCURR: As we know, there's the huge influence in terms of “Aubrey says.” Open any book on the 17th century, and it will be “Aubrey says,” “according to Aubrey,” et cetera. So a huge influence in that respect. With regard to the actual form, I think it's very, very pervasive and important, and we have to look at it very carefully.I mentioned earlier the very important difference between what Aubrey does and what Lytton Strachey did. There are some similarities in so far as Strachey will go for the vivid detail. He give you these powerful anecdotes. But actually he spins them as well.And that's what Anthony Powell so brilliantly showed. And the example was of Francis Bacon, the life of Francis Bacon who Aubrey has a description of Bacon right at the end of his life, the circumstances leading up to Bacon's death where he is on Highgate Hill and he decides to conduct an experiment to see if snow will preserve a chicken or a hen as well as salt. So he is stuffing this carcass of the hen with snow. Catches a cold, ends up having to stay with a friend, sleeps in a bed that hasn't been aired for a long time, and dies. And that's the end of Lord Bacon.So Aubrey gives us all this, and then along comes Lytton Strachey. And he takes it, and he says an old man disgraced, shattered, alone on Highgate Hill, stuffing a dead foul with snow, which makes it sound like he's lost his mind at the end of his life. And then Anthony Powell examined that and he said, look, the story of stuffing the hen with snow is Aubrey's.Bacon was certainly an old man at the time of the incident. He was disgraced. He may have been shattered. No doubt at times he was alone. But Aubrey's story of stuffing the foul on Highgate Hill shows Bacon accompanied by the king's physician, conducting a serious experiment to test the preservative properties of snow and, on becoming indisposed, finding accommodation in the house of the Earl of Arundel.And so you take that same story and, as Anthony Powell says, you combine the story, the fragment preserved by Aubrey with some epithets, and you convey an oblique point. It's a biographical method for actually building up a picture of the person. And it really matters what you do with those fragments.So I think the fact that Aubrey is pretty pure about this, he gives you the fragments and another biographer might come along and think, okay, what's going on here with Venetia Stanley and dying in her bed after drinking Viper wine? Let's build up a story about that. And there was a rumor at the time that her husband had murdered her, et cetera. Aubrey doesn't comment. He just gives you the fragment. And I think afterwards, people have not only used the fragments in their own work, but they've also developed a technique of working up those fragments into whatever picture you decide as a biographer you are going to draw.OLIVER: Now as well as a historian, you are a literary critic. You review novels. You are a Hilary Mantel admirer. Who else among the modern fiction writers do you admire?SCURR: Amongst the modern fiction writers? I'm getting quite old, Henry. Lots of my people are dead now. Alice Monroe is someone I'm extremely interested in. Hilary Manel, obviously, Beryl Bainbridge, Penelope Fitzgerald. And I love the fact Penelope Fitzgerald was a biographer simultaneously with becoming a novelist.And I was thinking back to this actually, that Charlotte Mew and Her Friends—that's the title. And then the Anthony Powell is John Aubrey and His Friends. And I was thinking, is there something about these people who have a lot of friends and the biographical genre? It's interesting.In terms of younger people writing, I just read a wonderful short story by Gwendoline Riley in the latest Paris Review. “A–Z” it's called—very disturbing. Very, very good story. And Gwendoline has a novel coming out later this year, which I shall read with enormous interest. It's going to be called Palm House. I absolutely revered George Saunders, although I haven't yet read Vigil. I'm only on Substack for George Saunders and you Henry. That's it, basically.OLIVER: That shows very good taste.SCURR: Very good taste. Yeah. And a couple of others. My friend Danielle Allen's The Renovator, I also subscribe to, but very few. But George Saunders wrote a wonderful post on his Substack about maybe a year and a half, maybe more even ago, about how he found the solution to the beginning of Lincoln in the Bardo. And he wanted to find a way to tell the story of the death of Lincoln's son. It's so typical of him—and I love this—he said he didn't want the ghosts. He knew it was going to be narrated by the ghosts in the morgue. And he couldn't have them coming home one evening saying, “Oh, you know, I just popped over the wall and had a look in through the White House window. And guess what I saw?” So how was he going to get the voices in?And then he said he'd got these extracts from the letters and from the literature that he needed. And he ended up putting them all on the floor and thinking, what order shall I put them in? And that reminded me of when I was struggling to find a way to write about Aubrey. I suddenly had the idea that I could just put them as diary entries without comment.I would sort of curate these entries and things like that. So, that was a very interesting moment for me about sort of the construction and the choices that go in both to writing a novel and to writing, in my case, a sort of experimental biography.OLIVER: So Hilary Mantel, Lincoln in the Bardo, Penelope Fitzgerald, Beryl Bainbridge—there's a lot of historical fiction here. This is the genre you most enjoy. It's been a sort of golden age for historical fiction.SCURR: But those people aren't just historical fiction writers. It's very important. They have all written historical fiction, but actually they write other novels as well. It doesn't matter the order in their careers, they go in and out of it. So I would say that actually it's those people as writers and sensibilities that attract me.Anita Brookner is another example. I love Anita Brookner's novels. I also love her book on David, the revolutionary painter, that she wrote—Jacques-Louis David—that's a fantastic book. So there's a sense in which I see them as writers and the genre of historical fiction, you are right, it does cut across, but I don't think that's what I'm following. I think I'm following what I find on the page from a particular sensibility and of course a command of language, which is in all of those cases, absolutely extraordinary.OLIVER: Because they're all quite innovative as historical novelists as well. And it's not the main part of what is recognized as their achievement in a way.SCURR: No, no.OLIVER: It's been quietly a second great period of the historical novel. It seems crazy to say Hilary Mantel is our Walter Scott, but that is quite high praise.SCURR: So I think you deal much more definitely than I do with these sort of epoch-defining ideas. I think I'm just more intermittently focused on particular things that I like. I used to do an enormous amount of reviewing. I've had to stop it because—talk about being the whetstone.I was constantly reviewing when I was in my 30s and much of my 40s actually. And I don't regret it in the least. And one of the reasons I don't regret it, especially with novels, was because I would never have read all those novels if I hadn't been reviewing them.And even some of the nonfiction, I wouldn't. But here's an example: Because I'd been reviewing so much, I ended up quite early 2007, becoming a Booker judge. And part of that process is that anyone who's been on the list before they automatically get entered by the publisher—McEwen and Barnes, et cetera. Fine.And then the publisher can put forward two books they choose and they can be anything. And then they assemble a list of so-called call-ins. And those are the books where the publisher says, “Oh, please, please call this in. I mean, we didn't make it one of our two, but we think it's absolutely amazing and you must read it.” And you think, well, if it's so amazing, what were you doing not making it one of your two. But anyway, whatever, we call it in. And on that call-in list there was actually, Anne Enright's novel, The Gathering, and that ended up winning the year I was a judge.And I knew Anne Enright's writing because I had reviewed several of her earlier books, especially one called What Are You Like?, which is quite obscure. It's not the book people think of when they think about Anne Enright. But I knew because I'd done all that time in the reviewing trenches, as it were, how extraordinary Anne Enright is as a writer. And we were able to say, well, absolutely go ahead and call this in. And then sure enough it won.OLIVER: What about biography? Modern biography? You like Michael Holroyd?SCURR: Well, we've already talked about Janet Malcolm. She's a sort of anti-biographer in some respect, sort of subversive of the entire genre. I very much like and respect Antonia Fraser's historical biographies and especially her one of Marie Antoinette which, again, came out very close to when my Robespierre book came out. And it's like seeing the other side of the story and that was absolutely extraordinary.And one of the biographies I go back to over and over again I'm extremely interested in Virginia Woolf. You are obviously a fan with The Common Reader. I was looking at it, preparing for this, that she's got this absolutely hilarious short biography of John Evelyn, and it is called Rambling Round Evelyn. Do you know it?OLIVER: Yes.SCURR: It's so beautifully constructed. It's got the butterflies landing on the dahlias pretty much throughout the actual text of the short biography. But then it's got this brilliant bit where she sort of makes fun of John Evelyn. And she says, the difference between then and now is, if we saw a red admiral, we would admire it, but we wouldn't—and this is very mean of her—we wouldn't rush into the kitchen and get a kitchen knife in order to dissect the red admiral's head. Right? It's so ridiculous and it so makes fun of Evelyn.I was listening to the podcast you made with Hermione Lee. And Hermione was saying that she thought what made Woolf such a good critic was that she was very empathetic. But I also think she's capable of that kind of sharp, wicked distance as well, where she goes, I see you, John Evelyn, you are so proud of your garden, and you're actually—looked at from my point of view—a bit of an idiot in some respects as well.OLIVER: I like her because she's so judgmental, which is not a very popular thing to say, but she is. She is really capable of saying that, you know, as long as prose will be read, Addison will be read. But on the other hand, he's boring and rambling and not very good in many ways. Absolutely cutting.SCURR: No, totally, totally. Yeah.OLIVER: What about some of the sort of big names: Richard Holmes, Claire Tomalin?SCURR: Yeah. Oh, Claire, absolutely. I mean, goodness, they've been such influences on me, both of them. Absolutely Richard and his Footsteps and then of course, and those other books, The Ratters of Lightning Ridge and then The Age of Wonder. That's so important, so wonderful.Claire, I revere, I loved and still recommend to my students her book on Mary Wollstonecraft. I also, by the way, love Virginia Woolf's essay on Mary Wollstonecraft. I think that's a different sort of thing where Woolf describes Mary Wollstonecraft pursuing her lover like a dolphin. She won't let him go. He thought he'd hooked a minnow. He wasn't expecting a dolphin to come after him. It was Mary Wollstonecraft. So, Claire Tomalin, her Peyps, Hardy, absolutely hugely important books and deeply, deeply humane actually.And that's the other thing, I think biography, by definition, you do get the sharpness of Woolf or Strachey, but I think to put someone else's life at the center of your book, that's a humane act. It's to say, no, I'm going to spend this number years of my life preserving and communicating this other person's life. And that's a very wonderful thing to do.OLIVER: What do you think of the sort of standard criticism of biography, that it's just not accurate enough? So, for example, Austen Scholars will point to various things in the Tomalin biography where she's deleted the facts or said things to make the narrative flow, but it's just not really accurate enough. The novelistic tendency overwhelms the historical one or whatever. You've obviously avoided that with various decisions you made in the Aubrey book, but as a genre.SCURR: I'd never say that. That would be a real hostage to fortune, wouldn't it?OLIVER: Well, you know what I mean?SCURR: And saying, look at, look at this—OLIVER: Page 28.SCURR: —at this piece of nonsense you introduced. Well, accuracy is extremely important. What I think about that is it all contributes to knowledge. If someone comes along and finds a mistake or wants to bring in some other evidence—And actually Kate Bennett, she does this with Aubrey as well. She says that, oh, Aubrey's really got this wrong, or he's gotten in a muddle about that. She's not saying, and therefore let's just chuck it out because it's inaccurate. You need to see this as well as that. So I think of it more as a collaborative relationship about adding to knowledge and if somebody corrects a previous book or previous claim or something, or point something, then that's fine actually.Again, going back to Holroyd, he thought that that biography was an art form constrained by the facts. So he's got a place for art in it. And I know what he means by that. And I think ultimately that's probably why I couldn't write a novel about a biographical subject because of being constrained by the facts. And yet Hilary Mantel has written many historical novels that are absolutely constrained by the facts. It's just what they're doing besides the facts, alongside the facts. So perhaps some people are going to come along and contribute other information and other people will come along and contribute some imaginative answer to the whole. And both are fine. I think we should be liberal broad church here.OLIVER: Is the genre dying?SCURR: Not so far as I'm aware. We are always doing this about genres dying, aren't we? Those things are always dying.OLIVER: People talk about biography dying a lot.SCURR: Well, perhaps they do. I haven't been listening to that. Why do they say it's dying?OLIVER: Because you can't sell these 700-page lives of people.SCURR: We can't sell most books. I mean, if we're going to go buy sales . . .OLIVER: This, yeah. Well, this story in The Times recently as well, that all the nonfiction that sells now is trash and that the serious books aren't there. And the whole civilization's dying routine.SCURR: Well if it is, we just have to carry on doing what we are doing.OLIVER: Yeah. What do you think is going to be the future of biography? Because I think more than a lot of other nonfiction genres, it's so changeable, it's so flexible. If you look at any decade, you see so much variety in structure and form. What do you think is coming next?SCURR: I'm like Aubrey; I think that's going to be for posterity to decide. As long as there are human beings, we will tell stories and we will want to tell stories about ourselves, and we will want to tell stories about the people we have loved and or hated, or the people who we think matter, for whatever reason, in science, in art, in literature. There will always be a need for the story of the human life.I think it will inevitably change enormously in ways that we couldn't possibly imagine. Just as Aubrey knew that he couldn't possibly imagine what posterity was going to make of the information that he had collected, and he didn't think that was something that he should be constrained by. He thought it was about passing it on.OLIVER: And what will Ruth Scurr do next?SCURR: I'll ask her. I think she's supposed to be writing about Rousseau and is very excited about that, but has been massively distracted by the Royal Society of Literature and becoming chair of that. So, I'm trying to pull myself back into my project. And I was very excited actually, because again, when I was looking at The Common Reader I saw Woolf refer to the Montaigne, Pepys, and Rousseau as people who had provided these spectacular portraits of themselves. And I was very excited by that. So I'm going to write a book about Rousseau and his time in England.OLIVER: Very exciting. I look forward to it. Ruth Scurr, author of John Aubrey: My Own Life, thank you very much.SCURR: Thank you, Henry. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.commonreader.co.uk

I'm joined by two returnees, Aashna and Sara, and another 1L student from their team, Rhea Sandhu. (As I quickly learn, it's actually The Team.) We talk about life as a 2L, how it's both the same and different from 1L. And even a little bit about Thomas Hobbes.   Links: WLGTDWI Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/whatslawgottodowithit/   Music Attribution: What's Love Got to Do With It by Tina Turner Soundcloud: What's Love Got to Do with It

Carlo Altini"Thomas Hobbes. Elementi di legge naturale e politica"Olschki Editorewww.olschki.itQuesta opera di Hobbes costituisce il primo laboratorio sistematico della sua filosofia. Lo scopo è chiaro: individuare un fondamento razionale per la conoscenza non solo della natura, ma anche della politica. Qui la lezione di Galileo fonda l'intera scena teorica: la dimensione materialistico-meccanicistica propria della nuova scienza naturale permea l'universo hobbesiano nella sua totalità, in polemica con Aristotele e la Scolastica, giungendo a delineare un quadro organico dei rapporti tra filosofia naturale e filosofia morale, tra scienza e politica, tra antropologia e psicologia che sarà decisivo per l'impalcatura del pensiero moderno.Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) è uno dei più grandi pensatori dell'epoca moderna. Nato nel Wiltshire, nel sud-ovest dell'Inghilterra, compie i suoi studi a Oxford, ma non intraprende la carriera universitaria; grazie al suo ruolo di precettore presso la famiglia Cavendish ha comunque la possibilità di accedere a un patrimonio librario di prim'ordine e di compiere numerosi viaggi nel continente, entrando in contatto con importanti intellettuali dell'epoca, come Galilei, Descartes, Mersenne, Boyle, Spinoza, Bramhall e Wallis.L'opera che lo rende noto in tutta Europa come pensatore eterodosso è il De cive (1642), ma sarà il Leviathan, pubblicato nel 1651, a conferirgli l'immortalità.Sua massima aspirazione è la composizione di un sistema filosofico radicalmente antiaristotelico, in grado di tenere insieme teologia, filosofia prima, filosofia naturale, antropologia e filosofia civile: esso prenderà forma nel 1655 con il De corpore e, nel 1658, con il De homine, i quali, insieme al De cive, costituiscono i suoi Elementa philosophiae.“Archivio Thomas Hobbes. Testi e Studi” nasce con due intenti reciprocamente in dialogo. Il primo, di taglio storico-filosofico, mira a presentare una prospettiva critica e aggiornata sull'opera di Hobbes e sulla sua ricezione: in un'ottica di rigore scientifico, la collana ospita nuove traduzioni dei testi hobbesiani e dei suoi principali interpreti, corredate da un ampio apparato critico e bibliografico, con l'intento di offrire sia edizioni di saggi mai tradotti, sia nuove edizioni di opere già presenti in Italia, ma ormai datate e di difficile reperibilità. Il secondo intento, di matrice filosofico-politica, mira a individuare nel pensiero di Hobbes uno snodo fondamentale per la comprensione della modernità, dalle sue origini alla sua crisi, nei suoi vari aspetti metafisici, scientifici, antropologici, religiosi e politici. L'intreccio tra le due prospettive produce un contributo di riflessione storico-critica in grado di illuminare alcuni caratteri della nostra contemporaneità – dalle relazioni di potere nello spazio globale al ruolo dell'umano nell'era del digitale – sulla cui interpretazione possono avere ancora presa, per similitudine o per differenza, le categorie filosofiche moderne, notevolmente modellate da Hobbes.Carlo Altini è professore ordinario di Storia della filosofia nell'Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, direttore del Convegno nazionale dei dottorati di ricerca in filosofia e componente della direzione della rivista «Filosofia politica». Nelle sue ricerche si è occupato delle origini, degli sviluppi e della crisi della modernità filosofica e politica, ricostruendo la storia e la teoria di alcuni concetti (progresso, utopia, democrazia, sovranità, potenza/potere, guerra/pace) e analizzando il contributo di alcuni pensatori moderni e contemporanei (tra cui Machiavelli, Hobbes, Harrington, Spinoza, Clausewitz, Carl Schmitt, Karl Löwith, Gershom Scholem e Leo Strauss, di cui è uno dei maggiori specialisti a livello internazionale).Diventa un supporter di questo podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/il-posto-delle-parole--1487855/support.IL POSTO DELLE PAROLEascoltare fa pensarehttps://ilpostodelleparole.it/

In this Ash Wednesday homily, Co-Lead Pastor Jason Coker invites us into the solemn and reflective 40-day season of Lent. Contrasting the stark reality of Ash Wednesday with the vibrant "super bloom" of Easter, Jason explores a profound truth: you cannot have a super bloom without a desert, and you cannot have resurrection without death. Drawing on Genesis 3:19 ("you are dust, and to dust you shall return"), the philosophy of Thomas Hobbes, and the spiritual insights of Thomas Merton, this message challenges our modern desire for endless, consumer-driven happiness. Instead, it offers a restorative view of repentance—not as a tool for shame, but as a clear-eyed embrace of our humanity and fallibility. Join us as we step into our inner deserts, reckoning with our mortality to prepare our hearts for the unpredictable, unearned gifts of grace to come. Learn More at Oceansidesanctuary.org Chapters (00:00:00) - Ash Wednesday: The Super Bloom

Crise climatique, montée des autoritarismes, IA, fractures sociales, incertitude géopolitique.La peur est partout. Et si, au lieu de la fuir, on apprenait à l'utiliser ?Dans cet épisode solo, je pars de mes propres angoisses – celles qui réveillent à 3h du matin – pour interroger une idée simple mais radicale : la peur n'est pas une faiblesse, c'est un signal.Et parfois, un moteur.Nous vivons une époque de polycrises : climat, eau, biodiversité, inégalités, démocratie, géopolitique, technologie, démographie.Ce n'est pas une impression. Ce n'est pas une hystérie collective.C'est notre réalité.Face à ça, nous avons développé trois réflexes :le nihilisme passif (“on est foutus, autant profiter”),l'indignation permanente (qui donne bonne conscience mais n'engage rien),l'optimisme béat (“la technologie va nous sauver”).Aucun ne tient vraiment.Dans cet épisode solo de Vlan, je propose une autre voie :- prendre la peur au sérieux,- comprendre ce qu'elle nous dit et la transformer en élan d'action.Je m'appuie sur plusieurs penseurs – Thomas Hobbes, Baruch Spinoza, Aristote, Erich Fromm – pour montrer une chose essentielle : historiquement et philosophiquement, la peur a toujours été un moteur de coopération, de création et de civilisation.On parle de :pourquoi notre peur est rationnelle,pourquoi vouloir la supprimer est une erreur,pourquoi nous ne sommes pas égaux face à elle,comment l'action agit comme une catharsis,et comment le conatus – cet élan vital décrit par Spinoza – continue d'agir en nous, même quand tout semble bloqué.Ce n'est pas un épisode de développement personnel.Ce n'est pas un épisode “solutions miracles”.C'est une tentative honnête de répondre à une question centrale de notre époque :que faire de notre peur, quand le monde devient objectivement inquiétant ?Citations marquantes« La peur n'est pas notre ennemie. C'est un moteur de transformation. »« Le grand mensonge, c'est de croire que la peur est une faiblesse. »« Nous ne sommes pas faits pour affronter seuls les grandes épreuves. »« Le conatus ne demande pas la permission au contexte pour exister. »« Ce qui vous fait peur révèle ce qui compte pour vous. »Idées centrales discutées

Filozofi v období klasickej novovekej filozofie sa rozdeľovali na empiristov a racionalistov, podľa toho, od čoho odvádzali poznanie. Empiristi kládli dôraz na zmyslové poznávanie, racionalisti zase na rozum. Francis Bacon hovoril o štyroch idoloch, ktorých sa musíme zbaviť, aby sme dokázali svet okolo nás správne poznávať. Sú to idoly jaskyne, kmeňa, trhu a idoly divadla. René Descartes, autor slávneho „Myslím, teda som,“ tvrdí, že by sme mali ku všetkému pristupovať s metodickou skepsou. Thomas Hobbes odvádzal prirodzený stav spoločnosti od frázy „človek človeku vlkom,“ a hovoril o spoločenskej zmluve, v rámci ktorej odovzdáme kúsok svojej slobody vládcom. Kľúčové slová: Filozofia, Schooltag, maturita, Občianska náuka Tento podcast ti prináša Žilinská univerzita v Žiline.

Ryan and Josh Mawhorter talk about how Thomas Hobbes, even nearly 400 years later, remains a popular spokesman for almost limitless state power. In fact, by Hobbes's logic, the world should by ruled by a single global dictatorship. Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at https://Mises.org/RadioRothbardRadio Rothbard mugs are available at the Mises Store. Get yours at https://Mises.org/RothMug PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

Ryan and Josh Mawhorter talk about how Thomas Hobbes, even nearly 400 years later, remains a popular spokesman for almost limitless state power. In fact, by Hobbes's logic, the world should by ruled by a single global dictatorship. Be sure to follow Radio Rothbard at https://Mises.org/RadioRothbardRadio Rothbard mugs are available at the Mises Store. Get yours at https://Mises.org/RothMug PROMO CODE: RothPod for 20% off

Thomas Pink (King's College London) comes on the show to discuss Roman Catholic integralism, Francisco Suarez, Thomas Hobbes, and more.  Thomas Pink, King's College London, Philosophy, Faculty Member https://kcl.academia.edu/ThomasPink

En tjock bok om hur en stat bör byggas och om hur invånarna i en stat bör bete sig.

Filosoof Johan Braeckman behandelt in dit 6de deel het ontstaan van het moderne denken. Hij schetst daarin de intellectuele omwenteling van de renaissance naar de zeventiende 17e eeuw. Uitgegeven door Home Academy Publishers B.V. Spreker: Johan Braeckman

durée : 00:03:57 - Les punchlines de la philo - par : Thibaut de Saint-Maurice - Thibaut de Saint-Maurice revient sur l'expression célèbre « l'homme est un loup pour l'homme ». Loin d'être un slogan pessimiste, cette idée, chez Thomas Hobbes, est un avertissement sur les conséquences de l'absence d'un pouvoir politique et de lois. Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les autres épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France.

durée : 00:03:54 - Le Fil philo - Comment vivre ensemble ? Comment coexister sans heurts ni violences ? La question est difficile. En s'appuyant sur son analyse du désir et de la rivalité humaine, le philosophe Thomas Hobbes vous propose quelques pistes de réflexion essentielles.

Learn that the idea of gratitude and giving thanks is an ancient concept for mankind and is expressly elevated in the Bible.Review how days of thanksgiving were originally commemorated in the English colonies in Virginia and Massachusetts, with the English dissenters, the Pilgrims, having the most influential celebrations.In the colonial era, Thanksgiving celebrations were centered on specific events and circumstances and accordingly occurred at different times.As Americans united against British tyranny, they made continental-wide proclamations through the Continental Congress, but again, they were tied to specific events and times.President George Washington issued the first two Thanksgiving Proclamations under the Constitution.Sarah Josepha Hale's drive to create a uniform, nationwide celebration was embraced by Lincoln and his successors, and it became firmly fixed to the Fourth Thursday of November under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.Feasts, running, football, parades, Black Friday, Cyber Monday and Giving Tuesday all flow from this powerful day of gratitude.Highlights include the Bible, Thessalonians 5:16-18, Colossians 2:7, Psalm 100:4, Colossians 4:2, Psalm 92, Philippians 4:6, King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth Anne Boleyn, Church of England, John Calvin, Puritans, Common Book of Prayers, King James I, Pilgrims, Mayflower, Plymouth England, Plymouth Harbor Massachusetts, Mayflower Compact, John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Samoset, Squanto, Wampanoag, William Bedford, Thanksgiving commemoration, Melanie Kirkpatrick, Thanksgiving The Holiday at the Heart of the American Experience, William Bradford, Berkeley Plantation a/k/a Berkeley Hundred, The Margaret, John Woodlief, Jamestown, the Starving Time, Chief Opechancanough, Massacre of 1622, Massachusetts Bay Colony, New Amsterdam, First Continental Congress, Second Continental Congress, Day of Humiliation Fasting and Prayer (1776), Henry Laurens, Thanksgiving Day Proclamation (1777), Battle of Saratoga, Thomas McKean, Day of Thanksgiving and Prayer (December 18, 1781), George Washington, James Madison, Elias Boudinot, Aedanus Burke, Thomas Tudor Tucker, Federalist Party, Anti-Federalists, Peter Silvester, Roger Sherman, Articles of Confederation, Continental Association, Constitution, William Samuel Johnson, Ralph Izard, Washington Thanksgiving Day Proclamation (October 3, 1789 for November 26, 1789), Whiskey Rebellion, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Letter, James Madison, First Amendment, War of 1812, Abraham Lincoln, Sarah Josepha Hale, Mary Had a Little Lamb, Northwood: A Tale of New England, Vassar College, domestic science, Ladies' Magazine, Godey's Lady's Book, Civil War, William Seward, Andrew Johnson, Lincoln Thanksgiving Proclamation (October 3, 1863 and October 24, 1864), President Franklin Delano Roosevelt a/k/a FDR, National Retail Dry Goods Association, Franksgiving, Allen Treadway, Earl Michener, FDR Thanksgiving Speech (1938), President Lyndon Baines Johnson, Johnson Thanksgiving Speech (1963), President John F. Kennedy, President Ronald Reagan, Reagan Thanksgiving Speech (October 19, 1984 and 1986), President Barak Obama, Obama Thanksgiving Speech (2009), President George W. Bush, President Bush Thanksgiving Day visit to the troops in Iraq, President Donald Trump, Trump Thanksgiving Day visit to troops in Afghanistan, Trump Speech to troops on Thanksgiving, President Bill Clinton, Clinton Pardoning of Turkey Speech (1997), Presidential Pardons of Turkey, Thanksgiving Dinner & Feast, Thanksgiving parades, Grumbles, Macy's, Hudson's, Turkey Trot, National Football League (NFL) Thanksgiving Games, Detroit Lions, Dallas Cowboys, Walter Camp, Collegiate Football Thanksgiving Games, George A. Richards, The Chicago Bears, Saturday Night Live (SNL), Black Friday, Giving Tuesday, Henry Timms, Cyber Monday, and many others.To learn more about America & Patriot Week, visit www.PatriotWeek.org.

Merriam-Webster's Word of the Day for November 4, 2025 is: spontaneous • spahn-TAY-nee-us • adjective Spontaneous describes something that is done or said in a natural and often sudden way and without a lot of thought or planning. It can describe a person who does things that have not been planned but that seem enjoyable and worth doing at a particular time. // The kitten captured our hearts, and we made the spontaneous decision to adopt. // He's a fun and spontaneous guy, always ready for the next big adventure. See the entry > Examples: "The Harlem Renaissance was filled with poetry and song—and with performance, as enshrined in [filmmaker William] Greaves's footage which features many spontaneous, thrillingly theatrical recitations of poems by Bontemps, Hughes, Cullen, and McKay." — Richard Brody, The New Yorker, 23 Sept. 2025 Did you know? When English philosopher Thomas Hobbes penned his 1654 treatise Of Libertie and Necessitie he included the following: "all voluntary actions … are called also spontaneous, and said to be done by a man's own accord." Hobbes was writing in English, but he knew Latin perfectly well too, including the source of spontaneous; the word comes (via Late Latin spontāneus, meaning "voluntary, unconstrained") from the Latin sponte, meaning "of one's free will, voluntarily." In modern use, the word spontaneous is frequently heard in more mundane settings, where it often describes what is done or said without a lot of thought or planning.

On Leviathan (1651), ch. 21, "On the Liberty of Subjects." Thomas Hobbes is known for defending absolute monarchy, so as you'd predict, he's not going to say we have a lot of "natural" liberties. We do always have the right to self-defense, but that doesn't mean that the sovereign can't with complete justice command you executed (even if you're innocent). Yet Hobbes wants to say that even under a repressive regime we all have lots of liberty, in the sense of no one physically stopping us from doing what we will. And he wants to dismiss as unintelligible any other sense of liberty tied to non-physical obstacles, so this entirely rules out any debate about free will. Read along with us, starting on p. 161 (PDF p. 197). You can choose to watch this on video. Get the ad-free version of this and all of our episodes, including many supporter-exclusive ones, at patreon.com/closereadsphilosophy. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on first part of chapter 8 where he discusses what he calls "intellectual virtues", meaning the abilities of the mind that people praise, which he frames in terms of "wit", and distinguishes into natural and artificial. Natural wit in turn is divided into fancy which focuses upon similarities and judgement which focuses on differences. Judgement is more important that fancy for wit. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapter 7, where he identifies and discusses what he calls the ends of mental and verbal discourse, and clarifies when the discourse people engage in results in mere opinion or produces something more reliable that that, i.e. knowledge or science. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on on the second part of chapter 6, where Hobbes tells us that the basic passions are diversified into a number of other passions in four main manners. 1. called from the opinion men have of the likelihood of attaining what they desire 2. from the object loved or hated 3. from the consideration of many of them together 4. from the alteration or succession itself He also discusses how passions figure into what he calls "deliberation" and makes the claim that a person's "will" is simply the last passion in the succession that determines their action. H finishes by discusses different modes of language by which people signify what their passions are. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

En este episodio de #PodcastLaTrinchera, regresa el Gobernador Aníbal Acevedo Vilá, quién estuvo en La Trinchera en el episodio 82, para una sesión de nerdeo de status por la publicación de su nuevo libro sobre su nuevo libro "En Primera Fila: Las Luchas sobre el Status en el Congreso y Puerto Rico, 1997-2025." En el episodio discuten el por qué escribir y publicar este libro en este momento, cómo encajan los argumentos del libro en la actual "refundación" del PPD bajo Pablo José Hernández, la lucha de Aníbal y otros para detener la Estadidad y el PNP en los años '90, los conceptos de "dignidad" y "auto-determinación" en la discusión política de Puerto Rico y los EEUU, su conceptualización de la Libre Asociación, el cuento sobre la discusión entre el Gobernador y la entonces Senadora Hillary Clinton, su visita junto Rafael Hernández Colón y José Alfredo Hernández Mayoral a Washington D.C. para cabildear en contra de la aprobación de PROMESA y mucho más.Aníbal Acevedo Vilá fue asistente jurídico en el Tribunal Supremo de Puerto Rico y el Primer Circuito Apelativo del Tribunal Federal, Asesor de Asuntos Legislativos del Gobernador Rafael Hernández Colón, Representante en la Asamblea Legislativa de Puerto Rico, Comisionado Residente por Puerto Rico y  Gobernador de Puerto Rico del 2005-2008. Hoy se mantiene activo en varias funciones, incluyendo como  comentarista político de varios programas noticiosos y anfitrión del programa Sobre la Mesa en Radio Isla 1320AM.Pueden obtener copia del libro "En Primera Fila: Las Luchas sobre el Status en el Congreso y Puerto Rico, 1997-2025" en las librerías de Puerto Rico o por internet en mediante el siguiente enlace.Este episodio de La Trinchera es presentado a ustedes por La Tigre,  el primer destino en Puerto Rico para encontrar una progresiva selección de moda Italiana, orientada a una nueva generación de profesionales que reconocen que una imagen bien curada puede aportar a nuestro progreso profesional. Detrás de La Tigre, se encuentra un selecto grupo de expertos en moda y estilo personal, que te ayudarán a elaborar una imagen con opciones de ropa a la medida y al detal de origen Italiano para él, y colecciones europeas para ella. Visiten la boutique de La Tigre ubicada en Ciudadela en Santurce o síganlos en Instagram en @shoplatigre.Por favor suscribirse a La Trinchera con Christian Sobrino en su plataforma favorita de podcasts y compartan este episodio con sus amistades.Para contactar a Christian Sobrino y #PodcastLaTrinchera, nada mejor que mediante las siguientes plataformas:Facebook: @PodcastLaTrincheraTwitter: @zobrinovichInstagram: zobrinovichThreads: @zobrinovichBluesky Social: zobrinovich.bsky.socialYouTube: @PodcastLaTrinchera"Porque los reyes electivos no son soberanos, sino ministros del soberano; ni los reyes con poder limitado son soberanos, sino ministros de quienes tienen el soberano poder. Ni las provincias que están sujetas a una democracia o aristocracia de otro Estado, democrática o aristocráticamente gobernado, están regidas monárquicamente." - Thomas Hobbes

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapter 6, in which Hobbes develops his basic philosophy of human and animal action, which stems from the senses and movements of the body, and then flows into endeavor of appetite and aversion. These then give rise to other affects such as love, contempt, and hatred, joy and grief, and to differing judgements about various forms of good and evil. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapter 5, where he examines in detail what reason or reasoning is, and what science is. Hobbes views reasoning as something analogous to "reckoning" by adding and subtracting sums, not just of numbers, but of many other things as well, in particular names, conjunctions of them into "consequences", and ultimately entire arguments or syllogisms. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapter 4, where a number of different sorts of "names" (or terms) are distinguished, as well as how those names can be combined into "consequences", and have their significations clarified through definitions. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapters 3 and 4, where Hobbes discusses mental and verbal discourse, that is the train of thoughts in our minds and the verbal expressions of those thoughts. Hobbes also notes that when our train of thoughts is not motivated by some desire or passion, it tends to be looser and less regulated, but when there is some goal in mind, it is oriented towards and regulated by that goal. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on chapters 1 and 2 of the work, where he develops a clearly committed empiricist and materialist epistemology, which begins with sense perception which then gives rise to imagination and memory, which can also then lead to dreams, experience, and other more complex phenomena. To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

A história da humanidade é marcada por momentos em que o medo — e não a esperança — se torna a força organizadora da sociedade. Um desses momentos foi vivido por Thomas Hobbes, pensador inglês do século XVII, ao observar as consequências devastadoras da guerra civil, da desintegração da autoridade e da violência sectária. Sua conclusão foi radical: para evitar o colapso, é necessário um poder absoluto, incontestável, que concentre autoridade e controle. Esse poder ele chamou de Leviatã. O Leviatã de Hobbes é o símbolo da autoridade centralizada. Ele representa a submissão do indivíduo em troca de segurança, estabilidade e ordem. Hobbes rejeita a liberdade sem freio, rejeita a multiplicidade de vozes e vê o Estado forte como salvador diante do caos. O que acontece, porém, quando essa visão política é transposta para dentro da igreja? Quando o medo do erro, da heresia, do desvio, leva a comunidade de fé a clamar por um Leviatã eclesiástico? Este episódio examina essas questões a partir da realidade da Igreja Adventista do Sétimo Dia, que vive entre a tensão da representatividade espiritual e a tentação da centralização autoritária.

This lecture discusses key ideas from the modern philosopher Thomas Hobbes' work Leviathan It focuses specifically on his discussion in chapters 15 and 26. In chapter 15, after having enumerated and explained the majority of the "laws of nature", which Hobbes notes correspond to various virtues, he claims that the science of the laws of nature, of virtue and vice, and of good and bad, is the "true and only moral philosophy". His position seems somewhat paradoxical, however, for reasons discussed in chapter 26 To support my ongoing work, go to my Patreon site - www.patreon.com/sadler If you'd like to make a direct contribution, you can do so here - www.paypal.me/ReasonIO - or at BuyMeACoffee - www.buymeacoffee.com/A4quYdWoM You can find over 3500 philosophy videos in my main YouTube channel - www.youtube.com/user/gbisadler Purchase Thomas Hobbes' Leviathan - amzn.to/3uhKmDE

Thomas Hobbes es el filósofo político favorito de Christian Sobrino y entre febrero y mayo del 2025, Sobrino ofreció un seminario gratuito sobre el Leviatán (la obra maestra de Hobbes) titulado Soberanía sobre los Orgullosos a través del Centro para el Estudio de la Democracia del Dr. Manuel S. Almeida. Las once sesiones se publicarán en audio en el feed de La Trinchera los lunes. Si desean ver los vídeos de las reuniones, pueden hacerlo en YouTube en la página del CED en el siguiente enlace: @CentroEstudioDemocracia.----

Thomas Hobbes es el filósofo político favorito de Christian Sobrino y entre febrero y mayo del 2025, Sobrino ofreció un seminario gratuito sobre el Leviatán (la obra maestra de Hobbes) titulado Soberanía sobre los Orgullosos a través del Centro para el Estudio de la Democracia del Dr. Manuel S. Almeida. Las once sesiones se publicarán en audio en el feed de La Trinchera los lunes. Si desean ver los vídeos de las reuniones, pueden hacerlo en YouTube en la página del CED en el siguiente enlace: @CentroEstudioDemocracia.----

English philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that life would be "nasty, brutish and short" without a strong government. IDEAS explores how a new take on Hobbes that includes his writing on the topic of anxiety offers a surprising perspective on the recent American election and democracy. *This episode originally aired on Jan. 13, 2025.

Thomas Hobbes es el filósofo político favorito de Christian Sobrino y entre febrero y mayo del 2025, Sobrino ofreció un seminario gratuito sobre el Leviatán (la obra maestra de Hobbes) titulado Soberanía sobre los Orgullosos a través del Centro para el Estudio de la Democracia del Dr. Manuel S. Almeida. Las once sesiones se publicarán en audio en el feed de La Trinchera los lunes. Si desean ver los vídeos de las reuniones, pueden hacerlo en YouTube en la página del CED en el siguiente enlace: @CentroEstudioDemocracia.----

His friend the great scholar Desiderius Erasmus referred to Thomas More as “a Man for all seasons.” But which season? Or which Thomas More? Is he an advocate of conscience? A heroic defender of the Catholic faith? A saintly martyr? A fanatical zealot unwilling to listen to cool reason? An amateur inquisitor who lit the night with burning Lutherans and their books, and enjoyed little more than coming home after work for a torture session? Does every era get the Thomas More that it deserves?Thomas More was indeed a man of many twists and turns, a Tudor Odysseus. A Londoner; the grandson of a baker and son of a lawyer; a page in a noble household; an exceptional prose stylist, in Latin or English; a lawyer of exceptional diligence and skill; a guild member; a religious controversialist, able to match Martin Luther in scatology; a subtle humanist of European-wide fame; a poet; a politician; a bureaucrat; a royal advisor; a confessor of the faith; a prisoner; and a martyr. He was all those things, and more besides. With me to talk about the life and times of Thomas More is Joanne Paul, Associate Professor in Early Modern History at the University of Sussex. Her research focuses on the intellectual and cultural history of the Renaissance and Early Modern periods, written widely on Thomas More, William Shakespeare, Machiavelli and Thomas Hobbes. Her most recent book is Thomas More: A Life, which is the subject of our conversation today.For Further Investigation The web page of Joanne PaulThomas More: A LifeThe last time we talked about the Tudors on Historically ThinkingAnd the book we talked about with its author, Lucy E.C. Wooding, which is recommended by Joanne Paul A very old conversation about the Protestant ReformationAnother book by Joanne Paul on Thomas More, but focusing on his thoughtJohn Guy, Thomas More Thomas More, Utopia, ed. by Joanne Paul

The fate of Jerusalem has been inextricably intertwined with that of Rome ever since they joined in unholy alliance to reject and crucify the Lord of glory (Acts 2:23; 1 Corinthians 2:8). That uneasy partnership was shattered with Jerusalem's destruction by Rome's legions in AD 70, foretold both by Daniel (9:26) and Jesus (Matthew 24:2). The Roman Empire must be revived, for one day its armies will belong to Daniel's "prince that shall come"—i.e., Antichrist––and will seek to destroy Jerusalem again.The woman in Revelation 17 can only be Rome/Vatican City. No other city built on seven hills wields such authority, exchanging ambassadors with nations. Nor does any other city claim to represent Christ, and thus no other could stand accused of spiritual fornication due to unholy alliances with earth's rulers. Neither can any other city rival the blood of both Jews and Christians which pagan Rome and later the Vatican have shed. Thomas Hobbes perceptively said, "The Papacy is...the ghost of the deceased Roman Empire, sitting crowned upon the grave thereof."

62 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas continues a series on the subject of Continental Philosophy, which focuses on history, culture, and society. In this episode he continues his talk about Thomas Hobbes. Although Hobbes is not traditionally regarded as a continental philosopher, he remains a significant figure with whom many contemporaries engaged in discourse. Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

59 MinutesPG-13Thomas777 is a revisionist historian and a fiction writer.Thomas continues a series on the subject of Continental Philosophy, which focuses on history, culture, and society. In this episode he talks about Thomas Hobbes. Although Hobbes is not traditionally regarded as a continental philosopher, he remains a significant figure with whom many contemporaries engaged in discourse.  Thomas' SubstackRadio Free Chicago - T777 and J BurdenThomas777 MerchandiseThomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 1"Thomas' Book "Steelstorm Pt. 2"Thomas on TwitterThomas' CashApp - $7homas777Pete and Thomas777 'At the Movies'Support Pete on His WebsitePete's PatreonPete's SubstackPete's SubscribestarPete's GUMROADPete's VenmoPete's Buy Me a CoffeePete on FacebookPete on TwitterBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-pete-quinones-show--6071361/support.

What exactly is the basis for democracy? Arguably Iiberalism, the belief that the government serves the people, is the stone on which modern democracy was founded. That notion is so ingrained in the US that we often forget that America could be governed any other way. But political philosopher John Gray believes that liberalism has been waning for a long, long time. He joins Sean to discuss the great liberal thinker Thomas Hobbes and America's decades-long transition away from liberalism. Host: Sean Illing (@SeanIlling) Guest: John Gray, political philosopher and author of The New Leviathans: Thoughts After Liberalism Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Thomas Hobbes has been described as 'one of the true founders of modernity in Western culture'. His most famous work Leviathan was inspired by the issues raised by the Revolution, published in 1651 as he came home - and used to support the Protectorate. Meanwhile in Oxford, Wilkins, Boyle, Hooke, Petty, Ward and others were rewriting the rules of Natural Philosophy Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.