Comments on: Ultima Ratio Regum

By: Rad Geek

Rad Geek — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 21:34:58 +0000

Stephan,

I read the same story in one of the Milton Friedman obits (I think maybe in Liberty). But my understanding is that Skousen wasn’t offering Friedman the gold coin to “make nice” after Friedman had been offended; the whole thing was an orchestrated stunt to present Friedman with the gold coin as a gift. (The “making nice” part was when Skousen also gave him a $20 bill out of his own wallet as a replacement for the torn bill.)

Pretty stupid stunt, if you ask me; the man seems to have a knack for that.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:21:59 +0000

They are characters in the cast of LeftLiberarian2, the Yahoo group.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:01:10 +0000

In that piece North seems to think Friedman’s annoyance was based solely on his attachment to the system of fiat money. But I, having no such attachment, would also have been annoyed. The fact that I would have consented to the exchange if asked doesn’t entitle someone to just go ahead and perform the trade without asking me.

By: Stephan Kinsella

Stephan Kinsella — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:52:18 +0000

Speaking of Skousen's "stunts," Gary North recounts in Read Rothbard and deSoto an incident where Skousen, North, and Friedman were at dinner; to illustrate his point that current paper currency had no gold promise, he asked Friedman to produce a $20 bill, whereupon Skousen tore it up. This angered Friedman, and he was not easily mollified even when Skousen tried to make nice by offering to replace it with a $20 gold piece. Seems like an awfully jerkish thing to do.

By: Anon73

Anon73 — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:25:22 +0000

I googled both of those names (Lloyed Miller and Tony Hollick) and didn’t come up with anything.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:41:41 +0000

Right now I

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:15:41 +0000

I’ve just qualified still further the update at the top of the post. I hope Doug Casey goes public with his version.

By: Kevin Carson

Kevin Carson — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 19:05:03 +0000

Right now I’m inclined to believe only what Skousen himself actually admitted to–the part about playful arm-wrestling. All the stuff about his subsequent conversations with Davidson, including his alleged assertions that anyone offended by a remark is entitled to beat up the target of his ire, I’m strongly inclined to dismiss as the product of Davidson’s (ahem) fertile imagination.

His “impression” of Sheldon’s biased comment editing policy, based on absolutely no concrete evidence, his bizarre insinuations about Sheldon’s financial incentive to favor Skousen over him, and his bizarre insinuations about the CIA money backing Skousen, all incline me to doubt a claim by Davidson that the sun would rise in the east tomorrow.

I think we’re dealing with another Lloyd Miller or Tony Hollick here.

By: Sheldon Richman

Sheldon Richman — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 18:32:48 +0000

But did you have grounds to believe that he would take the unlibertarian position attributed to him? I have not known him to take an unlibertarian position at the basic level.

By: Roderick

Roderick — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:29:22 +0000

I agree that it’s misleading. Jim’s original description of it as Indian wrestling is less misleading, although Indian wrestling can be either arm or leg. Indian arm wrestling involves a bit more than what’s usually called arm wrestling, though (since Indian arm wrestling involves attempting to knock the other person onto the floor), and it’s not clear to me whether what Skousen arranged was genuine knock-your-opponent-over Indian arm wrestling or plain old seated-at-a-table paleface arm wrestling.