07/08/14 – Dan Sanchez – The Scott Horton Show

Hey, Al Scott Horton here to tell you about this great new book by Michael Swanson, The War State.
In The War State, Swanson examines how Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy both expanded and fought to limit the rise of the new national security state after World War II.
This nation is ever to live up to its creed of liberty and prosperity for everyone.
We are going to have to abolish the empire.
Know your enemy.
Get The War State by Michael Swanson.
It's available at your local bookstore or at Amazon.com in Kindle or in paperback.
Just click the book in the right margin at ScottHorton.org or TheWarState.com.
First, we start with Dan Sanchez from the Ludwig von Mises Institute.
Welcome to the show.
How are you doing?
Hi, Scott.
I'm great.
I'm a big fan and I'm a regular listener, so this is great.
Oh, cool.
Well, very happy to have you on the show.
I don't know when you started writing, but I've been reading you for the past little while here and really enjoy it.
You got a site here at Medium.com.
Is there an easy way to get to your blog at Medium?
Yes.
Go to dansanchez.me.
Oh, okay.
I have links to all my Medium articles there.
All right.
Good deal.
And we got a couple of those at least to talk about here tonight.
This one is War is the Health of the Economy?
And this is a criticism, basically a critique of an article by an economist named Tyler Cowen who wrote something up in the New York Times.
And I think it's good the way you start the article by saying, before we further examine his argument, let's stress what he's not arguing, because I think we're all used to hearing the same old Krugmanian claptrap about how if only the Martians would attack and destroy half the Earth, we'd all be better off economically speaking.
I'm not exactly sure how that's even supposed to work, but anyway.
He's not saying that, and you clarify, no straw man destroyer you.
You say, listen, he's not as dumb as Krugman, or well, you don't really say that, but you say he's not making that obvious broken window fallacy argument.
He's making a different one.
So first of all, I guess, who is Tyler Cowen?
And explain exactly what he's arguing and what he's not arguing.
Tyler Cowen is an economist, I believe he's at GMU, George Mason University, and he's sort of considered a libertarian-leaning economist.
He has a New York Times blog called The Upshot, and he has a few sort of famous books.
He has a book called Discovering Your Inner Economist, or something like that, and a book on The Great Stagnation.
And so he's sort of considered a leading light among libertarian-leaning economists, and that's why this kind of thing is so particularly disappointing.
Yeah, well, indeed.
And so you say he's not arguing that we should want more war, he's just saying, well, you know, it would be beneficial if we did have one, as though we don't have plenty.
That's right.
He's making it very clear that technically he's not making a pro-war argument.
And I say only technically, because he happens to think that, well, economic stagnation is just an okay cost to bear, because it's better to not have war and have economic stagnation.
Of course, people with different preferences won't share that conclusion, and they'll readily use his argument to make the case for war.
So it still is effectively a pro-war argument.
It's also, like you say, it's not a Keynesian argument.
And it's not even about the war itself, really.
It's not about the process of war, but it's about the precedent of war.
Well, is he just being clever, and he's trying to make kind of a fun point about how economies work, and so he's saying, jeez, you know, I hate to admit it, but, you know, war actually does serve this purpose.
Like, I don't know, it's an impetus for Eisenhower to go ahead and build a major highway system for the trucks to drive on, or something.
I think he is trying to be clever, and I think that's sort of a downfall of his path.
He sort of is into the whole pop econ fad.
It's like with Freakonomics and these kinds of books where they try to have these clever quirky little arguments that are really counterintuitive, but at the same time are supposed to be iron-clad.
And so it sort of seems to be just trying to be original and trying to be quirky.
And so he comes up with this argument about what part, half of it is actually pretty well trodden as far as these things go, and that's the whole technological investment type argument that he thinks that it triggers governments to invest in science, he says.
And Peter Klein really demolishes this argument at the Mises blog in a post called Does War Promote Innovation?
And he really disposes of that argument that really he's confusing innovation in the technological sense with innovation in the economic sense, which is not the same thing.
It also confuses gross and net benefit.
It's confusing the seen and the unseen, as Bastiat said.
And so Peter Klein really dealt with that.
In my article, I really tried to deal with his argument that he seems to think that governments will sort of be scared straight and that they'll actually make their economies more free.
They'll actually liberalize their economies because they think that making the economy more free will make it more prosperous and that that will be a lot more resources that they can then mobilize in the case of another major war if it ever comes to pass.
Right.
Well, which sort of makes sense, right?
If you had, say, I don't know, a bunch of latent Hayekian Republicans who, you know, would decide in the case of a major crisis against the Eurasian-Russian alliance that, boy, we better knock off some of this wasteful social spending and lighten up on some of the regulations so that our capitalists can make the weapons we need to crush the Euro-Russian alliance.
Right?
Right.
And for one thing, that's a big if, because the point that I make is that we aren't being ruled by a bunch of Hayekians, that we're being ruled by a bunch of Keynesians and a bunch of statists.
And so his argument presupposes the notion that the prevailing ideology will be such that people will get really serious about sound economic policy and that they think that the way to have a prosperous, rich economy would be to really liberalize.
But that's not the prevailing ideology.
The prevailing ideology is that the way to a prosperous economy is through scientific management, through rationalization, through more regulation and coercion.
And that's been the case ever since the progressive era, at least.
And so really what it would do, this kind of, if it focuses the mind on anything, it would focus policymakers to, quote unquote, get serious and double down on their statist policies and just overcome any kind of remaining obstacles left in order to centralize the economy and mobilize it.
And so it would really have the opposite effect.
Right.
Well, and, you know, I don't know.
And you talk about this in here, too, I believe that, you know, always World War II is cited as, you know, it's funny.
It's cited for every wrong thing.
Well, you know, wars cause giant population booms.
Well, yeah, that one time there was the baby boom when the American soldiers all came home from the war at once to their sweethearts and then they all had babies nine months later kind of thing.
All right.
Well, and for a couple of years after that sort of thing, that was one very unique thing in history.
But actually, no.
Sixty million people died.
It was not the best thing for population growth in the world.
And of course, the deprivation of the people who are trying to raise babies in the aftermath of the Second World War was, you know, surely among the most horrible circumstances in all of world history.
People trying to get by there.
But people just take whatever little kind of anecdote.
And so here in the Second World War, basically the entire industrialized world and then some was burnt to the ground, all of it, except the USA, which was virtually untouched the entire time and was able to then build up this entire giant industry in order to export to everybody who didn't have the ability to make anything for themselves.
But again, very unique situation in history, unparalleled and hopefully never will be paralleled again anything like that level of devastation.
But people just learn, you know, regular people in the neighborhood just kind of know that yeah, war is good for sort of, you know, jumpstarting things.
That's what they say.
Sounds kind of true since, you know, that one time.
Right.
So that not only explains the relative dominance of the American economy over the European economy, but it doesn't explain the absolute prosperity level, because even if the American economy wasn't as dominant as dominant over the other economies, it would have been better if those other economies hadn't been bombed out, if they were more rich and prosperous.
And even if we weren't then over them so much, it doesn't matter the relative decision.
What matters is absolute wealth.
What matters is that we have rich, prosperous, resource rich people that we can trade with.
That would have made us more rich on an absolute level, even though it wouldn't have necessarily made it possible for us to be so dominant, both economically and militarily, which would have been its own boon and the fact that we wouldn't have been so tempted to become such an overweening empire.
Right.
All right.
Now, so for those of us who aren't familiar, tell us a little bit about Robert Higgs and his work.
Yes.
Robert Higgs, his work is really the antithesis of this notion, because Cohen's whole argument is that urgency, he actually uses the term urgency, helps to promote liberalization.
But Higgs's whole career is largely a great exposition of how urgency actually tends towards statism because under national emergencies, the state is able to excuse vast increases in its power because, well, there's a national emergency.
We've got to make exceptions.
Desperate times call for desperate measures.
We've got to rally around the flag.
We've got to mobilize the society like an army and let the state lead us to conquer this singular menace that has arisen.
And that can be the case for wars, like we've been talking about, because that's the most ancient of national emergencies.
Or it can be the case with depressions or any kind of emergency that the state can even manufacture that these various wars that we declare on things, wars on drugs, wars on poverty, that that's all in an attempt to get this bunker mentality in the society in order to get people to give up their liberties in order to fall in line to march toward this collective goal.
And so Robert Higgs in his work explicates what he calls the ratchet effect, that these emergencies happen and the state swells in power, takes all these emergency powers, and then eventually the crisis passes and the war is over, the depression is over, and there's a retrenchment that the state gives back some liberties to the people, it gives up some of its powers.
But it never retrenches completely.
It never goes all the way back down to the level before the crisis.
And so that's why Higgs calls it a ratchet effect, that it takes 10 steps forward and then it only takes like three steps back or something like that.
And so with every passing crisis, with every passing urgency, the state just keeps growing in power and the people keep losing liberties.
And so really, it's the exact opposite effect of what Cohen predicts, because Cohen seems to think that the urgency of a crisis actually creates liberalization.
But Higgs shows that throughout American history, ever since the progressive era, that the opposite has happened.
All right, now, I don't know, man, I almost feel like I must be missing something, Dan, because this is so simple.
I mean, wait, or at least, you know, for a libertarian, if you were telling me, well, this is what Krugman gets wrong, well, then, yeah, you know, that makes sense.
Of course, he thinks that left to their own devices, everybody just squanders wealth everywhere, and it needs to be centrally directed by wise men who know best what to do with it.
That kind of thing.
That makes sense that that's what a Democrat thinks.
But I want to give this guy some kind of extra benefit of the doubt that he must be making some kind of more subtle point that maybe you mentioned it and I missed it, or maybe you haven't gotten to it yet.
It can't be just as simple as, well, you know, if we're competing with the Soviets, it helps us make advances in jet technology.
And as simple as simply, you know, just ignoring what else that wealth could have gone to instead, maybe even better jets for carrying civilians instead of explosives, or who knows what other kind of technology that might make jets obsolete, or who knows what.
But I mean, is it that simple of a mistake that he's making really?
Well, with regard to the technology aspect, it seems that it is it seems like a really facile argument that that he's sort of just glossing over the most basic economic objections that that anyone who has read for Frederick Bastiat would would make to these to these sort of blithe claims about government investment in science being a boon.
And so with that regard, it does seem that wrongheaded.
The liberalization argument, it is a little bit more subtle because it does sort of get at arguments that that under underlie the Laffer curve.
For example, this notion that that if you lower tax rates, that you actually maximized tax revenues.
And Hans Hermann Hoppe talks about the paradox of imperialism, how states that are more liberal, that they end up with ruling over a more prosperous society.
And so they have more wealth to tap in order to be more belligerent.
And and so Tyler Cohen, you know, is taking that kind of reasoning and and saying like, oh, OK, well, maybe the state can know that that's going to happen and and want to liberalize in order to win a war.
But it it gives way, you know, what it sounds like, Dan.
It sounds like a clean break, a new strategy for securing the realm, which is cut down on all this socialist intervention in the economy so that we can afford to wage war throughout the Middle East.
Yeah, and that may be the one example of this policy being written as a recommendation and this case by a bunch of two cheers for capitalism types.
Yeah, it's conceivable that that certain elements can can make these arguments and maybe even push in in this kind of direction.
But but there are all sorts of countervailing forces.
And Higgs shows how the overwhelming incentives and the overwhelming empirical evidence shows that the the ratchet effect is real and that it has the the the opposite effect.
And and also he even if he was right in his incentive analysis, it's still only one incentive.
It's only one factor.
And so when he makes the the the blanket claim that that war is is good for the economy, which he does make in in this article, he's implicitly saying that, OK, well, this factor is all important.
And all these other factors, the destruction of the war itself, he he he against the Keynesians, he makes the the claim that, yes, the destruction itself is very damaging to economic growth and that all these factors that where the the war actually hampers economic growth.
Well, he's just assuming that those factors are swamped by his alleged growth supporting factor.
Oh, maybe, Dan, it was just that The New York Times editor cut out the good part where he tied all that up.
I can see that.
Well, yeah, I could have it, but not probably not in this case.
Yeah, well, so I don't know, I guess some it'd be nice if, you know, for his case, if we really had, you know, any kind of example.
I mean, I cite the clean break as a plan, but did they ever really implement that and roll back?
Did Netanyahu ever roll back socialism so he could afford more war in in Israel back in the 1990s?
I don't remember that ever, you know, actually being put into effect.
And like you say, if you try to make a clean break, you're going to end up with more intervention in the economy anyway, because it's the prerogative of the bureaucrats to seize whatever resources they claim to need in the emergency.
So like you said, in a depression or war, but especially in a war.
So, you know, it wouldn't be the first time that Richard Perle's plans didn't work out exactly like he meant, you know, right.
And then more often you have a case like with Bill Buckley when he says that, oh, well, you know, kind of like two cheers for capitalism, that whole neocon way of thinking.
And for the time being, we have to have a command economy within our shores in order to beat the Soviet menace.
And then only after we beat the Soviet menace can we can we pursue our professed pro-capitalist ideology.
Yeah.
Even with Truman at the reins of it all, he said.
And then, of course, once the Soviet Union was gone, they just immediately started looking for further enemies.
Like George Corwin said, couldn't wait for the Cold War to be over to go play with our toys in the sand, go waste some money that way to, hey, look at all the money we're making.
You know, us dividend holders of, you know, receivers of Lockheed stock, you know.
Right.
And I was just reading Jeremy Scahill's book on, no, Blackwater, and he he was talking about how Rumsfeld and Cheney were really pushing this whole, like, privatizing war and making it more.
They seem to think that it was sort of like, you know, Blackwater versus the military bureaucracy was like FedEx versus the United States Postal Service, that that if they introduced all this this profit for profit motive into war making, that it would it would make things better.
But really, it was just crony capitalism.
And if anything, that's actually worse than just an outright socialist military objective, because you still have the state.
It's still not a consumer driven enterprise.
And so instead, you just have these these for profit, totally over, not overseen forces just wasting, wasting federal money.
And and there being no oversight to it.
There's no bureaucratic regulation over it.
It's not like they downsized the Marine Corps because, oh, we have Blackwater guards now.
Right, exactly.
Yeah.
And and the Truman you mentioned Truman.
That's an interesting case, too, because Murray Rothbard talks about how how after the war, he really didn't want to to lift the rationing and the price controls.
He he wanted to continue it.
But he just realized that that he would have had to start nationalizing things because there was so much evasion going on that at one point he was considering and maybe threatened.
At least he was strongly considering sending the National Guard to seize the cows because the damn greedy farmers were hoarding the cows.
Right.
Right.
And it really gets at what Mises talks about when he talks about the cycle of interventionism that that really any intervention, if you pursue it to its logical conclusion, will lead to socialism because he he talks about the just the the most benign example of just a price ceiling on milk.
And he just steps through the economic reasonings showing that, well, you know, if you're really going to make that price control effective, you're going to have to establish price controls on all these factors that lead up to the to the product of the milk canister.
And and in order to do that, you're going to have to basically socialize the the entire economy.
And so these interventions just necessitate further interventions if, one, you're going to pursue the intervention all the way to the bitter end.
And two, if you're going to try to mitigate all the bad effects, all the bad side effects of that intervention.
And and so Truman almost went down that path to the road to socialism because he realized that he the price controls that weren't being effective, that people were evading them too much.
And so his next step was that he was actually considering nationalizing things.
And so Rothbard makes the makes the point that that was a real near miss that that that he almost took us all the way towards economic fascism.
And it was just a matter of a whim that he didn't.
Yeah, or, you know, maybe somebody finally bent his ear and said, look, we'll have a dasher.
You can only go so far on this.
I don't know.
Now, talk to me about David Stockman a little bit, because I think his premise is that the endless wave of bubble after bubble, boom and bust is all really connected to the the paper money policy, of course, but which all goes back to the need to continue to finance imperial expansion.
That's right.
He he makes a great point.
A lot of libertarians are very well aware of the fact that the Federal Reserve made World War One possible America's entry into World War One possible.
But it went in the reverse direction as well, that the the war made the Federal Reserve as we know it possible, because he says that the Federal Reserve was originally intended or allegedly intended as a banker's bank.
And anyway, in terms of its powers, it was largely limited to just being a banker's bank.
But then it was the the emergency measures of the war that gave it the power to buy and sell bonds that it didn't have before.
And it was that power that really enabled it to do this macroeconomic monetary central planning, you know, targeting interest rates, vastly inflating the money supply.
That is so it was really the world, the World War One that that gave us the monster of the Federal Reserve as we know it.
And and you're right that that this this boom and the bust that that that also contributes to this whole cycle of of crises and the ratchet effect, because the the inflationary policy creates the business cycle and and that creates these depressions and depressions also contribute towards war, because Mises makes the point that the that it's the the unemployed people in in in depressions, that they are the people that demagogues like Hitler draw from for their imperialist campaigns and for their for their stormtroopers, for the domestic oppressions as well.
Yeah, and of course, all the soldiers, by the time they come home from doing their three tours or four tours, the boom has busted and, you know, they're like born in the USA or whatever, come home and the factory's closed.
All that they thought they were fighting for seems to have been taken out from under them while they were gone and nobody even cares, that kind of thing.
And on it goes.
And, you know, Bill Clinton, he had his own kind of, you know, giant war boom and bust in the dotcom bubble.
But nobody really connected directly to any war.
But it was just the NATO expansion and the Middle East expansion in general.
It was the denial, sort of like the 20s where the prices should have been falling, but they were still inflating and inflating.
So they seem stable, but they should have been falling.
So really, it was a bubble.
Same thing in the 1990s when they should have been paying that peace dividend and bringing all the empire home, abandoning NATO and abolishing all the nukes and all the expensive carriers and long range bombers and all that kind of stuff.
And instead, they kept expanding it.
It seemed free at the time.
And when the bubble popped in 99 and 2000, you know, not one man in a thousand could put his finger on where the money went and why everything was so screwed up.
And then, of course, the same thing happened at the dawn of the war on terror, where I remember what a week after September 11th.
I remember General Motors run an ad saying, you know, like driving down the highway and saying on into the future, we're offering zero point zero percent finance.
And as Greenspan just turned the dial to full blast.
This one goes to 11 like on Spinal Tap, you know, just to make it all no matter what recession we were already in, no matter what hit we took in the financial district, downtown New York and the major airlines were involved in all this kind of stuff.
Doesn't matter.
We're going to turn on the money machine and you don't have to sacrifice.
Go to Disney World because we're going to print the money.
And the American people took them up on the offer to, OK, fine, go ahead and have extra wars just as long as I don't have to pay for them.
That's right.
That's what's so insidious about money printing and and inflationary financing is that people people think that that these giant boondoggles are somehow being financed by just taxes that have already been garnered, that have already been gathered.
And they don't realize how much of it is new extractions of wealth taken from them.
They don't realize that that inflation is a tax itself and and that the that the economy, that the real wealth in the economy is control over actual resources, actual actual goods and services.
And and the fact that suddenly all these resources are being wheeled away from from contributing towards creating food and and handheld devices and other home amenities for for the people here at home, the fact that they're being somehow wheeled over towards these death machines in and just blowing holes in the lives of these people overseas, that that that is an actual transfer of wealth that's happening now, that's happening right then as the inflation is happening.
It's not a transfer of wealth that had happened before.
And it was just some wealth that was just kind of like sitting around.
And and the government just started expending that.
I mean, that's that's the degree to which people get upset.
They think that, oh, the government is just squandering these resources, that it maybe should have given some of us some of it back to us or it should have been using it for other things, not realizing how through the inflation that that these are new extractions.
This is new theft of wealth from from the people that's happening right then as the policy is being made.
Right.
Well, and then and I think I forgot who taught me this, but this apparently goes back to the original communists, as well as our current day socialists and progressives who look at the war and say, well, if you can wage war, if you can spend five trillion dollars killing Iraqis, you can sure as hell pay for everybody to go to college.
You sure as hell buy houses for all the homeless people or make sure that everybody's got enough food or spend enough money on OSHA regulations to protect everybody at their job or, you know, look at this giant project of putting together these weapons and moving them overseas and using them against people.
If we can do that, then we can surely do this.
And so and then this there's an unending list of what this could be, whatever one can imagine.
And it becomes justification for the state that may or may not take interest in carrying out the kinds of policies that you would have it do.
That's right.
One of the quotes of Rothbard that I have in my article makes that exact point that he said that that was from ever since World War One, it became the great model, he says, and inspiration for later generations of socialist planners.
Quote, if we can do it for war, close quote, was the reasoning that people people had.
And and that as soon as as soon as the Depression hit, they had that model to to go off of.
They had they had Baruch and the legacy of of war communism and of war planning.
They thought that, well, if if we were able to, you know, mobilize to to conquer the the great enemy of of Germany overseas, then, well, we can mobilize to to conquer this this baffling depression that we're that we're facing now.
Yep.
And, you know, one thing, though, about all this, I guess, is that the counterfactual is really fun.
If you look at the situation as it exists and you think, well, geez, what if we actually just had sound money and peace and, you know, instead of all this giant deformation and boom and bust all the time and people being thrown from they thought prosperity for a little while right into desperation and all the dislocation that comes with that, what if we just had, you know, slow and steady growth all the time, you know, with new capital investments and technology improvements and new skills and inventive ways of doing things?
And then we all just sort of slowly got richer without all the boom and the bust and the war, the real boom and the real bust of the destruction of the foreign countries, our government's constantly serial killing, you know, seems like, man, we'd all be really rich and free.
It'd be great.
Right.
That's why I think it made so much sense that Ron Paul focused so much on the two issues of war and central banking, because like you say, just lifting those burdens off of society would create would make so much difference that that it would just be a totally different world if if we didn't have this horrible empire, this horrible incubus on us.
And and this this complete sort of meddling with half the economy, because half of every exchange is money.
And so when you just like our president, Jeff Dice, has this great video where he says that the Fed distorts everything because, I mean, it's bad enough to have price control on one item, on milk, like in Mises' example, but when you have the Federal Reserve messing with the money supply and messing with the value of money, that distorts the entire economy and it destroys so much wealth.
All right.
Now, I'm sorry that I didn't get a chance to ask you about your Rothbard article, but it's great.
And it's on your Medium site here, Dan, Rothbard's red pill waking up to the nature of the state, all about Rothbard's For a New Liberty, which, you know what?
I guess I already learned a lot about libertarianism before I ever read that.
But especially when you talk about the audio book here, I do remember a lot of where I was when I was listening to it and how much I enjoy listen to is when I was living in L.A. for a time there was when I listened to the audio book before New Liberty.
And it really is great.
So I really extra enjoy this article that you wrote here, and I hope it'll I'm sure it'll help inspire some others to listen or to read it.
And then they'll be libertarians because who can argue with that?
Well, yeah, I mean, just recently with the conscientious objectors that you had on your show, they said they cited Rothbard's non-aggression principle that it just gave them that moral clarity to realize that that our wars overseas are just completely wrong.
Yeah, yeah, that was cool.
You know, Sheldon told me he was at a peace meeting and everyone was going around talking and whatever.
And they said, wait, are you Sheldon Richman?
And it was one of those, you know, kind of small world sort of things.
They hear these hardcore libertarians now.
And I believe it was he, J.J., was denied his conscientious objector status, by the way.
It was an update on that one.
But yeah, that's so sad.
But anyway, yeah, it was Ron Paul and then Murray Rothbard that made straight peaceniks out of them.
So that sure is great.
All right.
Well, listen, man, it's great journalism you've been doing lately.
I sure do.
And your opinion pieces and whatever, I sure have been enjoying reading them.
So keep tweeting them this way and I'll keep retweeting them and interviewing you about them and running them on antiwar.com whenever I get a chance.
I will do.
Thank you so much, Scott.
All right.
Great.
Thanks a lot for coming on the show.
Appreciate it.
Bye now.
All right.
That's Dan Sanchez, y'all from.
Oh, wait.
Hey, are you still there?
Hey, tell me again.
It's a what dot medium dot what?
Oh, just go to Dan Sanchez dot me.
Dot me.
Gotcha.
OK, Dan Sanchez dot me.
And that will forge you on to his great site at medium dot com.
And I like the layout there.
It's kind of 2014 for the war is the health of the economy.
Really?
No.
Right there at Dan Sanchez dot me.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign and you need stickers to help promote, check out the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
They digitally print with solvent ink.
So you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold the bumper sticker dot com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
There are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me to let the bumper.
Sticker dot com help you get the word out.
That's the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
If you like me, you need coffee, lots of it.
You probably prefer taste good, too.
Well, let me tell you about Darren's Coffee Company at Darren's Coffee dot com.
Darren Marion is a natural entrepreneur who decided to leave his corporate job and strike out on his own, making great coffee.
And Darren's Coffee is now delivering right to your door.
Darren gets his beans direct from farmers around the world.
All specialty premium grade with no filler.
Hey, the man just wants everyone to have a chance to taste this great coffee.
Darren's Coffee order now at Darren's Coffee dot com.
Use promo code Scott and save two dollars.
Darren's Coffee dot com.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at Scott Horton dot org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton Show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.