If you reprint the letters, in whole or part, or if you use the information contained within them, then a link back to Vulgus would be appreciated. If you value the information and the work that went into providing it, then please consider making a donation at the Paypal button or bitcoin wallet ID on the front page. Other means of donating can be accessed by writing to lynneATvulgusDOTorg. Thank you.
Introduction: the following set of letters are basically between Murray Rothbard and R.C. Hoiles with several letters from or to other people included because they either were attachments to the Rothbard-Hoiles correspondence or are otherwise relevant. The set is not complete, by any means, but offers a tantalizing glimpse into the personalities, relationship and beliefs of Rothbard and Hoiles. The letters are typewritten and the transcription comes from copies of the originals.
April 15, 1954
Mr. R.C. Hoiles
President
Freedom Newspapers, Inc.
Register Building
Santa Ana, California-based
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
Thank you very much for your letter of April 9. I'm very glad that you liked my article, “The Real Aggressor,” and I greatly appreciate your comments. I have thought for quite a while that such an article needed to be written, particularly because the confusion of so many alleged anti-statists in sponsoring a statist foreign and “defense” policy. I'm glad that you like the example of Peter because it seems to me that this is a key to libertarian political philosophy, and one that very few anti-statists acknowledge.
Thank you for sending me the articles on education. I certainly agree with you about the evils of public schools. I thought your articles sound and true. They are especially noteworthy because, here again, 99% of the alleged anti-statists rush to proclaim that they're not at all against public education, but only against some of its more dramatic evils. You article “More Ideas Tax Supported Schools Cannot Teach” was a superb statement of the evils of public schools their basic inherent hostility to all ideas of liberty.
Your statement of policy for the Freedom Newspapers is excellent; your statement “The police force should have no powers denied any individual” seems to me one of the best brief gems of libertarian philosophy I have read. It is a pity that here in New York we do not get a chance to read a Freedom Newspaper.
I am glad that you are planning to reprint my article in your newspapers. (Please use the “Aubrey Herbert” pen-name.) I would greatly appreciate receiving a clipping of the article when it is printed.
Thank you again for your comments and articles. It is all too rare these days to learn of a really consistent advocate of freedom.
Very truly yours,
Murray N. Rothbard
************************************************************************************************************
This letter was on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead, Subtitled, Publishers of the Nation's Most Consistent Newspapers Address, Register Building, Sixth & Sycamore, Santa Ana, California. R.C. Hoiles President
August 14, 1954
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York 24, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Since you have taken such a splendid stand against forcing people to pay for protection, I thought you might be interested in seeing a copy of a letter I mailed to Leonard Read after he had written me that he has a man from Seattle who is going to finance the printing of 15,000 copies of his "In Defense of Government". He says he has changed the name of it to "Government, An Ideal Concept".
When men refuse to answer questions, as Read has refused to answer my questions, it seems to me they cease to be true libertarians. I believe all libertarians invite question.
Yours very truly,
R.C. Hoiles
RCH:fam
enc.
The bottom of the letterhead reads (punctuation as it appeared but not in italics):
FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC. owns and operates the SANTA ANA (Calif.) REGISTER, COLORADO SPRINGS (Colo.) GAZETTE-TELEGRAPH, MARYSVILLE (Calif.) APPEAL-DEMOCRAT, BUCYRUS (Ohio) TELEGRAPH-FORUM...controls and operates the ODESSA (Texas) AMERICAN BROWNSVILLE (Texas) HERALD, HARLINGEN (Texas) VALLEY MORNING STAR, and the McALLEN (Texas) VALLEY EVENING MONITOR...stockholders of FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC. control and operate the CLOVIS (N. Mex.) NEWS-JOURNAL and the PAMPA (Texas) DAILY NEWS.
************************************
The attached letter to Leonard Read is on Santa Ana Register letterhead, subtitled "Southern California's Most Consistent Newspaper". The letterhead reads "Evening and Sunday," with the address being Register Building, Santa Ana, California.
August 13, 1954
Mr. Leonard E. Read,
President
The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York
Dear Leonard:
Thank you for your letter of August 10th in regard to your belief, as expressed in your manuscript, that the government forcing a man to pay for protection against his will is not initiating force or aggression.
I am indeed sorry that you have joined the group that refuses to answer questions. I know of no person who will answer questions without evasion who so believes. I can only think of one reason why men do not answer questions, and that is that they would have to contradict themselves or be embarrassed, and they do not want to really have their ideas tested.
You are, of course, on the popular side – most people believe that the government has a right to force an individual to pay for protection.
I would really like to know what standard you use to determine whether an act is moral or immoral – whether it is good or eveil. In my letter to you of April 20th I tried to use the Golden Rule as a principle of determining whether or not an act is right or wrong, good or evil. But you refused to answer the questions I asked in that letter. So as not to require you to look up that letter, I am repeating the questions. Here they are:
1. Would it be a violation of the Golden Rule for one individual, say John Smith, to set up a method of defense and coerce another individual, say Bob Jones, either to help pay for thie defense or leave the territory?
2. If it is a violation of the Golden Rule for John Smith to coerce Bob Jones to help pay for defense or leave the territory, wouldn't it be a violation of the Golden Rule for one group, say Group A, to set up a defense system and coerce another group, say Group B, to either held pay to support Group A's defense system or leave the territory?
3. In question 2, Group A could be a majority or it could be a minority. If it is a violation of the Golden Rule for a minority to coerce the majority either to pay for a defense system or leave the territory, why isn't it a violation of the Golden Rule for a majority to coerce a minority to either help pay for a defense system or leave the territory?
You say that you are not at all certain that you could sell me on the way you look at the matter. You certainly can if you can ask me questions on the subject that I have to refuse to answer or I am obliged to contradict myself in answering.
Just what test do you use to determine whether you change your opinion?
Yours very truly,
R.C. Hoiles
RCH:fdm
P.S. Would it not be better for the Foundation for Economic Education to have you personally publish it? Then the contributors to FEE and the staff members who believe you are in error would not be embarrassed by being indirectly a party to its publication.
The bottom of the letter reads (in caps and not in italics):
A DIVISION OF FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INCORPORATED
******************************************************************************************************
This meaty letter from Hoiles to Read is on plain paper rather than on letterhead. It appears as though Murray received a copy of this one as well.
August 20, 1954
Mr. Leonard E. Read, President
The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc.
Irvington-on-Hudson, New York
Dear Leonard:
Thank you for your letter of August 17 in regard to our difference in beliefs as to whether taxation is defensive or aggressive or initiating force.
It seems to me you base your whole conclusion on a belief in the social aspect of man, thus it seems to me that you are not reasoning from a principle, but from an individual belief. There are undoubtedly as many different ideas of what the social aspect of man is as there are individuals. It seems to me that you do not follow Voltaire's admonition “If you would discourse with me, define your terms”, and you have not defined the social aspect of man so that anyone but yourself knows what you mean. I even doubt whether you do, or you would be able to all questions about the subject without evasion. And when you attempt to define your terms, remember what Lord Kelvin said: “When you can measure what you are speaking about and express it in numbers (principles), you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers (principles), your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind.” Of course, if we do not reduce our contentions to principles, we cannot convey our ideas to another person. One would have to go back every time to find out whether this or that was in agreement with the belief of the man who started from a belief rather than a principle.
To me, social aspect means that men have a right to voluntarily associate themselves together for defense and for general improvement. But they never, under any circumstances, have a moral right to initiate force or be aggressors, collectively or individually, against any individual to make him help in the defense of the group or the individual.
Will you please define social aspect as Lord Kelvin said, so we can have a starting point?
The coined words “God-ward” and “Godwardness” are just as vague as social aspect and there are as many ideas of what these mean as there are individuals.
You say you think I am not quite fair to accuse you of not answering questions. Of course, you will answer some questions, but I might have said that you will not answer certain questions. And if a man will answer only the questions that he wants asked, it is hard for me to see how he will ever convict himself of being inconsistent.
If you think the “John Smith question” was irrelevant and not germane, I will make it personal and based on a principle:
Would it be a violation of the Golden Rule for one individual, say Leonard E. Read, to set up a method of defense and coerce another individual, say R.C. Hoiles, either to pay pay for this defense or leave the territory?
This is a germane question and it is based on a principle.
A friend of mine says that one question is useless. It takes a third question to prove a contradiction. Another acquaintance of mine says that the only defense a socialist has is evasion. Every man who believes in any form of aggression or initiating force whom I have had correspondence with always uses the same method of evasion – that it would be better to talk the matter over than to write about the matter. It seems to me that putting things in writing is much more satisfactory than verbal discussions because then there is no difference of opinion as to what has been said. Then the subject can be studied and analyzed and contradiction can more easily be recognized than when discussions are verbal.
If the test of whether a man has to contradict himself or refuse to answer certain questions is not proof of reality or fiction, then why do courts cross examine witnesses and require them to answer or be guilty of contempt of court? It seems to me that a man who refuses to answer certain questions in a discussion is not of course guilty of contempt of court but he is using the Fifth Amendment so he will not be guilty of contempt of reason.
You admit that you do not know the test you should use to determine whether you are in harmony with truth and moral law and you ask me if I have one, and if so, if you may have it. You certainly may have it. If I am obliged to refuse to answer certain questions about what I am advocating and will not define my terms and reduce them to principles, I will admit with Lord Kelvin that my knowledge is meager and of little value, and I do not know what I am talking about and that I am using words not based on principles or reason. I know of no other test.
You say your opinions are constantly changing. Certainly, every man's opinions should be constantly changing as to the interpretation of principles, but the principles of “Thou shalt not covet” and Thou shalt not commit aggression, either individually or collectively, do not change. One cannot serve two masters as you propose by contending that the state has a right to commit an act that would be aggression if done by an individual. That is undoubtedly the reason you will not answer the three questions I asked, revised to read “Leonard E. Read” and “R.C. Hoiles”.
The question and answer method is the Socratic method, it is the court method and it is the method President Garfield had in mind when he said his idea of a college was Mark Hopkins on a log with the student at the other end of the log – discussing questions. The minute you have an exception – such as a question that you cannot answer, you have no rule – no principle. This is true unless that “It take the exception to test the rule” means “It takes the exception to prove the rule.” I believe that is there are any exceptions you have no rule.
Would you determine what defense was necessary in order to require a man to support it by the majority or the representatives of the majority or the one that [Ed: the remainder of this sentence/question is not legible].
Defenders of tax-supported schools contend that protective tariffs are necessary for defense. Would whether or not these things are needed for defense be determined, as asked above, by the majority vote or by representatives of the majority?
In practically every war both sides contend they are defensive – the other side is always the aggressor.
When you take away from an individual his right to be his own judge as to whether he wants to assist in defense, then how can that man be a steward of his life if the majority or a tyrant at the head of the government says it is not using aggression or initiating force when it makes him assist by paying taxes when he believes he would have better defense in another manner?
I hope you will not leave me continuing to believe that Leonard E. Read will not answer certain questions.
Yours very truly,
R.C. Hoiles
RCH:fdm
P.S. Thaddeus Ashby, our editorial writer at Colorado Springs, has written a 50-page criticism of your belief on taxation. We are taking the liberty of mailing this to you under separate cover. Will you please return it, as it is the only copy I have?
Would you furnish us the names and addresses of those people who will receive a free copy of your presentation on “Government, An Ideal Concept” so that Freedom Newspapers could publish, at its own expense, Ashby's criticism and furnish it to this list of people?
***************************************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles' son, Harry, is on letterhead. It reads: Colorado Spings Gazette Telegraph, Colorado's Most Consistent Newspaper, Colorado Springs, Colorado, At the foot of Pike's Peak, Harry H. Hoiles, Publisher, 18 East Pikes Peak Avenue, Telephone 5241.
September 2, 1954
Murray N. Rothbard
215 W. 88th St.
New York 24, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Thaddeus Ashby is leaving our organization and joining Spiritual Mobilization as Bill Johnson's assistant.
As a result, we could use an individualist who would be interested in learning the newpaper business or one who already knows something about the newspaper business who would be interest in joining our organization and writing editorials for the Gazette Telegraph.
If you know of anyone whom you think would be interested in joining our organization as a reporter and editorial writer, I would appreciate it if you have him get in touch with me. I believe the reporting part of the job would take most of such an individual's time, although the time spent on writing editorials is, of course, very important. We do not devote enough space to editorials for them to take more than a portion of a week's time for a writer. What we need in the editorial line is approximately 900 or 1000 words in one or more editorials four or five times a week. We publish seven days but usually pick up editorials from one of our other papers two or three times a week.
If an individual has the ability to work into the newspaper business as a reporter and also write individualist editorials, he should have a very good future with our organization.
If we do not find any such individual, I plan to write the editorials myself and train one of the men we have here who is already a good reporter to write individualist editorials.
Please let me know whether or not you have suggestions to fill a job such as I have outlined.
Sincerely yours,
Harry Hoiles,
Publisher
*************************************************************************************************
This letter from Thaddeus Ashby is on the same letterhead as Harry Hoiles' previous one but without the notation of "Harry H. Hoiles, Publisher" at the top right-hand side. There is an illegible handwritten note at the bottom. The enclosure is not available to me.
September 2, 1954
Murray N. Rothbard
215 W. 88th St.
New York 24, N.Y.
Dear Murray:
I leave for Los Angeles in about a week and a half to become associate editor of Faith and Freedom
Better send any correspondence air mail. Leaving here on September 10 to take an extended vacation before arriving in Los Angeles on October 1.
Thought you would be interested in the enclosed letter to Bill Johnson on “mutual backscratching”.
Best regards,
Thad
Encl.
*********************************************************************************************************
This letter from Murray is on plain paper. Note: Murray includes a hypen in Gazette-Telegraph but the paper's letterhead and Hoiles does not.
November 6, 1954
Mr. Harry H. Hoiles
Publisher, Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph
Colorado Springs, Col.
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
I did not answer your previous letter about the position of editorial writer because, try as I could, I could not find any young libertarian who would be eligible and available for the post. It is unfortunate that the libertarian movement is yet so small that such problems arise. I told Bob LeFevre of the post, but did not write you about him because I did not realize that he was available for a change in positions. I'm sure that Bob will be of great value to the Gazette-Telegraph; my only regret is that your gain will be a loss for the New York metropolitan area.
Sincerely yours,
Murray N. Rothbard
**********************************************************************************************
This letter from Murray is on plain paper. He underlines the words Register in the address and Gazette in the body, omitting the word Telegraph in the first instance.
September 11, 1955
Mr. R.C. Hoiles
Publisher, Santa Ana Register,
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
Recently, I came across a copy of last April's Congress of Freedom resolutions and saw your adjoining article (in the Colorado Springs Gazette, May 8) on “Anarchy Good or Bad”. On reading the article, I threw my hat in the air. It was a wonderful article, and particularly distinguished by the fact that this is the first time one of us “right-wing anarchists” has had the courage to come right out and call our philosophy by its proper name.
Yours is the first article I have seen that sets the term “anarchism” in its proper perspective. The name “anarchist” has been stolen from us anarchists by leftists in a similar way as the term “liberal”. Those who call themselves anarchists now are not really anarchists at all, but a wild type of communist. Tucker, as you point out, was excellent. Where he went wrong was in his analysis of money, which led him to believe that under freedom everyone would be able to print his own money and thereby eliminate interest and profit.
Congratulations, once again, on your courage in printing the truth. The philosophy of “extreme right wing anarchism” [Ed: hyphen omitted this time] has never been successfully refuted.
I am, incidentally, in a quandry, although a happy one. Perhaps you can help me out of it. I have determined that it is foolish to let any more time go by without subscribing to a Hoiles newspaper. The only Hoiles newspaper which can be obtained in New York is the Colorado Springs Gazette-Telegraph. Would you advise me to subscribe to that or to the Santa Ana Register. I have never seen a copy of the latter.
Sincerely yours,
Murray N. Rothbard
*******************************************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
September 15, 1955
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Thanks for your letter of the 11th commenting on my interpretation of anarchy.
We are sending you a sample copy of today's Register under separate cover.
The advantage of the Telegraph Forum over the Santa Ana Register is that it would cost 10 cents a month less – $1.75 a month while The Register would cost $1.05 – and you would probably get the Colorado paper a day quicker than you would The Register.
We do not have the same editorials but my articles run in both.
We are enclosing “Here Is Our Policy....”
I always read your articles and believe you have a special ability to explain the ideologies set forth in the Declaration of Independence. It seems most people now have no conception of what kind of government our Founding Fathers tried to establish.
Kindest regards.
Yours very truly,
FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC.
R.C. Hoiles
RCH/max
Encl.
*****************************************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
January 21, 1956
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York 24, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
There is no doubt in my mind that you could write some very interesting articles for Freedom Newspapers weekly.
The only question is whether you could afford to do so with such a small number of newspapers with suuch circulation buying your articles. If you could get large circulation so that the cost would not be too much, we are quite sure that we could use your articles.
Newspapers, however, cater to all classes of people and only a relatively small percentage of newspaper readers would be interested in political philosophy or ethics. Of course these few are worth considering, as their influence will undoubtedly be much greater than hundreds of those that are only interested in material things.
Yours very truly,
FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC.
R.C. Hoiles
RCH/max
*************************************************************************************************
This letter from Murray is on plain paper.
February 17, 1956
Mr. R.C. Hoiles, Publisher
The Santa Ana Register
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
Thank you for your reply to my query about a possible column. I have no other newspaper outlets in mind. It is possible as you indicate that it would not be worth my while to write articles for the Hoiles paper along. [Ed: did Murray mean “alone” rather than “along”?] However, I wonder if you might give me an idea how much you would pay for an article, either irregularly or on a periodic basis. Thank you very much for your interest.
Sincerely yours,
Unsigned
***************************************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York 24, New York
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Pardon my delay in not answering your letter of February 17 sooner.
The Register pays $5.00 for five articles a week to Pegler. That is a very low rate since it started years ago. If we were paying $7.00 for five articles, we would pay $1.40. The Register has about one-fifth of our Freedom Newspapers' total circulation. If we pay at the same rate for your article, it would be $7.00.
I was very much interested in your article in The Freeman on libertarian's method of solving ownership in the water problem. It is a very difficult problem because it is not like land that does not increase or decrease with the seasons.
I also enjoyed your March article in Faith and Freedom
Just why do you write under the pen name rather than your own name? Have you ever had any experience in writing regularly for a daily newspaper? Would you be interested in a job at Odessa, Texas writing editorials and taking reporting assignments?
We might need an editorial writer and reporter at Lima, Ohio if we can not [sic] get the present editor to become a libertarian. That part, however, is confidential.
Enclosing a little article I wrote several years ago as a result of taking a Methodist advocate to task for their collectivism. The editor finally told me to write an article defending the competitive system for a religious standpoint. Enclosing a reprint of it.
Kindest reagrd.
Yours very truly,
FREEDOM NEWSPAPER, INC.
R.C. Hoiles
************************************************************************************************
This letter frm Murray is on plain paper. Again he underlines the word “Register” in the address.
September 30, 1957
Mr. R.C. Hoiles
Publisher, Santa Ana Register
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
Until very recently, I had been working for a new organization—the Princeton Panel—dedicated to educating businessmen in the principles of capitalism. Unfortunately, the embryo organization collapsed very suddenly, upon the illness and retirement of its head, Dr. Claude Robinson. Consequently, I am in the market for employment. If you know or hear of any work, parttime or fulltime, that would be suitable for me, I would greatly appreciate your letting me know. Thank you very much.
Sincerely yours,
Unsigned
*******************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
October 17, 1957
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Excuse delay in not answering your letter of October 1 before. It got sidetracked.
At the present we have no openings in any of our newspapers, and I know of no other newspapers in the United States that really want the writing ability of a man who consistently advocates the inablienable rights of the individual and the limited powers of government.
Should anything develop later, we, of course, would be glad to get in touch with you.
Best regards,
Yours very truly,
FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC.
R.C. Hoiles
RCH/max
*********************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
April 14, 1958
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Thank you very much for sending me the reprint of your article on Burke's “Vindication of Natural Society.”
I have never read it but I think I'll get it.
Your article seems to be rational, and it looks to me as if Burke was an intellectual anarchist, as were Tucker and Warren.
What kind of work are you in now?
Have you ever had experience on daily newspapers?
Yours very truly,
R.C. Hoiles
RCH/max
****************************************************************************************************
This letter from R.C. Hoiles is on Freedom Newspapers, Inc. letterhead.
April 8, 1959
Mr. Murray N. Rothbard
215 West 88th Street
New York 24, N.Y.
Dear Mr. Rothbard:
Your article in the April “Freeman” on “Human Rights Are Property Rights” was a splendid presentation. I never saw it explained any clearer than that. Would that more people would read it.
On October 1, 1957 you wrote us inquiring whether or not we knew of any work, part time or full time, that would be suitable for you. We answered on the 17th of October saying at that time that we did not have any openings.
Now I am of the opinion that we need a real voluntaryist in Lima to help sell voluntaryism or a definite limited government where the government has no right to do anything that the individual doesn't have a moral right to do to the community.
We are having quite a battle there because we believe that no union should have the right to take away from individual his right to make his own bargain or have his own agent make a bargain for him. The result is, the former employes [sic] of The News, who were practically all union, started a paper against us and the printers union furnished them their presses and most of their linotypes and their equipment. It, thus, did not take very much capital to get the paper started, and the unions have us on do-not-patronize list, and the school teachers there erroneously believe that we are against education because we are against involuntary majority rule “education.”
We have several good editorial writers in the organization and we pick up general editorials from any of the Freedom Newspapers without giving credit to the particular newspaper.
We want to sell a voluntary welfare socieety rather than an involuntary welfare state. Of course, the more the state tries to promote welfare, the less welfare we'll have.
I'm wondering whether you're still interested in a job in the editorial department of The Lima News writing occasional voluntaryist editorials on general principles, and local ones when one can find something to show appreciation for.
It is my opinion that all our socialism and communism starts in each community. If people in each community didn't believe in involuntary majority rule schools and libraries, etc., they wouldn't believe it in the state capitols or in Washington.
If you are interested, I would be glad to know your experience and background, your age (We're asking it only to have a little better opinion as to your maturity – not that we have any objection to older people.), and what you believe you could earn in such a position.
One of the things we want to do is to try to get our readers, either privately or for publication, to write letters that question our positions. I believe the newspaper that really throws its columns open to have its policies tested has an opportunity to develop its own understanding as well as the community's. There are very few newspapers that will do this. For instance, the Los angeles Times says their standard of rightness is the Ten Commandments and the Constitution. Of course, I do not know what Constitution they are referring to – whether the original Constitution, even with the Bill of Rights that permitted a man to own another man, or the present Constitution that permits the representative of the elected majority to tax one at one percentage and another at another percentage. It seems to me that the Constitution as it is developed is in disharmony with the Ten Commandments.
Enclosing “Here Is Our Policy...” and “Moral Ideas Tax Supported Schools Cannot Teach.”
Hoping this finds you in good health, and hope to hear from, I am,
Yours very truly,
FREEDOM NEWSPAPERS, INC.
R.C. Hoiles
RCH/max
encls.
*********************************************************************************
This letter from Murray is on plain paper.
May 25, 1959
Mr. R.C. Hoiles
Freedom Newspapers, Inc.
625 N. Grand
Santa Ana, California
Dear Mr. Hoiles:
Thank you very much for your nice letter of April 8, and also for your letter of May 13. I am very happy that you liked my article on “Human Rights are Property Rights”; I value your opinion because you are one of the best social philosophers extant.
Thank you also for your job offer. Unfortunately, I am in business as a consulting economist in New York City now, and so could not leave to go to Lima. However, perhaps we mght make an arrangement under which I would write editorials for you Freedom chain part-time, from New York. I think it would be fine if we could work something out along the line.
I am very, very sorry that I have not answered your letter before this. The fact is that I have just completed a very long general principles book on economics and political economy, which has taken me over seven years to complete, and I had been virtually incommunicado before the finish. Thank you for your patience.
Sincerely yours,
Murray N. Rothbard
