) he completed for the Journal of Economic and Social Thought.
In it he writes:
Mr. Wenzel offers yet another definition in his analysis of this issue: “I have
long considered a hero as someone who does something that does not directly
benefit himself but will benefit others, especially when there is great danger or
assured death involved for the person doing the heroic act.”
This, too, is an eminently justified understanding of heroism, and according to it
if Ulbricht did not anticipate any danger, then he would not qualify. However, the
difficulty is that Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, and another hero of all of ours, Ron
Paul, probably did not expect their lives to be placed under any physical threat.vi
The Wenzel definition would therefore preclude them, and many would see this as
This author ends on a magnificent note. He says: “If Ulbricht wanted to be aThe referenced speech I wrote is part of this post here.
hero, he could have said something like this before the judge sentenced him.”
Wenzel then offers a glorious speech for the Ross Roader. I will not repeat it here,
but it is worth reading again and again. Truly splendid.