Posts Tagged ‘state’

Byron DaleMonetary historian and reformer Byron Dale is scheduled to be my guest for the full two hours of Exposing Faux Capitalism, on December 22, 2013, from 8 to 10 PM EST.

I’m looking forward to speaking with him about his monetary reform efforts in Minnesota, to issue debt-free money in pursuit of legitimate public works projects at the state level, instead of state residents having to rely on bribes of their own money from the federal government.

Read Full Post »

Anti-state? Oh, really?!

In my January 20, 2011 article, LewRockwell.com now pro-state? Oh Lew, say it’s not true!, I wrote about two pro-state articles published at LRC in one week alone.

The latest pro-state article to come from LRC is the January 10, 2013 article, Let’s Give Up on the (Unwritten) Constitution, where author Brion McClanahan wrote:

What the American political system needs is a good dose of federalism and decentralization and a return to the Constitution as ratified through the Tenth Amendment.

This from the site that claims it is “anti-state.” Indeed — much like how Fox News is “fair and balanced.”

The Ludwig von Mises Institute, which Lew Rockwell founded and heads, also hates government so much, they’re a government-sanctioned and regulated tax-exempt organization, and owned $4 million in U.S. Treasury Bonds in 2007 — yet none of these inconsistencies seem to matter to Mises devotees, as indicated by the replies to this post on mises.org.

Read Full Post »

On the December 9, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, I interviewed Marc Stevens, voluntaryist, author and radio host.

This was a fascinating interview where he made some compelling arguments as to why there is no such thing as a state in existence anywhere in the world today, and he pointed out the inherent conflict of interest of judges, prosecutors and even defense attorneys, and he has a $5000 challenge to anyone who can prove the existence of a state and citizens of that state.

Read Full Post »

English: G. Edward GriffinReproduced in full from Free Domain Radio’s board on July 10, 2009:

“Hello John.
Thank you for your thoughtful response to Statism Is Dead.
I can see the point you are making about the Constitution not being a social contract between each and every citizen of the state. That is technically impossible, as you point out, because it would require the informed, voluntary acceptance of all its terms by every person affected by it. With that strict interpretation, the phrase “social contract” has no useful meaning, because it can never exist except within a very small group. So what do we call it when it is necessary to devise a set of rules to limit the power of the state to a defensive function? Perhaps we should just call it a charter or constitution and forget the phrase social contract.

Although I can understand the problem with that phrase when applied to large numbers of people, I feel it still serves a useful purpose in the context within which it is used here. As with most words and phrases, the dictionary offers numerous meanings, and we are not bound to accept only the most restrictive one among them. When we are born into a family, we inherit a social contract with our parents based on the norms of our culture even though we lack the intelligence or independence to choose otherwise. Until we are of sufficient age, we are subject to those norms even though we never agreed to the contract.

When we move into a neighborhood or go to work for a business firm or join a social organization, we accept the terms of whatever agreements are already in existence within those structures even though we are not given a copy to study and sign. If we know of or discover any features which we disapprove, we are free to attempt to alter them or, in the extreme, to remove ourselves. This applies equally to the state, provided it is a protectorate, because, in that event, there would be no restrictions on one’s freedom to move to another state. So long as we voluntarily remain in the neighborhood, in the business firm, as a member of the social organization, or a citizen of the state, we become a “consenting” party to the existing rules. If our social club votes to exclude anyone who cannot speak English and we remain a member, it is logical to assume we either approve of the measure or feel that it is tolerable. It is in that sense that we use the phrase social contract. The bottom line is that the set of rules by which the state is regulated do not have to be called a social contract, although I personally feel that it is a perfectly good description for most purposes.

I am delighted to know that your critique is based primarily on semantics. Thanks for carting about these important issues.
Ed Griffin”

For more on G. Edward Griffin, see my article, G. Edward Griffin exposes the HIV/AIDS scam.

Read Full Post »

Stefan Molyneux

English: Stefan Molyneux speaking at Drexel University. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Stefan Molyneux, philosopher and host of Free Domain Radio, was interviewed by Jan Irvin, host of Gnostic Media, and the interview was posted on March 31, 2012.

Starting at 57 minutes in, they get into what becomes a heated discussion on gold as currency.

Molyneux states at the top that his definition of fiat currency is “a monopoly currency backed by nothing.”

Molyneux’s body language changes dramatically as the discussion progresses, and that was as interesting to me as any words that were said, as Irvin passionately interrupted him many times.

Molyneux was focused on gold only being an issue when there is a government monopoly over it, while Irvin was concerned with the historical manipulation of gold by banksters, and how they can subvert free choice in the marketplace, specifically using gold.

Irvin mentions the late David Astle’s book, The Babylonian Woe, and recounts information that I had heard from George Whitehurst-Berry earlier this year, which is how the Spartans specifically used non-commodity money, and were prosperous until their money was subverted, specifically with gold.

I plan to say more about this revealing interview later, but for now, check it out for yourself.

For more on Stefan Molyneux, see my articles:

Stefan Molyneux does hate the state, and Walter Block of the Mises Institute, doesn’t.

The most free societies sow the seeds of their own destruction?

Read Full Post »

This image is of economist Walter Block teachi...

On August 19, 2011, Dr. Walter Block of the Mises Institute, writing for LewRockwell.com, implied that Stefan Molyneux is a self-hating libertarian.

“I did indeed, until recently listening to this rant, have some respect for Molyneux (unlike for Reason magazine, which has long ago turned against libertarianism). He has authored some very persuasive material on anarcho-capitalism. But, evidently, Molyneux is one of those free market anarchists who does not really “hate the state” (see Murray Rothbard on this) certainly not enough to support one of the greatest enemies of statism the world has ever known.”

Here is my response to him:

Dr. Block,

You claiming that Stefan Molyneux doesn’t “hate the state” is rich, considering he is a true libertarian in acknowledging that corporations are creatures of government, unlike you who authored a paper arguing the neo-libertarian majority position that supporting a creature of government is perfectly compatible with libertarian principles, and by extension, hating the state.

But what else should we expect from a member of a 501(c)(3) organization that begged for special recognition and regulations from the very government it claims to hate, and hates inflation so much that it owned $4 million in U.S. Treasury Bonds in 2007?

I first wrote about Stefan Molyneux on July 29, 2010, here.

Read Full Post »

Germany, in banning Hitler’s Mein Kampf, the Nazi salute, and Holocaust denial, curiously overlooked abolishing the Nazi-era law banning homeschooling.

We wouldn’t want those children being indoctrinated by their parents to resist the all-powerful state, now would we? No, not if the state is completely benevolent as it has been since WWII, right?

Read Full Post »

« Newer Posts - Older Posts »