Posts Tagged ‘Stefan Molyneux’

This is the way to do it, questioning claims uncritically put forth by the mass media, without resorting to much speculation for a general and big audience.

Read Full Post »

Stefan MolyneuxOn his July 11, 2013 appearance on the Nomad Capitalist Report, Stefan Molyneux revealed (at 4:17 with pause words removed):

This is true in the U.S. in some ways, just as it is in Canada. You have massive and perverse incentives to up the cost of surgeries. And, so for instance, when I got a lump removed from my neck, they gave it a biopsy, and I was originally sent a bill for $4400, for the biopsy. And, through negotiating, I said, “no, no, no, I’m not insured — I pay privately. And they wrote back and they said oh, oh, ok, well then it’s only $400, and we negotiated down from there.

For more on the problems with U.S. government-regulated and funded health care, see my articles:

1) A $1875 Medicare ultrasound bill versus my $100 OHIP bill

2) What Medicare costs: Stephen Lendman’s $1875 ultrasound bill

3) Medicare cost 744% more than forecasted by 1990 — 25 years after its inception in 1965

4) The first step in health care reform: recognizing that health care is not a right

For more on Stefan Molyneux, see my articles:

1) A heated discussion between Stefan Molyneux and Jan Irvin on gold

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

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

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 »

In the first hour of the August 19, 2012 episode of Exposing Faux Capitalism with Jason Erb, I interviewed the Ontario Libertarian Party candidate for the September 6 K-W byelection, Allan Dettweiler.

In the second hour, I covered the following articles:

1) A heated discussion between Stefan Molyneux and Jan Irvin on gold

2) Jason Erb scheduled to be on mtnHours Revolution! with Wayne Walton, August 21, 2012, at 4 PM Eastern

3) The audacity of apostasy: Israeli flags in Christian churches

And I took a caller in the last segment, who took exception with some things I had said over the past few shows, including that I don’t allow enough listener feedback, despite me taking his call for the second time in a row, and agreeing with my answers to two of his questions.

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 »

English: This image is of economist Walter Blo...

I helped to arrange two interviews for Walter Block on Radio Liberty with Dr. Stan Monteith, on June 4, 2012, at 6 PM at gcnlive.com and midnight Eastern at radioliberty.com, and on many of his 70+ weekly radio affiliates.

Dr. Block will be talking about his new book, Ron Paul for President in 2012: Yes to Ron Paul and Liberty.

In a twist of irony, on August 20, 2011, I wrote the article, Stefan Molyneux does hate the state and Walter Block of the Mises Institute, doesn’t, wherein I took Dr. Block to task for his criticism of Stefan Molyneux.

Read Full Post »

Ellen BrownIn her January 15, 2012 OpEdNews article, Occupy the Neighbourhood: How Counties Can Use Land Banks and Eminent Domain, Ellen Brown writes:

Local governments have the power of eminent domain: they can seize real or personal property if (a) they can show that doing so is in the public interest, and (b) the owner is compensated at fair market value.

Eminent domain is the power of government to take private property for public use. It is governed by the relevant section of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states:

[N]or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

The term “public use” was always intended to mean owned by the public, and not by private entities.

This principle was overthrown nationwide by the U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London (2005).

If public use meant for private use, then well-connected private entities could use the power of government to seize private property for their own private use, and that is contrary to one of the goals of the Constitution, in protecting private property.

She writes that in the case of seizing properties being foreclosed on by the banks:

The public interest part is obvious enough.

Except that it’s not in the public interest to seize private property from one individual to give it to another under this clause of the Constitution.

I do want to point out that I part company with the majority of self-styled libertarians and conservatives who say that The Bill of Rights applies to corporations, of which banks are. I hold that the Bill of Rights applies only to individuals and non-corporate associations of individuals, since only individuals have “rights.” Corporations are creatures of government, as Stefan Molyneux so clearly espouses, and, therefore, they have no rights.

But the question of whether corporations are covered by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is separate from whether the “public use” provision refers to whatever government says is for public use.

I do find it odd that she takes the originalist position on the power of Congress to coin money as meaning only the power to strike coin, while not taking an originalist position on this and several other key provisions of the Constitution.

While it can be argued that “public use” has a flexible definition that “coin money” doesn’t, those who say coin money means the power to create money would take exception with that view. In any case, I don’t see her making a consistent application of originalist interpretation in these two cases.

For more on eminent domain, see my articles:
1) The Supreme Court of the United States isn’t interested in protecting liberty or property
2) A gold mine of opportunity and a deficit of principle

There have been times I have agreed with Ellen Brown, but on this, I can’t agree.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »