** Freedom Watch 6 [Youtube] **

[mrchubbs]

The re-upload of part 4 is in place. The original upload still says processing. Jeez.

ALL VIDEOS should now work now in the playlist.

(Finally)


Enjoy.

 

[RevolutionSD]

Ugh. What nonsense. Anarchy means no coercive rulers. The market can provide dispute resolution. Its been done before. You make it sound like people will suddenly became animals if government relinquishes its monopolies. That doesn't even make sense. Since when has market competition ever REDUCED the quality of a service? Never. Mafias are a creation of government, so they will wither and die. And of course, the biggest criminal of all, government, will be gone. And we all know that government crimes DWARF private crime. There is no possible way that private crime could ever come close to touching what the government has done.

Government is ANTI-SOCIETY it is ANTI-HUMAN it is holding human progress back, and it is violating our natural rights as determined by logic and reason.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading statist propaganda on RPF's. There is no excuse for this tripe.

Amen!

 

[RSLudlum]

Once again mrchubbs comes through with the media we want

I nominate mrchubbs as FCC Chairman!!

 

[Cowlesy]

I wish we could somehow draft the Judge to run for President in 2012.

I'd gladly pony up $2,300 and pound the streets once again, but this time for Judge Napolitano.

 

[Reason]

My god....

They brought Alex Jones into their program....

so much for freedom watch getting a mainstream evening time slot...

/facepalm

 

[purplechoe]

My god....

They brought Alex Jones into their program....

so much for freedom watch getting a mainstream evening time slot...

/facepalm

I'd rather have Alex Jones on there than Glenn Beck.

PS. Go read some books and educate yourself, Alex is more often right than he's wrong. And I'm not even a huge Jones fan.

Facepalm? Make sure you do it repeatedly and hard enough to smack some sens into yourself. Maybe it will wake you up!

 

[gls]

Thanks for this. I wish I could watch it live.

 

[fletcher]

Thank you.

 

[He Who Pawns]

thanks dude. much love.

 

[Flirple]

My god....

They brought Alex Jones into their program....

so much for freedom watch getting a mainstream evening time slot...

/facepalm

+1 and also so much for people taking us seriously

...PS. Go read some books and educate yourself, Alex is more often right than he's wrong. And I'm not even a huge Jones fan.

Facepalm? Make sure you do it repeatedly and hard enough to smack some sens into yourself. Maybe it will wake you up!

It's easy to insulate your beliefs from being falsified by just dismissing objectors as simply being 'uneducated' or 'naive', or 'sheeple' or needing to "go read some books", etc. isn't it? And I'm not just responding to purplechoe as this is a prevailing defense mechanism I've encountered throughout the over-the-top conspiracies crowd. There seems to be a pervasive need for it's adherents to see themselves as part of an elite group of intellectuals and that the only reason people don't take them seriously must be because they are mindless "sheeple". It never seems to occur to them that the reason they are laughed at and not taken seriously when they talk about issues they are more or less correct about (individual liberty, small government, governments lie, etc.) is because they are simultaneously being very intellectually dishonest and refuse to alter their beliefs when they are shown to wrong (vaccines cause autism, fluoride in water causes cancer, the towers were brought down by dynamite, etc.) And on top of that they use blatant propaganda media techniques (aka intellectually dishonest shortcuts) to try to trick...ahem..oops I mean "convince" people of their arguments. And then they package their brand as the being standard bearers of "truth" and shrewdly marketing that word itself as part of their brand. All the while railing against the "MSM's" biases and propaganda techniques while being unaware of the blatant hypocrisy of using even more egregious propaganda techniques themselves!

You can't have it both ways folks. And you also shouldn't expect the liberty movement to be taken seriously by newcomers if you package the stuff that's true (Austrian economic theory, blowback, etc.) in the middle of a bunch of stuff that is not true (over-the-top conspiracies and pseudo-science).

But of course I would say that wouldn't I? I clearly just haven't done my research yet and have instead been grazing with the other sheeple...

 

[torchbearer]

Ugh. What nonsense. Anarchy means no coercive rulers. The market can provide dispute resolution. Its been done before. You make it sound like people will suddenly became animals if government relinquishes its monopolies. That doesn't even make sense. Since when has market competition ever REDUCED the quality of a service? Never. Mafias are a creation of government, so they will wither and die. And of course, the biggest criminal of all, government, will be gone. And we all know that government crimes DWARF private crime. There is no possible way that private crime could ever come close to touching what the government has done.

Government is ANTI-SOCIETY it is ANTI-HUMAN it is holding human progress back, and it is violating our natural rights as determined by logic and reason.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself for spreading statist propaganda on RPF's. There is no excuse for this tripe.

no coercive rulers?
How are you going to prevent your neighbors from joining in a mob to rob you?
You 'anarchist' are dangerous idiots.

 

[Flirple]

no coercive rulers?
How are you going to prevent your neighbors from joining in a mob to rob you?
You 'anarchist' are dangerous idiots.

Hi torchbearer,

If your interested in some food for thought Rothbard explains this very well in in this chapter of "For a New Liberty" (free audiobook version in mp3 format): http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/12.mp3

The entire audiobook is worth putting on your mp3 player and taking for a spin and skipping ahead to a chapter might leave you a bit lost. In fact chapter 10 and 11 are also worthwhile as they cover other areas of the public sector that constitutionalists, minarchist libertarians, and true conservatives such as yourself believe need a coercive government to enforce.

This is an area for honest intellectual debate. And It's a debate that is really worth having between like-minded anti-big government people. NO need for either side to use name calling as this is a legitimate area where reasonable people can disagree. It took me a while before I became convinced that there is no need for any coercive state.

 

[RevolutionSD]

no coercive rulers?
How are you going to prevent your neighbors from joining in a mob to rob you?
You 'anarchist' are dangerous idiots.

Wow, an ad-hominem attack!
1) why are you worried about your neighbors joining in a mob to rob you?
2) Are you suggesting that in our current system, cops would stop your neighbors if they wanted to do this?

Think before calling your friends idiots.

 

[torchbearer]

Hi torchbearer,

If your interested in some food for thought Rothbard explains this very well in in this chapter of "For a New Liberty" (free audiobook version in mp3 format): http://mises.org/multimedia/mp3/audiobooks/rothbard/foranewliberty/12.mp3

The entire audiobook is worth putting on your mp3 player and taking for a spin and skipping ahead to a chapter might leave you a bit lost. In fact chapter 10 and 11 are also worthwhile as they cover other areas of the public sector that constitutionalists, minarchist libertarians, and true conservatives such as yourself believe need a coercive government to enforce.

This is an area for honest intellectual debate. And It's a debate that is really worth having between like-minded anti-big government people. NO need for either side to use name calling as this is a legitimate area where reasonable people can disagree. It took me a while before I became convinced that there is no need for any coercive state.

Yes, I've already had this debate more than a thousand times.
And every time, the crystal towers come crumbling down when reality is injected.
I do not consider people niavely asking for the worst form of tyranny, as simply a disagreement, i see it as a threat to every property right i'm still holding on to barely.
You can take your private mafia's and shove it.
Take Obama's mafia with you too.
ALl of you can live in a world of mafia rule.
Until, everyone on this planet is as enlightened as you.. your anarchy will never work... it will just evolve into the next tyranny.
Admit government is both the problem and solution... and try to figure out how to hold on to the power needed to protect freedom without having mobs using it to enslave others.
It is easier to remove one tyrant than it easy to remove 1000s of tyrants.

 

[torchbearer]

Wow, an ad-hominem attack!
1) why are you worried about your neighbors joining in a mob to rob you?
2) Are you suggesting that in our current system, cops would stop your neighbors if they wanted to do this?

Think before calling your friends idiots.

I'm suggesting our current system is what you get when you don't have the rule of law.
I'm suggesting this is anarchy. But their is a monopoly on this mafia because its the biggest baddest fucker on the block.

the answer to number one is this- anarchy fails to protect individual rights because it can't prevent other people from joining forces to take from you.
then you respond..

but... but... that is what we have now... how is that better...


then i say-
all you anarchist are just a severe over-reaction to the tyranny of the day.
There is a solution. It was expressed in and around 1776.
Was it perfect? nope. it had many downfalls.. but it was the path to maximizing freedom, while protecting the individual from the mobs.

 

[Dripping Rain]

thanks chubbs

 

[RevolutionSD]

I'm suggesting our current system is what you get when you don't have the rule of law.
I'm suggesting this is anarchy. But their is a monopoly on this mafia because its the biggest baddest fucker on the block.

Anarchy is simply lack of ruler(s). We've got way too many of those currently, so we can't possibly have anarchy. We certainly, however, have chaos in our financial system, when government robs people to give money to corporations.

the answer to number one is this- anarchy fails to protect individual rights because it can't prevent other people from joining forces to take from you.

"Anarchy" isn't a system of government, so it can't protect anything. Anarchy gives the power to the individual. Stop looking for so-called authorities to solve your problems. If you have a problem with a neighbor, contront your neighbor in person. If your neighbor wants to try to rob you, that's what self defense is for.

then you respond..

but... but... that is what we have now... how is that better...

We would be far safer in an anarcho-capitalist world than a democratic one.

then i say-
all you anarchist are just a severe over-reaction to the tyranny of the day.
There is a solution. It was expressed in and around 1776.
Was it perfect? nope. it had many downfalls.. but it was the path to maximizing freedom, while protecting the individual from the mobs.

Small government doesn't work. How can you possibly elect the "right people" and expect them to follow a piece of paper with writing on it?

Government, by nature, is evil. Government is theft (via taxes) and violence (via enforcement). Do you think the best way to organize a society is to hand over the monopoly on violence to a small group of people?

You may want to check out some of Stefan Molyneux's podcasts and books on www.freedomainradio.com

I was once a minarchist, but once you understand certain concepts, it's a no brainer that we have to get rid of the very idea of government if we are to move forward as a society and species.

 

[qwerty]

nice!

 

[He Who Pawns]

I think Cody redeemed himself a little bit on this episode.

 

[RevolutionSD]

I think Cody redeemed himself a little bit on this episode.

In terms of not interrupting people, yes, but he needs to stop using the word "anarchy" incorrectly.