Schiff and Aervew have something in common. Neither have actually read anything about private law.
Schiff and liars have something in common: they know the truth, sell us a lie, and run for office.
hashem:That said, this was probably the worst Molyneux interview ever, which is incredibly dissapointing since it was probably his most important.
Looks like you'll get another shot at some exposure for Schiff's audience...
Stefan Molyneux hosting the Peter Schiff Radio Show!
youve got to be shitting me.. he did enough damage already alienating the audience of schiffs CONSERVATIVE, constitutionalist show. please anarchists, stick to your knitting clubs if you would instead try to damage the legibility of a credible radio programme that could influence actual voters and policymaking, instead of theoretical ivory tower arguments you like to drink your tea to on internet forums.
aervew:youve got to be shitting me.. he did enough damage already alienating the audience of schiffs CONSERVATIVE, constitutionalist show. please anarchists, stick to your knitting clubs if you would instead try to damage the legibility of a credible radio programme that could influence actual voters and policymaking, instead of theoretical ivory tower arguments you like to drink your tea to on internet forums.
It's the Peter Schiff Show. He has total creative control. He picks his replacements. Looks to me like he made a new friend.
(P.S., You do realize Tom Woods (yeah, this Tom Woods) has been filling in on a regular basis for months now...)
I'm surprised to see there are no utilitarian perspectives found in this thread.
Isn't it possible, even probable, that anarcho-capitalism has only been seen for brief moments in isolated areas (compared to statism) because it is simply not feasible yet?
As technologies eliminate the frictional costs of an economy and further improve the information between parties, we have seen an increase in liberty. Sure the world regresses now and then, but can anyone honestly deny that there exists less kings/planners today than 1000 years ago? 2000?
There are projects being funded (billions) that aim to create libertarian islands, and its thanks to technology.
Peter Schiff may be right. Maybe minarchism is the most obtainable form of society right now. Maybe that's why it has been around so long - obviously it got us this far. But once liberty catches enough sunlight, I have full faith that we can grow into something new.
The biggest problem with Molyneux is that he is basically economic illiterate. All he can present is arguments from morality which are not really all that persuasive to me because I am subjectivist and individualist in this context. Why not let Murphy or Higgs debate Shiff. He would get pwned in 10 minutes tops and I bet it would actually be a lot more enjoyable to listen as Shiff prouds himself in his economic understanding of consequences of human action.
xarthaz aervew:youve got to be shitting me.. he did enough damage already alienating the audience of schiffs CONSERVATIVE, constitutionalist show. please anarchists, stick to your knitting clubs if you would instead try to damage the legibility of a credible radio programme that could influence actual voters and policymaking, instead of theoretical ivory tower arguments you like to drink your tea to on internet forums.
Who's to say whether Stefan Molyneux did "enough damage"? (If you say it's you, then I'll suggest to you to get over yourself.)
What's your fixation on "[influencing actual voters and policymaking]"? Please do share - I'm sure we'd all love to hear you actually appeal to principles for once.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Hell, why not Hans Hoppe? I'd probably pay, like, five hundred dollars to hear that conversation. His recent interview on Australian radio was priceless.
Is this the one you're talking about?
Yes, that's the one. I love how Hoppe always points out that
states are defined as institutions that are the ultimate arbiter in cases of conflict on a certain territory, including conflicts involving the state itself.
This fact has always struck me as self-evidently absurd, and a violation of the tenet that "no one should be a judge in his own cause," but Hoppe seems to be one of the few intellectuals who recognizes the importance of this characteristic of the state and makes a policy of pointing it out at the beginning of the discussion. This point would also strike a nerve with Schiff: not only has his father been sent to prison by the federal government for evading the federal government's taxes, but Schiff's appeal would have to be reviewed by the very same judge who originally passed the sentence. This would be tantamount to the judge admitting his own mistakes in the original trial, which no federal judge (or, as William Grigg calls them, "infinitely vain, dress-wearing chair moisteners") could conceivably do.