Well spoken but I dont know why you entitled the video and refer to "thought controllers..." This may be a digression but why not take a more modest position and refer to "media" since that would make your point less polarizing and more directly factual? Even "propagandists" would be a better word choice it seems to me. Orwellian-speak.
@TomWoodsTV Exactly, without the FDA we'd be alot healthier, they're evil scumbags that push MSG, Aspartame and Monsanto's filth and destroys small agriculture. Anyone with an IQ over 50 knows the globalists are intentionally destroying our economy and poisoning us to get us sick, weak and drug dependent thus making us less able to resist the world serfdom they're implementing. If they kill 3000 of their own people on 911 (scientifically proven) what else will they do?
I recently came on to your videos and I catch myself laughing because what you say makes so much sense, but people don't see it! I'm 21 years old and I can't imagine what life will be like in this country when I'm a little old lady if things keep going the way they are going. Somehow, Americans have adopted the mentality that government is the savior of us all and they are better at making decisions for us than we are at making them for ourselves. Will definitely be following your videos
The Federal Reserve System sucks. You wanna know how much it cost tax wise to make a single Penny? Seven cents. Might not sound like much, but we make millions of them every year, and it adds up over time. Its the same with other money we make, it cost more then its actual value. The Gold and Silver standard on the other hands is stable. The price of Gold never goes down, it goes up. So what makes more sense, making more money that cost more then what you get out of it, or Gold and Silver?
I feel so lonly here in sweden. No one to share my political views and thouths whit :(( THe internet is my only way to find outher like minded peopel. But now its under attack. More peopel not only in the usa but all around the world needs to wake upp, and fast.
Heaven forbid that citizens govern themselves. Only Bush 2 & his tyrant son Obama have the smarts to tell citizens what they should do- when Bush & Obama aren't sniffing white powder. Obama is just an opportunist and accomplished liar with no experience and expertise in anything. Obama has proven to be a person of low character and low intelligence; a typical Marxist.
Social Security is perfectly solvent for the next 25 years. The problem with SS is that the SS payroll tax is capped, which makes it a regressive tax. If we remove the cap, Social Security will be solvent forever, with no problems.
@blog4change "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Also, Paul consistently polls at about 20% of Republicans, higher among independents, and even gets some Democrats that agree with him. How is that extreme?
We DO eat poison food. Thanks to fluoridation, USDA subsidies, and the lipid hypothesis, we can thank the feds for what's been done to our food supply.
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
I'm generally a fan of Mother Jones, I've read a lot of great articles in that magazine, but I was stunned to see this slanderous horseshit "article."
Excellent, excellent video. I am so glad there is a well educated defender of Ron Paul posting videos here. You answered many questions posed by his opposition and did so in a manner that was neither insulting nor full of empty rhetoric. I hate to say it, but many of the Ron Paul supporters on Youtube do not know his viewpoints with a depth of understanding necessary for them to argue on his behalf.
NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message in the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. It can be previewed on the site, as well.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this source at the top of "All Comments."
By the way, I live close to a state hospital. It is funded by taxpayer money because the residents cannot afford private care. The residents are some of the most mentally ill people you could ever imagine. Eye-fetishists (people who find sexual gratification in gouging your eyes out), polydipsiacs, necrophiliacs, violent schizophrenics, etc. People who would really harm society.
If it weren't for these kinds of public institutions, they would remain in the open, brutalizing people.
>>Nevermind the mountains of research to the contrary
I need only look at nations without said institutions to see my statement validated, which means your research is cherry-picked, not representative of the whole.
>>Here's the most subversive thought of all
Which does not change the fact that the FDA, EPA et al. keep us safer than we would be without them. It really isn't hard to understand why, either. Dumping waste, and being unsanitary and adulterating products is profitable.
Study history, look at developing nations with unregulated capitalism. There's a reason why Londoners centuries ago were chronically ill (bad water), why our rivers caught fire (dumping oil waste), why heavy metals, adulterants, etc. find themselves in Chinese products.
>>Businesses have an interest
In selling their product. It doesn't matter if the product is tainted, so long as you buy it (and you, being the consumer, won't know the difference anyway).
Extremism is wanting to abolish the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Americans with Disabilities Act, the FDA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Basically, the libertarian party line which Ron Paul adheres to.
Sure, if you want a segregated society where poor people die in the streets, old people are homeless, and truly crazy people walk the streets for lack of healthcare... you know like a pre-modern developing nation, then Ron Paul would be for you. Not me though.
@kDest Society isn't segregated now? People aren't dying in the roads now? Drug on war is successful? Homeland security protects you? Old people are not homeless now? Your savings are safe now?
@manoman0 >>Society isn't segregated now? Less than it used to be. >>People aren't dying in the roads now? Many fewer. >>Drug on war is successful? Define success. There are many ways to measure it. >>Homeland security protects you? Several terrorist plots have been foiled over the years. >>Old people are not homeless now? Fewer are. >>Your savings are safe now? Depends on the era. The boom-bust economy of early last century made savings very unstable.
@manoman0 ..in other words, governement should run our lives, from craddle to grave, that were the ultimate solution, because you think, Washington (or Brussels) knows better what kind of (eg.) Phones we want, when we want them, how many we want, for how long we want them...and that's for cars, food, pencils, coal, simply anything...?
@kDest I want you to think about this: in a free market, where companies survive because they make a profit, would all those things you talk about not be done in a more efficient and sustainable way?
Government should not manage every aspect of our lives. We are not babies. There used to be times when government was very small with a lot less power and spending. Yet people were doing fine without it. It was the free market who created a better standard of living, never the government.
>>would all those things you talk about not be done in a more efficient and sustainable way?
No, they wouldn't. That's why when businesses were allowed to regulate themselves, rivers caught fire from pollution. It's why people had no healthcare. It's why, in short, we have all these government agencies now: free market capitalism does not work to regulate itself except for making more profit in the most exploitative way possible.
@kDest There is already proof that self regulation by private entities is vastly superior to government regulation, from Underwriter's Laboratories to IEEE.
@kDest I see you have been properly brainwashed by your government. If businesses are dishonest they will not last forever. Unless they are bailed out by government, which unfortunately happened a lot lately...
I mean how can anyone argue with this?... The guy that write the article is the sort of person to say "well they know what they're doing" or "the experts know best" or "well they wouldn't do it if it wasn't good for us"!
I just feel like banging my head against a wall!
How long are people going to ignore what is happening before their eyes? How long are people going to blindly follow "experts"?
RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL
A decade of the internet and the world was just about ready for Ron Paul. A decade more and they might be starting to engage the issues around the level Tom Woods does. Along with Pat Buchanan, my favorite political analyst.
Freedom FTW. The FDA is the reason I can't start my baking business unless I get myself thousands of dollars into debt by building a new kitchen onto my home that's "up to code" - I can't be trusted to do the right thing and work my ass off to please customers, like any small business inevitably does. I need the government to teach me common sense! And the people need to be protected from my poisonous foods because they were baked in a home oven, not an industrial one. Oh dear! FDA save us all!
>>I can't be trusted to do the right thing and work my ass off to please customers
A highly competitive industry where profit is the number one incentive, and you believe we should just trust that businesses will keep sanitary. That's an award-winning idea, right up there with allowing small businesses to sell ethanol laced with opium and heroin as medicine to compete with "big pharmaceuticals."
Food poisoning, tainted and adulterated products are why we have the FDA.
If you had any clue about how the FDA operates, you'd rescind your comment. No one cares more about customer safety than a small business that has everything to lose by ONE bad review that could ruin their reputation. Who does the FDA answer to when they fuck up? "Oops, we killed 50,000 people with Vioxx. Sorry!" And therein lies the problem. An independent company would have been shut down for ONE violation like that and a better company would have taken their place, knowing they CAN'T do that.
@agrv8ion Yeah I do how the FDA works you asshole because my mom works there. My mom work there during the dog problem a few years ago. Yea remember that so just shut the fuck up. Ron Paul ain't going to help you with shit because he is to busying trying to bring us back doing the articles of confederate days. OBAMA 2012
@agrv8ion Asshole the comment is a too far sorry. You should have not said I don't know how the FDA works when my mother works for them. Have fun watching Ron Paul lose again to either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
@sweetheart2109 I find it amusing to see someone with the username "sweetheart" calling me an asshole - anyway, your mom is part of the problem even though she probably meant well, sorry. Lobbyists pay off the FDA to continue getting away with murder, literally. Know anything about the story of Aspartame? That's bacteria poop, & it's legal in our food. It's probably the reason so many Americans are slightly special.Only the upper echelons witness the corruption. We pay the price.
@sweetheart2109 Oh, and, you should probably be aware that the dog food problem allowed a whole new market to emerge because they couldn't provide a quality product. Purina brand was making my cats puke all over the floor. We know check the labels on what we feed our pets. Blue, Taste of the Wild & others are just a few brands that people starting turning to. Free market means voting with our purchases - unfortunately Obama believes he dictates what companies shall have success.
@agrv8ion Will stop talking to me and Ron Paul will be huge waste because none of hisagenda will happen. He won't get rid the fed, DOJ, TSA,homeland security, social security, medicare, medicaid,FCC, and department of interior. He won't be able to bring the troops home other countries. Ron Paul agenda will cause the unemployment to sky rocket
@sweetheart2109 A Ron Paul presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to this country that you didn't even know you wanted. Maybe you should ask Obama why he wants to detain US citizens indefinitely without a fair trial. Your candidate just took a huge dump on the Constitution and you want to give him another four years. Pathetic. I used to support him, but those were the days that I only got my news from CNN. Don't worry, I'll leave ya alone now ;)
@sweetheart2109: Totally wrong sweetheart. The president has the legal and Constitutional authority to bring all troops home. That action alone would have enormous impact on the economy.
Regarding birthright citizenship. I feel that using the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity is unwise. It is the very same argument used in favor of national health care.
Having said that, the very concept of "citizenship", that you belong to "them", is just one big bag of crazy.
Excellent points, many of which I've thought about myself, unfortunately, most people simply cannot, or are unwilling to truly THINK about the issues and stances of candadiates and would rather just blindly follow a party line, you know, its so much easier that way. pretty sad...
Don't expect some mythical "free market" to save you. It takes a paradigm shift in human consciousness away from the law of the jungle, the ideology of constant competition, etc - towards caring for one's neighbor, social solidarity, democratic-voluntary workplaces, etc. But it will require a lot of people to do this.
One day one guy will ask him "what do you think was 'Christendom's last stand'? what's the deal with the abbeville institute? or LoS?" and he'll completely lose it and start shooting people.
I saw the video with the zombie too. Cute: it's like saying, "I do advocate abhorrent stuff as well, but you even dare to bring them up, you are a vile PC zombie. So shut up and pretend everything is just fine."
Tom Woods and Ron Paul are our LAST effort to try to steer us BACK to the very fabric which our forefathers gave their lives for. We are a Constitutional Republic...not a Democracy. It was built that way for a reason. If the "moral majority" is a bunch of stupid fat ass morons, and they vote in favor of using tax dollars to subsidize a free, all you can eat, buffet in ever zip code...well, then the majority MUST be right correct? No. Wrong.
hey Tom..you present great arguements for his ideology...and I must say..this election cycle I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul...even if I have to write it in. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."-Ron Paul 2012..no more football with my vote.
@TomWoodsTV Your facts are bias and your retoric is but weak arguments that point to the truth We have gone your entitlement/union/communist path and have ended up bankrupt HELLO? Bankrupt you assinine talking head How do you expect to right all the wrongs liberalism has graced our country with Take your resource page and put it with the surplus funds your progressive liberals have created along with the sucking sound of the entitlement populace LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
important questions like Elvis or Cash?...or blackberry or iphone and other pointless minutae...meanwhile harping on how much time they have to answer the questions...
One major problem I see is that the media and it's time segments aren't situated (committed?) to discussions about how programs, money, education, energy, crime, safety, military, economics, history and real concepts work out......
People come to the news in 'fast food' mode of hearing buzz words like 'terrorism', homeland security', create 'jobs', safety, crime, assault weapons, or 'so and so said _____'...
We need more discussion on the news and the debates But hey they're asking
Hey Thomas i have a question how did economy did so well under clinton, i know part of it is because of dot.com bubble, but it seems economy didnt crash after clinton's tax hikes? and why does warren buffett and bill gates want higher taxes?
Dr. Woods, I don't see the point of you arguing with this "shadowgeyser" kid. If he had actually watched your video or read your resource page or any of your books, he wouldn't be spouting off so much drivel. I think he's just trying to troll you. How could this guy be so clueless?
@shadowgeyser And finally, you have obviously never read Mises or the Austrians. You know one sentence you came across at Daily Kos. I will prove this.
(1) What is methodological dualism?
(2) Why, according to Mises, is it illegitimate to study man using the same tools we use in the physical sciences?
(3) Do you believe the law of diminishing marginal utility is demonstrated by surveying people? Is the law of demand derived by surveying people?
@shadowgeyser So you think child labor went away because of government? It was already 90% abolished by the time governments got into the act. You think we could do away with child labor in Bangladesh by just passing some law? Oh, wait, they tried that, and the kids starved or went into prostitution. I guess something else is necessary to get rid of child labor. If only I could figure out what it is. (See my video "Applying Economics to American History.")
@shadowgeyser You are determined to repeat every conventional view that has ever existed. We are nowhere near a free market. Ever seen the Code of Federal Regulations, or counted up how many departments and agencies the fed gov has? The "deregulation" you speak of, which began under Carter and continued under Clinton, had exactly zero to do with the financial crisis. Details in my book Rollback.
Why would corporations have the right to pollute? That would not be a genuine free market.
@shadowgeyser "Corporatocracy"? The candidate who has stood more strongly against bailouts and special privileges than anyone else? Are you just saying these insane things to drive me up a wall?
@TomWoodsTV Love how you shatter this person here. It's quite sad to see people only be able to use talking points they read, instead of actually watching videos like yours with an objectionable point of view. Quite good, sir, you have opened my eyes even more about Ron Paul!
@TomWoodsTV "Are you just saying these insane things to drive me up a wall?" I believe he is doing just that. shadowgeyser is obviously a troll trying to wind up libertarians. It's quite funny really.
@shadowgeyser "Empiricism" is a position in philosophy; you mean "empirical evidence," and even here you obviously understand the Austrian position only in caricature. The Federal Reserve has given us "money stability"? Ever looked at any graphs of the price level? Did you bother to visit the resource page I mention in the video? Are you just going to sit there and repeat every conventional opinion on earth?
If Ron Paul supports "corporatocracy," why do the fat cats donate to everyone else?
I just found your channel.... I have only one request as a new subscriber... Can you do a video on FUNVAX? Please? Pretty Please? If you don't know what it is, just slap the name into the you tube search bar. And I agree with everything you said here... These fallacies are used many many times by our "leaders" or "opinion makers" Its pretty funny when you step back and observe with no actual stake in any of it... I mean, I am small fries compared to these guys, and I have 0 impact...
@degastheunholy So, when you step back and realize that the people are so very easily led... You just have to giggle, especially when you realize that it is only this way because of the dominoes that have been knocked down... One after the other one event after another has demonstrated to the human race that every form of government is inherently flawed. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but this has got to be some grand comedy...
@shadowgeyser You know, I may do an entire video in response to this comment, so drearily widespread is this naive way of thinking. O wise public servants, save me from the Industrial Revolution! And the gold standard! Let my wise overlords print all the money they need! I see no way that power could be abused!
Or the regulatory apparatus -- why, this is wonderful, selfless people looking out for you and me, and without it we'd all be dead or without limbs. This needs a video.
@TomWoodsTV shadowgeyser is a libertarian. An anarcho-capitalist in fact. He just loves trolling people. He knows what buttons to push and what arguments make libertarians go insane.
@shadowgeyser So your reply is just to regurgitate your seventh-grade textbook? Way to have an independent thought. For example, you actually believe "workplace safety" comes about because of "government regulations"? Then I guess Bangladesh could become Utopia tomorrow morning. Why didn't they ever think of this? Just pass a few laws, and it's all sunshine and lollipops!
Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
The emphasized part is always forgotten. In this sense, jurisdiction means "political allegiance" as defined Senator Jacob Howard (author of the citizenship clause) in 1866. In the case of the Canadian military scenario, the mother and baby owed full political allegiance to Canada, not the United States, obviously.
I wonder if any Canadians were born in the US during our prior invasion.
I know we burned down 1/2 the Whitehouse but I doubt we popped out any puppies during the invasion. But we were only 'upper' Canadians then, more of a colony than a country.
The story of the medal to Mother Theresa was very touching. Ron Paul was the only one who actually wanted to honor her. It would be a disgrace to give it when the congressmen didn't even want to give up a few dollars for it. "Hey Mother, we stole this gold for you! Aren't we good!"
Tom, at 1st I thought you were going to lay out another bunch of do nothing commentary on Dr. Ron Paul , but you seem to have hit the nail on the head Sir !
I love how when the main stream media mention Ron Paul they don't say he wants to reform our foreign policy or fix our economy. They say, "That guy that wants to legalize heroine!"...
It is indeed very easy to spend other peoples' money and as an anarchist I would say that it's wrong to spend other peoples' money on anything at all, whether it be wars, medals, or even things that I might be called "extreme" for saying such as schools, roads, welfare, defense, police, etc. Your money is your property and no one (the government included) is right to steal it from you regardless of what they are going to spend it on.
private property rights can't be used to enforce pollution of the air and waterways and would be near impossible to prosecute. After all, say a company is dumping a chemical into a waterway that then comes through your property. Now you have to PROVE it came from them and that it damages your property and that the level (say ppm) is at a dangerous level. Who would set the standards for what PPM a particular pollutant becomes a danger without the EPA?
> property rights can't be used to enforce pollution of the air and waterways
First: You're wrong. There is a long history here of river rights.
But here's the gov-rights version: Company dumps chemicals on your river. You complain to the RIVR gov agency. They file a piece of paper which passes through five departments before returning for a spelling correction. In the meantime, a chemical corp lobbying group has hired enough hookers to make it legal.
@sdkee OK. Maybe you could say how it would work given my premise. Who would decide what level of pollution is dangerous? Furthermore, how about 2 different polluters, neither pollution is dangerous, but together become dangerous or form a new (3rd) chemical that is dangerous? What about waterways that don't go through private property like the Delaware river?
> Who would decide what level of pollution is dangerous?
You have to convince a randomly selected jury or your peers (not lawyer selected, but truly random) that the pollution has harmed you.
But you ask this as if this is a problem for the free market approach. I now ask you: In the current approach, how do you assess harm? Is this method somehow more accurate than asking the people who have been harmed? How does turning pollution complaints over to the DMV help?
@sdkee I don't see the dmv and cdc or EPA in the same way. I think there is a difference between a group of scientists and a group of bureaucrats. Even if it could work, which I doubt, it also is an after the fact remedy. The polluter might be bankrupt and unable to reimburse me. Then there is the problem of totally public water ways like the Delaware river which doesn't flow through private property AND divides states.
> I think there is a difference between a group of scientists and a group of bureaucrats
So you have never been involved in gov funded science then. All "basic research" is funded by the gov. More importantly, all research grants (salary) are distributed by the gov.
> The polluter might be bankrupt
Yes, thereby creating an example for future polluters to ponder. The free market reacts rather than anticipates. So yes, the first guy gets screwed. But then it sorts out.
The states should NOT be allowed to set standards for abortion, gay marriage or prayer in schools. Remember, the supreme court is allowed to overrule state laws that deny citizens their constitutionally protected rights. No state has a right to trample on rights guaranteed by the constitution. This is basic stuff here.
> The states should NOT be allowed to set standards for abortion, gay marriage or prayer in schools.
Where in the constitution does it say anything about the Fed Gov having anything to do with abortion, marriage (gay or otherwise), schools (prayer or otherwise), or anything except article I section VIII?
For the record, I am ethically against abortion (but against making it illegal), think you can marry your chair if you want to, and am against state-sponsored religion.
@sdkee Separation of church and state, freedom of religion. That is why the supreme court struck down school prayer and why gay marriage can be illegal. What if a church (and yes, there are churches that want this) wants to marry a gay couple? Where is their freedom of religion? Abortion.. How about the owning of your own body? Self determination as to when and if you want to have children?
> Separation of church and state, freedom of religion
I am in favor of all of these things. Every gov can fuck itself on its own thigh bone for all I care. If I want to marry my chair, it's none of their biz. But the 1st amend the the constitution is a limitation on the fedgov. Claiming the fedgov has rights to force separation of church and state is to let the USA gov invent a power for itself to wield.
When did letting govs invent their own powers become a good idea?
@sdkee Are you implying that the gov has the right to FORCE your children to pray or read from a holy book (as a holy book and not literature)?
The federal gov has the right to strike down state laws that deny citizens their rights and the right to be free of government sponsored religion is a guaranteed right under the constitution.
> gov has the right to FORCE your children to pray
I thought my comment about it being ok to marry my chair should have cleared this up: It is not ok for any gov in any capacity to dictate who I fuck or who I consider my family.
But the fedgov is a chartered organization. It has only those powers granted in 1788 (if even that). You might *want* it to have other powers, such as forcing religious tolerance. But these powers were not delegated by the people of the states.
@sdkee The federal gov does have the legal authority to overturn state laws. Like if PA decided to make ownership of guns illegal, the supreme court has the authority to overturn that state law. Do you deny this?
> federal gov does have the legal authority to overturn state laws
Explain this to me. My understanding is that the fedgov has article I section VIII as powers delegated to it by the people and the fedgov can go fuck itself if it thinks it has more powers. The "go fuck yourself" clause is embodied in the 10th amendment.
So if a state gov made a law against me marrying my chair, on what basis does your fedgov operate against me?
@sdkee Religious freedom. If your church wants to marry you to your chair, the state law would be keeping you from exercising your religion which the first amendment specifically protects."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, the first amendment has been interpreted as building a wall of separation between the church and state. The constitution is the supreme law of the land which means no law can trump the constitution.
> if your church wants to marry you to your chair, the state law would be keeping you from
So my beef is with the state gov. So what?
> the first amendment specifically protects."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Maybe you should be a lawyer, being so good at taking things out of context. The amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law ...". It is a limitation on CONGESS. The fact that I should justifiably hate my state laws has fuck all to do with this.
@sdkee I am not taking it out of context, I am pointing out that the supreme court has interpreted it that way and Thomas Jefferson has written about it and said he wanted to erect a wall of separation of church and state. As Christopher Hitchens says "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall".
Jefferson, Hitchens, you and I are all agreed about the desirability of a separation. We all agree that the USA fedgov is bound by its charter to observe such a separation. What you can't seem to come into agreement with Jefferson and myself is that the same charter which so usefully limits the fedgov by stopping the fedgov from creating a state religion, ALSO limits the same fedgov from creating laws which would force the other jurisdictions into respecting this separation.
@sdkee Because the first amendment specifically puts the power of religion on the federal level by denying it. The tenth amendment says that powers not specifically granted in the constitution would go the states and people.
The problem is this: what stops a government from doing X? X may be, for instance, establishing a state religion.
In the case of the fedgov, one of those is the limitations in its charter. If the fedgov exercises a power not granted to it in the constitution, people will rightly say that it is acting outside the law. You shoot that limitation full of holes if you sanction the fedgov to exercise extra-constitutional powers you happen to like.
So if you advocate the fedgov to extra-constitutionally force separation of church and state onto the lower jurisdictions then you necessarily advocate for the government to act outside the constitution in this case. You have punched an arbitrary hole in the constitution. When some bible-thumper comes along and proposes punching a similar sized hole in the constitution to make his favorite religion the the official one, how do you oppose him?
@sdkee I agree with your premise that if we disregard the constitution for things we like, our opponents would be justified in doing the same thing. Are there any early writings by the framers or by the early congress about religion at the state level? How about in the constitutional convention notes or federalist paper (I haven't read all of them)? As far as prayer in school, I would think the federal board of education would make school prayer illegal even if your premise is right.
> if PA decided to make ownership of guns illegal, the supreme court has the authority to overturn that state law
This is one of the rare cases where the constitution trumps the states by contractual agreement. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to have guns cannot be infringed. It does not provide a restriction on who this limitation applies to. But the 1st amendment, for instance, states "congress shall not...". This is a limitation on the fedgov only.
@sdkee That is not how it has been interpreted from the very beginning. The states can not interfere with your constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of religion.
> That is not how it has been interpreted from the very beginning
Sorry, I am lost. Explain what you mean. Are talking about the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment (1868, hardly a "beginning") or are you just talking shit?
@sdkee I am talking about the interpretation of the first amendment. The supreme court has ruled over and over and over against state sanctioned religion.
Well spoken but I dont know why you entitled the video and refer to "thought controllers..." This may be a digression but why not take a more modest position and refer to "media" since that would make your point less polarizing and more directly factual? Even "propagandists" would be a better word choice it seems to me. Orwellian-speak.
dentinate 1 week ago
excellent video Mr. Woods, my first to view from you and must say, bravo.
subscribe.
scudberry 1 week ago
You sir are a gentleman.
benastuart 1 week ago
Comment removed
vinnykster 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You just lied about what Ron wants to remove in Gov. You just lost all credibility.
I am not voting for Ron but when you lie thats not cool
PraiseSermon 1 month ago
You just lied about what Ron wants to remove in Gov. You just lost all credibility.
I am not voting for Ron but when you lie thats not cool
PraiseSermon 1 month ago
Poor Tom, having to defend immigration restrictions (: Looks so uncomfortable
fhellstrom 1 month ago
@TomWoodsTV Exactly, without the FDA we'd be alot healthier, they're evil scumbags that push MSG, Aspartame and Monsanto's filth and destroys small agriculture. Anyone with an IQ over 50 knows the globalists are intentionally destroying our economy and poisoning us to get us sick, weak and drug dependent thus making us less able to resist the world serfdom they're implementing. If they kill 3000 of their own people on 911 (scientifically proven) what else will they do?
Indrasblade39 1 month ago
I recently came on to your videos and I catch myself laughing because what you say makes so much sense, but people don't see it! I'm 21 years old and I can't imagine what life will be like in this country when I'm a little old lady if things keep going the way they are going. Somehow, Americans have adopted the mentality that government is the savior of us all and they are better at making decisions for us than we are at making them for ourselves. Will definitely be following your videos
jackamelia20 1 month ago
The Federal Reserve System sucks. You wanna know how much it cost tax wise to make a single Penny? Seven cents. Might not sound like much, but we make millions of them every year, and it adds up over time. Its the same with other money we make, it cost more then its actual value. The Gold and Silver standard on the other hands is stable. The price of Gold never goes down, it goes up. So what makes more sense, making more money that cost more then what you get out of it, or Gold and Silver?
porpus99 1 month ago
I feel so lonly here in sweden. No one to share my political views and thouths whit :(( THe internet is my only way to find outher like minded peopel. But now its under attack. More peopel not only in the usa but all around the world needs to wake upp, and fast.
Limpan88 1 month ago
@Limpan88
Interesting.
You do know that the left hold Sweden up as the model of successful democratic socialism.
Love to here your thoughts.
Samsgarden 2 weeks ago
Heaven forbid that citizens govern themselves. Only Bush 2 & his tyrant son Obama have the smarts to tell citizens what they should do- when Bush & Obama aren't sniffing white powder. Obama is just an opportunist and accomplished liar with no experience and expertise in anything. Obama has proven to be a person of low character and low intelligence; a typical Marxist.
dakfeld 1 month ago in playlist RonPaul2012
This is my porn!
Andersll11 1 month ago 3
kudos, tom woods. i appreciate your work, carry on.
dayvidiot 1 month ago 2
Social Security is perfectly solvent for the next 25 years. The problem with SS is that the SS payroll tax is capped, which makes it a regressive tax. If we remove the cap, Social Security will be solvent forever, with no problems.
blog4change 2 months ago
I'm pretty sure "extreme" means a view that isn't widely held by the general public. Pretty much all of Ron Paul's views are extreme.
blog4change 2 months ago
@blog4change "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice." Also, Paul consistently polls at about 20% of Republicans, higher among independents, and even gets some Democrats that agree with him. How is that extreme?
mtanousable 2 months ago
@blog4change: I'm afraid you're confusing 'extreme' with 'popular' as in, the 'earth is flat' notion was popular.
Deadwind002 2 months ago
BREAKING NEWS: Republican Jewish Coalition Bars Ron Paul From Presidential Debate, Saying He's Too "misguided and extreme".
Contact info:
rjc@rjchq.org
Phone: 202.638.6688
Fax: 202.638.6694
jonh2o 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Google "Ron Paul Petition 60 minutes"
Sign this petition to get Ron Paul featured on 60 minutes!!!
RON PAUL 2012!! Please rate this up to keep at top ^_^
The other candidates can not speak the truth like Ron Paul can.
0-0-0 Plan.
Zero Fed.
Zero IRS.
Zero War.
kwkeim 3 months ago
One is always an extremist in somebody else's opinion.
hostiliscivitas 3 months ago
Superb, Tom. Great work. Keep doing what you do. :-D
favfly 3 months ago 2
We DO eat poison food. Thanks to fluoridation, USDA subsidies, and the lipid hypothesis, we can thank the feds for what's been done to our food supply.
0Enidan0 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This will win us Iowa!!!
Go to SUPERVOTERBOMB [dot] com
For $1.20/ea we can mail a "For Liberty Re-cut" DVD and a Super Brochure to 1 Republican Supervoter, accompanied by a letter from New York Times' best-selling author Thomas E. Woods.
SchleckBros 3 months ago in playlist More videos from TomWoodsTV
Oh my god, I need some federal regulation to show how I have to wipe my a**. Sorry, had to paint it this drastically....
manoman0 3 months ago
Mr Tom Woods; Once again, Thank you.
manoman0 3 months ago
"The Earth is going to tumble from it's axis and go heading to the sun" Don't say that, some people might take it literally
ThatAdelaideGuy 4 months ago
I'm generally a fan of Mother Jones, I've read a lot of great articles in that magazine, but I was stunned to see this slanderous horseshit "article."
whitewidow6663 4 months ago
Excellent, excellent video. I am so glad there is a well educated defender of Ron Paul posting videos here. You answered many questions posed by his opposition and did so in a manner that was neither insulting nor full of empty rhetoric. I hate to say it, but many of the Ron Paul supporters on Youtube do not know his viewpoints with a depth of understanding necessary for them to argue on his behalf.
Gotred 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW "Ron Paul 2012" DVD now available for a dollar or two.
The OneDollarDVDProject (dotcom) needs activist patriots to distribute the message in the "Ron Paul 2012" DVD. It can be previewed on the site, as well.
Please, 'thumbs up" to keep this source at the top of "All Comments."
ronaldneil 4 months ago
@TomWoodsTV
By the way, I live close to a state hospital. It is funded by taxpayer money because the residents cannot afford private care. The residents are some of the most mentally ill people you could ever imagine. Eye-fetishists (people who find sexual gratification in gouging your eyes out), polydipsiacs, necrophiliacs, violent schizophrenics, etc. People who would really harm society.
If it weren't for these kinds of public institutions, they would remain in the open, brutalizing people.
kDest 4 months ago
@TomWoodsTV
>>Nevermind the mountains of research to the contrary
I need only look at nations without said institutions to see my statement validated, which means your research is cherry-picked, not representative of the whole.
>>Here's the most subversive thought of all
Which does not change the fact that the FDA, EPA et al. keep us safer than we would be without them. It really isn't hard to understand why, either. Dumping waste, and being unsanitary and adulterating products is profitable.
kDest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@kDest
"I need only look at nations without said institutions to see my statement validated"
Either you're lying or just plain stupid.
"Which does not change the fact that the FDA, EPA et al. keep us safer than we would be without them."
Bullshit, the FDA and EPA are run by the industry and are under the umbrella of regulatory capture. They do practically nothing.
itachi705 4 months ago
@kDest
"Dumping waste, and being unsanitary and adulterating products is profitable."
Fear mongering bullshit. Businesses have an interest in keeping their customers healthy, otherwise they lose money.
itachi705 4 months ago
@itachi705
>>Fear mongering bullshit.
Study history, look at developing nations with unregulated capitalism. There's a reason why Londoners centuries ago were chronically ill (bad water), why our rivers caught fire (dumping oil waste), why heavy metals, adulterants, etc. find themselves in Chinese products.
>>Businesses have an interest
In selling their product. It doesn't matter if the product is tainted, so long as you buy it (and you, being the consumer, won't know the difference anyway).
kDest 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul and You should get a room and have a good night of anal sex and talk about ur "free markets" :D Such silly people
berbatovinho77 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Extremism is wanting to abolish the Civil Rights Act, Voting Rights Act of 1965, Americans with Disabilities Act, the FDA, EPA, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Basically, the libertarian party line which Ron Paul adheres to.
Sure, if you want a segregated society where poor people die in the streets, old people are homeless, and truly crazy people walk the streets for lack of healthcare... you know like a pre-modern developing nation, then Ron Paul would be for you. Not me though.
kDest 5 months ago
@kDest Society isn't segregated now? People aren't dying in the roads now? Drug on war is successful? Homeland security protects you? Old people are not homeless now? Your savings are safe now?
manoman0 3 months ago
kDest 3 months ago
@kDest that was thanks to capitalism, no?
manoman0 3 months ago
@manoman0
No. Economic systems do not govern justice and law.
kDest 3 months ago
@manoman0 ..in other words, governement should run our lives, from craddle to grave, that were the ultimate solution, because you think, Washington (or Brussels) knows better what kind of (eg.) Phones we want, when we want them, how many we want, for how long we want them...and that's for cars, food, pencils, coal, simply anything...?
manoman0 3 months ago
@kDest SHEEP
pretorious700 3 months ago
@kDest I want you to think about this: in a free market, where companies survive because they make a profit, would all those things you talk about not be done in a more efficient and sustainable way?
Government should not manage every aspect of our lives. We are not babies. There used to be times when government was very small with a lot less power and spending. Yet people were doing fine without it. It was the free market who created a better standard of living, never the government.
TWSceptic 2 months ago 2
@TWSceptic
>>would all those things you talk about not be done in a more efficient and sustainable way?
No, they wouldn't. That's why when businesses were allowed to regulate themselves, rivers caught fire from pollution. It's why people had no healthcare. It's why, in short, we have all these government agencies now: free market capitalism does not work to regulate itself except for making more profit in the most exploitative way possible.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest Yes keep dreaming about a government that helps you and wants the best for you and actually does that, and then look back at reality.
TWSceptic 2 months ago 2
@kDest There is already proof that self regulation by private entities is vastly superior to government regulation, from Underwriter's Laboratories to IEEE.
itachi705 1 month ago
@TWSceptic
>>Government should not manage every aspect of our lives. We are not babies.
Government keeps businesses honest, because they cannot keep honest on their own.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest I see you have been properly brainwashed by your government. If businesses are dishonest they will not last forever. Unless they are bailed out by government, which unfortunately happened a lot lately...
TWSceptic 2 months ago 9
@TWSceptic
>>If businesses are dishonest they will not last forever.
Do you like chocolate? Clothes? Shoes? Three grossly dishonest industries. They have lasted for decades.
kDest 2 months ago
@kDest ok i get it now, you are just stupid.
raelladygrinner 3 weeks ago
@k LISTEN TO WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!!!!
raelladygrinner 3 weeks ago
I mean how can anyone argue with this?... The guy that write the article is the sort of person to say "well they know what they're doing" or "the experts know best" or "well they wouldn't do it if it wasn't good for us"!
I just feel like banging my head against a wall!
How long are people going to ignore what is happening before their eyes? How long are people going to blindly follow "experts"?
snaz27 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL 2012 RON PAUL
StandUpComedyTV 5 months ago
I must be an extremeist. Oh well..RON PAUL 2012
MJlove89 5 months ago
A decade of the internet and the world was just about ready for Ron Paul. A decade more and they might be starting to engage the issues around the level Tom Woods does. Along with Pat Buchanan, my favorite political analyst.
thespacialone 5 months ago 2
Love the Simpsons reference :)
joeah100 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
*** Black THIS Out Moneybomb – October 19th ***
Inspired by the mainstream media's blatantly biased reporting of Ron Paul.
Pledge at BlackTHISOut[dot]com
Please spread the word!
SchleckBros 5 months ago
Freedom FTW. The FDA is the reason I can't start my baking business unless I get myself thousands of dollars into debt by building a new kitchen onto my home that's "up to code" - I can't be trusted to do the right thing and work my ass off to please customers, like any small business inevitably does. I need the government to teach me common sense! And the people need to be protected from my poisonous foods because they were baked in a home oven, not an industrial one. Oh dear! FDA save us all!
agrv8ion 6 months ago 33
This has been flagged as spam show
@agrv8ion
>>I can't be trusted to do the right thing and work my ass off to please customers
A highly competitive industry where profit is the number one incentive, and you believe we should just trust that businesses will keep sanitary. That's an award-winning idea, right up there with allowing small businesses to sell ethanol laced with opium and heroin as medicine to compete with "big pharmaceuticals."
Food poisoning, tainted and adulterated products are why we have the FDA.
kDest 5 months ago
@agrv8ion Oh well I guess you want thousands of people sick with food poisoning huh
sweetheart2109 2 months ago
If you had any clue about how the FDA operates, you'd rescind your comment. No one cares more about customer safety than a small business that has everything to lose by ONE bad review that could ruin their reputation. Who does the FDA answer to when they fuck up? "Oops, we killed 50,000 people with Vioxx. Sorry!" And therein lies the problem. An independent company would have been shut down for ONE violation like that and a better company would have taken their place, knowing they CAN'T do that.
agrv8ion 2 months ago
@agrv8ion Yeah I do how the FDA works you asshole because my mom works there. My mom work there during the dog problem a few years ago. Yea remember that so just shut the fuck up. Ron Paul ain't going to help you with shit because he is to busying trying to bring us back doing the articles of confederate days. OBAMA 2012
sweetheart2109 2 months ago
@sweetheart2109 Asshole? Shut the fuck up? LOL. Yeah, that's how you win an argument. Have fun watching Ron Paul destroy Obama at the debates, troll.
agrv8ion 2 months ago
@agrv8ion Asshole the comment is a too far sorry. You should have not said I don't know how the FDA works when my mother works for them. Have fun watching Ron Paul lose again to either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney.
sweetheart2109 2 months ago
@sweetheart2109 I find it amusing to see someone with the username "sweetheart" calling me an asshole - anyway, your mom is part of the problem even though she probably meant well, sorry. Lobbyists pay off the FDA to continue getting away with murder, literally. Know anything about the story of Aspartame? That's bacteria poop, & it's legal in our food. It's probably the reason so many Americans are slightly special.Only the upper echelons witness the corruption. We pay the price.
agrv8ion 2 months ago
@sweetheart2109 Oh, and, you should probably be aware that the dog food problem allowed a whole new market to emerge because they couldn't provide a quality product. Purina brand was making my cats puke all over the floor. We know check the labels on what we feed our pets. Blue, Taste of the Wild & others are just a few brands that people starting turning to. Free market means voting with our purchases - unfortunately Obama believes he dictates what companies shall have success.
agrv8ion 2 months ago
@agrv8ion Will stop talking to me and Ron Paul will be huge waste because none of hisagenda will happen. He won't get rid the fed, DOJ, TSA,homeland security, social security, medicare, medicaid,FCC, and department of interior. He won't be able to bring the troops home other countries. Ron Paul agenda will cause the unemployment to sky rocket
sweetheart2109 2 months ago
@sweetheart2109 A Ron Paul presidency would be the best thing that ever happened to this country that you didn't even know you wanted. Maybe you should ask Obama why he wants to detain US citizens indefinitely without a fair trial. Your candidate just took a huge dump on the Constitution and you want to give him another four years. Pathetic. I used to support him, but those were the days that I only got my news from CNN. Don't worry, I'll leave ya alone now ;)
agrv8ion 2 months ago
@sweetheart2109: Totally wrong sweetheart. The president has the legal and Constitutional authority to bring all troops home. That action alone would have enormous impact on the economy.
Deadwind002 2 months ago 3
@agrv8ion Ron Paul will be a huge waste as president
sweetheart2109 2 months ago
Trust the government.....just ask any Indian.
rubbersole79 6 months ago 5
After point 6 i got a headache from this. My 6 year old nephew can make better arguments
jccusell 6 months ago
@jccusell He should make videos, then.
DRNevans 5 months ago
hahaha I love the opening of this video
IcyScythe 6 months ago
great video
kjp68 6 months ago
Regarding birthright citizenship. I feel that using the logical fallacy of appeal to popularity is unwise. It is the very same argument used in favor of national health care.
Having said that, the very concept of "citizenship", that you belong to "them", is just one big bag of crazy.
jeffiek 6 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
Comment removed
jasetriplett 6 months ago
@jasetriplett LOL google tom woods before you post . Im not sure if your trolling or not. . .
nigrah8ter 6 months ago
@nigrah8ter i was suppose to remove that comment a while ago...thanks for finding it for me. Tom is pretty cool after all ;)
jasetriplett 6 months ago
@shadowgeyser How's that government working out for you these days? Enjoying the devaluing of the currency and lack of freedom?
amanuscar 6 months ago
@shadowgeyser Yeah the economy sure is recovering nicely isn't it? How's all that cognitive dissonance working out for you these days?
amanuscar 6 months ago
Excellent points, many of which I've thought about myself, unfortunately, most people simply cannot, or are unwilling to truly THINK about the issues and stances of candadiates and would rather just blindly follow a party line, you know, its so much easier that way. pretty sad...
duanescot 6 months ago
Don't expect some mythical "free market" to save you. It takes a paradigm shift in human consciousness away from the law of the jungle, the ideology of constant competition, etc - towards caring for one's neighbor, social solidarity, democratic-voluntary workplaces, etc. But it will require a lot of people to do this.
PersianPaladin 6 months ago
Great video,I'm going to favor this , if it is ok with you.
vic4rp 6 months ago
I feel the bitter rage oozing from this guy.
One day one guy will ask him "what do you think was 'Christendom's last stand'? what's the deal with the abbeville institute? or LoS?" and he'll completely lose it and start shooting people.
I saw the video with the zombie too. Cute: it's like saying, "I do advocate abhorrent stuff as well, but you even dare to bring them up, you are a vile PC zombie. So shut up and pretend everything is just fine."
Vote RON PAUL 2012! FOR A WHITE AMERICA!
11thsockpuppet 7 months ago
Tom Woods and Ron Paul are our LAST effort to try to steer us BACK to the very fabric which our forefathers gave their lives for. We are a Constitutional Republic...not a Democracy. It was built that way for a reason. If the "moral majority" is a bunch of stupid fat ass morons, and they vote in favor of using tax dollars to subsidize a free, all you can eat, buffet in ever zip code...well, then the majority MUST be right correct? No. Wrong.
2mconsolidated 7 months ago
hey Tom..you present great arguements for his ideology...and I must say..this election cycle I will be casting my vote for Ron Paul...even if I have to write it in. "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost."-Ron Paul 2012..no more football with my vote.
SJMcDevitt 7 months ago
@TomWoodsTV Your facts are bias and your retoric is but weak arguments that point to the truth We have gone your entitlement/union/communist path and have ended up bankrupt HELLO? Bankrupt you assinine talking head How do you expect to right all the wrongs liberalism has graced our country with Take your resource page and put it with the surplus funds your progressive liberals have created along with the sucking sound of the entitlement populace LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER.
wslyder 7 months ago
@wslyder
Did you just copy and paste from the wrong ideology?
Oh dear, now your foolishness is immortalised. Tom Woods isn't a Liberal.
Samsgarden 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul MONEYBOMB TODAY!
DONATE AT ronpaul2012 (DOT) com
Spread the word!
diipadaapa1 7 months ago
Thank you! Great job!
megaprinciples 7 months ago
important questions like Elvis or Cash?...or blackberry or iphone and other pointless minutae...meanwhile harping on how much time they have to answer the questions...
SIGH
dualberettas 8 months ago
@dualberettas
ahhhh but it isn't pointless minutae, it gives us the illusion of choice and keeps us engaged
Samsgarden 6 months ago
One major problem I see is that the media and it's time segments aren't situated (committed?) to discussions about how programs, money, education, energy, crime, safety, military, economics, history and real concepts work out......
People come to the news in 'fast food' mode of hearing buzz words like 'terrorism', homeland security', create 'jobs', safety, crime, assault weapons, or 'so and so said _____'...
We need more discussion on the news and the debates But hey they're asking
dualberettas 8 months ago
Great vid, subbing for sure.
rancidalgerian 8 months ago
Sounds like the Davy Crockett story (RP's refusal to spend other folks' cash to honor Teresa).
maggoli67 8 months ago 2
Awesome video,Thanks Tom.
liberty81414 8 months ago
Hey Thomas i have a question how did economy did so well under clinton, i know part of it is because of dot.com bubble, but it seems economy didnt crash after clinton's tax hikes? and why does warren buffett and bill gates want higher taxes?
trueconservatie33 8 months ago
Superb Video!
david52875 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser lol is that why he gets no campaign contributions from corporations? idiot.
globalchaos1984 8 months ago
Thanks, Doc!
gabotube65 8 months ago
Dr. Woods, I don't see the point of you arguing with this "shadowgeyser" kid. If he had actually watched your video or read your resource page or any of your books, he wouldn't be spouting off so much drivel. I think he's just trying to troll you. How could this guy be so clueless?
werthersoriginal22 8 months ago
@werthersoriginal22 Shadowgeyser is/was an anarcho-capitalist who ran around in those circles on Youtube. He was just trolling Tom Woods.
CSMIRRORMirror 8 months ago
@CSMIRRORMirror
Are you sure? Sounds like every American modern liberal (and even some conservatives) I've ever encountered. Hahaha.
fwanksajerk 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser And finally, you have obviously never read Mises or the Austrians. You know one sentence you came across at Daily Kos. I will prove this.
(1) What is methodological dualism?
(2) Why, according to Mises, is it illegitimate to study man using the same tools we use in the physical sciences?
(3) Do you believe the law of diminishing marginal utility is demonstrated by surveying people? Is the law of demand derived by surveying people?
tewj57 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser Cato? What does that even mean? They are a nonprofit and can't endorse or donate to anyone.
The Fed itself concedes that the economy is "recovering" (ha!) well below their expectations. Did you not read the FOMC's press release?
You have never seen charts of the price level. You are bluffing. Look at prices after 1971. What landmark event occurred in 1971 relating to money?
tewj57 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser So you think child labor went away because of government? It was already 90% abolished by the time governments got into the act. You think we could do away with child labor in Bangladesh by just passing some law? Oh, wait, they tried that, and the kids starved or went into prostitution. I guess something else is necessary to get rid of child labor. If only I could figure out what it is. (See my video "Applying Economics to American History.")
tewj57 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser You are determined to repeat every conventional view that has ever existed. We are nowhere near a free market. Ever seen the Code of Federal Regulations, or counted up how many departments and agencies the fed gov has? The "deregulation" you speak of, which began under Carter and continued under Clinton, had exactly zero to do with the financial crisis. Details in my book Rollback.
Why would corporations have the right to pollute? That would not be a genuine free market.
tewj57 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser "Corporatocracy"? The candidate who has stood more strongly against bailouts and special privileges than anyone else? Are you just saying these insane things to drive me up a wall?
TomWoodsTV 8 months ago 21
@TomWoodsTV Love how you shatter this person here. It's quite sad to see people only be able to use talking points they read, instead of actually watching videos like yours with an objectionable point of view. Quite good, sir, you have opened my eyes even more about Ron Paul!
MadeAlurik 7 months ago
@TomWoodsTV "Are you just saying these insane things to drive me up a wall?" I believe he is doing just that. shadowgeyser is obviously a troll trying to wind up libertarians. It's quite funny really.
93msinclair 7 months ago
Comment removed
fountainherz 4 months ago
@shadowgeyser "Empiricism" is a position in philosophy; you mean "empirical evidence," and even here you obviously understand the Austrian position only in caricature. The Federal Reserve has given us "money stability"? Ever looked at any graphs of the price level? Did you bother to visit the resource page I mention in the video? Are you just going to sit there and repeat every conventional opinion on earth?
If Ron Paul supports "corporatocracy," why do the fat cats donate to everyone else?
TomWoodsTV 8 months ago 26
I just found your channel.... I have only one request as a new subscriber... Can you do a video on FUNVAX? Please? Pretty Please? If you don't know what it is, just slap the name into the you tube search bar. And I agree with everything you said here... These fallacies are used many many times by our "leaders" or "opinion makers" Its pretty funny when you step back and observe with no actual stake in any of it... I mean, I am small fries compared to these guys, and I have 0 impact...
degastheunholy 8 months ago
@degastheunholy So, when you step back and realize that the people are so very easily led... You just have to giggle, especially when you realize that it is only this way because of the dominoes that have been knocked down... One after the other one event after another has demonstrated to the human race that every form of government is inherently flawed. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but this has got to be some grand comedy...
degastheunholy 8 months ago
@shadowgeyser You know, I may do an entire video in response to this comment, so drearily widespread is this naive way of thinking. O wise public servants, save me from the Industrial Revolution! And the gold standard! Let my wise overlords print all the money they need! I see no way that power could be abused!
Or the regulatory apparatus -- why, this is wonderful, selfless people looking out for you and me, and without it we'd all be dead or without limbs. This needs a video.
TomWoodsTV 8 months ago 41
@TomWoodsTV
Fascinating
Samsgarden 6 months ago
@TomWoodsTV shadowgeyser is a libertarian. An anarcho-capitalist in fact. He just loves trolling people. He knows what buttons to push and what arguments make libertarians go insane.
StatelessLiberty 6 months ago
@shadowgeyser So your reply is just to regurgitate your seventh-grade textbook? Way to have an independent thought. For example, you actually believe "workplace safety" comes about because of "government regulations"? Then I guess Bangladesh could become Utopia tomorrow morning. Why didn't they ever think of this? Just pass a few laws, and it's all sunshine and lollipops!
TomWoodsTV 8 months ago 53
@TomWoodsTV
I think it's delightful that Tom gets into the ring with commenters, something rarely seen amongst upper echelon academics.
You're the man Tom. I really respect that you are a THINKING commentator, unafraid to express your views.
Samsgarden 6 months ago 4
KUDOS TOM WOODS, thanks for your intelligence and your sanity, God Knows both are in very short supply in the mainstream press.
TheRiceowlex 8 months ago
Amendment XIV: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, AND SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside."
The emphasized part is always forgotten. In this sense, jurisdiction means "political allegiance" as defined Senator Jacob Howard (author of the citizenship clause) in 1866. In the case of the Canadian military scenario, the mother and baby owed full political allegiance to Canada, not the United States, obviously.
Goodatconnect4 8 months ago
I wonder if any Canadians were born in the US during our prior invasion.
I know we burned down 1/2 the Whitehouse but I doubt we popped out any puppies during the invasion. But we were only 'upper' Canadians then, more of a colony than a country.
Paetaor 8 months ago
The story of the medal to Mother Theresa was very touching. Ron Paul was the only one who actually wanted to honor her. It would be a disgrace to give it when the congressmen didn't even want to give up a few dollars for it. "Hey Mother, we stole this gold for you! Aren't we good!"
mortalisk 9 months ago
Tom, at 1st I thought you were going to lay out another bunch of do nothing commentary on Dr. Ron Paul , but you seem to have hit the nail on the head Sir !
Thank You.
larrymota 9 months ago
Comment removed
Novantii 9 months ago
I love how when the main stream media mention Ron Paul they don't say he wants to reform our foreign policy or fix our economy. They say, "That guy that wants to legalize heroine!"...
MandragGanon 9 months ago
Awesome video. The positions in that article are comical. Way to rip it apart! Ron Paul 2012!
baroninparson 9 months ago
#15 I love Ron Paul's symbolism there.
It is indeed very easy to spend other peoples' money and as an anarchist I would say that it's wrong to spend other peoples' money on anything at all, whether it be wars, medals, or even things that I might be called "extreme" for saying such as schools, roads, welfare, defense, police, etc. Your money is your property and no one (the government included) is right to steal it from you regardless of what they are going to spend it on.
WelcometotheUnknown 9 months ago
Comment removed
WelcometotheUnknown 9 months ago
private property rights can't be used to enforce pollution of the air and waterways and would be near impossible to prosecute. After all, say a company is dumping a chemical into a waterway that then comes through your property. Now you have to PROVE it came from them and that it damages your property and that the level (say ppm) is at a dangerous level. Who would set the standards for what PPM a particular pollutant becomes a danger without the EPA?
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930
> property rights can't be used to enforce pollution of the air and waterways
First: You're wrong. There is a long history here of river rights.
But here's the gov-rights version: Company dumps chemicals on your river. You complain to the RIVR gov agency. They file a piece of paper which passes through five departments before returning for a spelling correction. In the meantime, a chemical corp lobbying group has hired enough hookers to make it legal.
sdkee 9 months ago
@sdkee OK. Maybe you could say how it would work given my premise. Who would decide what level of pollution is dangerous? Furthermore, how about 2 different polluters, neither pollution is dangerous, but together become dangerous or form a new (3rd) chemical that is dangerous? What about waterways that don't go through private property like the Delaware river?
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930
> Who would decide what level of pollution is dangerous?
You have to convince a randomly selected jury or your peers (not lawyer selected, but truly random) that the pollution has harmed you.
But you ask this as if this is a problem for the free market approach. I now ask you: In the current approach, how do you assess harm? Is this method somehow more accurate than asking the people who have been harmed? How does turning pollution complaints over to the DMV help?
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee I don't see the dmv and cdc or EPA in the same way. I think there is a difference between a group of scientists and a group of bureaucrats. Even if it could work, which I doubt, it also is an after the fact remedy. The polluter might be bankrupt and unable to reimburse me. Then there is the problem of totally public water ways like the Delaware river which doesn't flow through private property AND divides states.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> I think there is a difference between a group of scientists and a group of bureaucrats
So you have never been involved in gov funded science then. All "basic research" is funded by the gov. More importantly, all research grants (salary) are distributed by the gov.
> The polluter might be bankrupt
Yes, thereby creating an example for future polluters to ponder. The free market reacts rather than anticipates. So yes, the first guy gets screwed. But then it sorts out.
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee When the polluter is bankrupt, how do I recover the damage to my private property? We haven't even addressed the air at this point.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> When the polluter is bankrupt, how do I recover the damage to my private property?
You don't. Life sucks and then you die. But your neighbors are better off for your lesson. Word gets around.
The world is too unfair to have a realistic plan to eliminate *all* hardship. Maybe you should ask God for that?
sdkee 8 months ago
The states should NOT be allowed to set standards for abortion, gay marriage or prayer in schools. Remember, the supreme court is allowed to overrule state laws that deny citizens their constitutionally protected rights. No state has a right to trample on rights guaranteed by the constitution. This is basic stuff here.
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930
> The states should NOT be allowed to set standards for abortion, gay marriage or prayer in schools.
Where in the constitution does it say anything about the Fed Gov having anything to do with abortion, marriage (gay or otherwise), schools (prayer or otherwise), or anything except article I section VIII?
For the record, I am ethically against abortion (but against making it illegal), think you can marry your chair if you want to, and am against state-sponsored religion.
sdkee 9 months ago
@sdkee Separation of church and state, freedom of religion. That is why the supreme court struck down school prayer and why gay marriage can be illegal. What if a church (and yes, there are churches that want this) wants to marry a gay couple? Where is their freedom of religion? Abortion.. How about the owning of your own body? Self determination as to when and if you want to have children?
christo930 9 months ago
@christo930
> Separation of church and state, freedom of religion
I am in favor of all of these things. Every gov can fuck itself on its own thigh bone for all I care. If I want to marry my chair, it's none of their biz. But the 1st amend the the constitution is a limitation on the fedgov. Claiming the fedgov has rights to force separation of church and state is to let the USA gov invent a power for itself to wield.
When did letting govs invent their own powers become a good idea?
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee Are you implying that the gov has the right to FORCE your children to pray or read from a holy book (as a holy book and not literature)?
The federal gov has the right to strike down state laws that deny citizens their rights and the right to be free of government sponsored religion is a guaranteed right under the constitution.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> gov has the right to FORCE your children to pray
I thought my comment about it being ok to marry my chair should have cleared this up: It is not ok for any gov in any capacity to dictate who I fuck or who I consider my family.
But the fedgov is a chartered organization. It has only those powers granted in 1788 (if even that). You might *want* it to have other powers, such as forcing religious tolerance. But these powers were not delegated by the people of the states.
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee The federal gov does have the legal authority to overturn state laws. Like if PA decided to make ownership of guns illegal, the supreme court has the authority to overturn that state law. Do you deny this?
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> federal gov does have the legal authority to overturn state laws
Explain this to me. My understanding is that the fedgov has article I section VIII as powers delegated to it by the people and the fedgov can go fuck itself if it thinks it has more powers. The "go fuck yourself" clause is embodied in the 10th amendment.
So if a state gov made a law against me marrying my chair, on what basis does your fedgov operate against me?
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee Religious freedom. If your church wants to marry you to your chair, the state law would be keeping you from exercising your religion which the first amendment specifically protects."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". Between the establishment clause and the free exercise clause, the first amendment has been interpreted as building a wall of separation between the church and state. The constitution is the supreme law of the land which means no law can trump the constitution.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> if your church wants to marry you to your chair, the state law would be keeping you from
So my beef is with the state gov. So what?
> the first amendment specifically protects."or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".
Maybe you should be a lawyer, being so good at taking things out of context. The amendment starts: "Congress shall make no law ...". It is a limitation on CONGESS. The fact that I should justifiably hate my state laws has fuck all to do with this.
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee I am not taking it out of context, I am pointing out that the supreme court has interpreted it that way and Thomas Jefferson has written about it and said he wanted to erect a wall of separation of church and state. As Christopher Hitchens says "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall".
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
Jefferson, Hitchens, you and I are all agreed about the desirability of a separation. We all agree that the USA fedgov is bound by its charter to observe such a separation. What you can't seem to come into agreement with Jefferson and myself is that the same charter which so usefully limits the fedgov by stopping the fedgov from creating a state religion, ALSO limits the same fedgov from creating laws which would force the other jurisdictions into respecting this separation.
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee Because the first amendment specifically puts the power of religion on the federal level by denying it. The tenth amendment says that powers not specifically granted in the constitution would go the states and people.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
...continued from previous post
The problem is this: what stops a government from doing X? X may be, for instance, establishing a state religion.
In the case of the fedgov, one of those is the limitations in its charter. If the fedgov exercises a power not granted to it in the constitution, people will rightly say that it is acting outside the law. You shoot that limitation full of holes if you sanction the fedgov to exercise extra-constitutional powers you happen to like.
sdkee 8 months ago
@christo930
... continued (2)
So if you advocate the fedgov to extra-constitutionally force separation of church and state onto the lower jurisdictions then you necessarily advocate for the government to act outside the constitution in this case. You have punched an arbitrary hole in the constitution. When some bible-thumper comes along and proposes punching a similar sized hole in the constitution to make his favorite religion the the official one, how do you oppose him?
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee I agree with your premise that if we disregard the constitution for things we like, our opponents would be justified in doing the same thing. Are there any early writings by the framers or by the early congress about religion at the state level? How about in the constitutional convention notes or federalist paper (I haven't read all of them)? As far as prayer in school, I would think the federal board of education would make school prayer illegal even if your premise is right.
christo930 8 months ago
@christo930
> if PA decided to make ownership of guns illegal, the supreme court has the authority to overturn that state law
This is one of the rare cases where the constitution trumps the states by contractual agreement. The 2nd amendment says that the right of the people to have guns cannot be infringed. It does not provide a restriction on who this limitation applies to. But the 1st amendment, for instance, states "congress shall not...". This is a limitation on the fedgov only.
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee That is not how it has been interpreted from the very beginning. The states can not interfere with your constitutionally protected rights, including freedom of religion.
christo930 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@christo930
> That is not how it has been interpreted from the very beginning
Sorry, I am lost. Explain what you mean. Are talking about the "due process" clause in the 14th amendment (1868, hardly a "beginning") or are you just talking shit?
sdkee 8 months ago
@sdkee I am talking about the interpretation of the first amendment. The supreme court has ruled over and over and over against state sanctioned religion.
christo930 8 months ago
I though president Bush created the dept of homeland security in 2001? How is tom citing statistics from the 90's?
christo930 9 months ago
I think it is funny how libertarians (myself included) are so anti-government while simultaneously obsessed with politics.
I guess the soiling comes with defending freedom.
mjgormley 9 months ago