Walter Block vs Stefan Molyneux vs Ron Paul!

I respond to an article by Dr Walter Block about my arguments against the value and potential of political action. Original article: http://lewrockwell.com/block/block180... From Freedomain Radio, http://www.freedomainradio.com

• Category

  Education

[threebobs]

Good argument. Impressive logic.

I retort with "you're a poo poo head."

Your turn again...

[passantgardant]

I generally agree with the non-aggression principle. But I have one question for you. Without forcing suspects of crimes to appear before a jury of their peers, how can you ever realize criminal justice? Are you allowed to defend your private property while it's being stolen, but once it's gone, that's it? No recourse? It's hard to imagine society existing if there is no recourse when you've been wronged. Suspects must stand trial and face evidence. But doing so will force innocents too.

[Gnome DeGuerre]

I love Ron Paul. Sadly, he has become a cult of personality. His followers created a closed system similar to Ayn Rand's "collective". Every position he takes must be accepted as gospel truth. Any libertarian who does not agree 100% percent with Paul's positions will be branded a heretic and a phony libertarian and rejected. Libertarians who disagree with Paul on 10% are ripped to shreds by Paul's acolytes (see Rand Paul, and Gary Johnson). Like Objectivism, Paulianism will die with him.

[danielamin]

In the book Snow Crash, governments disappear due to the fact that they can't tax digital currency, and society reorganizes itself around a *mostly* anarcho-capitalist order.

Bitcoins, anyone?

[spencerwill]

Just because Paul had PERSONAL beliefs, that does not mean that he would push his beliefs. That would go against his fundamental principles. This idea of separating personal ideology with political ideology is called cognitive dissonance. In fact you, by not supporting a person based on their INDIVIDUAL beliefs, you are acting like the majority of political ideologues that exist within the two major parties.

[Gary Woughter]

Thank you for the thoughtful video. I, at this point, have read quite a bit of economics and some of Hayek's works and am currently reading through Mises and eventually Rothbard.Right now I still don't think a society with no application of law and force can exist peacefully. Thus far a strictly limited government with free states seems the best we can do.I would find it interesting to see a small group live independantly without a government force but am doubtful that peace would be maintained.

[John Stiffler]

What rock did this douche crawl out from under? I don’t blame him for his ignorance and stupidity, it may in fact be contrived, but I do blame all you little douches for jumping right on board with his intellectually stagnant rhetoric.

[narotax]

Great question, I am curious about the response as well.

[Razor Rabone]

Amazing stuff - I generally like Ron Paul but if the constitution breaches the non-aggression principle then we shouldn't blindly follow it.

[VanguardSupreme]

I get that. I get the pragmatic approach of minarchism today, anarchism maybe tomorrow; I get that Ron Paul introduced libertarian ideas to a whole bunch of people; I get that Ron Paul is a really nice guy and sincere in what he says...I get all of that.

But my comment wasn't about any of that. My comment simply was that it is downright *idiotic* to say Molyneux's position is because he does not hate the state enough.

[Austen Samyn]

It's not so cut-and-dry, Vanguard. Ron Paul has brought more people to Libertarianism, Anarcho-Capitalism, and Voluntaryism than anyone else in history. Not supporting Ron Paul during 2008 and 2012 campaigns while being a Libertarian/Voluntaryist is somewhat analogous to not supporting Jesus while being a Christian, since both are chief conversion points. If you want Libertarianism/Voluntaryism to grow, why not use every tool possible?