CPAC 2010 - Liberty Forum Q&A Pt.2

On February 18, 2010, Congressman Ron Paul and Judge Andrew Napolitano participated in a question and answer session moderated by historian Tom Woods as part of C4L's "Liberty Forum" at CPAC 2010.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• Ron Paul
• Judge Napolitano
• Tom Woods

[zeo285]

I'll go with Spooner on this one.

Free Market Anarchy!

[zeo285]

Ya!! SPOOONER!

[andrewcriscione]

It is impossible to have a religion that is separate from the physical world, and to preach such a religion is foolish. The most tolerant, most wise, and most libertarian religion is the religion of our true founding fathers (and our deistic founding fathers supposedly indulged as well) and that is the psychedelic religion that allows any individual to have his or her own transcendent experience and see the unity of all human beings that can only be called God and its physical holy spirit.

[focus21x]

It is naive to think that there is a "good" religion Islam that is separate from jihad, terrorism, and the like. Americans in high places are afraid to criticize the basic religion because they assume, wrongly, that religion is basically a good thing. It is not necessarily so. Christianity, too, has done an anormous amount of evil throughout history, especially toward Muslims (and Jews).

[Blazhei]

Agreed on all counts. However, the Judge's answer was interesting. He at least conceded that just because the Constitution exists doesn't mean the government is magically nice and happy.

[ignostic1]

Whoever asked that Spooner question deserves a medal of some sort; a shiny new bike, at the very least.

I find it troubling that so many of Libertarians talk about consent, yet pretend that the constitution is some sort of magically binding document, with which none of our individual consents are required. The accident of birth is enough for everyone to be bound to this contract, they say.

Spooner annihilated this argument so thoughtfully.

[globbo100]

@focus21x: I both hope and wish that you are speaking for yourself when you say that freedom is hard to understand. I know what freedom is and I don't need someone to explain it's concept to me.I also know that if I violate the freedom of others that I will never hear the end about my transgressions, assuming I live long enough to hear it in the first place.

[focus21x]

In one way freedom is hard to understand, especially for young people, because it is essentially abstract, empty, a nothing--unless you fill it with something. So the argument should always stress the positive input, the good produced, even creativity that is possible only with the freedom of the mind.

[301Goldstar]

Those are very good questions!

[comicbookstoreguy]

If this is the future of American politics, you are seriously in for a revolution. The talk of complete loss of credibility amongst mass media outlets seems to hold water, considering this function.

The question on the global political ideology of Islam was interesting. As well as touching on the possibility of physical confrontation with the government.

[WTFaboutWTC7]

watch?v=jnUJGekaHEI

[zeo285]

I did a while ago, back when I was a minarchist.

But I have resently rejected that, and I disagree with what he says in that video