Senator Daniel Inouye on Rights and Government

Senator Daniel Inouye thinks it's okay if private citizens initiate physical force as long as the government authorizes it.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Politics

[anyusmoon1]

Absolutely BRILLIANT!

[asperin]

"The authorization comes from the people". The "people" or better yet, the majority of voters.

Statism is losing ground. The Internet is making a lot of people reason about this monopoly on violence.

Back then, these programs were just played in local tv channels and never seen again, ignored by the MSM of course.

[MegatronAngel]

It sounds like x Senator Daniel Inouye is a bit of an idiot who maintains a fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution he's sworn to uphold.

Shame that... but I doubt it's unusual - sadly.

[Jetsumo70]

well id have to say out of all the people he has questioned this guy kept his cool the best and id say gave the most reasonable answers

[2ndAsstJizzMopper]

maddirty, glad this was straightened quickly.

cannot go wrong reading murray rothbard's "the ethics of liberty", free online at mises.org.

for old school economics coolness, doesn't get much better than frédéric bastiat's "That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen", free online at bastiat.org. also check, "The Law" at the same site. same author.

tons more, but those are the first that come to mind. oh, and ayn rand is nearly peerless, despite massive imperfection. "Atlas Shrugged" is a gas.

[maddirty]

@2ndAsstJizzMopper Thanks for your cordial reply, I was obviously way off base and have a much better idea of where you're coming from now. I've been looking into some of your other YT comments and I have to say I find your positions really interesting and great food for thought. Any good reading you'd recommend?

[2ndAsstJizzMopper]

maddirty, the disconnect is in ascribing to "want" the action of "demand" and its normal villainous allies. i want (desire) all sorts of things; doesn't necessarily mean i'm initiating force against others. jan further loused up this equivocation by linking it, however vaguely/sloppily, to the delusional construct, common to so many "libertarians", that one may be forced rightfully to pay for a unilateral "service", so long as that "service" is "police" or military. "minarchism" hooey. bleh.

[maddirty]

@2ndAsstJizzMopper I apologize if I've missed your point and offended you in doing so. From the comments in this thread, however, it is difficult to see what exactly you're getting at. Would you care to elaborate on your position at all?

[2ndAsstJizzMopper]

maddirty, when insisting someone's missed the point, be sure the person isn't you. you should learn to read and understand precise english.

i know how these exchanges with fervent assuming noobs normally go. you won't review anything; you are sure (wrongly) that you've understood what i was talking about and that i'm horrendously, obviously wrong. you're wrong. review before running your fool yapper. if nothing else, review the history of your argument opponent. unlike you, i'm not anonymous.

[razerfish]

I love watching Libertarians trap statists with logic and reasoning. I wish he would have asked the statist if a majority voted it was okay to rape his wife and children and set fire to his house, would that be okay? That's usually when statists see the the value in natural rights, or at least get embarrassed by their illogical thinking.

[onebadmoto]

people are being silly. inouye has been given the medal of honor for his loyalty to his country. he obviously is a pawn and doesn't understand how he protected oliver north by following the law. true believers of the law believe it to be pure, yet those that break the law and use the law to protect their actions will be invisible to people like inouye. the nwo understands this. he will be blamed and protected at the same time, and the whole time the real monsters are hiding in the darkness.