Tom Woods vs Neil Siegel on States' Rights - NPR Debate 3/23/10

http://TomWoods.com
http://Mises.org
http://LewRockwell.com

Tom Woods schools Duke law professor Neil Siegel on the issue of states' rights on National Public Radio's On Point, March 23, 2010.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• tom
• thomas
• woods
• npr
• national
• public
• radio
• on
• point
• ludwig
• von
• mises
• institute
• austrian
• economics
• ron
• paul
• peter
• schiff
• lew
• rockwell
• states
• rights
• constitution
• founding
• fathers
• hamilton
• jefferson
• nullification
• seccession

[tarossi400]

So, basically Siegels argument boils down to: Well we've managed to do all this other unconstitutional stuff thus far, so there's obviously no legal reason not to do this too.

[BerlinPhilfan94]

Oh my, how frustrating! Knowing Tom Woods, he has an answer for everything Siegel says. But, of course, the host doesn't give him enough time to even begin to respond to his opponent. Siegel simply regurgitates the mainstream propaganda and gets away with it--because Woods isn't allowed to have enough time to respond.

[nbonasoro]

Tom woods in the 5 seconds he gets to talk is good defending himself and the jeffersonian view of the constitution. i was listening to this video yelling at the host to stop going to neil the entire time, and to give mr woods some time to talk.

[clintcastle]

You don't agree with federal healthcare? You are a racist...... This is why I stopped listening to NPR. Liberals don't want to be inconvenienced to take care of their neighbors and have more of a localized life. They want to have the government steal from you and force you to be charitable, Why? Liberals wouldn't be charitable otherwise.

[vince33x]

@utubehayter Well, times and meanings have sure changed or evolved as Darwin would say.

[utubehayter]

@vince33x

The reason he thought of himself on the left, because the idea of respect for individual is a concept that came from the original left (Bastiat). Along with it came social-collectivism too (Proudhon). But on the right, there was only (monarchic) absolutism and theocratic collectivism.

[vince33x]

@utubehayter The problem w/issues about who's Right and who's Left is that the terms have been deliberately confused for so long. But you have to think rationally about the terms for them to have any true meaning. If Mises thought of himself as a man of the Left, I'd love to hear his explanation as to why - but I can't talk to the dead. Ultimately, Right and Left gets down to how you view the role of government - Less in one direction, more in the other direction.

[utubehayter]

@vince33x

Is that so? Hmm.. so Mark Levin, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Glenn Beck all are not right wingers at all? Do you really think I haven't heard them talk? Gee.. All of them have condemned Ron Paul as kooky too.

If you want to define the right wing as narrowly as Ron Paul, then okay, you may have a point. But, this cannot be done. Unless you want to allow a left winger like Mises to be the standard bearer for the Left as well.

[vince33x]

@vince33x that-be are terrified of his message of real Individual Liberty, which would mean the end-of-the-line for millions of government hacks. U have to remember, gov't workers are the most worthless form of humanity on earth and they are desperate to cling to their cushy way of life - all at taxpayer expense.

[vince33x]

@utubehayter No it it isn't, listen to talk radio, the hosts and guests don't engage in vagaries. Ron Paul, the ONLY RIGHT-WING candidate left in the race (the other two were Herman Cain and Gary Johnson) has been very specific in the plans he would enact if elected President, including cutting $1 TRILLION from the Federal Budget. If Ron Paul were treated even remotely fairly by the Left-Wing media he would have even more support than he enjoys today. He is largely ignored because the powers-