Episode-680- 14 Steps to the Personal Libertarian Lifestyle — 93 Comments

  1. @Jack,

    What you say is true in regards to the citizens allowing an environment (society) where politicians can do what they do.

    I don’t think we’ve really got a disagreement, so much as a different viewing angle on the same thing.

    Here’s a key point. As citizens in a Constitutional system, we have specific means at our disposal to work WITHIN the system. Namely, we have the vote to put our Congressional Reps in office. We also have the right to speak out, and demand our voices be heard. The problem is that THIS method has its limitations. A politician can tell us one thing, and then once elected, violate his promises and his oath of office. We certainly have the power to vote them out, but in the meantime, we have little else we can do (I’ll get back to that in a second).

    At this level, even if the Citizens did their duty (questioned, and voted accordingly), a lying politician can still fool us. So, I think that these people DO have some blame. We are to blame for allowing them to stay, instead of making darn sure they never serve again.

    I think it is important to state that these politicians ARE to blame, because it is one part of our duty–to make it clear that they are REQUIRED to adhere to the Constitution. It is the first step in taking responsibility for our Government–by saying what is and isn’t acceptable. We have to set those boundaries before we act on enforcing those boundaries.

    Now, we actually do have other means at our disposal, and they are rooted in the 2nd Amendment. Anyone who has read any Jefferson, knows that the people have the right to throw off a government that isn’t acting properly. Some people might think that’s radical, but it’s the root of our Nation. I believe in this ultimate right, but it can’t be taken lightly. If we are left with no other alternative, we MUST do this, but there will be (massive) consequences. It is the proverbial can of worms.
    Is there a time when citizens will have no choice but take up arms and force our politicians to stop violating the Constitution? Perhaps, but I pray to God we never get to that point, because while it might be the right thing to do, the negative consequences will be terrible.

    My bottom line is that I think it is important to point out that politicians are doing the wrong thing(s), when they do, despite the fact that ultimately the people (all of us) are responsible for maintaining the Constitution and now allowing for an environment that enables these things.

    I think that we agree on the point that the responsibility ultimately rests with the people, and when it comes down to it, we must be the ones to fix this. Where we may differ is that I think we need to keep the light focused on those acting wrongly. The pressure on them in my view is part of what will help maintain proper action.

    Unfortunately, I think we (the citizenry) is failing almost universally at this duty, for a variety of reasons.

    I doubt I’m saying anything here you’re not aware of, but just taking this opportunity to clarify my view a bit.

    What I love about TSP is that you devote your time to things we CAN do even in the face of these things we dislike and find unacceptable. TSP gives people tools and ideas on how to claim victory from that state of Defeat you spoke of.

  2. @Jack,

    Since I was so long on the other topic, in regards to the Education issue, I’ll just say “Definitely.”

  3. @KAM as to your first post, make sure you understand I am really happy about our other discussion and credit you deeply for helping me to think and come up with this episode.

    I agree it is just a different angle and I appreciate how at times you respectfully and logically challenge my ideas.

  4. “The government is not the problem, it’s the people.”

    I agree with that 100%. I view government the same way I would view the nosy neighbor who complains to everyone about what everyone else in the neighborhood is doing. You know the type: “That damn dog of theirs is always barking”, “His tree is too close to the property line”, “Why are her kids running down the street after 6 o’clock”, “You’re grass is too tall”… You know the person I’m talking about.

    The government is the collective voice of the people, nosy bitches included. All those bad neighbors are the driving force behind bad decisions in the government.

    Sometimes it’s something small they demand, safety labels on children’s toys alerting parents of a choking hazard for instance. It seems like a good idea, so people let it pass. Of course every parent knows that kids put random things in their mouth, everything is a potential choking hazard. But now the toys have to go through a long process of review, be classified and labeled, which costs the producer money, and translates to those toys costing more or being produced with cheaper materials, possibly overseas. Small issue, I know, but there are millions of them with an accumulative effect. You can’t mandate common sense.

    Then there are bigger issues like FDA regulation, Healthcare, National security…

    People always vote for what they perceive to be in their best interest, even if what their voting for is detrimental to someone else. It’s rationalized that if it’s good for me, it’s good for you too. We all get one thing we want and 100 things we don’t.

    What is a Libertarian?
    Let’s start with what it is not. To spite there being a “Libertarian party”, it is not a political movement at ends with other political movements. Being Libertarian doesn’t mean you can’t also be a Republican or Democrat, Communist, Green Party, Independent etc. Libertarianism doesn’t tell you what to believe or how to act. There is no moral or ideological structure to it, save one key principal: Individual Liberty. That trumps everything else.

    Here’s an example I’ve used before: Gay Marriage. Personally I’m against it. I was brought up with the belief that marriage is a sacred bond between a man and a woman. That’s how I was raised, that’s how my kids will be raised. If I see it on a ballet and I’m asked to vote for or against the legalization of gay marriage, I will vote for it. There is a superseding principal at play. No matter how I personally feel about it, your neighbors (government) should not be allowed to decide who you can or can’t marry based on any criteria. It isn’t their business, and it isn’t mine.

    So even though I hold the stereotypical Conservative view on the subject, My vote falls in line with the liberal view anyway. Even though I detest what I’m voting for, voting against it would be a violation of my most fundamental principals. It works the other way too.

    Abortion. I don’t think an embryo with no brain activity constitutes a living organism. My toe nail is a collection of living cells with no brain activity, and it’s had more experiences than a zygote. It’s walked on the beach, it’s been stubbed on the sofa, and won a harrowing battle against some type of foot fungus. Still, I wouldn’t think twice before cutting it off. Feel free to disagree with me on that one, or draw the line between stages of development and question at what point it becomes wrong. For this example I’m keeping it more cut and dry than the subject really is for me. Now let’s say the government wants to give more funding to planned parenthood facilities. I’ll vote against it. Other people do have a strong moral objection to abortion, and they shouldn’t be forced to pay for it through the tax code. If that money isn’t given to those doctors voluntarily, while I don’t believe them to be murders, they are undeniably thieves (which I hold in the same regard).

    Let’s say some “evil capitalist” wants to build a Wal-Mart in your town. Shut up and enjoy the new store, or just don’t shop there at all, hell, Picket them for all I care. Just don’t try to get an injunction. They purchased the lot they’re building on, and have a right to build there. If you wanted to do something else with that land, you had the opportunity to buy the lot when it was for sale. Where was the community action group then? They could have pooled their money, built a park, whatever. They relinquished that right through their own inaction, and have no standing to infringe on Wal-Mart’s right to build, regardless of how much it pisses off the community.

    Maybe some “Hippie Leftist Green Peace loser” wants to put up 6 wind turbines in his yard, next to your $2 million houses. So what? His land, His right. The “Not in My back Yard” crowd can blow it out their ass. It’s not in your back yard, it’s in his. Again, property rights. You only have them if you actually own the property in question.

    You can look at these issue and disagree with everything I’ve said, or agree with a completely different rationalization. Whatever your other beliefs are, If you believe you are capable of (and responsible for) making your own decisions, and that the ability to do so is inherently the right of all people, and any infringement upon that right by a third party who is not directly effected by your decisions is a crime of ethics, you are a Libertarian.
    Being a Libertarian doesn’t mean walking around with a “Don’t tread on me” T-shirt and putting campaign signs for Ron Paul in your yard. It’s just asking your self “If my neighbor (the government, by now you should see the terms are interchangeable) told me not to do this, or else incur his wrath, would I say ‘Okay’, or would I tell him to mind his own business”. We are the “Mind your own damn business, and I’ll mind mine” crowd. Everyone else is the bitchy neighbor.

  5. I haven’t listened yet, but I know that this show is going to ROCK! Jack, you have inspired me! On the Drowning in the Mainstream podcast I proposed a system that I termed “Agorculture”, which is Agorism, or market Anarchy – free and voluntary exchange, applied to food and agriculture. I don’t want to get hung up in the terminology. I just thought it was catchy and, whatever you call the system, it is ancient, widespread, natural and coming back in a big way.

    I think that individuals respond to different means of propagating a message. Some respond best to intellectual arguments; some respond best to examples, some respond best to artistic messages and some respond to social pressure, unfortunately. Different strokes for different folks. I venture that the message of liberty may be most palatable via the mouth and the best route to understanding is through the stomach. I am passionate about food, I am passionate about liberty and, thanks to TSP, I am realizing that I am passionate about food’s source, agriculture, too. So, I want to run with it! Across the political spectrum, including those who previously had no interest in politics, across all walks of life, there is a skyrocketing interest in food freedom and agriculture and a growing awareness that the government is not interested in health or safety- government is only interested in power, coercion, fear and violence. Health is another aspect of food freedom and a reason why we must reclaim it from the government. Food freedom is not just a matter of pleasure, it is truly a matter of life and death! Government policy is directly responsible for the rise of many diseases during the past few decades. Once the government completely takes over and destroys healthcare, we will have no choice but to proactively take responsibility for our own health if we wish to stay alive.

    Here are some inspirational articles and podcasts on the food revolution.

    For the listeners who haven’t yet watched Jamie Oliver’s Food Revolution, I highly recommend it! Please do so before ABC kills it like they have so many other good shows.

    While I won’t be able to listen until this evening, I am sure you will mention the $4 Million fines against a backyard rabbitry. Question- how does one stay within the law when there are so many obscure, constantly changing laws promulgated by swarms of agencies?

    It looks like the outrage is getting the USDA to ease up, but that is not enough. Bureaucrats need to be fired and the USDA needs to have their pants sued off to compensate the victims for all the stress they caused and time they wasted! They are only backing down because of the outcry. They still intended to terrorize that family.

    The USDA also banned Muscovy ducks for a brief period of time until the public outcry compelled them to make an exception for meat production only. Who saw that coming and how do you keep track of it all? I only found out when looking up breeders for my own flock. (Thanks for the great tip, Jack!) Who knows if they take away the exception and call it a “loophole”?

    I would like to suggest the following strategies. I would like to hear what others think. Maybe this could be a show!

    Use creative words and euphemisms – Label your raw milk cheese as “art” and “not for human consumption”. Call Muscovy Ducks “Barbary Ducks”.
    Confuse bureaucrats and make it too much work to go after you. Unless you are trying to make a point or clear yourself.
    Keep a low profile and maintain Opsec. Avoid leaving a paper trail and make it difficult or impossible to trace back to you.
    Use the power of community- this is what caused the government to back down.

  6. Oops! I meant to say “tactics”, not “strategies”. I look forward to listening to the show while I garden this evening. Enjoy your vacation, Jack!

  7. I have not yet listened but had to comment on the “vote who you believe in, not who you think might win”. Agree 100% – I can’t stand hearing “that’s throwing a vote away”. If people continue to subscribe to the “lesser of two evils” philosophy we’ll always have only two choices.

  8. @timfromohio to make your point even stronger try this on for size,

    If people continue to subscribe to the “lesser of two evils” philosophy we’ll always have EVIL.

  9. Jack,

    Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU for pointing everyone toward the correct textbook definition of “fascism.” Too many people do not truly understand what actual fascism is, and therefore do not recognize it as it manifests itself all around them.

  10. Good show as usual. Since I stumbled upon this show, the main points hit home almost every day.

    Your show has replaced Alex Jones for my afternoon headphone entertainment / info while I am wired in at work concentrating and blocking out the background noise.

    Today’s show hit home in that I have been one of the “defeated Libertarians” — just listening to the conversations the dumb yuppies have every single day who surround my office at work drive me insane. I honestly make a point (and have always made a point) of NOT discussing politics or social issues, or anything related to those topics whatsoever at work or in a business situation EVER.

    Mainly because even though I find out later on that many people agree with me, I really just run the risk of losing my job or at the least ostracizing myself. When it makes sense to throw out a point to make the sheeple think I do, but that’s about it.

    The reason I like this show is because you have a positive attitude about everything. When you listen to Alex Jones for 4hrs you are left feeling powerless and hopeless because frankly I don’t need “Jonesy” pointing out the wrongs in our culture. All I need to do is read some news or like I said, listen to the stupid shit that comes out of the mouths of the braindead yuppies I am constantly surrounded by (marketing folks).

    I blame the American people for what is happening to our society and get very angry with people who are totally ignorant, or are marching in the left/right army and have firmly chosen a “side.”

    I feel hopeless most of the time because of my own financial situation and due to the fact that all I need to do is listen to the idiots around me for 10 minutes and the idiotic nonsense that spews from their mouths to know it is a lost cause.

    However, listening to the way you present ideas and try to keep your show solution focused vs. bitching about problems with no solutions is a really good thing. The Freeman Perspective is another show I love listening to just because of the dude’s attitude. He talks about some of the craziest “tin foil hat” topics but you both come across as dudes I’d love to have around chillin’ by the campfire.

    Thanks for the positive energy.

  11. Absolutely right on your comment Jack. Which founding father said, “a vote cast in good conscious is a vote well cast”? That’s my mantra. I have voted for presidential candidates that had zero chance of winning for the past 3 or 4 elections now, but felt I chose candidates whose platforms most closely aligned with my views. Isn’t that supposed to be the point of us voting anyway?

    Keep up the great work!

  12. I have to side with KAM on this one and point my finger at the government.

    When it comes to government, our vote really doesn’t count (unless it’s part of a mass collective).

    That said; you hit the nail on the head with your description of Freedom & Libery Jack! Great show.

  13. LOL… I can’t even count the number of people who told me they LOVED Ron Paul in 2008 but could not vote for him because “he can’t win.”

    I campaigned for him and met A LOT of people (thousands) and heard this ALL THE TIME.

    If they nominated Adolph Hitler to run as the Reublican with Joseph Mengele as the VP, these dipshit republicans would vote for him, and put nazi flags all over their cars and fully support him because “we gotta get rid of that Kenyan N!##ER COMMUNIST SCUMBAG!”

    Listening to most people talk about politics is like hearing people argue over whether Joseph Stalin or Hitler was the better humanitarian.

  14. @M Kitchen

    What you are doing by blaming the government over the people is like blaming a 8 year old for his diet and letting the parents off the hook.

  15. More accurately you are blaming the gun in a shooting vs. the person how fired it. The government can do NOTHING with out the people.

    Please understand I am blaming the people as a whole, not the individuals who are involved and are making efforts.

  16. I am going to have to disagree with the whole “its the government’s fault” arguement.

    I WILL agree that your vote doesn’t count for anything.

    HOWEVER… If just 5% of the people would stand up in mass and take action against the unjust it would force the hand of government to address those grievances one way or another whether it is violent or peaceful uprising.

    Ghandi forced the British hand to come down HARD on the people of India when they began to stand up to the tyranny. Did a lot of people DIE needlessly and get killed for peaceful demonstration? Yes, THOUSANDS of them did. Do I want to die for marching around a public square holding a sign? Certainly not…

    However, the people need to take a stand and do SOMETHING.

    This is a small example but the same concept TOTALLY applies to the American People in general…

    In High School, the teachers were on strike and picketing out in front of the school, which resulted in an away team turning the busses around and we lost a soccer game as a result (soccer in my high school was the equivalent of Texas High School football — we had the LARGEST natural grass soccer field stadium in New York State and I graduated with 70 people in my class).

    There were other programs being cancelled and cut because of the teacher’s strike etc. A bunch of us decided to stage a “sit-in” which for me was just a reason to raise hell and be a trouble maker but with a secondary purpose of seeing if we could affect change…

    Of course the school officials caught wind of the event beforehand and warned everyone in homeroom etc there would be severe consequences for participation. When the time came, the ENTIRE school mulled about the foyer and the looks on people’s faces were all identical. They were all waiting for the first person to have the balls to sit down in the hallway before they would muster up the courage to do it.

    With 4 minutes between classes my group of friends and I (who were also waiting for someone to sit down first) finally, with less than a minute before our next class and people streaming out of the foyer heading to class we finally said “F-IT” and 3 of us sat down and locked arms.

    Within 2 minutes the entire school (except those who’s parents were teachers) came and sat down with us and locked arms. The news media and police showed up a little bit later.

    Instead of backing up their claims of punishment (they could not suspend 95% of the school for this) they had us go into the auditorium, set up a podium and let students take turns talking about why we were doing this.

    In the end all of the things we were actually trying to change were CHANGED! The teachers stopped picketing and basically stopped dragging us into the middle of their disputes with the board.

    It even helped the teachers get what they were trying to achieve.

    If just a handful of us had sat down without any back I would have been suspended from school with the rest of them.

    Our country is the same way. Civil disobedience is just one option.

    The British did not leave the colonies because they were ASKED to or because people complained about them constantly. Eventually a large group of people had to try peaceful means and eventually brute force to dislodge the power.

    The British did not leave India because they were ASKED to or because people complained about them constantly. Eventually a large group of people had to try peaceful means and eventually expose the british brutality to the rest of the world to force their hand to leave.

    Either way, someone had to start the avalanche. I GUARANTEE you that if enough people got fed up and simultaneously filled out the forms to stop federal withholding from their paychecks and simultaneously stopped filing tax returns, if that number was 30 million or more the IRS would not be able to do anything about it other than what they do right now (grab a few people and “hang them” publicly in order to scare the rest of the rabble into compliance).

    A wall of 100 pigs with riot gear, shields, and machine guns cannot outfight an angry unarmed mob of 10,000 people who are ready to kill them regardless of the cost. People will die in the confrontation but the pigs are going to die the second they have to reload.

    I am not advocating violence but people need to stand up TOGETHER, and it doesn’t even need to be THAT MANY people.

    However, getting people to come together in this country for any reason these days is almost impossible. When the stupid yuppies I work with are all jobless, lost their homes, and are having trouble keeping food on the table THEN they MIGHT stand together.

  17. @ Jack – That’s the thing right there when you said “Please understand I am blaming the people as a whole, not the individuals who are involved and are making efforts.” With that you hit another nail on the head.

    I think (to use more gun analogies) that “The People” are like a row of soldiers in a firing line. “The Government” is the commander yelling “Fire”! Our rights are the captive up against the firing wall. As an individual I can decide not to pull the trigger. But “as a whole” there is nothing I can do except try to convince EVERYONE ELSE not to pull their trigger. So I can see what you’re getting at, but it’s this collectivist system (with the government at the capstone) that is the root of this current problem (as I see it).

    For a food analogy; I’m blaming Monsanto for creating GMO foods and sneaking them into the 8 year old’s diet.


  18. @ Adam B. Which ISN’T to say that we are powerless and there is nothing we can do. There is PLEANTY we can do. Like growing our own food, and striving for our own liberty. For me, this is just more of a “KNOW THY ENEMY” type of thing. Calling a spade a spade. The best thing we can do to change the world is change ourself. Others then follow.

    Interesting that we have the same internet radio listening journey. I used to listen to Alex Jones 4 hours a day until I started working from home and then I didn’t need the 4 hour rants anymore. Opting instead for things like The Survival Podcast and The Freeman Perspective (like you said – great show with, like you said, the craziest “tin foil hat” topics).

  19. @Jack,

    How is it that, the politicians, who are not inanimate objects, nor children are not at least partially responsible for their direct actions.

    We citizens do not directly control the specific actions of politicians–by design (republic, not a democracy) so we cannot bear 100% of the responsibility, because doing so absolves the politicians from his/her direct action.

    Rather, I’d argue that our (the citizens’) guilt is generational, and protected by structures within government that we are totally removed from controlling. It isn’t just the directly elected politicians that are part of the problem, but a massive Bureaucracy as well.

    For us to be directly responsible, we’d have to have direct authority, and we do not.

    Another way of putting this is that we have ultimate, but indirect responsibility, but cannot have complete responsibility, because we do not have direct authority, and as you know, one cannot exist without the other.

    While the power of government (theoretically) comes from the people, we are quite far removed from actual practical power over their specific actions.

    I know it might sound like I’m harping on this point, but I think its an important distinction.

    To go back to the 8 year old analogy…sooner or later that 8 year old is an 18 year old (the arbitrary age we declare someone an adult), and while they might be affected by the parent’s upbringing ultimately they must be responsible for their actions too.

    Our politicians aren’t helpless conduits of wrong-thinking of the citizens. They too are active participants in the problem–and in fact the ones that have the direct authority in regards to the actions of government.

  20. @KAM

    1. The politicians ARE THE PEOPLE, they don’t come from Russia or Brazil or Mars, they come from right here, they are your fellow citizens.

    2. The politicians are in the business of staying in office, it isn’t just that the people let them get away with shit or feel helpless. KAM, the people mostly want the things government gives us.

    Just as Franklin predicted, the people of the republic have learned they can vote themselves money from the treasury. There is no US and THEM on a grand scale, we are all Americans, we are all the people. Government is a thing, a system, etc. The people inside it get equal blame with the people under it but they are all still, THE PEOPLE.

    In other words in my eyes Congress Clown A gets equal blame with his constituents who want all the spending, etc.

    No one can tell me the people of this nation really want spending cut, they say they do but when you can can we cut __________. They always answer, well no, not that but other stuff. Rarely do you find a __________ that is acceptable. The people have told government what they want and government hs delivered it. The government has shit on the constitution but the people have done nothing to hold them accountable for doing so.

    The government is a reflection of the people, horrifying as that is. This is why we must change ourselves, we must be the example, we must fight by taking individual control.

    Here is the issue if government is the problem we can only fix it by violent revolution. If the people are the problem, all we have to do is change.

    Lastly if you blame the government, you create an excuse to be apathetic. If you accept that we as a people are to blame you end up realizing your individual responsibility.

    None of us here have done all we can to insure liberty, none of us, not me, not you, no one. We have all had bad days, we were all asleep at the switch at times, we have all not spoken when we should of etc.

    It is all on us dude, that is both good and bad news.

  21. Hooo-wee! Always gets me fired up when you do a show like this!

    I don’t want to try to piggyback advertise so I’ll send you an email Jack, but we did just finish a topic related shirt design for our site.

    We’re in Hawaii and don’t have snakes to “not tread” on, but we got huge centipedes! Hopefully they are fun and keeping stuff local is important to people here in Hawaii.

    Thanks for all you do and I hope you find them entertaining at least.

  22. @ Jack “Here is the issue if government is the problem we can only fix it by violent revolution. If the people are the problem, all we have to do is change.”

    AH… I see what you’re getting at here. I completely agree with the above.

  23. @ Kitchen…

    Good point. I find that I can wake up more people by being passive and just living my life as much according to the principles of freedom as I can.

    Part of my problems financially and my business going under in 2008 were due to a gradual deepening depression (both the economy and my own mental health) due to gradually feeling more and more powerless over everything in my life. I was completely burned out from trying to run a one man show and all of the extra responsibilities of owning a business.

    Even though I have been working a F/T job off and on for the last 2 years I have been on a sabbatical of sorts because after I put in my 8hrs I can go home and completely forget about work. I could not do that in 6 years of working for myself.

    Listening to Jonesy 4hrs a day does nothing to help you with depression. I still listen maybe once a week +/- but if it starts to piss me off I turn it off. I am a web developer so NOT reading the news every day is just impossible. When you sit in front of the world’s biggest distraction for 8-12 hrs a day for a living it is impossible to tune it out.

    I have found that instead of PUSHING information onto people or even BLUNTLY condemning people or being harsh with them on their beliefs, if I can find the common ground where we both believe in something and go from there any information you can share with them is more likely to stick in their heads.

    I FIRMLY believe that 95% of the problem is with the IGNORANCE AND APATHY of the general public.

    For example, with the TSA bullshit — I flat out REFUSE to fly ANYWHERE EVER AGAIN. I flat out refuse even if it means I get fired from my job. I made this choice.

    How many people do I know who are BLATENTLY against the TSA “rub and tug” yet continue to fly because they want to go on vacation or don’t want to ruin their family Disney World (eck) vacation they shelled out $3,000 for in advance, or because they don’t want to get fired, or even made fun of for standing up to the system?

    I know tons of “patriots” who will still fly. This shit will NEVER GO AWAY as long as enough people continue to fly and the airlines are profitable… NEVER NEVER NEVER.

    THE SECOND enough people stop flying that corporate profits are severely impacted the TSA is GONE… GONE THAT DAY!!!

    For example — I know they are talking about giving the ole TSA “Happy Ending” as a condition for entering shopping malls.

    How fast would the mall and stores within go out of business if people had to wait in line to have their junk felt up by some former fry-cook nazi child molesting thug turned TSA goon?

    Think about it, people would stop going to the mall within ONE DAY and the NEXT DAY the TSA would be GONE.

    It is that simple. The best thing these people in Texas could do is to STOP FLYING.

    I cannot even believe this is up for DEBATE in America let alone an actual ISSUE!!!!

    It is NOT OK for some government thug to molest my child to allow them onto an airplane and I know I am preaching to the choir in this forum. However, MOST people are willing to deal with it or keep their mouth shut so they can make it to Disney World.

    Right now I am the asshole because I am one of the only ones who actually refuse to fly even it means never seeing some of my best friends or the world I want to eventually see. I will DRIVE to Florida if I actually wanted to waste my hard earned money to go to that stupid ass amusement park and spend $3,000 in gasoline before I EVER spend $100 to fly and have my ball sack squeezed by some thug.

    It is that simple. The people need to get in the way of the machine and be willing to get run over if the machine decides to steamroll over them for their refusal to get out of the way. Eventually if enough people are willing to get run over they won’t be able to drive the god damn machine because it will be stuck in the goo of all the people it ran over.

    How many examples do we need? I’ve read that during the great depression that entire towns would come out ARMED to stand shoulder to shoulder with a fellow neighbor who’s house was being foreclosed on to protect them from the banisters…

    Now I don’t know a single person (myself included) who even LIKES their neighbors. I don’t know ONE PERSON who likes their neighbors (if they have even spoken with them).

    I wholeheartedly agree that NOTHING will ever change in this country until people start standing together and BLOCKING the machine in whatever way necessary to make it stop steamrolling over all of us.

  24. @Jack,

    I like your philosophy about taking control of your own life, because it is proactive and I agree it is the foundation for further improvement. If this was widespread enough, it is true–the government wouldn’t be an issue at all.

    However, I believe our Constitutional system was designed and intended to be a bulwark against democracy (mob rule). We are supposed to be able to resist the tyranny of the majority, but cannot if the people we entrust with power violate their oaths of office (regularly).

    Another example that might illustrate my view–from the Reverse. If I’m a Senator or Representative, and the people in my district or State want a gun ban (for example). It is my duty to against that ban in defense of the Constitution. In other words, this is a demonstration that the politician has direct power that can go against the desire of the people (at least for his term of office). And in fact–this would be proper, because the Politician is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not the whims of the people.

    It is true that if the people (as a whole) would not tolerate violations of the Constitution, we would not elect people who would violate the Constitution. However, it is also true, that if all politicians refused to violate their Oath to the Constitution, that the people could not succeed at demanding things like money from the treasury.

    That’s why I say responsibility falls on both the electorate and the elected official. The politician is empowered to do the right (Constitutional) thing. They CHOOSE to violate their oath of office. We CHOOSE to let them.

  25. Im glad you mentioned Kahn Academy. I utilized that resource to teach myself basic math. It really did the trick. Also, if you are a bittorrent user the latest utorrent release has integrated Kahn academy access for easier video lesson downloads. (As well as Ted talks)

  26. @Jack,

    To save you from having to respond. I understand your points and don’t disagree. I just have an “and” It is undeniable the politicians ARE the people too. I’m just saying in a Republic, we empower a class to represent us, and as such, the choices they make carry a lot of weight.

  27. Government is inherently evil. The only good government is no government. Both the people and the politicians are complicit in the evil! Peaceful, civil society, complete with justice for crimes and contracts, can and has existed without government (e.g. Ancient Ireland and Medieval Iceland). An “necessary evil” is still evil and the government is not even necessary!
    @ Adam B. I like my neighbors. A family from Chicago was moving into a $800,000 home directly across the street from me. I was afraid what they thought about my partially started permaculture projects. So, I wanted to build up some good will before that happened and took the new neighbors a carton of eggs from my chickens as gifts. To my surprise, they were already very interested in permaculture and homesteading and thought I was the coolest neighbor! I always seem to land next to awesome neighbors, even when I lived in the yuppie assclown DC suburbs of the Peoples’ Republik of Maryland.
    One of my relatives was massacred by British Troops in Punjab (the scene was depicted in the 1982 movie Ghandi). 20 years ago, I was featured on the front page of the Washington Times when my high school also had sit-ins walk-outs to protest cuts. I get angry when I think about it- I was used by agitators for their political ends. Schools got way too much money, even back then, even more so now! Government schools should be abolished! Controlled opposition and engineered protests by ignorant masses. It is happening now. Thank you for sharing and it is a valuable lesson. How do we use the statists’ tactics to advance freedom?
    I tend to be negative, and I was much more so before listening to this show. It wasn’t healthy and I kept indulging in information that made my blood boil! It’s like the dark side of the force in Star Wars. At the end of the day, what did I have to show for it?

  28. Aside from the option of voting, etc., the use of the court system is available to address grievances against government.

  29. Nice… @agriculture reminded me of why I hate one of my neighbors… An out of control Pit Bull…

    What is hilarious is that while sitting in my backyard with a loaded 12guage ready to take it out when it comes back into ny yard I was thinking I should get some pepper spray because it won’t be easy dealing with the popo when they hear shotgun blasts coming from my yard and a bunch of crying children….

    Then the next day on the podcast Jack is talking about how it would probably be easier to explain to your neighbor why you pepper sprayed their dog vs explaining why you shot it.

    I want this dog dead for various reasons but really don’t WANT to kill it either. I have been able to get it to chill out by constantly spraying it with the jet setting on the garden hose whenever it starts growling barking and trying to jump the fence to attack us. Now it runs away from me when it sees me especially if I grab the hose.

  30. << Believe and do as you please (within the law)

    Within just laws, yes. Within the law merely because some other people decided how my life should be limited, no.

    TJ again offers are for more compelling vision.

    "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I DO NOT ADD “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual."

  31. @Agroculture

    Government is inherently evil. The only good government is no government. Both the people and the politicians are complicit in the evil! Peaceful, civil society, complete with justice for crimes and contracts, can and has existed without government (e.g. Ancient Ireland and Medieval Iceland). An “necessary evil” is still evil and the government is not even necessary!


    If the people are complacent in evil, how does removing the government usher in peaceful coexistence? Wouldn’t you also have to get rid of the people?

    Also, you may want to do some more research on Ancient Ireland, as we have evidence of formal government going back to about 2200 BC.

    I understand what you’re saying, but you may be confused on what “Government” is. It is any force that dictates, directs, or restricts the actions of any group of individuals. You’re opposed to political directives and mandates, things forced upon you or used to manipulate you in service of another person’s agenda. While governments can and historically have been abused to those ends, it is not their defining attribute.

    Those who support government are to blame, but those opposed to the actions of government share equal blame for not acting to reform it. We have that ability to change things, and we have a right to try, not to mention a responsibility to ourselves to exercise that right. If we have acted in opposition but didn’t achieve our goal, we still are to blame in our failures.

    Here’s a simple analogy: You’re on a sinking ship. Do you yell at the iceberg your ship just hit? Do you yell at the captain who sailed into it? The navigator who put you on that course? The Look-out who failed to see it? No. Grab a bucket and start bailing, find a life boat or swim to shore. The people who survive and endure catastrophe are the ones who take action, not the ones who place blame. If you’re yelling at the captain while the life boats float off, you ultimately are responsible for your own fate. And the fact that someone else screwed up and put you in that situation doesn’t mean the ship would run better without a captain, a navigator, a helmsman etc. Perhaps it could use a more competent crew (that’s what elections are for). Perhaps the entire command structure is ineffective and needs to be replaced (revolution). But a ship absent of command all together doesn’t go very far.

  32. I’ve heard it used before and I have to get you to rethink the meaning of the quote “The right to swing my fist…”  If taken literally, as mantra, it implies a belief in the right to threaten violence.  It’s like saying, “The right for me to shoot bullets near your feet ends when I put a hole in your shoe.”

    I’m sure the statement was originally used with some jest during a political argument in a pub.  I understand the sentiment, but, absolute freedom based on doing no harm must consider some restrictions on the ability to threaten people with violence.  Yes, I’m too analytical.

  33. << But a ship absent of command all together doesn’t go very far.

    Society is not a ship. It's hundreds of millions of ships of all sizes all plotting their own courses, and we often "crew" on more than one. Family, work, church, on and on. But there is no single over arching ship except for the forced human structure of the nation state, where the crew is conscripted and beaten into submission to row wherever the captains of the day think the ship ought to go. Of course much of the crew is complicit in its own enslavement. But the question is is the nation state concept inseparable from the notion of society. Not at all. It can and ought to be considered as different constructs, the latter in way depending on the former.

    "The people as a whole" is an abstraction, there is no such *thing*.

  34. @Everyone,

    The notion of “doing as you please within the law” is interesting, and I agree with that notion. It is my belief, that is the system our Founders built for us, and further that those laws should be minimal.
    However, today, I honestly don’t think anyone can really even know the laws, as it is an indiscernible web of laws and rules all blurred together. I think we literally live in a system where if someone wants to find something to pin on you, they can. Fishing expeditions and unequal enforcement of the law is immoral, but that’s what we face.

    The good news is, knowing this, we can basically ignore the details, and treat other people with respect and fairness, and go about our business. The entire reason we have laws is to uphold these common principles.

    There is a conundrum here. As Jack points out, one of the best ways to help improve our world is to be an example, which means we need to be “seen” but being “seen” exposes us to unjust actions of out-of-control “law.” But what other choice do we have other than to be hermits?

  35. Great podcast! Enuff said there,
    Fact, one owns belief is what grants authority over oneself aka You take orders from the Drill SGT, Because you give that person the admitted authority over yourself, regardless of any superimposed regulation. Same for any other regard or respect OF ANY OR ALL authority. (defacto any order given if in military service is to be pre screened for legality ( per information at the PLDC/ PNOC level CIRCA 1989~1995)

  36. Funny how many of the “Libertarians” I see are given their marching orders by right wing think tanks, rabidly conservative radio jocks, climate deniers etc, most of whom are funded by Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Mining. One words comes to mind, ironically: pawns.

  37. Mental image:

    Politicians as infants, throwing temper tantrums, breaking piggy banks, burning money. Meanwhile the parents (citizens) stand by and watch, complaining about their children’s behavior, how it is out of control, and they are powerless to do anything.

    If you watch supernanny, you’ll know there are parents who really feel they have no control, how it is a lost cause, just as a great deal of citizens have lost faith in their elected officials and their ability to do anything about it.

    SuperNanny comes in, educates parents that they do have control, they are the adults and need to start acting as such, a lot of tough love, changing enabling behaviors, as the parents change, so does the behavior of the child.

    Although our politicians are adults, and should know how to act, as long as we let them get away with it, they will continue to do so. I think many people feel depressed and powerless just as the out of control kids’ parents do. Our country could use a supernanny to educate citizens that they can take control, tough love for the budget, change of habits deeply ingrained.

    On the flip side, politician also need to be adults when citizens act like spoiled kids in a candy store.

  38. @Clåte cåos

    Please enlighten us, so we can realize that the word “Big” before any industry makes it evil, to spite the fact that in a truly free an unregulated market (the aspiration of every libertarian), the fundamental driving force behind all business is to become “Big”.

    I don’t deny many of the companies in those industries have made mistakes, but they’ve also done a lot right. What happens if “Big Oil” was dissolved. What would we have? Mom an Pop Oil companies? They can’t drill locally in 99% of the world, and the certainly can’t refine it themselves. Destroy Big Oil, you take down the entire distribution network, force energy commodities to change hands many more times en route to the consumer and drive up the price significantly. Enter the pissed off masses, lobbying for price caps and cost fixed energy rates, which forces government’s hand into further regulation, and eventually subsidizing. Exactly the thing we are trying to avoid.

    There are risks to our freedom with any big industry, but they are far outweighed by the risks posed by larger government.

    A Libertarian system is not perfect, in fact it’s not even possible under our current system of law. A Libertarian country is a weak collection of strong individuals. The inverse, Totalitarianism seems more where we’re headed now, a meek populace ruled by an elite few. We aren’t there yet, but this country is definitely leaning in that direction, and we “pawns”, true to our nature can’t step back in the face of opposition. We will win and that scares you. Honestly, it scares me too, but it’s better than the alternative.

  39. @Insane_Libertarian_Wacko,

    Hmmm, didn’t Jack JUST talk about people like that–ones that see people who seek liberty as a threat and have a NEED to attack them?

    What’s interesting (in a bad way) is that in one short paragraph, someone who is very likely the product of group-think (Red Flag–calling others “climate deniers”) has any standing to call anyone else “pawns.”

    I think we’d find that those using this sort of stuff (calling other people pawns) are almost always engaging in projection. They’re the product of group-think or propaganda, but since they fashion themselves as elite thinkers are forced to lash out at others in order to mask their own intellectual shortcomings. Naturally, one cannot prove this about a specific individual, but I think its rather common.

    There is an interesting Parallel here. Jack mentioned that the people WANT (enable, ask for) the things government does, and that’s largely true. Most people want their “piece of the pie” (of other people’s property).

    What’s hypocritical is that the people whining and crying incessantly about “big oil” or Big whatever, are undoubtedly “asking” for what these companies provide them. I’d bet they’re just perfectly happy with their iphones and cars, and plastic bottles and a thousand other things that they would lose it without, while crying that someone DARES provide it to them.

    I’m also always befuddled that the people who are so upset by “big X, Y, Z” seem to be very content and in fact demand Big Government. They often follow this false belief that one form of control over individual’s freedom is good, while the other is bad.

  40. Adam – I’m sorry you don’t like your neighbors, that stinks. I like the majority of mine – they are good people and we help each other out. We moved in about 6 years ago and it seemed that most folks waved to each other cutting grass, but had little interaction beyond that – baked goods can cure such problems – bring people a slice of cake or plate of cookies and talk. Works wonders. Now that I homebrew, I share some of that as well along with extra seedlings for the garden. Begining with a general dialogue, we have now actually discussed prepping type issues with several neighbors – people are starting to build some small gardens, check on each other when we get snowed in and power is out, etc. It’s a good start! This summer, I envision a block cookout – if a plate of cake gets people talking, imagine what grilling out some burgers and sampling homebrewed ale with do!

  41. @timfromohio I can respond to that a little more elaborately…

    It is because I live in the city. I grew up in the country, where my “neighbors” were on the other side of a corn field, and they were relatives of mine anyway. However, I grew up in a community where most people did care about each other. People would help each other out, wave as you drove by, etc. It wasn’t a perfect society but in contrast…

    I moved to the city to go to college and have more or less lived in it since. I hate it. My only goal in life right now is to somehow get the hell away from it. I have no idea how I can do it. My work requires me to live close to the city (or spend an obscene amount of time and gasoline to commute). I looked at a property as far from the city as I wanted to live and even though my cost of living (gasoline aside) was going to be cut in HALF, just the commuting costs alone made it more expensive than where I live right now once factored in.

    The city is the worst place to live and the worst people live there. After enough time living in the city putting up with people’s bullshit on a constant basis YOU become just as shitty of a person as everyone else you deal with.


    I go on a lot of long distance cycling trips where I basically pack a backpack and ride across the state or go on trips that are 400+ miles long. These trips have firmly cemented my belief that the shittiest people in the world live in cities.


    I ride my bicycle in the city and the country and go mountain biking out in the middle of nowhere, and all these same principles apply… However, when you are taking one LONG journey that involves a few days of constant cycling through cities and towns and countryside here is what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME…

    When you are in the city people CONSTANTLY honk at you, I have had beer bottles, eggs, stones, and garbage thrown at me out of car windows. People in their cars try and run you off the road. The BUS DRIVERS especially try to run you off the road and hit you on purpose (this is actually a BIG problem in the city where I live).

    Whenever you stop somewhere, you need to lock up your bicycle and take anything valuable from it with you even into a grocery store. If there are no bike racks available many times someone will come out and bitch at you for locking up your bike! They will tell you to take it elsewhere or lock it up where it is “not in the way” and forget about locking it to parking meters or street signs, heaven forbid a piece of crap cop sees you do that.

    This behavior lasts until you are about 25 miles from the city limits in a major city. With the 25 mile ring from the metropolis people treat you like absolute shit.

    Now when you leave that ring and head into the countryside here is what happens EVERY SINGLE TIME…

    People honk at you — but when you look up, you find that they honked at you so you can look up to see them smiling and waving toward you. I’ve even had Amish people pull up in a horse and buggy to have a nice conversation with me wanting to know where I came from / going etc.

    Whenever you stop somewhere you really don’t need to lock up your bike and valuables. I do as a precaution as anyone with common sense would do, but I am not as worried about it for sure. Hell, many people who own businesses out there will just tell you to bring your bicycle and gear inside, especially if they have room and you are staying for a meal or beer etc.

    When you stop somewhere it is hard to get back on the bicycle and get moving again because everyone you see wants to stop by and say hello and strike up a conversation with you about where you were going, came from, etc. Most people you run into want to help you even when you don’t NEED any help (to the point of being annoying sometimes) LOL — but I’d rather deal with THAT kind of annoyance than the city bullshit any day. People constantly want to help you with your route planning and make sure you stop and see ______ or check out _____ or stop for a beer at _______ etc.

    When it comes to camping out — Heaven forbid some dumb ass cop catches you trying to take a nap on a park bench or finds your tent pitched in the woods or along a riverbank, or some other out of the way place within the city limits. You could end up in a jail cell. Didn’t you know it is illegal to be homeless in most cities?

    Now contrast that with being out in rural america. I have gone to sleep in my tent pitched on POSTED land (didn’t see the signs when I did it) and had people come check on me and totally leave me alone when they saw what I was doing (bicycle with panniers, tent, passed out cyclist inside too tired to erect rain fly)… I’m not saying that ALL people are this nice out there, I mean you could get shot at but I doubt it very much.

    Even when you are out camping on “public land” which is illegal in anything but a national forest if you are not in some paid-for $30/night square of DIRT the state park rangers cut out of the woods for you because they want us kicked off of our public lands, you don’t really need to worry.

    EVEN IF a pig comes up on you in the woods they really don’t care much unless you are in a park that is close to a city where yuppies come to jog and pretend they are woodsy in their $5,000 worth of “hiking equipment.”

    I think the point has been made. I have a hard time being concise but that’s my point.

    Going on a long trip with multiple cities on your route where you are only traveling an average speed of around 15mph REALLY SHOWS YOU the difference between people of the city and people of the country.

    You see it unfold in front of you in a gradual progression as you travel. You know you must be getting close to a city because everyone starts treating you like total shit and it gets worse as you approach the city. If people start gradually treating you nicer and are kind etc then you know you are moving away from a city.

  42. @Clåte cåos – There isn’t a right wing libertarian out there. Sorry but a libertarian holds an equal number of left and right principals.

    I don’t know who you think is a libertarian but most of us have as little respect for the right as the left and see the two as the same thing with different marketing. Tell me how right wing any of these beliefs I have are…

    Marriage – is between two people and god, the state should not be involved at all. If property is a concern it should be voluntarily covered with contract law. The debate over same sex marriage should not even exist because the government should not be in the business of running marriage at all.

    Drugs – The federal government needs to get out of the prohibition industry all together. If a state wants to regulate a substance it is that states choice of how to or how not to. This is where IDIOTS say Ron Paul (including 99% of those right wing jocks you say I get my marching order from) say stupid bullshit like “Ron Paul wants to legalize heroin. No Ron Paul wants the feds out of the business of heroin and to allow the people of each state to decide how to deal with it with in the bounds of the constitution.

    Immigration – I think anyone who wants to come here to work should be able to. The only requirement I have is first we get rid of all the welfare they currently come here and live on.

    So how “right wing” are those positions? Please educate yourself before you go talking about an entire group of people, it is simply the responsible thing to do.

  43. Adam – good points and observations. I live in a rural suburban environment. Old neighborhoods mixed with some horse people and agriculture. So, I certainly don’t experience the sorts of things that you do. I’d be trying to move too!

  44. @txmom – STANDING APPLAUSE FOR YOU! Well said, very well said.

  45. @Humble in KY

    Oliver Holmes was an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court from 1902 to 1932. The quote was NOT SAID IN JEST and absolutely had nothing to do with threatening violence.

    It is pretty damn clear unless you try to make it unclear. Simply put you have rights to do what ever you want until such time as you infringe on the rights of another.

    Another of my favorite quotes by him is,

    “The mind of the bigot is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you shine on it, the more it will contract.”

  46. My idea of a Libertarian is Matt Drudge, a self-proclaimed Libertarian BTW. He is a denier of anthropogenic climate change, as are many people at this site, including Jack, which makes you, inadvertently at least, supporters of large, polluting industries that are paying, like Big Tobacco did in the last century, millions of dollars to fund a disinformation campaign. You’ve bought the disinformation because these people have pressed your buttons, painting action on climate as a nasty Tax and Big Government plot, instead of the vital necessity it is. As an aside, Drudge is also right wing as you can get, but, strangely, he is also a closet homosexual (like so many ultraconservatives, eg ex-Chairman of the Republican National Committee, Ken Mehlman, GOP congressman Mark Foley, etc).

  47. @Clåte cåos

    Your statements are false on their face! Not believing in climate change is not a green light for pollution. I am a huge environmentalist, I recycle, I use solar energy, I conserve water, etc. Far more that most of the people that believe in the cult of Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

    In fact carbon taxes are a green light for pollution! Oil companies are for the carbon tax, so are the coal companies because they are going to get a BIG FAT number of credits more than they need and sell the overage to small companies that won’t get enough.

    Carbon taxes won’t do a damn thing to stop pollution. Like most people that believe this shit you don’t know how the Cap and Trade system would even work, if you did and if you care about pollution you couldn’t possibly support it.

    You and people like you that just keep putting up one issue and saying that makes a person right wing and therefore wrong remind me of the Interview with a Zombie.

    It doesn’t do me a bit of good to bring you facts about global warming, real pollution (God but the coal industry is the worst offender but it ain’t about CO2 it is about sulfur oxide, mountain top removal, strip mining, mercury, etc.)

    You know shit climate change taxes don’t do a damn thing about. I could explain where we have massive problems with real pollution, show how CO2 has a proven saturation limit in it’s ability to block UV light, etc.

    I could point out how the real father of the global warming movement is Maurice Strong who originally tried it as member of the UN in 1978 launching the green movement under the threat of GLOBAL COOLING and just switched to warming then change over the years. I could point out that Strong is an OIL BILLIONAIRE who is currently in China teaching them how to make billion in the CARBON TRADING INDUSTRY.

    You know all facts and logic but it won’t matter, you just go

    Right Winnnnnnggggggg
    Big Busssinessssss
    Climate Denyeeeeerrrrr
    Oil Proooffffittts

    Just like this…

    There is no substance to your argument, just name calling and chanting mantras of one side vs. the other.

  48. AMAZING lack of objectivity, hearing someone pointing out the supposed failings in those who believe “disinformation” coming from someone proudly declaring their belief in possibly the largest scam ever perpetrated on humanity (global warming hysteria).

    The very use of the term “denier” is the height of propaganda. Dishonest as it gets.

    What really bothers me about these zealots is that this political campaign is actually damaging the concept of science, by continually insisting that what they represent is scientific. It is a bastardization of science beyond anything the world has seen before.

    Here’s another thing. I’m so sure that global warming hysteria is a scam…I’m willing to bet my life on it. That is–since these zealots claim that within 10 years (or is it 6 now…or has it already passed? It constantly changes) we will be past the point of no return (at which point we will have “destroyed the planet”). Since I am likely to be alive at that point, I will be signing my own death warrant and that of everyone I know and care about (and those I do not).

    Now, of course, the liars who have created this myth will of course disappear, or more likely just keep changing their story–easy to do, since science/truth/fact isn’t a factor. Perhaps they will do a 180 and go back to global cooling. Someone, the credibility of this movement survived it before–why not flip it again.

    For all of you who choose to believe this Global Warming hysteria. Please stop driving cars, using AC, heating your home with any fossil fuels or using electricity. I guess we’ll just have to miss your wisdom, because I’m sure you won’t want to use a computer–just think of the amount of carbon dioxide you’ve created posting here.

    I have something for you to occupy your daylight time with (nighttime of course will be a dormant time, since you won’t have any electric lights to see by). Go start cleaning up (by hand if necessary) all those CFL lightbulbs your propaganda masters have pushed on the public. I’m holding all of you responsible for mercury getting into our ground water. Go on, get to work, and come back in 10 years (to apologize) when your doomsday predictions fail to come true (again).

  49. @timfromohio keep in mind I am speaking in generalities. I don’t think that EVERY person who lives in the city is an asshole LOL.

    There are pricks everywhere you go. If you get more than 20 people in a room together there is going to be a jerk among you. Why do you think they have so much fun with these “reality” shows LOL.

    I think it just has more to do with the higher concentration of people in a small space of the city, meaning proportionally there are probably the same number of assholes per capita, but you are much more likely to encounter them on a daily basis…

    But then again… When I look at my surroundings and think about it…

    “Saving” the country just seems like a lost cause to me! The people are just too far gone and it is only going to continue to get worse for us from here.

    Think Detroit — and apply that to the rest of this country.

  50. @Adam B,

    I have to admit I have to fight off feelings of hopelessness in regards to the direction of the Country. I think what Jack advocates is our only real hope. Change our own lives and be the model we can for what we think is the solution (to whatever extent we can). It is likely to get worse (and I think “it” is getting worse), but in the meantime, I’m doing what I can to make my life better, even if everything around me (you, us) is spiraling downward.

  51. I have to disagree with the “vote for your favorite” crowd. There is a time to vote for your favorite – it is in the primaries. The time to get your favorite on the ballot is in March not in November. The only time I would say voting for a non starter in November is a good idea is when you are in a “safe” state where your vote is a waste anyway (CA was a fine example – neither party did significant campaigning last presidential election because the outcome was a forgone conclusion – I voted for Ron Paul). When people say that voting for the less of two evils is still evil, you have to ask first if the “favorite” candidate is really so perfect (or simply least evil), and second if you are de facto voting for the most evil.

  52. @InBox485

    If you vote for a bowl of SHIT because you like the one with peanuts in it vs. the one with corn embedded in it…

    In the end its still going to smell like shit.

  53. @Adam B.

    If you prefer peanuts over corn, but you vote for peaches instead of peanuts even though you know that over 95% of the vote is going to be split on peanuts or corn, you have in fact voted for corn. While I agree that 95% of the two parties is the same content with different labels and marketing, I can see differences on specific issues, probable actions, and how much resistance their crap will get. There is a time and place for tossing your vote for a statement rather than casting it for effect.

  54. re: bitcoin

    ARS has a recent article:

    I’m also skeptical, but this caught my attention, and might change my mind:

    “Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) this weekend blasted Silk Road, an online drugs outlet that allegedly relies on TOR to obfuscate Internet traffic and Bitcoins for payment. “It’s an online form of money laundering used to disguise the source of money, and to disguise who’s both selling and buying the drug,” Schumer said. ”

    If Chuck doesn’t like, it must be good 🙂

  55. @Everyone,

    In regards to voting for your favorite vs the lesser of two evils. I won’t argue that you aren’t voting for a different level of evil, but I think it is not sensible to pretend that it doesn’t matter who wins.

    In terms of things like abolishing the Federal Reserve, does it matter? Highly unlikely. However it sure as heck does make a difference in other areas.

    Let’s take Obama vs McCain. Do you think we’d have the healthcare law we do now if McCain were elected? If you like that or oppose that, it really does make a difference…even if they might ‘smell’ similarly in other way.

    I’m not saying anyone shouldn’t vote for who they prefer–that’s their business, but it is a fact that who wins an election most certainly does make a difference in a variety of areas.

  56. My point is; if your vote REALLY counts then you should vote for peaches. A vote for a turd is always a wasted vote.

    In this system, unless you’re a part of a mass collective, your vote really doesn’t count. You’re gonna get a turd regardless.

  57. Obama vs McCain, wasn’t a close vote, but pretend for a moment that it was and that the votes for 3rd parties had been sufficient that if they were diverted to McCain, he would have won. In that type of case, the 3rd party votes were effectively votes for the Obama. I can think of 2 supreme court justices that could have been filled by somebody that didn’t have utter contempt for the constitution, and a main stream media that would have been giving McCain absolute HELL for the same crap Obama is doing with impunity. So like I said, there is a time and place to vote for and campaign for your favorite candidate (that would be RIGHT NOW by the way) and there is even a time to vote for a statement when your vote would truly be wasted otherwise, but there are lots of times where voting the lesser of two evils is a powerful form of damage control.

  58. @InBox485 if you think the world would be a different place with President McCain you are delusional.

  59. @KAM you said, “Let’s take Obama vs McCain. Do you think we’d have the healthcare law we do now if McCain were elected? ”

    Honestly pretty much yes, it wouldn’t be the same but it still would be “health care reform” and it would still be a step toward bankrupting what is left of the republic. There are not many people who could be classified as a big government liberal than John McCain.

  60. I wonder if this show will break whatever record you have for the most comments on a show LOL…

    @InBox485 I am always going to vote for a ripened uneaten peach still clining to a peach tree than pulling a lever for some stinking turd.

    And no I am not voting for a turd by voting for a ripened peach. I am voting for a ripened peach.

    I will stay home and not vote at all before I show up to the polls to vote for a piece of poop.

    Referencing South Park, do you think ANYTHING would be different whatsoever if the turd sandwich had won the last presidential election instead of the giant douche?

    I have a feeling we would be bitching about some health care bullshit that nobody bothered to read before passing it, a shitty economy with no jobs, and having to get felt up by the TSA before getting on a plane. I honestly believe citizenship and a birth certificate would actually be an issue even if the other guy had won since those were issues in his campaign as well.

  61. ONE difference we would see if McCain were president…

    War protestors would actually be out in the streets up in arms about Libya and the other new wars this piece of crap has dragged us into.

    Since it is a democrat in charge all the war protesters are gone, happy not that “their guy” is the one dropping bombs on various brown people across the globe.

  62. @Adam B, True! So there is one but not one anyone who supported McCain would be happy about.

    Let me be far more clear how has what Obama has done be any different that what Bush did?

  63. @Jack,

    It is true, McCain is not a small government guy, but I think there are significant differences between him and Obama.

    I have no reason to believe that McCain would advocated and pushed for Health car “reform” similar to what Obama did. There was an immense amount of arm-twisting there, that wouldn’t likely have happened with a cross-party arrangement. Would it have been replaced with something else that had more bipartisan support? Very possible, and I doubt I would have liked that either, and we were headed into debt hell with or without any healthcare bill.

    In regards to Obama vs Bush–it is true that President Obama displayed (and continues) to display great hypocrisy in regards to his criticism (and then adoption) of Bush’s policies, it doesn’t mean that Obama hasn’t gone farther.

    Did Bush order the EPA to pursue Cap and Trade–even though Congress said? No? Obama is doing that. What about Starving off California’s farmlands and letting it turn into a Desert? Who did that? Democrats or Republicans?

    Do you think that McCain would have put a moratorium on oil drilling–or have done it for a long as Obama did? Do you think McCain’s Justice Department would have engaged in “Fast and Furious” programs with weapons going to Mexican Drug lords?

    In comparison to a libertarian’s preference, are Bush and Obama and McCain all closer to each other than to us? Yes, probably, but it still doesn’t mean they are the same. Far from it.

    Further…to be fair to all of these guys–they are all stuck in the current system that was established long before they came along, and even the President would have a hard time undoing that. You think Ron Paul will succeed in dismantling the Federal Reserve if he were elected President…good luck there. But he’d be able to direct the many agencies of the executive branch to do very different things than say Obama would.

    Anyone who doesn’t think it matters who is put in office–look at Supreme Court Decisions on things like Heller (2nd Amendment) or Kelo (emminent domain), and see how one nomination can make a HUGE difference.

    No, I think it is very dangerous to pretend that these guys are all the same, even if they share many of the same bad traits, and are going along with the same bad system.

    To wrap this up, Imagine someone is driving you in a car into a brick wall. Both are bad right, but would you rather be driven into that wall at 20mph or 50mph?

    Bottom line–I don’t blame anyone for voting for a third choice in elections (I do it myself), but don’t be fooled into thinking there is no difference. There are very important differences, and even ONE thing that I don’t have to fight back against is important.

  64. @ All

    There is a massive difference between Obama and Bush in the ideologies of their court nominees, and the integrity of the court system is one of the very few hopes that we have left. Bush’s nominees were largely originalists, whereas Obama’s nominees have all been extreme living document theorists. If Obama gets re-elected it is almost guaranteed that the current slim originalist majority will become a solid living document majority. That scares the hell out of me and I don’t know how it could not concern anybody that likes the constitution to be read as written rather than as desired at the moment. If I were in a swing state where my vote could actually impact that possibility I would have to be bat shit insane to vote for a third party in some vain attempt to protest the establishment. Those of us in “safe” states on the other hand, of course it makes all the sense in the world to vote for no hope candidates.

    There is also a MASSIVE difference in media scrutiny between the parties. McCain probably would have rubber stamped every letter of the healthcare bill if it landed on his desk, but if it was a republican bill, the media would have drilled every single example of corrupt nonsense in it rather than just nodding to the king. Same goes for the bailouts etc.

  65. “Do you think McCain’s Justice Department would have engaged in “Fast and Furious” programs with weapons going to Mexican Drug lords?”

    I just thought I should point out – the “fast and the furious” program is believed to have started under the Bush admin, and McCain was pretty lame on gun rights and probably would have played along with the fallout if F&F played out as intended.

  66. @InBox485:

    Well, perhaps if Justice Department officials weren’t stonewalling investigations, we could get to the bottom of this.

    Here’s an excerpt about this from Hearings:
    “The project began as a trial during the Bush administration in Laredo, Texas in 2005. It ultimately morphed into a national program in 2006. The guns were sold and tracked electronically, giving law enforcement agents valuable intelligence on where the weapons went and who had them.

    During the Bush years, no guns were allowed to cross the border into Mexico. When President Obama took office in 2009, things changed. Obama’s ATF continued Project Gunrunner, but made a crucial decision to allow guns to be “walked” into Mexico. The weapons eventually ended up in the hands of Mexican drug cartels.”

    Let’s see if we can find a reason for this. Obama administration officials have been using Mexican drug cartel problems as a means to attack gun ownership in the US–mostly unsuccessfully, and claims of US weapons being in Mexico were exaggerated. Then suddenly under the Obama administration these weapons are let into Mexico.

    Is is a major leap to put two and two together, and CONSIDER that they were looking to make their claims true–by their own actions. I’m not into conspiracy theories, but this seems pretty obvious.

    Additionally, given the Obama administrations mantra of “Its Bush’s fault” I HIGHLY doubt they’d pass up a chance to pass the buck backwards again.

    Is it possible that the Bush administration did something like this? Sure, I wouldn’t put much past the ATF, but I don’t recall the Bush administration pushing that narrative. This conveniently DOES match the narrative the Obama administration has been pushing.

  67. Ok, so Jack comes out with the same old tired conspiracy theories about Maurice Strong (yawn) and how this is all a great big plot. Jack, firstly, you should be told that it’s Texas and the SW USA that is going to suffer greatly because of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) you scorn, so heaven help your BOL.

    Anyhoo, I’m glad I’ve got you thinking about it. That’s step one. Next, peruse the Facts at Skeptic Arguments and What the Science Says and the New Scientist’s feature on Climate Myths.

    Come on, Jack, you owe it to your family to put the nonsense aside and listen to the scientists on this one.

  68. A recommendation for all of our libertarian-minded listeners: the Cato Daily podcast. 5-10 minute per day podcast dealing with a current political issue, presented by libertarian professors and experts. Highly recommended.

  69. @KAM

    I don’t disagree with you. When they said “tracked electronically” I have a hard time believing they really had any measure of control beyond the sale. That aside my point was that while Bush/McCain/et al weren’t really that great on individual rights, their court nominees have been much more respectful of the constitution as written.

  70. @Clåte cåos

    Those truly are some impressive sites. Same old shtick, but for some reason, they left the comments section open. Try reading the comments. I skimmed the comments, and pretty much ever article there has been shredded. “AGW” is just another relabeling of the same scam. Anybody with eyes to see can tell that the “solutions” don’t match the facts, and that the facts don’t implicate man made gas emissions as a primary variance factor in climate. If you want to talk about deforestation screwing up rain patterns, you might be onto something, but don’t expect much support as that isn’t where the money is.

  71. @InBox485:

    I have to disagree–those sites aren’t impressive at all. They merely repeat the talking points that they’ve been pushing for years, and calling it “science.” Global Warming hysteria is an all-out, shameless attack on the very foundation of science.

    Also…is it just me or does this “I’m talking to you like a close personal friend” stuff really stalkerish? It certainly isn’t the behavior of someone who is serious about an issue. However, it is the sort of behavior you’d find at a lot of inbred political forums, where people are fed a regular dose of talking points and told to go “spread the word.” Noise-machine logic is apparently still high on the tactics list.

    Do these people not realize they are internet stereotypes that most people see through immediately? Maybe someone needs to publish “Activism for Dummies” because most middle schoolers could present a better “argument.”

    Onto a real subject. True–neither Bush nor McCain were/are dedicated champions of individual rights and they certainly aren’t libertarians. I still maintain there are many consequences based on who wins elections.

  72. LMFAO… Can you disable email notifications on these? hahaha… I wonder if a year from now I will still be getting notifications in my email about this thread.

  73. The Khan Academy is brilliant…love it! Thanks for sharing the info Jack. Love your podcasts…

  74. Just started listening to your shows about a month nd a half ago.

    Excellent and thought provoking! Especially liked this episode.

    To put into context – i’m a disabled guy from birth (muscular problem) born in the UK and just spending some time at present with my in-laws in Pakistan –
    Yours is a good, universal message and I think the libertarian message is really needed here – especially with huge tax hikes and so many people looking for the gov to help them instead of people rising to stand on there own feet and resources.
    Excellent podcast and thank-you for efforts.
    God Bless you!

  75. There is one argument that Jack made that sets my teeth on edge somewhat. “Voting for the lesser of two evils still means you end up with evil.” I reject that logic for many reasons. There is no one, short of Jesus, that isn’t evil to some extent, even Ron Paul. This also expresses an idealism that no one would practice in real life.
    In actuality most people live by the “Greater Good” measure. We don’t have perfect choices in reality so we should work for, select for, vote for the greater good, and this isn’t the lesser of two evils.
    Let me contrast with an example. Let’s say you come across a burning building and there are two ex-cons trapped on your side of the burning building, one a pedophile and the other a reformed drug addict who’s stayed out of trouble for the past ten years. Trapped on the other end of the large building is a sweet old grandmother but she’s too far for you to reach her in time. If you can only attempt to rescue one person then by the greater good thinking you’d rescue the reformed drug addict because if you try to save the grandmother you’ll be able to save no one.

    By thinking that you refuse to choose the lesser of two evils then you’ll help no one. The greater good thinking will lead you to work like a dog in the primaries to get the best candidate nominated that you can and maybe you’ll succeed, but voting for third party candidates in our system when they will get a small percentage of the vote (with exceptions of course) is an act of futility that gathers you no merit.
    I reject that faulty logic and you should too, Jack.

  76. @Jack
    You mentioned needing to learn more about Bitcoin. There is a podcast called EconTalk done by a professor from George Mason. He recently interviewed one of the guys from Bitcoin. Roberts was a student of Milton Friedman and is a follower of Hayak, just to give you his ideological background. Here’s the link

  77. “I have to disagree–those sites aren’t impressive at all.”

    The impressive part was that they left the comments open, and the comments shredded every single article. The Brady campaign used to be like that and even had a forum. They learned that where logic and science fails miserably, it is too much work to moderate the truth away.

  78. @InBox485,

    Yes, I was kidding of course. It is somewhat amusing that wannabe activists don’t even bother looking that far into it to see that their “evidence” is anything but “facts” as they wish to portray it.

    “Moderating the Truth” Good description. Of course, the tactic is to intimidate people with dire predictions “Don’t you want to save the children” sort of nonsense, and bombard the populace with propaganda with the help of a compliant (or complicit) media.

    What’s really bizarre about this is that Jack is likely doing much more than most people to be “green” in terms of Carbon Dioxide–again, not because of Polar bears, but because he’s producing for his own needs directly (eliminating massive supply chains) in many areas, and eliminating waste. However, because he isn’t championing the AGW hysteria, he is attacked by this…person here. Perfect example of why this is dependent on propaganda–because words are more important than actions. This scam NEEDS compliance and blind acceptance. Unfortunately, they find plenty of people to provide that.

  79. I figured you were kidding around, and yeah, I’d have to agree with everything else. My take on the whole mess is that not only do actual actions not matter, they counter the AGW scam because they reduce tax revenues and dependency. The focus of the AGW scam centers on global centralization. I could write pages on CA’s CARB policies alone. Few if any of them have any measurable benefit to the environment, but certain corporations as well as the government are raking it in.

  80. @InBox485:

    Well, isn’t that usually the story–all of these central planners (either in or out of government) have all sorts of grand plans, few (if any) of which ever do what they promise.

  81. I’ve been using Bitcoin for almost a year now. I am probably not qualified to come on the radio and talk about it in depth, but I have let the Bitcoin core people know about it and pointed them to the guest submission page. Hopefully you’ll find someone worth talking to. 🙂

  82. When Bush & Gore were duking it out, I heard many people say that would vote libertarian if the libertarians could win. I vote libertarian every time. I told them if everybody voted what they want instead of what they don’t want, the libertarians would win.

  83. I second that. Every word of it.

    I can honestly say that 75% of people I talk to about voting libertarian say the same thing.

    Extrapolate that into the libertarian party would win 75% of the vote if everyone voted for who they wanted to win vs. who they thought CAN win.

  84. Wow, you are a wonderful speaker! I’ve longed for a reasonable, non-extremist follower of actual liberty!
    I agree that waay too much time is spent on political banter which leads no where instead of actually taking action for protecting liberty!
    Keep up the good work!