25 Mar 2010

Tom Woods Defends Slaver Nullification on NPR

All Posts 9 Comments

I am not a legal expert, but I do believe in this appearance on NPR’s “OnPoint,” Tom Woods was debating a law professor who didn’t understand what the ostensible function of a constitution is. That doesn’t mean the guy was wrong, it just means the whole discussion was pointless from the get-go. At one point I actually think the guy suggested that the US Constitution explicitly allowed for the federal government to intervene in matters characterized by adverse selection. (!)

Here are Tom’s reactions. I think halfway through he asked Jeff Tucker to cut his eye.*

*Rocky Balboa reference, can’t find it on YouTube.

9 Responses to “Tom Woods Defends Slaver Nullification on NPR”

  1. Andrew Smith says:
    at

    It seems the time of the program could have been better spent without all those callers. Siegel ended up answering most of them and there wasn’t very much one-on-one debate.

    What Woods lost in airtime, he sure made up for in sarcasm, though…

  2. Silas Barta says:
    at

    Congratulations Bob, you broke the links to all your old posts. And even if someone finds the links, you’ve deleted the discussions, which I have linked many times. (Example.)

    Was this a “technical issue”, or were you a wee bit embarassed about some of thos discussions?

    • Jeff Gough says:
      at

      Right. I’m sure he spent hours plotting a way to purge discussions from his old blog.

      I just don’t understand your beef with Bob. Seriously, did he steal your girlfriend or something?

      • Silas Barta says:
        at

        I probably started from when he wrote an ignorant article insinuating that Bengalis aren’t people — though historians point to evidence that the conflict predates this 😉

        (My handle is “Person” in the linked discussion.)

  3. bobmurphy says:
    at

    Silas, thanks for bringing that to my attention. No, I didn’t weigh all of my past posts and think, “Screw them, I need to coverup Silas’ refutations.”

  4. Bill Worsham says:
    at

    Cut me Mick:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpYosdIQ9JA

  5. bobmurphy says:
    at

    Silas,

    What exactly are you saying about the comments? That even if you manage to look up, say, a post from last year, that you can eventually find it, but now the comments are all gone?

  6. Silas Barta says:
    at

    Yes, even if you find an old post, the comments are gone, and your hyperlinks to the old posts are no longer valid, so any past post will get a dead link, and probably be hard for the reader to figure out how to get to.

  7. Yancey Ward says:
    at

    I am afraid that the purpose of a constitution is to make people think they actually have inviolable rights. On Yglesias’ blog the other day, that was basically the position of a number of the commenters that found objections to being forced to by products from third parties a bit nutty.