18 Aug 2014

John Oliver Has Beautiful Take on Ferguson

Big Brother 85 Comments

Perhaps he made a passing reference to the need for government police at some point, but we can forgive him that.

85 Responses to “John Oliver Has Beautiful Take on Ferguson”

  1. Matt says:

    I like to think the only reason he suggested the government police is because he has yet to be shown the possibility of private security and private police forces. Perhaps this is the turning point for people to finally realize that this is the true nature of government and that a voluntary society, or at least something close to it, is the best form of society to guarantee individual liberties.

    • JimS says:

      I think many people are very out of touch with just how bad, how amoral, how absolutely degenerate some people are. Yes, there are problems with policing, yes there are problems with the militarization of the police, but we are kidding ourselves that every person can be dealt with calmly and rationally. There are endless videos of police being severely beaten who never draw their weapons, endless videos of people shooting officers and it happens because there are really, really bad people in the world.

      I fail to see how a private policing agency would have done any better, or how a private agency could police a community. There needs to be some form of democratic control over public policing. It is too easy for it to devolve into one policing agency against the other, too easy for it to become like the story line from Shane.

      Does it matter that Michael Brown was a thief? You bet.. It is a clear statement what his attitude was toward authority, toward society, toward our economy, toward the hard working shop keeper he victimized. He continued to victimize when he very likely attacked the officer. There are consequences for our actions.

  2. Sam says:

    I liked his take on the militarized police but he takes the cowards way out by not adressing the looting and rioting. Once again it seems libertarians(whether Ron or Rand) shriek when it comes to adressing problems related to race instead opting for picking an issue that won’t harm them in the mainstream and won’t create too much controversy.

    • Enopoletus Harding says:

      Rothbard and 1990s Rockwell were very different.

    • Major.Freedom says:


      Please explain how a video of a non-libertarian who is criticizing the militarization of police, in any way shape or form an exposure of flaws in either libertarian theory, or personal flaws of libertarianism.

      Then explain why you actually believe you appear as anything but biased against libertarianism. “Once again”? You’re a hater.

      • Enopoletus Harding says:

        Our host Bob Murphy, who is a libertarian, supported the non-libertarian’s video, which is problematic not due to the video’s sins of commission, but due to its sins of omission.

      • Ken B says:

        Bob called it a beautiful take. This implies a strong and broad endorsement.

        • Scott D says:

          I missed you, Ken.

          No, not really.

          • Harold says:

            I usually find Ken B’s comments interesting, well thought out and often incisive and funny, although I don’t always agree with him. I missed him.

            • Scott D says:

              Well, he’s trolling hard here. That tends to be what sticks in my mind when I evaluate a person’s honesty and integrity.

              • Ken B says:

                How pray tell is this trolling?
                I know, I know, dissent = trolling. Aside from that MF asked a silly or disingenuous question and I answered it.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                See that’s trolling.

              • Major.Freedom says:

                Ken B:

                You’re dissenting BY trolling. You don’t seem to know how to dissent without trolling.

          • Enopoletus Harding says:

            I missed Ken B. He was a pain in the butt at times, but never as arrogant as the Lord Keynes typically was.

  3. Enopoletus Harding says:

    I still say Rothbard’s take on LA was better.
    The situation in Ferguson was even worse than in LA, though, as the police weren’t protecting businesses from looting, but were also arresting reporters and stopping business employees from getting to the businesses they work for.
    It appears that after the National Guard was sent in and arrested people for failing to disperse, no more looting took place.

    • Enopoletus Harding says:

      Erratum: National Guard only seemed to have been protecting police station, not arresting people. Police officers did that.

  4. Lee Waaks says:

    Sam has a good point. Many — including libertarians — have essentially stripped moral agency away from blacks by piggy-backing on the left-wing sociological industry of excuse making (racism, poverty, slavery, welfare, etc.). In the case of libertarians, they primarily blame welfare for creating perverse incentives that perpetuate poverty. Of course, the welfare state does, indeed, create perverse incentives but this theory doesn’t explain why most blacks ignore these incentives and go on to be productive, law-abiding citizens. After the smoke clears in Ferguson, high rates of black on black crime will remain and the victims will be nameless. Police abuse and militarization is a serious problem but I don’t think solving this problem will likely reduce the murder rate in black America. In fact, thankfully, the murder rate has been dropping in tandem with the militarization of the police. Political Correctness is not helping black Americans.

  5. David R. Henderson says:

    Great video, Bob. Thanks.

  6. Tom B says:

    Interesting that at the 13:50 mark he makes the case that the people of Ferguson should be seen as individuals… interesting, in that his view normally, as with most Liberals is the collective of society is more important than individuals needs and desires… hypocrite.

    • Gamble says:

      Yeah, I have noticed this a lot lately. You are an individual only when it pardons the state or cost the state money. However when the state wants your money or time, you are part of the collective.

      Darn hypocrites. Simple liars. Make up your mind, am I an individual or part of the collective.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Gamble, how is John Oliver a liar? I don’t get what you’re saying.

        • Gamble says:

          I am saying that people really annoy me when out of one side of their mouth they disown me because I am an individual and out of the other side of their mouth they say I belong to the collective.

          I don’t believe you can have it both ways.

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Gamble can you spell it out for me? Like, give me two statements from Oliver that are contradictory?

            • Major.Freedom says:

              If I may, I think what he means is that when it comes to this video, Oliver is defending individuals against collectivist state authority.

              But like you mentioned with “we can forgive him that”, as a liberal he still believes in individualism being squashed by collectivism.

              Gamble is saying that liberals have a tendency to defend individualism only when it suits them, and not as a consistent principle.

              Don’t get me wrong, I’m with you on the video. In and of itself it’s pretty awesome and very well made. Love his passion and his biting sarcasm that really shows his sophisticated understanding. Sucks to have to read criticisms.

              • Ken B says:

                “Sucks to have to read criticisms.”
                Worth noting this attitude.

            • Gamble says:

              Hi Bob,

              Reread my 2 post, nowhere did I say Oliver is a liar. I never even watched the vid. As a Christian, I try to limit worldly junk input. See James 4:4 and many others. I am fairly positive if I watch a few Oliver videos, I can find him belittling liberty, which would provide the contradiction you are requesting.

              I am speaking of a general trend I am noticing. Also I am making common ground with above poster Tom. You are only an individual when it saves state money or lets state off hook. When state wants money, power and control, you are part of the collective and social contract. You didn’t build that. You are your brothers keeper. Blah blah blah.

              Not much different than when *Christians* say oh Jesus was not saying that government should turn the other cheek, this only applies to us normal folk. Make up your mind, who was Jesus talking to. Make up your mind, are we individuals or part of a collective. At the end of the day, people say what is convenient, what fits their agenda, not what is truthful or logical. We have fallen.

  7. Ivan Jankovic says:

    yeah, “gentle giant”, cute, peaceful, kid “shot few days before college” as media portrayed him, shown to be the robber and the thug bullying and threatening twice smaller clerk who protested his robbery – absolutely irrelevant! Nothing to see here! Distraction! Who wants to waste time on such nonsense when we all now that the topic here is racism.

  8. Bob Murphy says:

    Well judging from the comments here, it looks as if the typical progressive’s cynicism about the libertarian movement is entirely correct. There’s literally a police state on US soil and most of you are mad that the media is being unfair to white guys.

    • Dan says:

      It’s definitely distressing to see how many libertarians make comments like that, but they’re definitely a small minority of the libertarians I come across online.

    • John says:

      Bob, I believe that was the most important comment I’ve seen you make on this blog. It’s the kind of thing that could make someone who’s concluded that the Libertarian movement is just too isolated and “crankish” to sit up, take notice, and revisit their views.

    • Lee Waaks says:

      I was responding to Sam’s point even though it was off topic. Nearly all libertarians are in the forefront of denouncing the militarization of the police. I don’t think the Left — or those who often kow tow to them (forgive my own cynicism!) — need be cynical about libertarians who *also* point out that blacks are beset by criminals among them that increase the presence of heavy-handed police in black neighborhoods. Why cannot these issue be discussed in tandem given that concern about police abuse emanates (partially) from our concern for black Americans? Doesn’t murder and theft by private citizens matter too?

      • Enopoletus Harding says:

        The thing is, this is just the time when the police should have been most militarized. Using Special Weapons Attack Teams to execute search warrants in suburban areas without reasonable suspicion of massive resistance is clearly misuse of government resources which can lead to much more violence than proper. In this case, however, local police rightly decided on a more militarized response, as the situation had clear analogies to the early stages of the Rodney King riots. The police clearly should have went with a Rothbardian shoot-to-kill policy for “any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers”, but they didn’t. The MO governor-selected Black coordinator of police activity in Ferguson ordered police on Thursday to not attempt to prevent the looting.
        This non-response was clearly more horrendous than Jim Crow.
        Fortunately, some looters were arrested Sunday, August 17.

        • Ken B says:

          If an escalated response was called for then calling in the national guard would be better. These cops have to police this city after things calm down. Turning them Rambo does not help with their attitude, the protestros attitude, or future relations. And manifestly they are not good at this, which makes things worse and risks even greater escalation.
          So even if a strong response is needed, this is not the right one.

        • Harold says:

          “The police clearly should have went with a Rothbardian shoot-to-kill policy for “any looters, rioters, arsonists, or muggers”, but they didn’t.”

          Sometimes I find it hard to know if things are ironic or not.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Lee, FWIW I wouldn’t have made my comment until Ivan chimed in. At that point I realized that the only person who seemed to approve of the video had been David R. Henderson. The rest of you were upset that Oliver didn’t say, “Looting is bad too” as he showed clips of cops in camo and with assault rifles harassing media.

        (^^ That sounds snarky and perhaps it is, but I understand your own comments were more nuanced Lee. I’m still surprised by how nonchalant most of the commenters here are, about a police state in broad daylight.)

        • Lee Waaks says:

          Thanks for your reply Bob. I’m glad I get credit for being nuanced. Amusingly, I didn’t even watch the video (although I intend to). I was at work when I first commented, so I could only read the comments and quickly responded to Sam. I certainly take the burgeoning police state seriously. But let me make my point another way re: the issue of black on black crime: I recall in D. Friedman’s book, The Machinery of Freedom, that he argues Social Security is a raw deal for blacks because they don’t live as long as whites, spend more time in the workforce, etc. In other words, he attacks SS on more than one front. I think black on black crime is a problem for blacks for the obvious reasons, but especially because it helps to justify the police state and sows distrust between blacks and whites. After all, the immediate cause of Ferguson was police encounter with an alleged thug.

    • DanB says:

      Agreed…this is exactly why I am cynical.

      In the end libertarianism for most people only goes as far as tribal instincts of protecting one’s own (race, class, family etc..)…and…well…screw the other guys.

      Notice, we don’t see the Clive Bundy folks showing up with their AKs trying to defend the black population of Ferguson…in fact I would wager that most of them would probably side with the police.

      • K.P. says:

        Is that correct Dan? As I’ve frequently criticized libertarians as being too universalist and not being selfish enough to gain any traction. Perhaps I’ve been way off.

    • K.P. says:

      Should individual libertarians never speak of concerns beyond the state?

    • Carl says:

      Sanctimonious P.C rubbish. What a pathetic wimp you are.

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Carl wrote: “Sanctimonious P.C rubbish. What a pathetic wimp you are.”

        And you’re a fool, Carl. But as agents from the State drag us off to re-education camps, you can tell me about crime rates in the black community.

        • K.P. says:

          “And you’re a fool, Carl. But as agents from the State drag us off to re-education camps, you can tell me about crime rates in the black community.”

          You want them to drag y’all faster?

        • Carl says:

          Note that the killing is especially bad because it’s an unarmed BLACK guy. “Man bites dog” story, as they say.

          Naturally because I regard this monologue as less than beautiful, I wish for us all to be dragged off to re-education camps. There really is nothing between hate and love for you, is there Bob? Must be that wacky religion of yours or something.

          Who let Ben Elton back on t.v anyway? Why are American tv audiences so obnoxiously sycophantic?

          At one point he actually moralizes about a guy who is asked outright the racial makeup of the police force. To merely list the statistics upon request is now worthy of derision. “Beautiful”.

          Crime rates in the black community? What’s that? Is there a white community, too – or is community a word that white people use when they mean “zoo” or perhaps “reservation”. I don’t know about them, but because a disproportionate number of blacks are arrested and convicted according to Oliver, the moral in-group has decreed that whites are responsible – all whites, but don’t lump people together, remember!! Confused yet? Race does not exist, except when it does. Are black crime rates high? I always just assumed they were for no reason whatsoever, none at all. Just some mad prejudice, I guess!

        • Lee Waaks says:

          “But as agents from the State drag us off to re-education camps, you can tell me about crime rates in the black community.”

          Are these re-education camps imminent? I don’t see that as the case but it does pose a vastly more serious long-term problem than black crime rates. Bob is right to emphasize this. However, I mentioned black on black crime because this is an imminent problem for many blacks and because it does relate to the heavy-handed police presence in black communities, i.e. police are drawn to high crime areas. I don’t see anything wrong with bringing the issue up in this context (are they mutually exclusive topics?) given that black welfare is a primary concern when it comes to police abuse. I have two black co-workers whose siblings were murdered by other blacks. Hearing their stories makes an impact on you.

        • Enopoletus Harding says:

          Bob, have re-education camps ever existed in an entrenched democracy? I can’t say so. I can, however, say that protests turning into bouts of looting and arson have existed in many an entrenched democracy and that it is one of the primary supposed purposes of the state to protect the people from looting and arson.

          • Enopoletus Harding says:

            It looks like the number arrested yesterday is impressive. That explains the lack of looting.

          • K.P. says:

            Does jail or prison count as a re-education camp?

            And does Canada count as an entrenched democracy?

            • Enopoletus Harding says:

              Isn’t the recidivism rate pretty high in prisons? So, if they are re-education camps, they aren’t very effective. Sure, Canada counts.

              • K.P. says:

                “Isn’t the recidivism rate pretty high in prisons? So, if they are re-education camps, they aren’t very effective.”

                I reckon they’re still working the kinks out. But who knows how much hate speech would be flowing if the fear of imprisonment didn’t exist.

                “Sure, Canada counts.”

                At least one then! Actually, I think the US is one of the few exceptional nations in this regard.

              • Reece says:

                Why do you assume that the point of re-education would be a lower recidivism rate? To get a bigger budget, more military equipment, etc., you need more crime, not less. As you said, “police should have been most militarized” in cases of high crime – many people agree, and the police know that. If anything, the opposite is the case – they would want a high recidivism rate, which is exactly what they have.

        • Dan Lind says:

          “But as agents from the State drag us off to re-education camps, you can tell me about crime rates in the black community.”
          The story of Ferguson isn’t a story about race.
          Every Ferguson player could have his race reversed, every cop, every “citizen,” every newsperson, every politician. And the story would have been the same.
          This is a story about US police morphing into a standing domestic army, armed with military materiel recently used to occupy with extreme prejudice in Iraq et al.
          This is a story about policing as population control, by decree, by ultimatum , by curfew, by unleashing the National Guard, NOT about protection of life, liberty and property.
          This is a story about police as enforcers of law instead of protectors of individuals.
          This is a story about “officer safety” trumping everything. Tell that to a fireman who risks his life entering a burning building.
          This is a story about “First Amendment Areas,” outside of which constitutional protections do not apply.
          This is a story about armed checkpoints within 100 miles of the border of continental US.
          This is a story about SWAT teams in camouflage smashing into homes in the middle of the night to serve warrants regarding victimless crimes.
          This is a story about Bob Higgs’ ratchet applied to policing, as it applies to education and medicine and every other damn thing the government gets its nose into.
          This is not a story about race. Been there, done that ad nauseum.

          • Enopoletus Harding says:

            The story of Ferguson isn’t a story about race.
            Every Ferguson player could have his race reversed, every cop, every “citizen,” every newsperson, every politician. And the story would have been the same.

            -Exactly. It’s a story of a half-competent police department trying to prevent the high likelihood of a return of disorganized coercion on a massive scale to a declining suburban neighborhood.
            As Rothbard said:

            It is instructive that of all the people at both conventions, Pat Buchanan was the only one to mention one of the defining events of our time, certainly of 1992 and beyond: the L.A. riots. Pat talked about how the youthful federal troops, finally arriving after two days of bloody rioting, “took back the streets of Los Angeles, block by block.” And so, Pat proclaimed, “we must take back our cities, and take back our culture, and take back our country.” Yes, yes, yes!

            Did Rothbard support “policing as population control, by decree, by ultimatum , by curfew, by unleashing the National Guard”? If so, so do I.

            • K.P. says:

              Could a libertarian not make the argument that the National Guard and the police represent invaders into an autonomous community?

              I’m sure I’ve read that somewhere…

            • Dan Lind says:

              Help me understand you.

              Are you claiming Rothbard viewed the business of policing to be population control, and this by means of decree, ultimatum, curfew, unleashing the National Guard?

        • Ken B says:

          The well known comity of FA on display.
          Your sarcastic response about being dragged away is inapt. There is, right in front of us, clear evidence of a dangerous militarization of police, but your example is the over the top dragged away trope? Why not just point out how crazy dangerous these raised machine guns are?

          • Major.Freedom says:

            Because he thinks more long term and with a better understanding of history.

            People like you are like Nazi supporters just before the final solution, who are discomforted by what they told themselves about what they believed in, and felt an anxious need to quibble with the detractors on the minutuae. “Oh come on, stop exaggerating. They aren’t throwing people into ovens. They just punched them a few times, or shot them. God, like don’t you think it’s rude to be all sanctimonious about it?”

            People like you perform the role of social massagers and dopamine dealing lullers of keeping the frogs in the pot of slowly boiling water of the police state, and all throughout, you defend a comical ideal of statism that always contradicts actual “social democratic” statism as it matures into totalitarianism, as it did in ancient Athens. Social democracy encourages gradualism to police statism. It always has its facilitators.

            And Bob wasn’t exaggerating by the way. People ARE being dragged away. The fact you have your head in the brown hole in the sand doesn’t make Bob’s point inaccurate. You’re living in a bubble. Not tens, not hundreds, but MILLIONS of peaceful people sitting in jail cells after being dragged away, literally, and you have the gall to say “inapt”? Ken B, you’re without a doubt one of the worst commenters on the blogosphere.

    • Ivan Jankovic says:

      I suppose Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell who regularly, for decades, emphasize the same points that we, “bad” non-PC libertarians dared to mention here, are also white supremacists and racists… And Murray Rothbard as well…You, right thinking people. try so hard to make us all respectable with progressives, but evil racists among libertarians spoil everything…

      • Bob Murphy says:

        Ivan, I didn’t call you a racist. I said that you watched a video about the unfolding police state, and your reaction was to be really angry that the video didn’t also discuss black crime. My statement was true; that was indeed your reaction.

        • Ivan Jankovic says:

          Bob, I was not protesting the video for not “discussing the black crime”, but for pooh-poohing the evidence of Brown’s criminal record as “irrelevant”.

          What about Williams and Sowell? Any thoughts? Are they also “angry white men” as me?

          • Bob Murphy says:

            Ivan, when you use quotation marks, it implies that you’re quoting something I said. I was pretty sure you were a man, but I didn’t know you were white until you just volunteered it.

            You show me what Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell have been saying about Ferguson, and I’ll tell you whether I think they are focusing on trivialities.

            • Ivan Jankovic says:

              Bob, Williams and Sowell said much more radical and non-PC things about race than any one of us here. I am invoking them to counter the ugly insinuations that you and a couple of your supporters here put forward that we who reject the PC-tarian spin on Ferguson somehow represent bigots and liability for libertarian ambition to be nice people.

          • Ivan Jankovic says:

            Here is another angry white bigot talking about black crime and other problems instead of racism

          • Ken B says:

            We do not as yet know what happened. Some allege he charged the cop. If that is true it could matter very greatly to judging if the cop had reason to fear for his safety or not. Absent a video we will have to try to judge that ourselves. Whether the victim had a history of violence and was on a drug which reduces inhibitions and impairs judgment is clearly relevant to making that call.

          • Harold says:

            “but for pooh-poohing the evidence of Brown’s criminal record as “irrelevant”.”
            Brown did not have a criminal record.

            • Ken B says:

              True. Ivan should have said criminal activity, of which we seem to have good evidence.

        • Ken B says:

          Bob, calling that a video “about the unfolding of a police state” really badly misses what the video is about. It is more about race. It starts with race, it ends with race, it refers to race endlessly, the venom and the heat is in the race comments. Imagine Jon Lind’s thought experiment, and it was a white kid killed. This video would, in the unlikely event it was made, be wildly different.

          • Harold says:

            Lots of things are about what we want them to be about. It is confirmation bias.

          • Major.Freedom says:

            “We do not as yet know what happened.”

            “It is more about race.”


        • Ken B says:

          Please explain this charge. The comment IJ made did not mention black crime nor crime rates at all. It was about the false gentle giant image. He implied people would rather just bandy about “racism” than get the facts straight and see how they matter.

  9. Carl says:

    I agree with Michael Levin on these matters, a notorious racialist who has spoken at the Mises Institute. I also agree with him that “crime” does not exist.

  10. Major.Freedom says:

    Murphy, I entirely agree with your assessment of some of the comments here.

    Don’t let it get you down. You’re up against people who are so scared and ignorant that they feel a need to shift the conflict towards racism and away from police state encroachment. Defense mechanism?

    Bunch of head in the sand “just world” fools making comments not directed towards truth, but to merely feel better at the expense of the truth.

    Don’t you worry one bit. You’re in the right here…

    • Enopoletus Harding says:

      Major Freedom, I wonder, do you think the same about Murray Rothbard and his statements supporting the state’s authorities in the Rodney King beating and its aftermath?

    • John says:

      Here’s something I don’t really say all that often: I entirely and 100% agree with Major Freedom.

  11. Raja says:

    I thought the video was for entertainment purposes and not a treatise on libertarian antics. The unacceptable behavior of the violent civilians was not brought up in this video and has been rightly criticized. I simply assumed that the focus of the video was to highlight government’s bad behavior and aggressiveness and hence to stay on topic of government agression. Not for a second did I consider those looting and stealing to be not violating property rights.

    I believe a few weeks ago Tom Woods had interviewed Steve Deace and in his summary of Rules for Patriots he mentions not to try to play unbiased. He stated that there is limited time in grabbing the attention or refuting an argument and people have limited attention spans. His advice was to just focus on saying your part instead of trying to be balanced. This video also basically just ignores the other genuine points for a more academic setting but overwhelms the viewers with a barrage of one sided arguments which are not incorrect either.


  12. Bob Murphy says:

    For those of you who are utterly convinced that Oliver is just making this all about race, try this fun experiment: Write down on a piece of paper your guess–based on your recollection from when you watched the video–of how many seconds into the video elapse, before the word “black” is used by anyone, either Oliver or people in the video clips. Then watch it again and see how close your guess is to the reality.

    [UPDATE: If you haven’t done the challenge yet, in addition to guessing the time before the word “black” is used, also write down your guess for how many seconds elapse before racial considerations are brought up in any way (without the word “black” necessarily being used).]

    Also, are you guys saying his point about the SWAT vehicle and the kids in Michigan etc. is that somehow this will come back to bite black people?

    • Ken B says:

      Not all but mostly. Certainly your characterization above is way off.
      Look, the Rambo stuff is played mostly for laughs. Like the dollar store camouflage. The race stuff is more inflammatory (and speculative) and designed to get the juices flowing.

      Say you write 5000 words on Krugman, but only call him a child molester three times. I’d still say the core of your essay was that charge.

      • Major.Freedom says:

        ” Certainly your characterization above is way off.”

        You haven’t shown how.

    • Ken B says:

      Ferguson is mentioned at about the 5 second mark.
      The host later mocks the mayor with a jibe about why he’s on national TV. Same principle here Bob: we all know what Ferguson means. If a white teen had died this would not be the story it is. If you read a hit piece on Rothbard that started “A man who would have felt at home in Nuremburg …” You’d call foul at word ten, rightly.
      So, about 5 seconds is the answer.
      Other than that the victim’s race is shown at the 87 second mark.

      • Harold says:

        Only just been able to actually see the clip – initially it was not authorised to view over here. My perspective is that it is about race from 2:04 to 6:55. Then it is about militarisation of police until 12:57 when he talks of the substance of the problem, when it switches back to race again.

        I was surprised at the number of times the guys said “dude” when seeing the armoured car. How common is that?

  13. Sam says:

    My initial comment about libertarians was not directed at John Olivier but at the fact that libertarians have reacted in an entirely predictable way to this incident.*

    Major Freedom
    I consider myself a libertarian but certainly not in line with the mainstream libertarian line which is always scared to address racial issues that can’t blamed on the state. This is the modern PC orthodoxy of libertarians. You can be either a left-libertarian(you can blame parents, society, state, etc) or more moderate libertarian(only the state matters). Rothbardians have simply erased Rothbard in his later years. I would love to hear the latter libertarians address any of this or the Ron Paul letters.

    For me this is pure cowardice. The same is true here in Europe where I meet radical libertarians who don’t want to address these issues when it comes to the propensity of Arabs/Africans and muslims for violence, rioting, rape,etc. Even though I’m of African descent I don’t pretend away reality so it makes me “feel better”.

    • K.P. says:

      So libertarians, apparently, are ignoring the issues of race and culture while simultaneously jumping to tribal instincts?

      • Sam says:

        Since the early 2000’s libertarians of the Rothbardian kind have been moving steadly towards political correctness on a host of issues(that or simply ignored the issues instead in form of neutrality). You can tell by the amount of authors Lew Rockwell have purged from his site. It was this sort of purge that Rothbardians have rightfully condemned the establishment conservatives and establishment libertarians of having done in the past.

        Rothbardians have simply written the early 90’s out of history. Both Lew Rockwell and Murray Rothbard had quite different views back then compared modern Rothbardians. Rockwell complaint about the Rodney King incident was the camera’s that captured it.

        For evidence read through this:

        Or just read Rothbard for himself

        If libertarians want to denounce these views of Rothbard/Rockwell then fine but don’t just ignore them as if these heroes of libertarianism didn’t hold these views.

        • K.P. says:

          I think you’ve hit it with the silence, as didn’t both Rothbard and Rockwell admit that the Paleo strategy was largely a failure? And your own first link says various writer on LRC denounced them (at least Paul’s report) as well.

          However, my comment was a joke. Just as Austrian economics is somehow both anti-semetic and too pro-semetic, libertarians are both PC cowards and Racists.

  14. skylien says:

    Great video.

    BTW another great video just found on ZeroHedge:


    Does anyone think this video is able to explain the meaning of the term “Blowback” to neocons?

Leave a Reply