Tom is masterful in this interview at slicing away at the contradictions of bleeding heart libertarians, and the deeper he gets into the interview the deeper the more blood is sucked out of them.
It is really quite shocking to understand where the logic of bleeding heart libertarianism ultimately leads.
-RW
A little off topic, but seeing Tom's name here reminds me that I first heard of EPJ on his show. Kind of a moment of reflection but it's been a long strange trip.
ReplyDelete2007 Liberal watching Democracy now > Ron Paul supporter > Co-worker gave me The creature from Jekyll Island and For a New Liberty > Found Tom Woods watching Mises Institute vids > Became hard core TW show follower where I heard about EPJ...now I come here everyday lol
Can't wait to listen to this episode in the morning before work, will def check it out!
The questions/answers after the 53:00 mark really hit hard.
ReplyDeleteI just can't see my way past Matt Zwolinski calling for a world government in an attempt to right the wrongs of the past. It seems to go hand in hand with minarchism.
I remember having a brief discussion on moral positivism with someone here before and I haven't thought about it enough yet....but asking any form of government, which itself would exist on a global basis only via NAP violations, to then moderate its NAP violations and become a "fair" mediator/arbitrator in determining not only who is deserving of a B.I.G.(though Matt Zwolinski waffles here) but how everyone else pays for it...is...well...already a failed experiment. We see it everywhere.
He's calling himself a libertarian that wants a global government, but with minimal interference in our lives, to redistribute a certain amount of wealth on the basis of past crimes.
Does this really sound like a reasonable way for society to function? For humans to interact with each other?
Ugh...I just can't abide, to quote The Dude.
The experiment has been done over and over through out history and it always ends the same. His global "minimal" government would create 10 problems for each one it solves.
You don't even need another person to accept the NAP to be able to practice it, sure, it would be ideal if everyone could voluntarily accept that premise, but it's not necessary. So, I have trouble getting my head around the idea moral positivism is necessary, especially in the context of the fact that morality itself has subjective elements.
One of the great things about Tom Woods is how respectful he is to his guest, even as he smoothly but surely annihilates his arguments.
ReplyDeleteOf course, if you look up the NAP on Wikipedia, it looks like Matt Zwolinski has the last word on how it apparently is unworkable.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
There should be an active push to keep Wikipedia honest. Regular people will read about something on Wikipedia before they'll check mises.org
Tom Woods eviscerates him here, but far more people will see his damage done on Wikipedia than hear him sound foolish on this clip.