Comments on: Thomas E. Woods

By: » SCOTT HORTON interviews TOM WOODS

» SCOTT HORTON interviews TOM WOODS — Fri, 02 Dec 2011 16:35:38 +0000

[...] SCOTT HORTON interviews TOM WOODS [...]

By: Tom Woods

Tom Woods — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 04:49:24 +0000

On the environment, I highly recommend this classic treatment: http://mises.org/story/2120

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:24:17 +0000

I would like to believe Libertarian ideals of liberty as Scott and Thomas discussed (you do what you want and I do what I want as long as you're not hurting anyone). My question on that principle is to what extent do you allow for hurting others. I ask about environmental issues. What you do on your property may not be hurting me directly but through the common environment of air, water (including ground water), and other shared resources needed for survival it may be limiting my ability to survive (my liberties). If your activities pollute the groundwater under my property, is it appropriate for me to try to reduce your liberties so that we can have equally clean groundwater?
I don't want to limit your liberty but I also don't want your activities limiting my ability to survive. Where do you draw the line in allowing liberties that supercede equality, and when do you draw the line at permitting equalities that may infringe on some more reckless liberties?

By: Alex

Alex — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 20:23:44 +0000

David Frum was on Bill Moyers recently and he described the left-right political priorities. He said that traditionally the Democrats are the party of equality and the Republicans are the party of liberty (you wouldn't have guessed that from the Bush era). To me the Libertarians are the party of liberty and the Republicans use it when it's to their advantage. Similarly the Democrats use equality rhetoric but only the progressive movements have really espoused it and tried to put equality into practice. Since Democrtats and Republicans are only cheap copies or diluted versions of the true believers of liberty and equality, I have a question that occurred to me during your conversation with Mr. Woods.

By: Glenn

Glenn — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:48:18 +0000

Very cool to know: the states have reserved powers, not rights; individuals(of the biological kind) have rights.

Excellent. I'll start using the phrase "reserved powers."

I think it would be worthwhile to start using the correct terminology.

No time to get lazy, guys.

By: Claus-Erik Hamle

Claus-Erik Hamle — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 09:11:58 +0000

The bloody fools in the bloody Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability and that´s suicidal.

By: John D.

John D. — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 02:30:52 +0000

Claus-Erik – the Russians have planted nukes in every major American city. There is nothing to shoot down.

By: Claus-Erik Hamle

Claus-Erik Hamle — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 19:52:31 +0000

According to former Trident missile engineer Bob Aldridge-www.plrc.org-the Pentagon aims to achieve a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability. And according to Bob Aldridge the US Navy can track and destroy all enemy subs simultaneously. Minuteman-3 and Trident-2 D5 linked to NAVSTAR obtain a CEP of 30-40 metres, enough to destroy any hard target. Please see the article by Keir Lieber and Daryl Press, "The Rise of US Nuclear Primacy" in the 2006 March/April issue of Foreign Affairs. A First-Strike Capability won´t be complete without the missiles in Poland to shoot down any surviving Russian missiles. Even if it´s only for blackmail, the Russians may have no choice but implementing Launch On Warning. Bob Aldridge resigned because a disarming and unanswerable first-strike capability is suicidal.

By: D.Milam

D.Milam — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 18:14:52 +0000

Excellent interview. For more on centralization and its socialist background, check out this interview with Alan Watt: http://www.mystreamingserver.com/Archives/AlanWat...