No-- to ENFORCE it. That's why the Constitution is an INTERNATIONAL compact-- NOT NATIONAL. It would be WORTHLESS, if it was a national compact; since then the federal government would have absolute power to VIOLATE it. Each state REMAINED a separate nation; it simply transferred final authority to the state VOTERS. This is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM that so-called "libertarians" REFUSE TO MENTION.
@@SovereignStatesman I can't speak for all libertarians but my ideas around the concept are pretty simple, you can't be forced to live by a set of rules that you disagree with it, so if you want to simple not be a part of something like a country you and your property should be able to do so, otherwise you are someone else property.
@@SovereignStatesman where do you get your info? I’ve seen you say something to this affect on many different videos. I’m not trying to attack, I’m genuinely curious what your sources are for that claim.
If they are in the same category, treat them so. Islamic countries are all heavily statist. That is like saying "Statism is the most dangerous religion today- Communism is a distant second" One requires the other. You should oppose Islam more than any other religion if you hate statism.
NoName NoFame What I meant was the reverse: religion *provides justifications* for a larger state. And some do this more than others. If we want to achieve secession, we should oppose Islam first and foremost because of its centralization, whereas Christian nations seem much more open to secession and indeed, secularism. I merely wanted to partition the concept of 'statism' into more, and less dangerous forms. More successful, does not mean 'more dangerous' in all cases.
Kelly Eh in primitive societies perhaps religion provides justification - but in modern societies we have a new religion called "democracy" and so long as you can get people to vote for you, the government HAS the mandate to grow as big as it wants - in america we supposedly have separation of church and state - but when the state is the new church, what matters this separation? the US government has become the BIGGEST STATE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY with the corresponding biggest national debt in the history of humanity and the biggest rampant and disastrous muscle flexing all over the globe that has wrought the biggest disasters and rise of the worst tyrants
NoName NoFame I agree that democracy is a retarded religion- but by what standard do you consider the United States to be the 'biggest state', other than simply national debt? Do you mean in terms of Debt-to-GDp? Regulations? Social restrictions? Number of Federal employees? By any measure, any African state is less free despite a lower national debt. We really do need to apportion this term 'Big Government.' Russia and Iran have similar national debts-- are they equally statist? It is such a clumsy measuring rod.
Trump wasn't a libertarian but he leaned more libertarian than any president that came before him for the last 30 years. in fact, in all of the 20th and 21st century probably only 3 presidents were more libertarian than Trump.
This is the problem with libertarians: they are ideologues rather than legalists, and so they ignore that secession is LEGAL, and and instead talk about how it's a good idea-- which implies that it is NOT legal, and thus that Lincoln acted within his proper discretion. FACT: secession is legal, because each state is a SOVEREIGN NATION. PERIOD! But then he can't rant and rave about philosophy for 15 minutes.
Sarah Guten Thomas J. Dilorenzo has talked about the legality of secession some if I'm not mistaken. And believing that secession is a good idea and knowing that secession is legal aren't mutually exclusive.
There are plenty of libertarians attempting to build the case and attempt secession at some point in New hampshire. If you want to see libertarian action, the Free State Project is the best place to go. Libertarians care about the ideas, and want to hear justification and discussion on the movements positions.
@@lBaerdeLouisYAna Truth is the first casualty of war; the USA didn't HAVE to prove treason.... because they won the war, and KILLED THE TRUTH. Treason, requires that the USA is a single nation; rather than an international union like the EU. A trial, would prove that the USA was just an international union, and secession was therefore legal... just like Brexit.
@@ihateyankees3655 "Thomas J. Dilorenzo has talked about the legality of secession some if I'm not mistaken." You're mistaken. Dilorenzo fails to address the international nature of the American Union; which means that he CONCEDES the federal claim that the USA is a single nation.
Thanks Lew for creating the Mises Institute and thus allowing us to experience true Libertarianism. You the man Lew!
"...The most unconventional thought in America today is liberty..."
No contract is valid without a way to end it.
That is a great argument, is this your own or is it a quote?
@@darkfazer i translated from a Brazilian libertarian, but i can't remember if he quoted it or was his own.
No-- to ENFORCE it.
That's why the Constitution is an INTERNATIONAL compact-- NOT NATIONAL.
It would be WORTHLESS, if it was a national compact; since then the federal government would have absolute power to VIOLATE it.
Each state REMAINED a separate nation; it simply transferred final authority to the state VOTERS.
This is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM that so-called "libertarians" REFUSE TO MENTION.
@@SovereignStatesman I can't speak for all libertarians but my ideas around the concept are pretty simple, you can't be forced to live by a set of rules that you disagree with it, so if you want to simple not be a part of something like a country you and your property should be able to do so, otherwise you are someone else property.
@@SovereignStatesman where do you get your info? I’ve seen you say something to this affect on many different videos. I’m not trying to attack, I’m genuinely curious what your sources are for that claim.
Excellent discourse Lew.
Nice to see some ladies in the audience.
Statism is the most successful and dangerous religion today - islam is a far distant second.
If they are in the same category, treat them so. Islamic countries are all heavily statist.
That is like saying "Statism is the most dangerous religion today- Communism is a distant second"
One requires the other.
You should oppose Islam more than any other religion if you hate statism.
Kelly Eh true. organized religion is dangerous precisely bc of their political power
NoName NoFame What I meant was the reverse: religion *provides justifications* for a larger state. And some do this more than others.
If we want to achieve secession, we should oppose Islam first and foremost because of its centralization, whereas Christian nations seem much more open to secession and indeed, secularism.
I merely wanted to partition the concept of 'statism' into more, and less dangerous forms.
More successful, does not mean 'more dangerous' in all cases.
Kelly Eh in primitive societies perhaps religion provides justification - but in modern societies we have a new religion called "democracy" and so long as you can get people to vote for you, the government HAS the mandate to grow as big as it wants - in america we supposedly have separation of church and state - but when the state is the new church, what matters this separation?
the US government has become the BIGGEST STATE IN THE HISTORY OF HUMANITY with the corresponding biggest national debt in the history of humanity and the biggest rampant and disastrous muscle flexing all over the globe that has wrought the biggest disasters and rise of the worst tyrants
NoName NoFame I agree that democracy is a retarded religion- but by what standard do you consider the United States to be the 'biggest state', other than simply national debt?
Do you mean in terms of Debt-to-GDp? Regulations? Social restrictions? Number of Federal employees?
By any measure, any African state is less free despite a lower national debt. We really do need to apportion this term 'Big Government.'
Russia and Iran have similar national debts-- are they equally statist? It is such a clumsy measuring rod.
Lew ignores the elephant in the room: EACH STATE IS A SEPARATE NATION, BY LAW.
But why don't the states exercise there rights to secede, you'd think now more so then ever people would be wanting it after the election was stolen.
Not as it is enforced, which means it isn't.
10:35 lol....does anyone really in their heart believe this?
Difference of degree
Difference of degree
@@OrthoHoppean yes like 0 degrees vs 180 degrees.
He ignores the speeches and documents by Southern leaders in 1861 . Distorted views of history are an invitation for foolish acts to be contemplated .
the "regime libertarian" he speaks of just sounds like a republican
And Cato types
Says the guy who voted. To add to confusion, voted for Trump.
Trump wasn't a libertarian but he leaned more libertarian than any president that came before him for the last 30 years. in fact, in all of the 20th and 21st century probably only 3 presidents were more libertarian than Trump.
This is the problem with libertarians: they are ideologues rather than legalists, and so they ignore that secession is LEGAL, and and instead talk about how it's a good idea-- which implies that it is NOT legal, and thus that Lincoln acted within his proper discretion.
FACT: secession is legal, because each state is a SOVEREIGN NATION.
PERIOD!
But then he can't rant and rave about philosophy for 15 minutes.
Sarah Guten Thomas J. Dilorenzo has talked about the legality of secession some if I'm not mistaken. And believing that secession is a good idea and knowing that secession is legal aren't mutually exclusive.
There are plenty of libertarians attempting to build the case and attempt secession at some point in New hampshire. If you want to see libertarian action, the Free State Project is the best place to go. Libertarians care about the ideas, and want to hear justification and discussion on the movements positions.
@@lBaerdeLouisYAna Truth is the first casualty of war; the USA didn't HAVE to prove treason.... because they won the war, and KILLED THE TRUTH.
Treason, requires that the USA is a single nation; rather than an international union like the EU.
A trial, would prove that the USA was just an international union, and secession was therefore legal... just like Brexit.
@@ihateyankees3655 "Thomas J. Dilorenzo has talked about the legality of secession some if I'm not mistaken."
You're mistaken.
Dilorenzo fails to address the international nature of the American Union; which means that he CONCEDES the federal claim that the USA is a single nation.
@@SovereignStatesman It isn't. That wasn't how the Constitution was understood when it was ratified, and it wasn't how it functioned either.