The Peter Schiff Show! Hosted by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio

www.schiffradio.com Stefan Molyneux, host of Freedomain Radio, takes the reins for the Peter Schiff show, April 11, 2012, and discusses currency, healthcare, the gold standard, the Federal Reserve, inflation, the euro, parenting, human nature, epigenetics, and peak oil with Chris Martenson of the Crash Course. Also, a number of brilliant listeners call in with excellent questions. Freedomain Radio is the largest and most popular philosophy show on the web – http

22 thoughts on “The Peter Schiff Show! Hosted by Stefan Molyneux of Freedomain Radio

  1. …now have no guns, unless you attempt to keep them, thereby freely choosing to become a criminal and paying whatever consequences that the free people decide as well. I, myself, can now sleep better knowing that my right to a life without unnecessary worry about an idiot shooting me because his team lost the game or his wife poured his last Pabst down the drain has been secured, at least for now. No more chance for you to infringe upon my freedom, thanks to your wishing not to infringe upon…

  2. …my freedom. See? You got your way after all. I mean, you can’t have your guns anymore, but you have helped to make the country a better place, and I’m most definitely grateful for your not exercising your freedom. And guess what, you are STILL free, and no one or nothing has taken that from you. On other issues your position may be in the ascendancy, and I have to learn to live with it. This is called being an adult. Still haven’t gotten that part, eh. In reality though, even though the…

  3. …rational majority won in this case, as is usual in the real world, would would most likely allow for the minority to have something regardless. Personally, I probably wouldn’t vote to allow them anything more than a BB gun, but, well, there are usually compromises made. Wait! That’s almost the way it is now! Damn democracy! Always allowing people the opportunity to participate in their own freedom. It would be much better if we just let "the market" rule everything. haha….

  4. Totally! So smart! Let’s get together and write an essay about how Socrates being put to death was completely justified! I can’t get enough democracy!

  5. Regarding which subject? I haven’t claimed to have any truth. But your sure haven’t demonstrated that I don’t, so that helps. As I said, the more you (don’t) comment, the more it probably lends credence to my arguments. This has already been demonstrated as well (See my claim of your projecting with regards to dodging, followed by your dodging). Now, were you planning on answering anything or trying to make an argument, or just come back here as I said you would?

  6. I like the surprise of attention of his methods, but I also see that he could easily become an overzealous zealot.

  7. If you choose to ignore an argument, you have not addressed it and thus have not dealt with it as you have claimed.

    And taxation has everything to do with force. It requires force as a means to achieve it. A society of free people who freely decide to freely organize their free society to devote money to things are not engaging in taxation, but voluntary donation.

  8. If you choose to make an argument you need to make it and quit simply saying you have. Where? That the study I offered was flawed? That’s it? Uhhh…No, your comments based on whatever are flawed. Okay, your turn. Taxation has nothing to do with force in a free and democratic society. Zero. Nil. And, if force is involved, it’s simply not democracy. Regarding your last line we can call the giving of money cheese if you want. It’s 100% irrelevant. But I’m aware than in the religion of fake…

  9. …libertarianism that, by definition, tax = force. It’s just that like most other religions, this is nonsense as well. Same goes with "mob rule", "tyranny of the majority", "tragedy of the commons" and other equally nonsensical fairy tales. Oh, and one more thing on the notion of "voluntary", if the free people decide that free people making a certain amount should "volunteer", say, 90% of what they’ve taken from the system, after all, no system, no money to take, then it’s still voluntary. OK?

  10. You just named state "free people" – talk about disohnesty :D
    The rich people have not taken money, they either got it legitimately, or stole. You can take a breath of air – it’s superabundant. Breathe all you want.
    To rephrase your nonsencical statement so that it’s correct: State decided to steal 90% of wealth of certain people at gunpoint so that it doesn’t collapse just now but in 15 min of lifespand it left before it falls and burries under it’s corpse a lot of not so free people.

  11. "after all, no system, no money to take, then it’s still voluntary. OK?"

    not at all

    Money is a market phenomena taken over by the state and made into it’s most powerfull tools. No system means no monopoly over money, money itself will exist as it existed before the state we know in todays form.

    Imagine we had monopoly on matches – If you use matches than be aware of need to give up 90% of your matches to the state because you’re too stupid to understand it’s theft? Ridiculous. 

  12. Your first sentence displays that you have little understanding of what freedom, democracy, anarchism, socialism, or anything else related to freedom means. Here, let me try and dumb it down a little. If there are a collection of free people, who happen to freely choose other free people to perform certain duties for that group of people, and are always beholden to the group of free people, then it doesn’t matter of you call them "the state" or "the grapefruit". Now, this is trivially basic.

  13. All you are doing is referring to an unaccountable group of people "the state", which is to a large degree what the U.S. has. Private tyranny is interfering with "the state" being under the control of free people i.e.it’s anti-democratic. Also, even with this defect, "the state" is one of the ways, at least theoretically, and sometimes even actually, where free people can freely participate in their semi-free system. With private tyrannies interfering people have much less say. Basically, the…

  14. "Democracy" once it’s co-optd by a power structure is mob rule, plain and simple. Democracy is designed to fail, and as soon as the citizenry realizes it can get government largesse, and the government realizes it can buy power and votes with promises and entitlements, the whole thing goes to hell and it’s only a matter of time until the wheels come off.

  15. …private tyrannies are, and always have been throughout history, the worst.

    If anyone is rich, they got it from something, and that "something" is most likely an economic system of some sort. They have been allowed to use the system. They owe the system for this opportunity. They owe the system. It doesn’t owe them anything. The way the system is designed pretty much has "stole" as an integral element. I mean, if it’s capitalist, it’s mostly all stolen given that the capital has been…

  16. ..appreciates a free society, I’d have no problem at all with taking his money myself. I don’t believe allowing criminality to flourish in a free society. And, yes, most likely there would be an abundance of it as there are certain people who have already persuaded themselves that theft is a good thing i.e.people taking from the system, using others to do their work for them, stealing the money of those doing the labor, and on and on…I recommend reading at least one book on democracy some day.

  17. Uhhh….No. But if you have an actual argument, feel free to present it.

  18. Hard to know where to start when you don’t have an argument is more like it. Don’t worry about it. I don’t expect too much. I mean, when you have a guy who thinks of himself as a "libertarian" or better yet "anarchist", and yet does little but to gush about the wonders of capitalism, which is the opposite of both libertarianism and anarchism were all about, well, how seriously should one be taken?

Comments are closed.