LRC Blog

Bush and Obama Are Both Evil Men

e·vil
ˈēvəl/
1. profoundly immoral and malevolent.
synonyms: wicked, bad, wrong, immoral, sinful, foul, vile, dishonorable, corrupt, iniquitous, depraved, reprobate, villainous, nefarious, vicious, malicious

Singling out the last two presidents as evil is not to let other U.S. government officials, past and present, off the hook. It is only to focus on recent, visible and incontrovertible instances of evil deeds done by evil men.

Bush lied the U.S. into a vicious and aggressive war against Iraq. He’s responsible for a huge number of deaths and injuries.

Obama attacked Libya based on lies. Hoping to destroy the Syrian military by a bombing campaign, he lied about the gas attack in August 2013. Obama constantly lies.

Bush and Obama are wicked men, corrupt men, vicious men who have done profoundly malevolent deeds.

The U.S. government and its presstitute media have become so pervasively corrupt that the wickedness of one branch goes unnoticed by the others, or if noticed then unmentioned, and if mentioned then uncorrected by the other branches. The wickedness of one branch is far more likely to be joined in and approved of by the other branches than it is to be criticized, investigated and stopped.

Every day some U.S. government official, and usually many of them, propose, endorse or instigate some malicious act or law. Only a few days ago, the Congress unanimously passed a measure forbidding a visa to an Iranian diplomat who had been appointed as its U.N. representative. What term other than malevolent better describes such a despicable, vindictive, vengeful and vile act?

12:59 pm on April 21, 2014

Iraqi Government Does What Bush Failed to Do

It finally closes the Abu Ghraib prison. This is ten years after Bush vowed that the U.S. would close and then “demolish the Abu Ghraib prison as a fitting symbol of Iraq’s new beginning.”

12:40 pm on April 21, 2014

A Scallawag’s Circular Reasoning

It’s always amusing — some might say infuriating — when a Gowned Clown muses on the evisceration of our freedom — an evisceration his court enthusiastically pursues. And so last “Thursday in an interview conducted at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Justices Antonin Scalia and Ruth Bader Ginsburg talked about their views of the First Amendment.” Which is rather like Janet Napolitano and Pillary Clinton’s discussing beefcake: you’re surprised they’ve even heard of it and certainly don’t want to hear their ruminations.

But I digress. “Moderator Marvin Kalb questioned Scalia about whether the NSA wiretapping cloud be conceivably be in violation of the Constitution: Justice Antonin Scalia said, ‘No because it’s not absolute. As Ruth has said there are very few freedoms that are absolute.’” Ahem. Yet these are the unconscionable cretins determining how much liberty to allot the serfs. “Please, sir, may we have some more?”

Scallawag continued. “I mean your person is protected by the Fourth Amendment but as I pointed out when you board a plane someone can pass his hands all over your body that’s a terrible intrusion…”

Whoa! Hold it right there, Cowboy. “Someone can pass his hands all over our bodies” only because you Clowns specifically perverted the Fourth Amendment to allow it!!!!! Since the 1960s, courts have consistently ruled in favor of the State and against the Fourth Amendment on virtually every case regarding aviation’s security that’s crawled before their sorry bench. Quickly but surely, the courts turned passengers into prisoners and an absolute freedom from unreasonable search and seizure into one that depends on what “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (That’s a quote from Katz v. United States [1967], a seminal case about wiretapping a public phone that the Clowns have duly expanded to legalize virtually any assault Our Rulers launch against the Fourth.)

Scallawag resumes once more: ”…but given the danger that [the TSA's sexual molestation is] guarding against it’s not an unreasonable intrusion…” He’s here referring to another decision (United States v. Bell, U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972) in which the Clowns declared that because they’re craven wimps, we’ll welcome groping from their jack-booted minions — though of course they didn’t phrase it like that: “When the risk is the jeopardy to hundreds of human lives and millions of dollars of property inherent in the pirating or blowing up of a large airplane, that danger alone meets the test of reasonableness.” Ergo, no one can possibly object to any of the TSA’s atrocities.

Ah, but gate-rape is an unreasonable intrusion, Scallawag. You and your fellow Clowns can claim it isn’t from now till Doomsday, but that doesn’t change reality.

12:27 pm on April 21, 2014

One. Two, Three

Writes Robert Hiett:

My parents took me to see this when I was in elementary school, and it inoculated me for all the Utopian BS that followed in the 1960s!

10:35 am on April 21, 2014

USSA

Writes Joe from Boston:

Reporting from a city under siege.  Train stations closed, streets shut down, military helicopters flying overhead, and state & local police armed with rifles and shotguns every ten feet checking IDs and performing illegal searches and seizures.  I was nearly arrested this morning heading into the office and had my briefcase searched – twice – within a distance of fifty feet.  Police don’t like it when you remind them of the necessity for probable cause or articulable individualized suspicion.

10:34 am on April 21, 2014

Veterans Want Yet Another Monument to “Honor” Their “Service”

According to the Washington Times, “Veterans of the war on terrorism say they deserve a monument in downtown Washington to recognize their sacrifices, but they are hindered by a rule that says a conflict must be long finished in order to build a memorial, leading some to wonder how to commemorate a ‘never-ending war.’” It turns out that “under the Commemorative Works Act of 1997, a war memorial can’t be authorized until at least 10 years after it officially ends.” The Pentagon has admitted that the “war on terror” will never end.

10:03 am on April 21, 2014

Aggression Runs Rampant among Politicians in Washington

ag·gres·sion
əˈgreSHən/

1. hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.

synonyms: hostility, aggressiveness, belligerence, bellicosity, force, violence; pugnacity, pugnaciousness, militancy, warmongering; attack, assault

2. forceful and sometimes overly assertive pursuit of one’s aims and interests.

synonyms: confidence, self-confidence, boldness, determination, forcefulness, vigor, energy, zeal

Recent examples.

Senator Chris Murphy (on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee): “I think the time is now to rapidly ratchet up our sanctions, whether it’s on Russian petrochemical companies or on Russian banks.”

“Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the top-ranking Republican on the committee, said on the same program yesterday the administration should impose sanctions on Russia’s energy and banking industries unless there’s an immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from the Ukraine border.”

John Kerry (Secretary of State) “…if we’re not able to see progress on the immediate efforts to be able to implement the principles of this agreement this weekend, then we will have no choice but to impose further costs on Russia.”

White House spokesman Jay Carney: “We are actively preparing new sanctions.”

Chuck Hagel (Secretary of Defense) as reported in the Washington Post: “Poland and the United States will announce next week the deployment of U.S. ground forces to Poland as part of an expansion of NATO presence in Central and Eastern Europe in response to events in Ukraine. That was the word from Poland’s defense minister, Tomasz Siemoniak, who visited The Post Friday after meeting with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel at the Pentagon on Thursday.”

The readiness to confront Russia is aggressive.

In addition, there is no known benefit to the interests of Americans by intervening in the politics of Ukraine and/or Russia. There are only costs and large risks.

Ukraine is none of my business and, I venture to say, none of your business either. It is therefore none of the business of the aggressors in Washington either, if they were truly representative of you and me.

Russia doesn’t control the Ukraine or its politics any more than the U.S. controls the Mexican drug trade. Therefore there is no known link between such sanctions (and troops in Poland) and the politics in Ukraine. This makes sanctions not only aggressive but also stupid, dysfunctional, and ignorant.

Some sort of a beginning of a possible resolution, however tenuous and partial, was reached last week at Geneva. This brought the OSCE into the picture. Obama immediately expressed skepticism and placed the burden of proof on Russia. He also limited the time frame for action to an impossibly short “several days” and continued to treat Russia as responsible for the internal politics and occurrences in Ukraine.

Washington’s foreign policy is belligerent, bellicose, impatient, bullying, ignorant, thoughtless, irresponsible and stupid, all in one. It is a prime example of the inherent irrationality of political power and government and its capacity continually to produce outcomes that harm the people being governed.

6:58 pm on April 20, 2014

Walter Block on the Bundy Ranch: How Would The American People Feel About Putin if…

“How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin issued a warning against the BLM for violating the homesteading rights of Cliven Bundy? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin boycotted Nevada Senator Harry Reid for castigating as ‘terrorists’ those who rose to the defense of Cliven Bundy? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin placed a few Russian warships off the coast of California in case their help was needed in defending Cliven Bundy’s land rights? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin froze Barack Obama’s financial resources in Russia? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin shipped a few hundred head of cattle to Cliven Bundy to make up for those destroyed by the BLM? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin threatened to go to war with the U.S. over its miserable treatment of Cliven Bundy? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin actually landed Russian troops in Canada or Mexico in order the ‘send a message’ to Americans? How would people in the United States feel if Vladimir Putin set himself up as the protector of the tortoise, many of which have been killed by the BLM.” -Walter Block

1:52 pm on April 20, 2014

How Neocons Celebrate Easter

As demonstrated by Dick Cheney.

1:36 pm on April 20, 2014

Poles Apart?

Let me see if I’m following the script.  Hitler sending troops into Poland in 1939 has generally been regarded as the start of World War II.  The Obama administration will be sending troops into Poland in 2014, but this invasion journey will be for peace-keeping purposes.  Might the troops be accompanied by Strategic Air Command bombers with their “Peace is Our Profession” motto?

11:44 am on April 20, 2014

A Medical Maniac Wants to Be Governor of Massachusetts

A loony-tunes Obama “doctor” is running for governor of Massachusetts on the Democrat side. Donald Berwick, former Obama Medicare Administrator, wants to impose “single payer” health insurance on Massachusetts victims. Berwick is not only a quack, but a dangerous collectivist who doesn’t get it when it comes to the individual’s right to control one’s own health matters and keep them private.

According to ObamaCare critic Betsy McCoughey, “Instead of doctors making decisions autonomously in the interest of their own patients, (Berwick) wants a nationwide plan allocating resources ‘to anticipate and shape patterns of care for important subgroups.’ These subgroups — which can be defined by age, disease affliction or socio-economic status — should be the ‘unit of concern,’ not the individual patient.”

So Berwick’s ideology is very much like that of former Obama Health Policy Advisor Ezekiel Emanuel, who believes that not all people should be treated equally under a government-controlled medical care system. Similar to Berwick is Emanuel’s vision of “allocating and rationing” of medical services, such as by age and disability. Emanuel’s belief that the individual’s needs should be seen by doctors as secondary to what’s best for the community, is something Berwick — candidate for governor of Massachusetts — seems to agree with.

We can’t accuse these anti-freedom collectivists of being “pro-civil liberties” now, can we? After all, sacrificing the individual to serve the needs of the collective is as far from civil liberties as anyone can get. So this is just another part of the Left’s abandonment of such civil liberties and their embracing of the police state, as there will be no way for these visionaries to enforce their government-controlled medical diktats and rationing except through a heavily-empowered police apparatus.

Hmm. I wonder whether any Massachusetts campaign interviewers or debate moderators will ask Dr. Berwick what his opinion is of the Justina Pelletier case. Now there’s a patient whose medical treatment was sacrificed by certain “doctors” to serve their own “behavior modification” ideology. Since the psychiatrists seized Justina’s case away from actual medical doctors who were treating her for an actual medical condition, her condition has deteriorated severely. Well, as long as the Orwelliquacks are able to learn more about the effectiveness of their beloved “behavior modification,” that’s what matters. (But for some reason, I doubt that Dr. Berwick will be asked about Justina Pelletier.)

(more…)

10:32 am on April 20, 2014

Venetian Freedom

Lew:   The Venetians are tired of being stolen blind by a lot of shady schemes!

6:56 pm on April 19, 2014

Venetians Want Their Freedom

The Venetians lost their ancient independence to the monster Napoleon. Now they want out from under the monstrous central government in Rome. But this would be ‘illegal,” bleats a regimist. And Rome’s cops arrested 20 independence advocates for “terrorism” because of their tractor (see the photo). But highly centralized states like Italy are doomed. Long live “La Serenissima” — the Most Serene Republic of Venice. (Thanks to Robert Hiett)

4:01 pm on April 19, 2014

Complex Issues

“Talk of imminent threat to our national security through the application of external force is pure nonsense.

“Our threat is from the insidious forces working from within which have already so drastically altered the character of our free institutions, those institutions we proudly called the American way of life.  

“It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear.  

“While such an economy may produce a sense of seeming prosperity for the moment, it rests on an illusionary foundation of complete unreliability and renders among our political leaders almost a greater fear of peace than is their fear of war.” — Five Star General of the Army Douglas MacArthur  

 “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.   

(more…)

1:10 pm on April 19, 2014

Butler, Bankers, War and More

For LRC readers not familiar with Smedley Darlington Butler, I should point out that he was a Major General in the US Marine Corps, the highest rank at that time. At the time of his death in 1940, he was the most decorated Marine in United States history, having received 16 medals, five for heroism, including two Congressional Medals of Honor.

In a speech delivered in 1933, Butler said of war and the men behind it:

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it.

Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914.

I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street.  The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909–1912.

I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.”

(more…)

12:11 pm on April 19, 2014

The Most Revolutionary Act in History

The crucifixion, says Tim Stanley.

9:11 am on April 19, 2014

Oh, Butter Bad. Haven’t We Heard That Before?

Tom Philpott of Mother Jones has written a good article on the demonization of saturated fat, though it falls short of calling out James McWilliams for what he is: a hysterical and discreditable shill for the Industrial Food Machine. Here’s a quote from the Philpott article:

“Simultaneously, as Bittman correctly noted, trans fats—cheap vegetable oils treated with hydrogen so that they remain solid at room temperature—emerged as the food industry’s butter substitute of choice for decades, providing the main substance for margarine. Based on relentless food industry marketing, generations of people grew up thinking trans-fat-laden margarine was healthier than butter—even after science definitively showed that it was much, much worse (a sorry tale I laid out here).

These fat-related marketing triumphs, quite profitable for the food industry, coincided with a surge in diet-related health troubles, including heightened obesity, diabetes, and metabolic-syndrome rates. Bittman is correct to discuss highly processed food in the context of the controversy over fat; and in trying to force it out of the conversation, McWilliams is playing his usual role: reasonable-sounding defender of a highly profitable but dysfunctional industry.”

Philpott’s article takes on another article published by McWilliams in Pacific Standard that makes the claim that butter is back (becoming acceptable again) only because disingenuous food writers are misinterpreting studies in order to push their “eating like grandma” agenda. And this comes from a guy who has long hustled the political agenda of the food conglomerates and pseudo-scientific special interest groups.

McWilliams is a consistent force in banging the drum for GMO foods and seeds, anti-meatism, and industrial-chemical products that are barely laced with food while he carries on a campaign against locavores and self-sufficent types who pursue the traditional/real food lifestyle. Additionally, he has carried on his own private war against saturated fat while supporting his personal preferences – and hatred for all things fat – by promoting a consistent stream of political ploys and junk scientific studies.

The McWilliams article cannot possible be taken seriously at the point that McWilliams refers to the defense of meat eating as “prescribing a heart attack on a plate.” His argument loses all traction – if he ever had any – with that statement. In fact, meat eaters, or any other category of peaceful foodies, are not promoting any political agenda – they are merely forced to defend their choices from their politicized attackers who have continually used coercive tactics to ban or stigmatize traditional foods in favor promoting the wonders of chemical-industrial replacements.

What really has McWilliams all pissy is the fact that New York Times food writer Mark Bittman wrote some kind words about a study published in the Annals of Internal Medicine that challenged the conventional wisdom on the saturated fat question. Bittman was called out as a zealot who believes we can “egg-and-bacon our way to heart health” when in fact Bittman is a promoter of the vegetarian/vegan lifestyle and the author of a book on that topic.

6:37 am on April 19, 2014

Walter Block on deontological vs. consequentialist ethics and more

As the title reads: Dr. Block speaks about deontological and consequentialist ethics. Block claims that there are no positive obligations under libertarian theory and he applies that to raising children. Several different views from top libertarian thinkers are discussed in this terrific video. Murray Rothbard’s view on the obligation or lack there of when it comes to one’s children is interpreted by the interviewer, Daniel and Block himself. Block explains where he disagrees with his friend Dr. Stephan Kinsella on relevant issues. Daniel, presents Stefan Molyneux’s argument against evictionism and Block offers his rebuttal of which he has written about in the past. Molyneux’s argument is on that involves a tornado and crucially timed warnings to the natural disaster, listen in and hear Block’s rebuttal in which he uses an airplane scenario. There is much more thought provoking topics that appear throughout this lengthy but substance dense video.

By Luis Rivera III

Walter Block on deontological vs. consequentialist ethics and more

5:26 pm on April 18, 2014

Koch’s Dopes

Once upon a time, in July of 1978 I had the honor of attending the Cato Institute’s First Summer Seminar on Political Economy atWake Forrest University. The distinguished faculty of libertarian luminaries included Murray N. Rothbard, Leonard P. Liggio, Arthur A. Ekirch, Walter E. Grinder, and Roy A. Childs. This was before the devastating Cato Institute split detailed by David Gordon in his excellent series of articles at LRC.

The curriculum was hard-core Rothbardian – natural rights libertarianism from The Ethics of Liberty, Austrian Economics, revisionist history, and libertarian class analysis.

The Cato organizers gave us each a ton of excellent books (including Rothbard’s Power and Market) and photocopy reprints of classic articles including Rothbard’s libertarian strategy memorandum to the Kochs which served as the guideline for the Institute’s creation.

Rothbard later admitted that these early Seminars were organized as “best and brightest” talent searches for Cato.

But it was the powerful lecture presentations by Walter E. Grinder, “Libertarian Class Analysis” and “American Power Elites” which had the most truly lasting impact upon me

Reading Robert Wenzel’s perceptive observations today on LRC concerning how far the Koch-funded “libertarian” student groups have fallen in their willful ignorance and boastful hubris deeply saddens me.  Things surely do not go better with Koch; but they do with Lew and his crew.

5:09 pm on April 18, 2014

Conversations with John Judge

Two incredible interviews with the late John Judge

4:43 pm on April 18, 2014

The Ukrainian Happy-Talk Agreement

Writes Jack D. Douglas:

Have I suddenly awakened in Cloudopolis or The Garden of Eden or in Heaven itself?

The Western-ballyhooed “Geneva Agreement on the Ukrainian Crisis” is on its face nothing but U.S.-Kiev demands and pipe-dreams. It supposedly ends the threat of Civil War in the Ukraine, which is already raging with U.S,-Kiev armored forces encircling and attacking Eastern Ukrainian civilian protesters who have seized and barricade all of the major government buildings in the major cities in the East. The “Agreement” says nothing about those attacking tanks and helicopter gun ships withdrawing and disarming, nothing about how the Agreements are to be carried out and enforced, nothing about the growing chaos and financial catastrophe of the Ukrainian Junta, nothing about protecting the Russian gas lines to the E.U. from U.S. and Kiev saboteurs, nothing much about anything in the real world.

This sounds like an introductory poem of ecstatic hopes written in magical surrealism mode by the ghost of Gabriel Marquez.

I think it’s one of those Media Happy Talk Agreements which everyone involved felt the need to agree with to avoid looking like a killjoy to the great ignorati back home.

It’s possible that the Media Talk is just the SOP blah-blah, but real, hard agreements were made in top secret. The Junta said this Monday they might be willing to hold a referendum in the East on a loose federation constitution and allow the East to be free of Kiev.

Or maybe this is a total surrender by the Russians who have massive forces that can encircle  the Junta in hours?

(more…)

4:01 pm on April 18, 2014

Words Recalled

I have been reminded of some powerful words of William Carlos Williams:

It is difficult to get the news from poems/ yet men die miserably every day/ for lack/ of what is found there.

2:51 pm on April 18, 2014

When to Thank a Veteran

When should we thank a veteran? How about this: “If anyone is wondering if there is an appropriate occasion to thank a veteran, it’s when they have the moral courage to abandon their military careers and stop participating in and/or condoning the actions of an institution responsible for so much harm at home and abroad.”

That is, we should thank a veteran just as we should thank a TSA or DEA agent–when they quit.

Thanks to TM at The Anarchist Notebook.

12:25 pm on April 18, 2014

Opposing the Government or One of Its Laws Does Not a Libertarian Make

Some have called the Nevada ranchers libertarians. They may or may not be libertarians. It is just like when some actor says he supports the legalization of marijuana. Some libertarians are then quick to label the actor a libertarian. Too quick. But opposing the government or one of its laws does not a libertarian make. What makes one a libertarian? See Lew Rockwell here and Jacob Hornberger here.

10:39 am on April 18, 2014

Government Bailouts: Picking Winners | Walter Block

This speech took place in 2009. Here, Walter Block defends greed, Laissez-faire Capitalism, speculation and attacks government spending, bailouts, regulations and the Keynesian explanations and theories as to why a recession hit. Block then tells the real reason as to why the recession has hit, The Austrian Business Cycle Theory. He goes over interest rates and how they are an extremely important indicator in the market. Listen in to listen to The Mises Adjunct Scholar explains in more detail below.

By Luis Rivera III

Government Bailouts: Picking Winners | Walter Block

10:02 pm on April 17, 2014

They Are Just Following Orders

Remember, if government agents commit violence against ranchers in Nevada, don’t forget to repeat over and over again: they are just following orders, they didn’t write their job description, it is bad government policies that are to blame, they couldn’t find another job, it is the fault of the Congress, they joined because they just wanted to serve, they are just pawns in the machine.

And when you realize how stupid that sounds, stop excusing U.S. troops who bomb, maim, and kill for the same government.

10:06 am on April 17, 2014

Re: John Judge, RIP

Charles, this is very sad news indeed. We had the pleasure of working briefly with John while he served as Rep. Cynthia McKinney’s aide in Congress. He would occasionally come by the office and I recall being so enormously impressed by his fierce intelligence and his great courage. In a world dominated by 20-something staffers who in the main were convinced they ruled the world but whose arrogance was only matched by their ignorance, you can imagine what a treat it was when John Judge stopped by. He was a giant and he will be greatly missed. I rue that I had lost touch with him over the past several years.

Here is a fascinating and wide-reaching interview with John Judge discussing his life, the Pentagon and the war machine, the police state, and much more. John was a seeker and held views on events like 9/11 and the Kennedy assassination that lead some to ignore anything he said. What a sad and one-dimensional world it is for those who discount anyone with whom they cannot agree in total.

8:36 am on April 17, 2014

Bobby Darin: A Simple Song of Freedom


(Thanks to Jack Douglas)

8:29 am on April 17, 2014

John Judge, RIP

The great John Judge has died. John was one of the most dedicated and tenacious researchers of the assassination of President John Fitzgerald Kennedy and of the fascistic implications of the coup d’état by Lyndon Baines Johnson and the top tier of the National Security State. Here is how I believe John would want us to remember him, boldly speaking truth to power.

11:25 pm on April 16, 2014

Walter Block – Who Will Build the Roads?

Here, Dr. Walter Block tackles the most FAQ made to Anarcho-Capitalists: Who will build the roads? He briefly goes over some of the arguments he makes in his book The Privatization of Roads and Highways. Approximately 40,000 people die on the socialist roads in the USA per year! Block explains in the video that there are ultimate and proximate causes of traffic accidents that lead to death. He compares restaurant owners to the road socialists and shows the double standard using the terms ultimate and proximate causes. Listen in and learn from the master how to properly defend the question: “But! Who will build the roads?”

By Luis Rivera III

Walter Block – Who Will Build the Roads?

9:34 pm on April 16, 2014