Tom Woods Interviews Jeff Deist About the “Key Libertarian Mistake”

Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute, on what libertarians (and even progressives and conservatives) ought to aim for, and why handing out U.S. Constitutions in Iraq might not be the most effective strategy. Subscribe to the Tom Woods Show: https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-tom-woods-sho/id716825890?mt=2
http://www.TomWoods.com/928
https://mises.org
http://www.SupportingListeners.com
http://www.RonPaulHomeschool.com
http://www.FreeHistoryCourse.com
http://www.TomsFreeBooks.com

SPONSOR

If you like this content, be sure you click here and support iState's ability to deliver to you news for the iStater, the state of one.

View on YouTube.com

Facebook Comments
About Paul Gordon 1358 Articles

Paul Gordon is the publisher and editor of iState.TV. He has published and edited newspapers, poetry magazines and online weekly magazines.
He is the director of Social Cognito, an SEO/Web Marketing Company. You can reach Paul at pg@istate.tv

28 Comments

  1. If people could be convinced of socialism then the socialists must have really effective propaganda — because their success at spreading their ideas clearly isn't rooted in the soundness of their ideas. Could we produce libertarian versions of their most influential agitprop? What would a libertarian version of Das Kapital even look like?

  2. Christoper Cantwell was ahead of the curve. Again.
    Doug Casey talked about the dearth of rich, elite libertarians, and more of those would be good, true, but if you had more libertarians following a Jack Spirko approach of modern-day preparedness (one could almost say it was a pretty far along vision of localism) you'd have a lot more people of what might conventionally be considered meagre means but are living comfortably and utterly indifferent to what the state might claim to offer and would in fact see it as the burden and obstacle it really is.
    The problem with progressives is that they can't stand the existence of people unlike them probably because they know their vision will ultimately turn into a cannibalistic nightmare. I agree that from a personal aesthetic perspective decentralisation does indeed trump universalism.

  3. I have come to believe that only high IQ people can understand Libertarian, and Austrian Economic Arguments. The welfare state has created many more low IQ people. You have to use emotional arguments to be effective with low IQ people.

  4. We're about 3 more Bitcoin bubbles away from a far more libertarian world…and it doesn't require convincing anyone. The statists will come over to the libertarian side through their own greed.

  5. Interesting that Jeff Deist talks about consequentialist libertarianism, since ethical consequentialism/utilitarianism seems to be anathema to most libertarians, especially people connected to the Mises institute (since Rothbard is their real hero on this matter, not Mises himself).

  6. How many libertarians say the primary issues are climate change, inequality, racism, and trans rights and those items. Deist is wrong. Tom has been harping on social justice warriors a lot recently alongside the traditional right.

  7. Universalism under Government is and will always be destructive to the human mind. But universal truths in morality don't only benefit humans it also enables habitation, education, and determination of individual conquest.

    Statism wants to harness the means of morality, just as it does with the means of production.

    No matter what cultures emerge, the practice of theft should never be condoned.

  8. I think without the NAP and Rothbard's "ideal" of a libertarian society, the libertarian movement today wouldn't even be half of what it is today. In my opinion, the ideal / universal principles, even if many people don't (hopefully yet) support them, serve as the great lighthouse on the sea of political directions, and are therefore extremely valuable. Maybe we can also get forward from time to time by looking at the compass and not at the lighthouse, but if we ignore the lighthouse we're gonna crash. For example, the only reason why Jeff can criticize Gary Johnson, is precisely because he has the ideal in the back of his head. Maybe the argument "why don't you just do it in California" can work for progressives as a short term valve for their ambitions, but "rebranding" libertarianism to "you can implement state power, as long as it's not here", I'm not so sure…

  9. Jeff Deist is right about appealing to all sides and it's probably the easiest time to change minds. I'm part of a business that is building a community that helps people get out of debt, save money, and avoid paying too much taxes. Meanwhile they are bettering their life they are learning about Austrian Economics, liberty, and evils of the Federal Reserve and fiat currency.

    Message me if you want to be about this and change your community!

  10. The producer/taxpayers have been enslaved by the tax eaters.  At this point producer/taxpayers are probably out numbered by the tax eaters.  Masters usually don't willing set their slaves free; our masters, the tax eaters, are smart enough to see how a secessionist movement will affect them.  They won't let us go without a bloody fight.

  11. The "agree to disagree" thing is not a new idea for Libertarians. It's all we've ever wanted.
    But it is not a path to coexisting with Progressives.
    It is exactly what Globalist Progressives have always been against.

  12. I think it'd be great if states like California and Texas would follow through with their session threats. I'd probably move to Texas; at the very least I'd be happy to be rid of the anchor of the left coast. I live in Florida and I honestly think the people of this state would all be much happier if the stat split into 3 separate states.

  13. At about 32:00 y'all talk about decentralization; or not needing to move together thanks to the internet. What about decentralization of citizenship. Like, choosing your level of rights and responsibilities to a state or federal government?

  14. I disagree that racism and sexism are not problems worth worrying about. Progressives are very wrong in their analysis of those issues, but to respond by just saying "progressives care about those issues; therefore they aren't important" is folly. When you sweep those issues under the rug, you only ensure that progressive voices are the only ones present in those discussions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*