More Evidence Honesty Is the Best Policy

By on June 7, 2011 in Featured
  • Share on Tumblr

Writes Tom Woods: Below is the speech I gave at Nullify Now! Los Angeles.  At 20:03 I talk about how the various left-wing attacks on me over the years actually helped me conquer important character flaws, and persuaded me to treat my opponents more respectfully.  I then thank people for having stuck by me through all this.  My voice actually cracks [!] at the end of this section. Starting around 33:00 I explain why I feel as I do about the federal government.  And that includes foreign policy, a subject about which not everyone in that room agreed with me.  But I simply explained myself forthrightly, and people seem to have respected my position.

Even though I was exhausted and feeling under the weather, this may have been one of my best appearances ever.  Thanks to the organizers and attendees for making it possible.

About Tenth Amendment

View all posts by Tenth Amendment →

Enjoyed This Post?

We cannot succeed without your help, as we will never accept government grants or handouts. Please help us by investing in the Constitution and freedom today!

Enjoyed This Post?
42 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Rick Armin
Rick Armin

Regarding left vs. right. Years ago, and probably still today, there were two groups that held monthly meetings in Philadelphia. All of the "left" wing group coordinators, chapter leaders, and paid activists reported their monthly activities to the Alpha Group. Their "right" wing counterparts reported their monthly activities to the Omega Group. Each chairman had an assigned territory and would move from city to city within that territory to hold the meetings. Both were organized and operated nearly identically. This, coupled with the choice of names, the beginning and the end of the Greek alphabet and the biblical connotations, "I am the Alpha and the Omega," led us to believe that all were controlled by the top, those who have been working for at least a century to bring down our economy, our Constitution, and our national sovereignty. The name choice was a boasting to initiates that they controlled the "left," the "right" and everything in between.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Self-interest is a right that can't be denied to anyone without denying some aspect of their freedom. The self-interest to do do drugs, eat fatening foods, and the self-interest to pursue wealth all requires an action and the only way you can deny self-interest is to deny the actions that that self-interest motivates you to do. What is the point of being interested in something if you are not allowed to take action to pursue that interest? How can you be happy if the thing that will make you happy is denied to you?

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

That's a nice, Lockean statement which means little in real life. My self-interest says I don't want to pay a single dime in tax anywhere at any time. Want to wish me good luck with that?

We are all interested in doing certain things prohibited by law. This libertarian notion that the only laws that should be permitted are those that prohibit an invasion against someone else's rights is.... a joke.

There is not a single libertarian out there who can adequately defend such a general statement when you start delving into details. If I want to smoke a cigarette in public, there is no doubt I am invading another's right to enjoy the same location. If I want to protest at the Jefferson memorial, there is no doubt I am invading another's enjoyment of it.

Libertarianism is a nice, but shallow, concept. It is as bad as any other theory. Instead of thinking there is such a thing as a theory that works in perfect harmony with the multitude of competing interests out there, it would be more realistic to just know that life defies such a rudimentary, categorical approach. Most people would do well to outgrow that kind of thinking by the time they reach, say.... age 30.

The fact is that governments can tax for anything the people allow it to tax. The government can take away any rights the people allow them to take. The notion that these rights exist independently is pure b.s. You can claim all the rights you want, and you can sneak and hope you don't get caught. If you want to obey the laws, then whatever so-called rights you think you have, despite those laws, are mere fantasies. If you can't exercise the right, it's the same as having no right at all.

Libertarians and Lockeans are so caught up in fantasy, but there is a real world out there.

Aside from all that, I was suggesting in my previous post that up-coming generations need to be taught (propagandized, if you prefer) in school and by their peers that greed is not good, and it does not promote a better world for everyone. In fact, it is harmful when practiced at the levels we see today by corporate America.

That's why we are where we are, and that's why conservatives are taking on traditional liberal views of anti-government and a skeptical patriotism. This was almost unheard of in the conservative crowd of the 1980's when Ollie North was a hero for covering up illegal weapons dealings with Iran.

The funny thing is conservatives are taking on, a little more, point by point, liberal ideals, but they simply can't acknowledge it among themselves and admit it. Instead, they are trying to re-define what "conservative" actually means. You can see this occur all over the place in Tom Woods' speeches. "No more blind patriotism and love of the powers that be." Such skepticism is what traditional liberals do, if anything. Conservatives traditionally fit into the Archie Bunker mold, but without the comedic illiteracy.

This Tenth Amendment movement has "liberal" painted all over it. It's just that self-proclaimed conservatives are drawn to the cause and do not allow themselves to believe that their cause is a liberal one. It is self-denial. But that's okay, though. Whatever it takes, The ends might justify the means. If a bunch of conservatives win this liberal cause, that's all the better.

The only thing they need to do is take the next step and realize that welfare programs, as abused and wasteful as they can be and are, are the backbone of what makes this country maintain its almost "lily-white" backdrop with an appearance of opulence when compared to third-world countries. Take away all the safety nets, and you'll see sick people spreading disease in the streets and all sorts of muck, like you see in India and Africa.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I find that liberals are anything but liberals in the arguments that they make such rights are grants from governments which is pretty authoritarian since it implies that governments can grant or deny any rights they want. Once you place governments in that position it assumes that the citizenary has no right to complain about the rights denied to them. A person who has no natural desire to freedom over their own actions shouldn't have the desire to complain when such desires are denied to the public.

Perhaps liberals want to grant rights to people but then you have to decide who get what rights and explain why some people get some rights and others do not. Intenernal biases will deny rights to people such as denying people the right to vote because they are black. Now if rights are only granted by the government then the rights denied such as the right to vote the people have no right to complain when those rights are taken away.

What the modern liberal movement has adopted is authoritarianism since the state it sets the state as the source of all things. It is the source of our rights, it is the source of our security, and it is the source of our economic welfare. Government is at the center of the universe to all liberals just like sun was for the catholic church ages ago.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Its pretty obvious that free-trade eliminated such estates by definition since laws barring people from engaging in trade is the opposite of free-trade. Eliminating those laws should allow people to trade freely with each other.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I'm assuming that if they had some kind of inclination to do something they could do it such as speak as they wish without anyone saying that they couldn't otherwise. I'm trying to figure out how they could form a government which requires the power to write which assumes the power to speak and communicate if they had no ability, as you seem to think, to do so. They could not speak freely so how did they find the will to communicate enough with each other that they could form a government?

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

And who are the biggest defendents of government regulation or laws that restrain free-trade? That seems to be coming from the left the last time I checked so it makes me wonder why does the left so interested in protecting the wealthy business elite?

Unregulated free-trade society as in the one that existed a long time in this country before the progressive socialist era came along. That is what a lot of advocates of free-trade argued for. Don't tell me that that never existed in American history when the commerce clause was always interpreted to mean that it could not regulate commercial activity among private individuals.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

There you go again with theory. Can you identify a single, free-trade society? There never, ever, has been one. People with wealth have always lobbied and passed laws that act as restraints on free trade. So, when they do that, what does that make them? Use your favorite labels, like "thieves," "corrupt," or whatever.

So, when people acquire their holdings through such improper means, why should society consider their holdings as venerated articles that deserve to remain with the culprits, despite how they acquired them?

Welcome to reality! It's not so easy to lump it into a theory.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

How does that say they DID have them? It's like saying that they have a pot of gold that they can't see, touch, smell or feel.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I'm not into wealth redistribution or at least not forced wealth redistribution so I don't see it as a problem but having laws that forbid property from being sold to anyone other than a certain family definately does concentrate wealth unfairly in the hands of a few politically connected families. Free-trade eliminates that since individuals can buy anything any other individual wants to sell. There has always been more wealth distribution in free-trade societies than societies that ban free-trade. Just look at the extreme of communism or feudal societies.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

How does that say that they didn't have them? It is like saying that they don't have bacteria in there stomach because they never saw them.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

I bet you will find that the perceived evil was in the concentration of land (wealth) in the hands of a few - irrespective of what caused it. I mean, really, who cares what causes severe disparity? It's the severe disparity that is the problem - not how it arose.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

I bet if you encountered a people living in this original state of nature and told them, "you have rights," they would look at you with puzzlement - not knowing what you meant by "rights." Think about it. "Rights" is a concept that is meaningless in the absence of a relation to government or force.

So, if "rights" is not even a concept in a natural state, then, it arises only by virtue of an unnatural one.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I bet if you look further he was talking about *perigany (not spelled right) laws that stated that land belonged to such and such family for several generations. It couldn't be transferred to anyone which basically didn't allow it to fall in the hands of other people who wanted to buy it. Can you imagine how unfair that is when mass farmlands belonged to families and other people could never get their hands on it? I bet that is what he was talking about because Jefferson complained bitterly about those laws as well.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

I suppose you can choose a different source than the original state of nature but that is your choice. Imagine what would happen if the buffet you wanted to eat at was taken away from you and you were forced to eat at a different buffet against your will. They would say that you still have your lunch but it isn't your choice and who said these people had the right to determine where you eat to begin with.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Does Paine's claim of a "natural right" of all men to have an indirect claim on the property of others conflict in any way with any other natural law you can think of? I bet it does..... like..... stealing. By definition, natural laws are so pure and so perfect, they are not capable of internal conflict and inconsistency.

So, when you read about people pitching conflicting claims of what natural law is, the one thing you can know for sure is that it is..... just b.s. It is superstition. They are basically saying, "You have to trust me. The invisible man is really powerful, and this is what he shared secretly with me." What kind of moron falls for that?

Here, you have people who own property, and they've worked for it, and now this guy, Paine, comes along, and he says, "all these other people have a claim to your property, and they're going to set up a system and force you to honor their claim."

Is Paine fitting of the conservative mold?

Finally, just because his "Natural Law" analysis is b.s. and smoke and mirrors, does that make his conclusion wrong? Now, THAT is the important question, and the rest is all sideline junk of no importance.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

No, this thought experiment does not reflect reality. The flaw in your assumption is this: It assumes that the source of rights must always be from one place, and the one place that is the source is always the same and cannot vary. It also assumes that in the absence of external control, rights must still exist. The concept of rights has no significance in a society where members do not govern.

That was the point I made about being able to see the assumptions that lie behind these theories.

It is possible that:

(1) for a group whose individual members never govern others,

(a) rights do not exist because the concept is purely unnecessary; or

(b) if rights do exist in in such circumstances, the source could be the individual; and

(2) for a group which has members that govern, the source of rights is at the governing level.

Why can't the source change? We know the sources of many other things change - like the next source of my lunch. Why assume rights is even a fixed concept and exists always? Here's a concept: "zigjabberwalking." This is the propensity of people to walk by taking two steps with one foot, for every step with the other.

See? It means nothing. It doesn't exist to you. You have no reason to consider it. It is unimportant in your world. Likewise, the concept of rights only arises when people are under the influence of government.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

In the latter, equality is impossible; for to distribute it equally it would be necessary that all should have contributed in the same proportion, which can never be the case; and this being the case, every individual would hold on to his own property, as his right share. Equality of natural property is the subject of this little essay. Every individual in the world is born therein with legitimate claims on a certain kind of property, or its equivalent.

When he talks about the natural property of man he is saying rights, freedom, person which everyone got an equal share and is entitled to it. The other property, the creation of man, or invention is not distributed equally.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Here is a thought experiment for you. Imagine a new continent that appears out of nowhere and people go to live on it. Where do they get their rights if there is no government on that continent? Under the theory of state-given rights these people should have no freedom whatsoever. That can't be so so they must have some freedom that exist in the natural state.

Philosopherking
Philosopherking

Agrarians justice...I doubt you actually read the entire thing and just saw the title which resonated with the socialist spirit. Dig a tad deeper into that and you would see that he was not saying everything should be given away.

Here is a thought experiment for you. When a new land mass pops us and people move onto it to live how do they have any freedom before a government is established? Do they wander around freedomless without any power of their own? Under the authority of state-given rights these people should have no freedom whatsoever since no government exist.

Jeff Matthews
Jeff Matthews

Talking about the "source" of rights is useless. You have only what rights you are allowed to have, or those which you can assert by force (whether individual or collective force).

"Liberal" and "Conservative" mean almost nothing in discourse such as this. Who fits the label you want to put on them? (I know; I use labels, too).

Take Thomas Paine. Compare his work, "Common Sense," to his other work, "Agrarian Justice." I know you know about "Common Sense," but maybe not about "Agrarian Justice." Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agrarian_Justice

After you compare, then tell me, "Was Paine a conservative or a liberal?"

You keep going back to "Natural Law" analysis, which is just as bogus as the people who fight causes under the claims, "God is on their side and will see them to victory."

Some positive changes come civilly, and others do not. The same goes with negative changes.

The one, indisputable given is that people will believe what they want to believe, and every theory they use which tries to speak in absolute, universal laws and imperatives is a pile of useless dung. Economic theory is crap. Political theory is crap. Legal theory is crap.

It has some good points to it in terms of training people to use a certain logic, but until you can see the ridiculous assumptions on which those theories are based, you (not you, personally) will remain completely in the dark.

Example: How many politicians on the right these days still pitch the rhetoric that we have to cut government to save the economy? A lot of them are doing that. But what happens when you cut government? The first thing that happens is a lot of people get pink slips and join the ranks of the unemployed. If you unemploy a lot of people quickly, what do you think the economy would look like compared to the way it is now?

Money spent on government functions does not go into a vacuum. It continues to cycle through the economy, whether it's welfare money that people spend to buy groceries, beer or cell phones - it still is being circulated and keeping people employed.

Your right-wing economists simply will not tell you that, though. They just call it waste, and the people eat it up. On a personal level, it is a moral waste. I grant that. But to suggest we can save the economy by cutting government is nuts.

Then, we have the Mises folks who contend that governmental stimulus and subsidies need to end before the economy collapses. Now, this, I find funny, because out of the other cheek, they tell you that government needs to stay out and let the natural corrections occur according to market forces. Translation: "We need to let the economy collapse before it collapses." Surely, this flaw in the theory is obvious, isn't it?

tionico
tionico

I particularly like the principle of nullification precisely BECAUSE it is a both-sides-of-the-aisle issue. What it does is put the power to trump ANY powergrab of the central government, in ANY direction, and on ANY issue regarding which the Constitution does not assign authority to the federal government. What desparately needs to happen in our time and nation is a return to the LIMITED central power the Framers had in view... preferably for the same reasons they kept it in view, and codified it into the written law of our land. I ahve searched far and wide, and find NO authority within the Constitution with respect to the Federal Government that calls for Washington DC to be regulating or mddling in healthcare, what we can/cannot put into our bodies, standing armies, national police forces, ANY infringement of arms, banking, ANY meddling with private enterprise, anything that restricts, reduces, slows, or complicates ANY form of commerce between the states, air quality, space, industrial development, scientific research, mining, energy policy or distribution, education, finance, loan guarantee, railroads, surrendiering ANY level of our own sovereignty to foreign or external bodies such as NATO, UN, OAS, CFR, World Bank, IMF, no authority for foreign aid, and the ONLY way we are to be involved in any military conflicts outside our borders is by the express approval of the Congress. interest rates, any agricultural products, methods, productiuon volumes.........

So, George might not like the Feds telling him he can't ingest marijuana for his cancer. Pete mightn't like that the feds want to regulate the fact he turns his sweet corn into whiskey. Bill might think the feds oughtn't let the food industry use HFCS in nearly everything we eat, while Aunt Sally is miffed her tax dollars are used to pay farmers to grow corn to be used to ferment into ethanol to ruin the fuel she is forced to put into her car.... which has a passenger side airbag she cannot disable when her year old niece is put there in her federally mandated and inspected kid car seat.... they ALL are upset with the feds making rules, regulations, laws, taxes, payments, that affect ALL of us, and without due process of the law, and, for the most part, outside the written law we all agreed to, in our forefathers, when this nation was founded. Nullification speaks to ALL of these things.....

Montana's Firearms Freedom Act, Texas' TSA Tyranny law, Arizona's immigration enforcement laws, the24 states that refuse to participate in the Federal Real ID act, California's Medical Marijuana laws (same ones in Montana and Washington, but both states freely allow the feds to, illegally, enforce federal "controlled substance" laws... but whence cometh the federal authority to regulate a weed? Marijuana OR tobacco.. or golden seal, sassafrass, ginseng, milk, eggs, honey, etc etc....
If the feds won't control themselves, wel, we were given a law that can, and should be used to rein them in. Our founders were wise enough to know the corrupt hearts of men, precisely the men who would be in pisitions of high office. They gave us a means of keeping them within bounds, whether THEY like it or not. We can, we should, we MUST, use it to keep the fire within the fireplace, else it will burn the entire house down.

Mike in MI
Mike in MI

Rady, I agree with you that the Left and Right labels are confusing, and agree with Reagan, that it's really about Up, towards freedom, and Down, towards totalitarianism. This is the one and only conflict in which we are engaged. To describe it in terms of Republican vs Democrat, Haves vs Have-nots, Compassionate vs Non-Compassionate, is to be confused.

There are only two political systems that have been discovered, thought out and articulated on our planet ever, only two. One has origins in the Franco-Germanic school of political thought, so named for the predominant influence of many French and German political thinkers. Think of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto as emblematic of that thinking, and in short it says, that man is in need of perfecting, and "we" (the rulers) know how to do it, if we can just find a enough wise ruler, who can then replace God. It has no basis in real experience. The bloodbath known as the French Revolution was French political theory put into practice. The USSR, Third Reich Germany, Red China are some examples. This is the source of class warfare, group rights and political correctness, to name a few.

The other is Anglo-American in origins, is based on inalienable rights from a Divine Creator, equality, the rule of law, and based on experience, and designed for imperfect humans. From this thinking came the United States of America.

Freedom and responsibility is hard. and the promise of down, or bottom, or socialism, communism, Marxism is attractive and intoxicating, until people find later that living under a really wise ruler like Lenin, Stalin or Hitler is not as much fun as it's cracked up to be. Tom Woods is ringing the alarm and giving us some bullets to use, if we wake up in time.

More government will kill us, less government will save us.

chmst1999
chmst1999

Rady, please read the book Nullification. I have presented public lectures on a variety of liberty subjects, and the democrats in the audience found as much to agree with in Nullification as the Republicans. The only differences lie in where they think nullification should occur. For those on the left, medical marijuana states and sanctuary cities are actively nullifying federal laws. For those on the right, life-begins-at-conception states and wolf delisting states are actively nullifying federal laws. Many of us are frustrated with both sides because they don't see the irony, so I'll apologize for that. However, Dr. Woods' statement about liberals not standing up is an important one right now. When Bush was threatening to invade Iran, Biden and Obama both said it was unconstitutional to do so without congressional authority. Biden even said he'd start the impeachment process if Bush did so. Strangely, when Obama invaded Libya without authorization, Biden and Congress were silent. It is either a principle that you espouse, and therefore follow, or it is partisan politics. Constitutionalists are begging for the Left to follow their principles. As you can see, we didn't expect the Republicans to do so because their principles are now all-war at all-times.

hybridrogue1
hybridrogue1

The Left/Right divide is just such a stench--but a psychological one. It is the result of utter draconian Machiavellian realpolitik boosted by modern Bernaysian public relations. This has created a clinically pathological society that reboots itself in a continuous cycle of charged input and response.
Since modern social engineering is based on playing human emotions, it takes some time and work to get around such programming.

Even explaining it calmly and rationally will "enrage" some folks, who might be reacting to being told they have been brainwashed. So one has to be delicate when speaking to the issue.

Willy Whitten

hybridrogue1
hybridrogue1

Hi Tom,

I have followed the back and forth comments between Rady and yourself. Thought I'd put my two cents in...

I think I see the point that Rady is making, so will try to reinforce it some here.

What she is speaking to is the divide and conquer techniques of modern social engineering based on the Hegelian Dialectic. Since the current paradigm is more or less based on this technique it has become almost invisible--like a constant sound will disappear from ones consciousness if it pervades your environment.

As unbelievable as it may seem, there was/is a community in Sulfur, Louisiana that didn't notice the stench of the sulfur pit there. Just going over the bridge on the highway would make most travelers passing through gag. You could smell it for ten miles coming and going.

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

I think the greatest contribution from Tom is that he ADMITS he came from the neo-con mold, but after his eyes opened on the path to liberty, that he certainly can agree with people on the left on major issues like war and peace. He even wrote a book with a former opponent!

While I would never expect right and left to agree on everything, I think it IS important for us to stop worrying about standing for one team or the other - and instead, standing for what is right, and nullification is the right method to resist federal tyranny. I hope THAT is the message that Woods was able to deliver.....

That sure is our message here at TAC.

christopher
christopher

I am sitting here trying to figure out why my previous reply was deleted despite the fact that it was, in my opinion, an honest question that contained no uncharitable or rancorous remarks, was not off topic, nor did it contain any foul lanquage. (With regards to grammatical errors or misspelled words, I plead guilty.) Admittedly, Although I claim an above average vocabulary, I do not have a formal education and, with regards to political history and philosophy, I have only what could be considered an "informed ignorance". Perhaps it showed in my comment making it unworthy of space on this site?

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

Our system sometimes auto-deletes things incorrectly. It is set to deal with thousands of spammers every day. so it make errors. you should email info@tenthamendmentcenter.com with the content of your comment to see if we can dig it up in the archives and make it live agai.

irondutch
irondutch

Question: Who would be easier to convert? The misguided, confused, rank and file, and right wing neo-con that desires small government in theory but does not desire it in practice or the leftist who does not desire it in neither theory nor practice? Doesn't the drive toward social, economic and cultural hegemony, through a centralized leveler of scores, come primarily from the left? Isn't that, in fact, what is means to be a leftist? You may be opposed to some things the centralized state may be presently doing, like waging unjust & unnecessary war, spying on people, or keeping you from drinking raw milk, but you still believe in the centralized state. The rightful remedy, of course, being voting in your socialists and kicking out the other guys fascists.(Are not both nationalists of a sort?) I don't know , I'm just asking.

Rady
Rady

I couldn't wait to learn about this idea "nullification" and looked forward to hearing Dr Woods speak, after reading about his educational background. Then, I felt like I got kicked in the stomach. A full one-third of the speech is dedicated to bashing the Left.

What does the Left-Right paradigm have to do with nullification? How does bashing the Left help build a movement to restore personal sovereignty against a bloated federal government?

It doesn't and it can't.

The 200-yr-old French label of Left or Right does not apply today to anyone. We are much more sophisticated because the world is much more sophisticated.

* A full 95% of the public opposed the bankster bailouts -- it was not a Left vs. Right issue; it was a Top vs. Bottom issue -- as most are.

* A full 85% of the public wants genetically modified foods labeled -- it's not a Left vs Right issue.

* And i don't know anyone who believes in never-ending war. It's not a Left vs Right issue.

These divide-and-conquer tactics are mere psyops. The rulers just love the kind of rhetoric that Dr Woods spewed -- keep the masses fighting with each other instead of recognizing the battle is top vs bottom, not left vs right.

I have followed your work for about a year and have often posted 10th Amendment pieces to my blogs. I sure hope the 10th Amendment Center is not the voice of controlled opposition as Dr Woods appears to be.

Respectfully,

Rady Ananda
Food Freedom: http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/
COTO Report: http://coto2.wordpress.com/
Follow Me: http://twitter.com/geobear

Lyle
Lyle

Rady - you will remain mired in the Slough of Despond with almost any dichotomy; left vs right, conservative vs liberal, capitalist vs communist, top vs bottom, right vs wrong. The paradigm is simply too simplistic. The arguments developed as two premises lend themselves to "a lesser of two evils" decision with results predictable as flipping a two headed coin. Your best analogy is psyops.

Mike Grubbs
Mike Grubbs

Thank you Rady. I agree with your 'top vs. bottom' expression, but whether we refer to our ongoing predicament in that venacular, or left vs. right, it always goes back to 'controlling vs. subserviant', the elite vs. the common, those who think they know what's best for you and me vs. the herded sheep who haven't a clue, those who have the means to impose their will, vs. you and me, the powerless slaves.
And, yes, the 'divide and conquer' tactic is ongoing, especially when it comes to rights.
We have inalienable rights and don't need to argue with one another about who has what right, and how much of it, and who shouldn't because... May the Constitution and voice of the people reign.
Mike Grubbs

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

Rady - here is another example - a comment left on Tom's Facebook wall JUST this morning:

"At Nullify Now! Cincinnati, I had the opportunity to thank Woods for convincing me my notions on foreign policy, guided by the state propagandists, were facile and lacked intellectual honesty. Thanks to his great work, and that of others, I am eternally grateful I put down National Review and picked up Rothbard. This speech was absolutely brilliant."

I believe Tom is converting people to far more sane positions. He may not have any interest or knowledge of food and health issues, but that is where speakers like Robert Scott Bell, who spoke for us in Orlando, Phoenix and Austin, and Mike Adams, who spoke in Austin, come in.

Rady
Rady

Good -- I'm glad to learn that Woods can effectively convert folks to far more sane positions.

And this can be done without insulting the Left -- that's what I'm saying.

Rady
Rady

thanks, Michael. And that FB comment about food touches on the primal chord --

I believe where most of us -- and I mean over 75% of the public -- agree is on the issue of food freedom.

The work TAC is doing to bolster food sovereignty can draw all of us in, from hippies to suburbanites to urbanites, from poor to middle class alike, of whatever political stripe.

What power there is in recognizing a common bond and forging an alliance! This is especially needed now, when we desperately need to unite against corpo-gov's intrusion into every facet of our lives.

Thanks for discussing this with me... Keep up the great work TAC is doing.-

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

Ahh, I understand where you are coming from here, then. You like the concepts of bridging the divide, but don't like the left right bashing?

Personally, I like bashing left AND right.

Either way, thanks for your feedback. I've followed your website for some time now and thank you for your great work!

MichaelBoldin
MichaelBoldin

hi Rady - See my comment below here - I thought Tom was doing a GREAT job bridging the divide and breaking down walls between left and right. I mean, here is a former neo con talking about his path from pro-war to anti war.

but after the event, I had friends from both left AND right come up to me and say things like:

"Ok, well, I expected to disagree with everything, but I can find 30% I'm in with"

"Wow, this really opened my eyes"

And there were a number of others who felt that way. I guess it's all perspective, though....

Rady
Rady

As frightening as it may be to realize that most of what you were taught is false, that realization must precede anyone speaking of revolutionary ideas.

Nullification is a revolutionary idea in today's society, as "moderate" as it may have been to our nation's founders. When living under fascism, as we do, anything that seriously threatens the powers-that-be is extremism, as Dr Woods correctly pointed out.

I can appreciate he's come a long way -- so have most of us who today resist the evil empire. All of us were propagandized; all of us have had to lay down the falsities that no longer serve the conversation we need to have with each other.

Far from being the "First Great Speech of the YouTube Age," Dr Woods is still trapped in the very ideas that keep the masses divided.

His speech is a mirror reflection of the kind of stuff I see at AlterNet which daily bashes the Right.

Aren't you tired of it? Don't you yearn for clarity from today's intelligentsia? Can you see how destructive the Left-Right paradigm is?

A great speech would be one that unites, not divides, us. A great speech would draw in both me and my conservative friends, not offend one or the other of us.

The End is Far
The End is Far

Damn if I couldn't have delivered that same speech, without having written the book of course. Tom Woods is speaking/channelling the thoughts of millions of Americans. I feel just as passionate about removing the bridle that the various levels of Government have placed upon all with the excuse that there are many who must be restrained.

The good news is that we're finding each other!

Michael Smeltzer
Michael Smeltzer

Tom Woods offers excellent visions of nullification within the political arena. While I'm not privy to how deep Tom's ideas go. I'd like to add here the concept of nullification can also be applied within the legal arena. Concepts using JURY NULLIFICATION are legal valid control mechanisms, groups of citizens can and should use to dispatch and eliminate unconstitutional or overreaching laws, making those laws null and void through the actions of juries in criminal trials.
Prime example would be a jury trial where the government has arrested citizens for possession of marijuana. The government can't and never has proved any compelling interest in "maintaining marijuana as a controlled substance". You as a citizen can not only enter a "not guilty verdict" but can and should go further and "nullify the laws used to effect the arrest in the first place".
Now most lawyers will not inform neither client nor jurors of their options of using nullification.
But use it you must to reign in run away government.... its your right to do so.