LAST CHANCE OF THE YEAR!!! Ask the Libertarian: click here to get your question on the show…

Periodically, I am going to do a rapid fire Q&A “Ask the Libertarian,” like the segment I did in the last half hour of my August 1, 2015 show…I will collect questions and every time I have ten, I’ll do another segment like that one. To submit a question, write it in the comment box at the bottom of this post or email me through the email tab above. I look forward to hearing from you!


  1. JCF says:

    Regardless of what you think about Donald Trump being a Clinton plant, it’s obvious to me that he’s not a political outsider by any means. His whole life, he’s been a New York liberal elitist who rubs shoulders with right wing populist anathema like the Clintons, Michael Bloomberg, Rudy Giuliani (Trump was in fact featured in a cross dressing, role playing skit with Giulani in 2000), etc. Not only that, but Trump is seemingly given special treatment from the mainstream media. Not only do they give him buckets of attention, but he’s allowed to conduct interview via telephone or in the Trump Tower on his own home turf, whereas the media typically will only accept interviews via satellite up-link or in their own studios. Trump works in Midtown Manhattan just blocks away from every major media establishment. The media is clearly not trying to destroy him, as the media knows very well that there is an extremely strong positive correlation between coverage in the media and polling numbers regardless of the type of coverage it is, leaving an exception for scandals.

    I’m not sure Trump is a Clinton plant, but I’m highly suspicious that he’s being bolstered by the media as a means of election manipulation perhaps within the Republican party itself. Perhaps he’s being intentionally surged so that when he inevitably drops out (which is a precedent that’s already been set), his votes will coalesce with some establishment republican.


    1. hugh says:

      I fully share your suspicion! I am very concerned we are getting set up for the ‘Big Con’. But at this point, I’m totally supporting Trump due to his straight forward comments, focus on immigration and political correctness, and willingness to work with Putin. He’s not a young man. He’s accumulated enough wealth and heavens knows our nation is devolving at rapid speed and the U.S. is becoming a major terrorist nation (taking down nation after nation, aiding ISIS, etc.) in my opion. Perhaps he does see that and wants to establish a positive legacy as sincerely trying to save the nation and reset our course. He also might be real pissed about the set up in the FauxNews debate. It’s hard for me to think he was aware of that and he is a fighter. Time will tell, JCF, but you make excellent observations!

      1. Jeff says:

        The media has used their coverage of Trump to defame him, to lie about him. Hardly to give him ‘attention’. Trump is brilliant. Whether or not, as President, he can effect his positions on US policy, he certainly will have ‘the people’ behind him.

    2. Monica Perez ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

      I’m inclined to agree with you – I don’t really think he’s a Clinton plant. If Fox or the GOP didn’t like him, they would ignore him like they did Ron Paul. You’re 100% right about that.

      1. goksrm says:

        After watching the Perloff video and reading your comment about Trump being a plant, I have one thought and one question. Mind you, I can’t give an adequate opinion because it’s all too convoluted for me to figure out.
        Thought: Is Trump here as a failsafe only to provide a late stakes change if needed. That is; as of today I think the democratic ticket will be Biden/Warren. And who better to get them there than a 3rd party. And who will be the nominee for the GOP that would take Trump out of running as a 3rd party? Trump (who I feel could care less about the Presidency), if the nominee, will easily lose to a B/W ticket. The only electable GOP thus far that doesn’t appear to be part of “the” establishment is Carson and possibly Fiorini with a possible questionmark on both?
        Question: With regard to the Perloff video which I found very compelling, let me pose a hypothetical or play devils advocate here. Is the establishment of the CFR a necessary reality to counter a much greater threat to humanity making collectivism the only way to counter? Another words, is the only means to counter collectivism collectivism? Or corporate/state vs. state?

  2. Bradrad says:

    I guess my question would be: what is a nation? How would one really define one? Who benefits from these nebulous creations? Are they some sort of collective property? How does one define a collective property? Is collective ownership just a lie, to mask the identity of the actual owners? Do borders actually protect us, or do they protect rulers? How does Lupe’ crossing over into texas to pick watermelons affect me in Georgia? I don’t own anything out there. Do I magically have some right to stop Farmer Jones from hiring Lupe’ and his friends to pick watermelons? Isn’t it true that militarized borders are the hallmark of police states historically? Who is the property owner? Who is the one who benefits from a decrease in liberty?

    1. hugh says:

      Bradrad, since nations are ‘nebulous creations’, in your opinion, had I the authority (which I don’t), I would deport you. I only want patriotic Americans living on U.S. soil. Sorry to be so harsh and direct (not really), but I want a communty of Americans in this nation (which you obviously don’t believe in!) to help make it strong and viable. Oh, and since some of the unchecked “Lupe’s” are dangerous, I would hope they rape and/or kill you and yours and not me and mine, but only IF they commit those horrible acts! I want to emphasize I am not wishing that outcome. That is a reasonable wish, given your view, is it not?

      1. Bradrad says:

        Hugh, unlike you, I would not deport you for disagreeing with me. I would allow you freedom. I would not, like you, expel people who were not patriotic enough. I would not imagine that a Mexican is any more likely to rape or kill than a white or black person is, like you do. Your premise is pure bigotry. What part of your proposal would increase anyone’s freedom? You say that you don’t wish such things, but they are your first thoughts. To use force, to purify your “nation.” There was another man that sought to purify his nation by force, to cleanse his “nation” of unpatriotic persons. He spoke german. Perhaps you are a fan? Do you realize that your attitude towards Mexicans is identical to his? Is your solution the same as well?

          1. Bradrad says:

            How much do you value freedom, Hugh? I noticed upon second reading of your “deport the unpatriotic” speech that you mentioned that you didn’t have power over me. If this truly was “your country,” wouldn’t you be getting your way more often? My Daddy used to say that the boss is the one who gets his way. You find out who is actually getting their way, Hugh, and I will show you the OWNER of this farm you call a nation. In addition, If you show me the people that calmly accept the forcible seizure of their labors, and the restriction of their activities in the name of patriotism, and I will show you the livestock on this farm.

    1. hugh says:

      You posted a video clip, but without comment on your part. Two college professors debated. Do you take one side or the other or neither? I did watch the clip. And I have very strong opinions re your clip. I need to cool off a bit now after watching it!

      1. Bradrad says:

        maybe you shouldn’t allow your emotions to cloud your thinking. When anger does your thinking, logic takes a back seat.

        1. hugh says:

          I did have a direct question for you which you chose to ignore. Oh well, I won’t waste my time with you anymore.

          1. Bradrad says:

            You mean when you aren’t disqualifying me for citizenship based upon my patriotism? You know very well that I believe in freedom for all, even Mexicans.

  3. hugh says:

    This question was posed earlier, and I do think it’s a very important topic. I have slightly broadened my question this week.

    I understand not all libertarians hold the same position on ‘immigration’ issues. In fact some camps hold that the typical libertarian approach can not work in a multicultural environment. And this same camp recognizes that the government is using open borders, and thus using libertarians, as a weapon against the healthy society to destabilize the society. And yet other camps do not allow for open borders, regardless of the nature of the new comer. It would be interesting to hear Monica address the different camps of libertarians re the issue of immigration.

  4. Nick Cooper says:

    Here’s a fun one to feed to your audience….

    Weapons in an anarcho-capitalist society: in a stateless world without legislation limiting/outright prohibiting ownership of certain types of armaments (meaning that we’re going bigger than just gun control here), could an individual could legally own a nuclear weapon? How would a stateless society prevent arms proliferation (nuclear and otherwise) on an individual basis (versus a national basis like we saw between the USA and USSR during the Cold War)?

Leave a Comment