25 votes

John Stossel talks with Katherine Mangu-Ward about Bitcoin

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I can't forgive her or stand her or REASON mag

Kathryn has AND REASON Mag has to do a big big apology to the R3VOLution....

JOHN STOSSEL ought to interview Liz Trotta, who stuck up for Ron Paul, and not that Magu Ward creature.

REASON MAG, who loved "breaking" the "ron paul is a racist" newstory in 2008 just 2 weeks before the New Hampshire Primary, is especially evil. They did not use "reason" or journalism for that matter, rather, they just copied the accusations of the guardians of liberal political correctness over at THE NEW REPUBLIC. Reason passed on the charges without defense, and why is that? Because Reason Mag and CATO for that matter have all caved to the Political Correctness madness that swept the nation in the late 80's and 90's.

The Ron Paul Investment-Newsletter was never a PC rag, rather, it was a great hold out. Today, the Daily Paul carries on in its footsteps. We are far from being "politically Correct" as THE NEW REPUBLIC has breathlessly told its liberal readers.... those at the DailyPaul are all "racists", "sexist", "anti-Semites"... because you see, our views are not the liberal world view. These TNR types have so redefined these terms, that these slanderous terms no longer mean anything. To be called a racist, a sexist, an anti-semite by them means nothing. You could be a highly educated, articulate black woman married to a Jewish man and be called all those names, it matters little to them. All that matters is that you heed their liberal beliefs.

So how bad is it that the PC battles of the 80's and 90's have been lost? Its so bad now that the average Non-political joe & jane out there, who just want to be polite, are on a razor edge. They don't know what is racist, or sexist, or anti-semetic anymore, and instead, just wait for the liberal PC police to come and tell them.

When confronted with out of context sentences from the RP Investment Newsletter, the everyday average Joe & Jane recoil, because they "sense" its "wrong". That is how bad it is out there. So bad even, that even REASON Mag is on the PC liberal bandwagon.

REASON MAG, and even Randoids such as Wendy McElroy and her libertarian Feminist newsletter had not the DECENCY to publish TNR's 33 selected sentences from the Ron Paul Investment newsletter in full context and then QUESTION the liberal premise of claims. No, REASON and WENDY Had an ax to grind. Reason Mag and Cato and even Wendy stood on the sidelines of the R3VOLution, but had to stick their foot out. Well, with such friends we don't need enemies.

Sean Hanity JUMPED at the chance to stab Ron Paul. Sean, a master at political demagoguery, had always sounded the alarm AGAINST the "race Card". But when it came to shaming the R3VOLution ("who in their right mind can support such a man how said such horrible things?") and he used the Race Card like a sledge hammer. For 3 hours he ranted "I just don't know how you can defend these horrible and disgusting words. I mean, let me just read you one part of this cause can't get into it all here, he wrote this in 1992: "I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal." and then he also said this, "only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions". Look, I know these things are horrible, but we have to be honest with ourselves here, he said those things. And he said them really not that long ago! I'm sorry but I just don't know how he can defend those comments. I hate to have repeat such vile and hurtful words but let me just give my audience one more and that should be enough for them to realize that Ron Paul is someone we cannot hang our hat with. In another newsletter also in 1992, and I hate to do this, but there it is, he wrote those things, and if he didn't write them, it certainly went out under his name as if he had. Here it is, ""If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be." Look, I like Ron Paul, as I have said many times before to his supporters who call here and tell me that he did not write it, I say to them, I just can't support someone with that kind of hate in their heart, I am sorry."

Bravo for Sean Hanity the master at Political Smearing. He did the Left's job for them. You can take anyone's words out of context and then frame it to look bad. The only way to undue that smear, is to put it all back into context. Here is the whole quote for the first two smears....(THIS IS WHAT REASON MAG SHOULD have done, but did not do--put it all into context)

“Indeed, it is shocking to consider the uniformity of opinion among
blacks in this country. Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5% of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market,individual liberty, and the end of welfare and affirmative action. I know many who fall into this group personally and they deserve credit--not as representatives of a racial group, but as decent people. They are,however, outnumbered. Of black males in Washington, D.C, between the ages of 18 and 35, 42% are charged with a crime or are serving a sentence, reports the National Center on Institutions and Alternatives. The Center also reports that 70% of all black men in Washington are arrested before they reach the age of 35, and 85% are arrested at some point in their lives. Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the "criminal justice system," I think we can safely assume that 95% of the black males
in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal."

Notice the flat out difference? There is no racial hate. There is no racism. Indeed, he defines what he means by sensible political opinions and he spells out the "criminal justice system" as the culprit as to why so many blacks in DC have a criminal record. As you and I know, the Drug Laws and thousands of other laws have made criminals of of us all.

Now lets go to the last quote used by SEAN Hanity and NEVER addressed by the Gary Johnson lovers over at Reason Mag. It was this one:"If you have ever been robbed by a black teenaged male, you know how unbelievably fleet of foot they can be."

What saddens me is that so few today can read that and see that it IS NOT racist. On the flip side it is good news that they don't know what racism really is, but on the bad side, it leaves the PC'rs free to redefine anything. Lets flip that sentence around and ask, is this racist? "If you have ever been chased by a white middle-aged cop, you know unbelievably out of shape they can be." Is that racist? No? Its a generalization. Its a simple generalization, one that you can hear Chris Rock or any comedian of the day making. There is nothing racist to say that teenage black robbers are fast and there is nothing racist to say that middle-age white cops are slow. Its a generalization, and generalizations are quite different than racism. Racism is composed of several things, a derogatory RACIAL generalization, and a call for expelling, expulsion or elimination. Hitler's racism against Jews did exactly that; "Jews are genetically inferior 'cockroaches' that need to be 'exterminated' from society"...or some such remarks are all racists. They make sweeping derogatory RACIAL generalizations and call for elimination/expulsion/extermination. In antebellum south & govt Jim Crow South, racist remarks was standard fare because people did think that blacks where genetically substandard and did use that as an excuse to seek expulsion, separation, or elimination. But lets look again at the Ron Paul newsletter remark about fast black teenage robbers. Is there a genetic claim? No. Its an age related claim, just as it was to say "middle-age white cop". Is there a genetic derogatory claim? No. Since when is being fast, "unbelievably fleet of foot" a bad trait to have? Everyone wants to be fast, as evidenced by Hitler's red face when Jesse Owens won the hundred yard dash at the Olympics. Is there a call for expulsion or elimination or separation? No. But there was a call, since they are robbers, was to be prepared with a gun. And that was what irked the liberals over at The New Republic, gun haters of the first order.

What we SHOULD have gotten from Reason and people like this Kathrine Magu-Ward, a sound defense of Ron Paul and his newsletters, never ever came. And it never will come. And the reason is because Reason and Cato have fallen victim to the PC police over at the TNR and the Southern Poverty Law Center who actively supports the "Gay Agenda and Abortion Agenda" crowds. The fools over at Reason THINK that their acceptance of gay marriage and abortion puts them in good company, but their acceptance came at a very high price: Accept Political Correctness. The Southern Poverty Law Center and the TNR have already made it clear that they think that this site, The Daily Paul, is a "hotbed" of racism, sexism, and anti-semitism. The day will come when REASON and CATO will have to choose again, the R3VOLution or their PC liberal friends. We have already seen that they love Gary Johnson, and we have already seen how they will come whining back here asking for support. And they will do it again. But when they do, know that these Reason Pukes have to cough-up a HUGE apology to RON PAUL and give up the liberal PC ghost.


Yes, please BUY this wonderful libertarian BOOK! We all must know the History of Freedom! Buy it today!

"The System of Liberty: Themes in the History of Classical Liberalism" ...by author George Smith --
Buy it Here: http://www.amazon.com/dp/05211820

Cyril's picture

BUMP for good educational content.

BUMP for good educational content.

Bitcoin needs to be discussed calmly for what it's good for and where there's room for improvement.

"Cyril" pronounced "see real". I code stuff.


"To study and not think is a waste. To think and not study is dangerous." -- Confucius

Reason Magazine?

Not good. They pretend to be a liberty mag. Sorry but I don't think so. Beware of Maya!


Exactly. That rag is for fake


That rag is for fake libertarians.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

Bitcom is not a fait currency

Bitcom is not a fait currency; at worse Bitcom is “script”. Bitcom is backed by something…..the productive labor of the people that use it. Only government can create a fiat currency because government has nothing of value to back a currency. And please don’t tell me the government has all the gold in Fort Knox…….That’s the people’s gold……all the government can produce is debt and legal tender laws. Sound money is a tool to prevent bank note and legal tender inflation through it convertibility with species (gold and silver) but the species could be anything. Gold and silver was chosen by the market place and time for its properties of fungibility (unit of measure), light weight (medium of exchange) and scarcity (it’s store of value). So if Bitcom were to FIX the exchange rates to a STORE OF VALUE (like an ounce of gold) and never break that exchange rate it could drive the dollar out of business…Gresham’s law…...until the government steps in.
Corruption is the intrusion in to the free market through government regulation

You mix up many things

For example, Gresham’s law would drive gold out if bitcom to dollar converstion is allowed. Another "people’s gold" - did your great great grand father have enough gold to store?

Since you brought my family into it

Yeah yes you are right Liberty –First, Gresham law is “bad money drives out good”. But you didn’t disagree with the crux of my statement that Bitcoin was “Script” and could compete with the dollar with a “fixed store of value” without government intrusion. So you don’t really have a point, but let me ask a question. You call yourself “Liberty First”…….Please define……..because you sound as if you favor government money over free market money. Is that the proper role of government? Do we have too much government and if so where would like to roll it back……where in time would you roll it back to…….at what point? My comment was to make the point that government is the enemy of the free market……of Liberty. What was yours?

bitcoins is worth a try

I've purchased around 25 so far in increments. First time they were going for around $13 each, now they're up to around $20.

Anything that takes $$ out of the corrupt banking system, the better in my opinion.

Good video

I hadn't seen this!

She does a pretty good job describing how Bitcoin is a friend to liberty.


That's all bitcoin is, yet another fiat currency. It's really not that different from the USD when you consider that the Fed doesn't print every dollar, but instead creates a large number of them using nothing but a computer. The only difference with bitcoin is that there's no single entity inflating and deflating the money supply.

At the end of the day, bitcoin is only worth as much as what it's backed by - which is precisely nothing. Should the unlikely event occur where the power grid gets interrupted or Internet traffic is restricted, then what good is a bitcoin (or does it simply cease to exist at that point)?

I still don't understand why people refuse to accept or understand that in order for something to be considered money, it must act as 1) a unit of measurement for exchange, 2) a medium of exchange, and 3) a store of value. Bitcoin might satisfy the first two requirements and can act as a currency, but it certainly does not satisfy all three requirements and therefore, is not money. The only thing that has consistently satisfied all three requirements over the past few millennia is gold (and silver to a large extent).

Bitcoin is poised to be the next scam perpetrated on the ignorant public by the same Keynesians that advocate the current fiat systems in place around the world. In fact, bitcoin might be a dream come true for those in power considering they can turn it into a global fiat currency. And then they'll find a way of controlling its use.

You obviously

don't understand very much about Bitcoin.

Please explain

Fine, since you're the expert, please enlighten us. How will bitcoin replace sound money? Notice I didn't say currency, but money (assuming you know the difference).

You're missing the point

We're not trying to replace gold or silver with Bitcoin, we're trying to replace the dollar with Bitcoin because it's illegal to use gold as currency. The difference in legality between gold and Bitcoin is that it's totally anynomous and untraceable. Either way, currency should not be controlled or regulated by the government anyway. Bitcoin is a 100% libertarian solution, though prehaps not an Austrian solution. What we use as currency is up to the buyer and seller, not the government.

Gold is not illegal as a currency

Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 of the constitution still says only gold and silver are to be used in the payment of debts. The government doesn't have an outright prohibition on the use of gold or silver as currency. You can still choose to use it assuming the other party will accept it. However, the government indirectly enforces the prohibition of alternative currencies through the tax or counterfeiting laws.

The same goes with bitcoins. If you transact in bitcoins and the government determines that your evading taxes by using them, then guess what, they become indirectly prohibited in the same manner as gold and silver and people will stop using them.

So assuming you achieve your goal of replacing the dollar with bitcoins, what have you fundamentally changed? If my wealth is stored in convertible hard assets, such as gold and/or silver, then why should I care if I use the dollar, manipulated or not? I can just convert my assets anonymously into dollars and pay my debts without being tracked. What advantage do I gain by moving to bitcoins? Also, I'm not entirely convinced that bitcoins are anonymous and untrackable.


On the same vein, there's no such thing as illegal immigration because the power to stop immigration isn't given in the Constitution. That doesn't stop leviathan from arresting gold users anymore than mass deportation and persecution of immigrants and their employers.

Bitcoin is

not totally anonymous. That's a misconception. However, it can be used anonymously if precautions are taken. Also, regarding legal status right now it's in a legal gray area, it's neither legal or illegal.

To tell you

the truth I'm a bit tire of explaining Bitcoin as I've done it so much. You might want to use the search box at the top of the screen, but right there you've illustrated what I'm talking about. Bitcoin isn't meant to "replace sound money".

Competing Currencies one of the things Ron Paul Called For

It's competition and is legally bound by contract to stop printing money infefinately after it's monetary base reaches a certain amount. That's something we don't have with the American dollar. Maybe it's not the Austrian image of perfection, but it's a step better than the status quo.

Money vs Currency

Competing currencies I don't have a problem with, we should have alternatives to FRNs. However, replacing one fiat with another doesn't solve the problem of having a currency that has a basis in sound money.

Note that I said in my post that bitcoins can work as a currency, but as money, they fail. Plus, if bitcoins were a threat to the USD, the Fed would've put a stop to it, similar to what they did with the Liberty Dollar. If it becomes a threat in the future, just watch them do everything they can do make it illegal or worthless (whether they're successful is a different matter).

That gal was very crappy regarding Ron Paul

That gal was very crappy regarding Ron Paul. I can't stand her.

"Katherine Mangu-Ward laughs at Ron Paul in an interview on The Willis Report - "Ron Paul is getting a tremendous amount of expose for someone that's never going to be President - he knows that, everyone knows that."


Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

She was bashing the Republicans

I've seen enough of her work to know that she didn't have it in for Ron Paul so much as she was just that cynical about the Republican Party.

I don't like what she said either, though.

She was bashing Ron Paul

She was bashing Ron Paul and doing her best to keep the "he's unelectable" and "everyone knows he can't win" mantras going. When push came to shove, Reason ragazine did what it could to torpedo Ron Paul's campaign.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.

What the hell?

What the hell? Reason shilled for Ron Paul hardcore. A couple people like Nick Glespie was too cynical to think he could survive the primary, but it seemed like a good percent of their articles during the campaign was about him in a positive way. Hell, Brian Dhority actually wrote a book called "Ron Paul's Revolution."

I guess we experienced two

I guess we experienced two different Reason rags during that time.

At that time, there was a big thread on here with many DPers upset with Reason an its crew for the crap they were pulling.

Resist the temptation to feed the trolls.


I wasn't on Daily Paul at the time, but I've had Reason in my newsfeed for at least a couple years. I found libertarianism independant of Ron Paul, though I've become a huge fan of his. I think that there's a bit of a disconnect between the new libertarians and the pre-r3volution libertarians. You have to understand that not long ago, no one had ever heard of our ideas before and whenever we spoke about it...well, we were very isolated. We had no voice and everyone thought we were crazy...if they'd even heard of us. If you think that things were rough during the r3volution campaigns, you have no idea what it was like beforehand in the total wilderness. A lot of longtime libertarians have had decades of cynicism and a sense of total futility in politics and that's not going to go away overnight. After the campain, Tom Woods and others at Misis have said expressed similar feelings as well.


Bitcoin FTW!




thanks for the bump