10 votes

Jan leads Hudgins to a principle.

Constructing the principle.Jan leads Hudgins to a principle. Part 2. Part 1 here - Part 3 here


http://youtu.be/XDC86FnH_KY




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Jan Helfeld's picture

Watch part 3

Watch part 3. Is harbouring terrorists the principle?

Jan Helfeld

OMG was this painful to

OMG was this painful to watch... it is just talking over each other.. The guy was about the give an example and then jan interrupted him --- again..

And Jan REALLY needs to stop speaking in codes... when people catch on, he tends to continue to muddle up the questions rather than just getting to the point he is making..

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

Jan Helfeld's picture

Did you watch Part 1 ?

Did you watch Part 1 ? If I did not interrupt we would not get to the principle.

Jan Helfeld

I have watched probably

I have watched probably majority of your interviews, and although I agree with your underlying positions and thirst to expose hypocrisy, I don't agree with the approach. I wish you would just get to the point, rather than speaking in codes, and when they catch on to what it is you are getting at, you tend to continue asking the same coded question. An example is your recent interview with Oliver Stone, when he asked if you were asking about taxation, and you didn't answer, but from seeing most of your interviews and listening to interviews with you, that IS what the question was about. So why not just say yes?

Your results are annoying some of these people, rather than converting them, which then in turn just creates sensational "journalism" rather than conversion, which someone like Ron Paul did a good job in doing. Trying to make someone look stupid (assuming that is what you did) isn't gonna necessarily convert them to ideas of freedom. It instead leaves a bad taste in their mouth and probably shuts them off to hearing anymore.

I got converted by a simple example. That is -- if I take a gun and demand money from you because I am hungry it is called theft, but when I ask a Government to do it on my behalf it is called taxation. There is no difference in the principle.

If you disagree with me on anything you are not a real libertarian...

I love Jan, but he should not interrupt so much...

I love Jan, but he should not interrupt so much...

I love the points that Jan makes, he tries to state and isolate the principles. But he often gets very interruptive. I would like it if he would let his guests elaborate, I would like to hear their thoughts.

Also, most people ARE NOT USED to wording principles directly, it sounds very foreign to most people.

Jan Helfeld's picture

If I did not interrupt we would not get to the principle.

If I did not interrupt we would not get to the principle that he agreed with but then reneged.

Jan Helfeld

"were home free"

:)

Jan Helfeld's picture

I love principles.

I love principles.

Jan Helfeld

He supports the state class

He obviously sees the state and its practitioners as gods ala a distorted view of randianism. So because the state knows what is better for us having "experts" in the field of defense, we are wise as a society to allow them to run roughshod over the talentless peons.

So the state is now a class to the acolytes of the unfortunately named Atlas Society. Our guide is not the creator but flawed men. We must act in accordance to the law of do no harm and non-aggression but the mighty statist is exempt being the creator of everything and originator of law. A subversion of origins is all that is necessary to redefine culture and the role of government.

I get it now!

This is why Ayn Rand's philosophies will always fall flat because the starting point was with man.

Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
www.yaliberty.org - Young Americans for Liberty
www.ivaw.org/operation-recovery - Stop Deploying Traumatized Troops

Well it seems he actually

Well it seems he actually agrees with those principles regarding initiation of force, although I'm not sure how much he believes them. Regarding Afghanistan and going after Al Qaeda or the Somali pirates I think we would first need some sort of arrangement with the respective governments before we could drop bombs or invade. The letters of Marque and Reprisal come to mind, but also diplomatic pressure on those countries. Now if we had permission or those governments agreed to turn over the perpetrators than all is well and good and they should get lawfully tried. Dropping a bomb is not the proper principle of justice toward criminals (drone issue). I would have been satisfied if Osama Bin Laden was tried or at least we made every effort to capture him rather than betray our own principles in a bout of vengeance. (Even if we were 100% sure Bin Laden was guilty and worthy of execution, a trial would have brought the proper closure. Since no body was found for all we know he could still be alive or been dead long ago!)

Jan Helfeld's picture

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you for your comment.

Jan Helfeld

Jan Helfeld's picture

First he agrees and then reneges.

First he agrees and then reneges.

Jan Helfeld