16 votes

Marc Clair and Dwalters Discuss Individual Rights, How to Effectively Communicate Ideas, and All Things Liberty!

In this episode of the Lions of Liberty Podcast, I welcome Lions of Liberty contributing writer - and Daily Paul's own! - Derrel Walters to the show! Derrel describes how he first became acquainted with the ideas of liberty and how he approaches discussing politics with others. Derrel and I discuss the importance of individual rights, how people might organize in a society that respects and understands them, and how we can change the world through peaceful and logical advocacy for liberty.

Remember, you can subscribe to the show via iTunes or the Stitcher Radio App, and you can catch repeat airings on Daily Paul Radio / WGGRDB.com at 6pm EST every Saturday and Sunday, and throughout the week at LRN.FM, the Liberty Radio Network!

Miss an episode? Check out the podcast archive!

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

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

Great show you two :)

Great show you two :)

It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. – Mark Twain

A DP original?

So this podcast is between 2 DPers? Awesome. Homegrown baby. Will look forward to listening through.


And I'm interested in doing more!

*Advancing the Ideas of Liberty Daily*

I love both of you

just wanted to say that :)

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Thanks Ed...

I enjoy your stuff as well.

Comments at times

Time: 3:50 or so.

The topic starts with a term that is not defined. When this thing is gone, says one of the people engaged in this discussion, someone will rob their neighbor.

This thing, once it is gone, someone says, I will rob my neighbor, so says someone speaking about what someone said, concerning this thing that is not defined.

Back up to the Title of the Topic:
Marc Clair and Dwalters Discuss Individual Rights, How to Effectively Communicate Ideas, and All Things Liberty!

How can someone claim to be speaking about that topic be someone who does not define the meaning of crucial things that are intentionally communicated effectively?

In other words, someone intends to communicate effectively yet someone does not define the meaning of the terms used to reach the goal?

Someone speaks about something existing, which goes away, and once this thing that exists is gone, someone will then rob their neighbor.

They are then speaking about, obviously, the thing known as moral conscience, or are they speaking about something else?

The term they use is the word government.

So government means, in that context, moral conscience, or government means something other than moral conscience, so which is it?

Time: 4:00

"He was...the Devil's advocate..."

Another term. The definition of that term appears to be, in context, someone who invents false fronts, or facades, or fake personalities, instead of someone who is offering their own true self.

Terms, defined, in context, are then two in number as such:

Government = moral conscience
Devil's Advocate = False Persona (a.k.a. legal fiction)

Time: 4:20

Regular people, which are 96% of the number of people, exist according to statistics.

That adds 2 more terms.

Regular People = 96%
Irregular People = 4%

In context, hopefully, those categories, those sets, of people will be defined more clearly, other than people few in number in one set, and people many in number in another set.

Got it.

Time: 4:23 or so...

Regular people = not sociopathic killers = 96%
Sociopathic Killers = 4%

Time: 4:45 or so...

If the government (moral conscience) was gone tomorrow, most of these guys (sociopathic killers) would not kill you.

Time: 5:10 or so...

Solution to the sociopathic killers problem is to hand them from a tree out west, as an example of what happens when the government (moral conscience) is gone.

Presumably, then, out west is where moral conscience is gone, and the solution to problems is to hang people from trees, when moral conscience is gone?

That is understandable, sure, as judge, jury, and executioners find people who may be guilty of something, or not, and there is at least time to hang them in trees, just in case they may be guilty.

I think that is a working definition of a sociopathic killer.

The speaker speaking about what happened out west, in all fairness, spoke about a case where the sociopathic killer is known, by some means, as one, beyond any doubt whatsoever, and then the one solving that problem of having found the sociopathic killer solves the sociopathic killer problem with a final solution to that problem in that individual case, at that tree, with that rope.

Time: 5:19 or so...

"...there is a lot of accountability whenever there is no government..."

No moral conscience = a lot of accountability?

"...there is a lot of accountability, uh, whenever there is no government...[something ineligible] individuals are held accountability for their actions...however if their is a government then there is a way to weasel your way out of accountability...and that's one of the biggest problems that I find...is that accountability is not something that is of paramount importance."

Without government (moral conscience) there is a lot of accountability?

When there is government (moral conscience) there is a way to avoid accountability?

When there is government (moral conscience) the concept of accountability is not something important?

The definition of government is no longer the definition of government offered at the beginning of this effort to show how information is effectively communicated.

So...I am holding the speaker accountable, because I think it is a very important duty each of us are born with, as moral conscience governs my actions in this case.


You're one of the most obfuscatory writers I've read...

Perhaps, the pot is calling the kettle black.

BILL3 had the best comment on this

It went something like this:
"Josf, I like you. But I think I speak for everyone here when I say that, as usual, I have no idea what you are talking about."

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Ed Ucation

To set the record straight, once again, there are at least two types of speakers here on this forum, or anywhere for that matter.

1. Those who claim to speak for everyone.

2. Those who speak for themselves.

Common to those who claim to speak for everyone, in my experience, are people who claim that they have no idea what I write about.

Common to those who speak for themselves, in my experience, are people who discuss topics with me in a reasonable manner.

Group 1 speaks dictatorially, or one way, as each member of that group speaks for everyone, as if they alone command the collective mind of the majority, and therefore their majority mind, as they claim to speak for it, trumps all other viewpoints at a single stroke.

1. Dictators Union

Group 2, on the other hand, tend to employ something called two way communication, whereby individuals listen to each other viewpoint, and individuals ask questions in cases where individuals have questions to ask of other individuals.

2. Free market competitors discussing topics in Liberty

To each their own.


see, that was a great comment that actually made sense

Which means that you can communicate effectively if you want. So that leads me to wonder why you choose to write in such a manner that people have trouble understanding what you are trying to say.

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants.” — Albert Camus

Beyond conception

It is, of course, inconceivable that the individual is responsible.

You know whatever you want to know.


Vague accusation?

What does obfuscatory mean?

"it is more likely to obfuscate people than enlighten them"

What is government according to whomever intends to enlighten anyone as to what they mean when they use that term?

If the neighbor offers a claim that the absence of government will result in the neighbor robbing someone, then the context of that use of the word government is such that the word government means the same thing as moral conscience.

The neighbor enlightens the neighbor in that case.

The neighbor enlightens the neighbor as to what the neighbor will do if the neighbor no longer is inspired to NOT rob the neighbor.

How is that not moral conscience?

I will NOT rob my neighbor, proven by the fact that the robbery does not occur.

Absent something, whatever something is, absent it, the neighbor will rob the neighbor, if it is proven, and the robbery does occur.

You can claim that my words obfuscate. That is your choice to do so, and you can choose to do so ambiguously, a mere statement, couched in a language that manages to hedge your bets, with the word choice "perhaps," as if now you have created plausible deniability.

Your choice.

Perhaps your government is absent.


In the discussion...

I was referring to the government in the context of popular conception - the group of people sitting in marble buildings in DC.

I agree with the distillation that ultimately "government" resides in moral conscience. However, when most people hear the word "government," I don't believe they relate it to moral conscience.

I can't hand or recite a dictionary to someone every time I talk. It would be inefficient and excessively verbose.


"I don't believe they relate it to moral conscience."

I don't think it is a good idea to recite a dictionary. Nailing down one workable definition for government might be a good idea.


With regard to popular conception...

I think placing the word "the" before the word "government" distinguishes it from the more broad definition you're hitting on.

Accurate accounting

If the government is employed by people governed by moral conscience then the government is not a synonym for the organized crime cabal.

When people speak of the government that is a synonym for the organized crime cabal, that speech can be easily confused with the government employed by people governed by moral conscience, unless a message is offered to clarify the distinction.


I agree that it needs to be clearly defined...

However, I also believe that, with respect to the interview, very few people would have been confused by its usage.

I'll use the word "state" from here on out just to be clear and make sure to specify which "state" I'm talking about.

Bait and switch needs more power?

Government is the hook, and then with an ever so subtle distraction, and nobody is paying attention to what is going on behind the curtain, the magician, pulls the State card out of his sleeve!

Next time I may listen further, past the government baiting effort, and rather than comment on that contradictory, duplicitous, word play, the one individual listener, not the collective one, just me, can account for the use of that other false front term, that state stuff.

I am curious. The thing about recorded interviews is that they hang around awhile, and while they are available they don't mind being rewound.


"The" government or the State...

whichever is preferred ruined its own name by taking everyone for fools. They did for those "words" what Hitler did for the Swastika. It has been their duplicitous approach - verbally espousing liberty while destroying it in reality.

Like I said once before - I'm not a solute in a pot, and I don't wish to be experimented on.

Nonetheless, if they wish to regain what has been lost, they won't get it done by doing the same things over and over again. An actual change in course is needed. A good start would be to end the War on Drugs and allow competition in the monetary system.


It cannot do anything.

If you speak so often as if a collective, an it, can be responsible, be accountable, have, hold, feel, ruin its own name, whatever, then that is a message, intended or not, that is a possible, even likely, meaning in the words.

If you think that it can be responsible, or be accountable, then that meaning can be communicate with those words you so often use, and that is contrary to the opposite possible meaning.

You mean that "it" can actually ruin, "its own name," as if "it" decided to do this, or "it" decided to do that, with the resulting consequence if "it" ruining "its own name."

You do not think that a collective, or a legal fiction, or a corporate person, or a false God, actually exists, an entity unto itself, even if your words can easily be interpreted as if you do think that "it" can actually ruin "its own name."

"They did for those "words" what Hitler did for the Swastika."

They, presumably actual people with names, may include a collective group of people collectively known as William Shakespeare. They, wearing pants, or skirts, undies, a pair of socks, shoes, may have actually wanted to keep the good name good, at least for as long as the good name managed to still hide the evil behind the false front.

1. Not yet actually knowing of you attribute "it" with will power, an assumption can be made, based upon your reference to "they," that you don't attribute "it" with will power; despite your first sentence concerning it and its own name.

"It has been their duplicitous approach - verbally espousing liberty while destroying it in reality."

So what did government mean before its good name was besmirched by those who are they?

What did the state mean, by the same reasoning, before its goods name was used as a false front to hide those criminals who so often decide to perpetrate injuries upon the innocent, not limited to mere mass murder?

"Like I said once before - I'm not a solute in a pot, and I don't wish to be experimented on."

Like the following example?
Time: 1:23

Or this one:

People experiment on people, not governments. If people in so called governments experiment on people, then criminals are government, so the accurate word is not government, the accurate word is criminal.

"Nonetheless, if they wish to regain what has been lost, they won't get it done by doing the same things over and over again. An actual change in course is needed. A good start would be to end the War on Drugs and allow competition in the monetary system."

Again, me the one who fails to communicate so often, prefer accurate accounts.

There is no such thing as a War on Drugs. Criminals who took over government cover up their drug pushing with false flags.

The following flag was the flag used by the criminals running drugs into China, the same criminals running slaves out of Africa.


So...if there is no War on Drugs, can't be, it is a patented absurdity, what is happening?

Criminals use cover ups, like false terms, like The War on Drugs, to hide themselves behind, as criminals monopolize the criminal drug cartels, and the slave trade, now known with a new, kinder, gentler, sounding name: Human Trafficking.

Like this:

People with names perpetrating gruesome crimes upon people with names, all well hidden, in plain sight, behind false names, false fronts, and a root criminal routine.

The monopoly counterfeit or money fraud scam, at the heart of the so called government, so called state, where actual people keep it going century after century.

At least some people are aware of it. Some invest in it, for a return on the investment. Some prefer to avoid it when possible.

Some blow the whistle on it. Thanks for that.

Not news:


First in the importance of its evil influence they considered the money monopoly, which consists of the privilege given by the government to certain individuals, or to individuals holding certain kinds of property, of issuing the circulating medium, a privilege which is now enforced in this country by a national tax of ten per cent., upon all other persons who attempt to furnish a circulating medium, and by State laws making it a criminal offense to issue notes as currency. It is claimed that the holders of this privilege control the rate of interest, the rate of rent of houses and buildings, and the prices of goods, – the first directly, and the second and third indirectly. For, say Proudhon and Warren, if the business of banking were made free to all, more and more persons would enter into it until the competition should become sharp enough to reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost, which statistics show to be less than three-fourths of once per cent. In that case the thousands of people who are now deterred from going into business by the ruinously high rates which they must pay for capital with which to start and carry on business will find their difficulties removed. If they have property which they do not desire to convert into money by sale, a bank will take it as collateral for a loan of a certain proportion of its market value at less than one per cent. discount. If they have no property, but are industrious, honest, and capable, they will generally be able to get their individual notes endorsed by a sufficient number of known and solvent parties; and on such business paper they will be able to get a loan at a bank on similarly favorable terms. Thus interest will fall at a blow. The banks will really not be lending capital at all, but will be doing business on the capital of their customers, the business consisting in an exchange of the known and widely available credits of the banks for the unknown and unavailable, but equality good, credits of the customers and a charge therefor of less than one per cent., not as interest for the use of capital, but as pay for the labor of running the banks. This facility of acquiring capital will give an unheard of impetus to business, and consequently create an unprecedented demand for labor, – a demand which will always be in excess of the supply, directly to the contrary of the present condition of the labor market. Then will be seen an exemplification of the words of Richard Cobden that, when two laborers are after one employer, wages fall, but when two employers are after one laborer, wages rise. Labor will then be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product. Thus the same blow that strikes interest down will send wages up. But this is not all. Down will go profits also. For merchants, instead of buying at high prices on credit, will borrow money of the banks at less than one per cent., buy at low prices for cash, and correspondingly reduce the prices of their goods to their customers. And with the rest will go house-rent. For no one who can borrow capital at one per cent. with which to build a house of his own will consent to pay rent to a landlord at a higher rate than that. Such is the vast claim made by Proudhon and Warren as to the results of the simple abolition of the money monopoly.

As much as I appreciate the first American Anarchists, or those passing on the tradition today, there remains that familiar word play, as if calling a spade a spade somehow vanished down the memory hole.

If they are frauds, criminals, torturers, murderers, why call them the government?


Thanks for having me on Marc...


Great interview,

I really enjoyed it.

So, which side do you consider me to be on, liked or disliked lol

"What if the American people learn the truth" - Ron Paul

I suppose you're on the good list...



Looking forward to this one.