Description

Hysteria over the Islamic State is now focused on the refugees seeking to escape the violence in Syria and Iraq.

Sheldon and Lucy explore the paranoia, the lies, and the obsessive focus on managing blowback rather than addressing its root cause — Western imperialism.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Sheldon Richman, author of America's Counter-Revolution: The Constitution Revisited, keeps the blog Free Association and is affiliated with the Center for a Stateless Society both as chair of the trustees and as a senior fellow. You can support his blog at Patreon.
Contributing editor/Columnist for VICE.comAntiwar.comRare.us, Playboy.com and Editor in Chief of The Stag Blog.

discussions

  • As I listen to the radio during the weekday I ask myself, Is there (at present) a media-spun consensus to mutate the term “radical” as only meaning an individual who wants to join the religious extremism of Islamic State in Syria? Therefore making people conclude that “radical means Islamic State extremist” and vice versa? As a consequence, I believe other labels associated with the term may also include: contrarian, gadfly, maverick, rebel, and angry young (wo)man. The final goal, in my opinion, to label all these terms as “terrorist,” thus through the fear of this label bring the potential “radical” or any other term back into the collective instinct for a quiet and obedient statist life. Perhaps Christopher Hitchens was correct when he said in his book Letters to a Young Contrarian: “Radical is a useful and honourable term that comes with various health warnings.” (p.1) Of course we cannot forget Rothbard’s definition of the radical: “Radical in the sense of being in total, root-and-branch opposition to the existing political system and to the State itself. Radical in the sense of having integrated intellectual opposition to the State with a gut hatred of its pervasive and organized system of crime and injustice. Radical in the sense of a deep commitment to the spirit of liberty and antistatism that integrates reason and emotion, heart and soul. Furthermore, in contrast to what seems to be true nowadays, you don’t have to be an anarchist to be radical in our sense, just as you can be an anarchist while missing the radical spark.” http://mises.org/library/do-you-hate-state I could be wrong, but perhaps people aren’t being made aware that there are two types of radical. I say this because, again, I use Hitchens book: “Emile Zola could be the pattern for any serious and humanistic radical, because he not only asserted the inalienable rights of the individual, but generalised his assault to encompass the vile role played by clericalism, by racial hatred, by militarism and by the fetishisation of ‘the nation’ and the state.” (p.5)

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • One of the more challenging issues Libertarians contend with is the philosophical support for open borders. How open should they be given the potential for importing violent jihadists?

    Jump to Discussion Post 9 replies
  • Tucker: http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/prohibition-applied-to-people/, http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/why-open-borders/ Cantwell: http://christophercantwell.com/2015/09/28/open-borders-or-market-immigration/ Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Does anyone know the source of this quote, as in the original writing or speech?  It is most widely attributed to Acton, but some attribute it to Bastiat, but never give its source. “When goods cannot cross borders, armies will.” – Lord John Dalberg-Acton, or Bastiat or neither

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies