Description

Free the People’s Logan Albright and Mike Feuz drift seamlessly from a discussion of Austrian economics to analyzing Hollywood’s hypocrisy. Disney reveals its hypocrisy by pretending to care about human rights while simultaneously thanking the oppressive Chinese government in the credits for the new Mulan movie.  Also, the Oscars double down on political correctness by making inclusivity a requirement for a Best Picture nomination.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • Where is the best place to which to emigrate? OF all the places I’ve visited, I would put Australia number one. It is freer than the US, the culture and people are amazing, the technology is excellent, and it seems like the perfect happy place for me to live and work. I see no real downside at all. I know the government is terrible but so it is everywhere in the world. Second choice might be Costa Rica.

    Jump to Discussion Post 91 replies
  • What is the origination of property rights? Where do they come from that you can reason their existence as natural? We usually argue for property rights at some point in our discussions as libertarians, but I’m curious as to where we can claim they’re from. Personally, I derive mine from God and my religious beliefs, similar to what Jefferson stated about God given rights. But what about someone who doesn’t believe in a deity? How can they derive property rights in a way that can’t be dismissed as ideals, but derived in nature? This is also (and arguably more so) important for arguing these natural rights to people who won’t accept a divine aspect. It’s important to have property rights, and they’re evidently beneficial, but the argument remains for declaring these as rights, otherwise the NAP is in jeopardy. How do we have a right to property?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • I look to Our history in the US. I feel that the rights were inborn unto themselves. They are are organic. I dont see it practical nor applicable that a Law creates a Right. At the very least a Law could create a “Privilege.”  But in a society of Libertarian tolerance, there would ideally be few of them. From this logic, one could say that life is a privilege, and we must act accordingly, this obviously conflicts with the slogan, “A right to life.” (Which reminds me, someone who is put to death, do they have the right to life or is life considered a privilege in a death penalty case?) No need to answer this, just thinking out loud. This came from Conservatives ALWAYS ANNOYINGLY SAYING: “We are a nation of laws,” “The Rule of Law.” ect ect ect. This country exists because of Laws. “We have to follow the law because its the Law” Is it possible that Mao Se Teng (sp?) Hitler or Stalin, justified it the same way?

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • http://christophercantwell.com/2015/04/25/fuck-the-first-amendment/ Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Is hunting (killing) animals, whether commercially of for sport, a violation of the NAP? Your thoughts…

    Jump to Discussion Post 14 replies