Free the People’s Logan Albright and Mike Feuz discuss the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s passing, court packing, and the media hysteria surrounding Trump’s intention to fill the seat before the election. Conclusion: people get too worked up about the Supreme Court because those nine individuals just have too much power.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts


  • Many people say voting doesn’t matter or that if you vote then you are giving some credence to that system. I’d like to pose the idea here that even if you do not vote, for any number of reasons, you should still register to vote. The point I’m floating is that some states only pull jurors from the voter roll. While even the most staunch anarchist may not want to condone a monopoly court system they may be skipping a chance to free their fellow man with a simple jury nullification act. It could be a big case or a small one. Either way it is an opportunity to make an example, educate fellow jurors, thumb your nose at the system that forces itself upon you or all of the above. Worse case, your boss has to let you off work for a day or you miss some time fishing if you do not work. In the best case you might help a person accused of a victim-less crime who otherwise will loose many days of their life, suffer economically and face the stigma of a court record for years. At the same time it will impact the effort your own local court has put into prosecuting such a non-crime. Pipe dreamers might even say that the more frequent jury nullification is in action that it will result in less prosecution of non-violent people since prosecutors will not want to waste their time. I hear you, “What if I get a case on a violent offense and then I don’t want to participate?” At the first opportunity you can openly ask the judge or public attorney about jury nullification. Think they won’t quickly dismiss you? You would be back to work before lunch and you might have caused a curious fellow juror to look up nullification. Chime in, I’d love to hear your take on the pros/cons of serving on a jury.

    Jump to Discussion Post 4 replies
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • When J. K. Rowling mentioned a petition to ban Donald Trump from the UK, the audience at the PEN Literary Gala applauded. But unlike much of the left, she knows that taking away freedom of speech threatens everyone, including her, and she rebuked the people who clapped. “Just a moment: Now, I find almost everything that Mr. Trump says objectionable. I consider him offensive and bigoted. But he has my full support to come to my country and be offensive and bigoted there. His freedom to speak protects my freedom to call him a bigot.” The people who applauded were doubtless the same ones who objected to PEN’s free speech award to Charlie Hebdo. While they’re not likely to be convinced by any argument, she may have gotten others to think about the danger in today’s spreading hostility to free speech. That’s what counts.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • It took me a while to understand that Trumpism isn’t really about the issues. Not even the issues of anti-immigration and protectionism. It’s about the Chosen One, the Great Leader, the Messiah. When people think things have gone badly wrong, they often turn to someone who will set them right by taking command. The outrageous things he does have only increased his popularity. He boasts, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” When this mentality takes hold, there is no right or wrong for the Leader. When he does outrageous things, that merely proves nothing will stand in the way of his will. Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin, Hitler, Castro, Khomeini: They’ve all known the trick of harnessing the tribalist mindset. The specifics they offered didn’t matter so much as the promise that nothing would stand in their way. They can’t do anything horrible enough to turn people against them, except for failing. Telling Trumpists that he’ll do horrible things or that his policies will hurt everyone is beside the point. They expect him to “make America great again” by sheer force of authority.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Over the past five months or so, I admit I’ve been intrigued—indeed, perhaps obsessed—with the American elections. More specifically, I’ve been fascinated by the Trump phenomenon and by the stunning hordes of people that either support him and hate him. The time I’ve spent learning about American Democracy has made me realize that my previous opposition to statism as a whole, as well as my rejection of voting on principle, was founded on abstract and philosophical discussion alone. I had an utter lack of experience and interest in politics. Throughout my whole life, the political process has seemed hopelessly corrupt and out of reach. It was easy for me to conclude that voting was hopelessly pointless and probably immoral. Today my views have changed, not much, but enough that I feel compelled to talk about my thoughts and not just keep them to myself. This is an exploration of a self-defense case for voting that is consistent with Voluntaryist principles, as well as a discussion on the potential merits of voting for Donald Trump to advance the cause of liberty. Before I make that case however, let me lay down two essential facts that have propelled me to this point. The Voluntaryst Self Defense Case for Voting Trump

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies