Does the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump show the problems with democracy? Today’s Freedom Report podcast looks at the presidential debate on CNN, contrasting the campaign of Donald Trump with libertarian leaning senator Rand Paul.

Today’s special guest is The Libertarian Republic columnist Keith Farrell. Keith’s recent article “The Disastrous Consequences of Unfettered Democracy” stirred up a tremendous debate online about democracy run amok.

See More See Less


Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

Austin Petersen is the chief executive officer of Stonegait LLC, a for-profit consulting firm specializing in photo and video services. Stonegait also provides social media advice, political campaign expertise and grassroots organizing strategies to candidates for office or to brands looking for more exposure. Petersen is the editor in chief of The Libertarian Republic news magazine, one of the most read political news sites in the United States. He also hosts The Freedom Report podcast, which has 30,000 daily listeners. Petersen is the former Director of Production at FreedomWorks and was an Associate Producer for Judge Andrew Napolitano’s show, “Freedom Watch” on the Fox Business Network. Petersen built Judge Napolitano’s social networks boasting over 600,000 fans and millions of clicks a month. His work has appeared in Getty, Reuters, the LA Times, NBC and Time Magazine. He is also a frequent contributor on television appearing on Russia Today and on dozens of local radio shows. Austin grew up on a farm in the Midwest in a town called Peculiar, Missouri. Graduating from Missouri State University with a degree in the Fine Arts, Petersen moved to New York City after graduation to a pursue a career in media.


  • Here are the top arguments I know: Explicit social contract You have explicitly consented to have some people rule you Hypothetical social contract Something about your behavior suggests that you have consented to have some people rule you, or you would have consented had you been asked Democratic authority If enough people agree that X should be done, then X should be done Consequentialism We should allow some people to rule others in order to prevent a disaster

    Jump to Discussion Post 13 replies
  • I recently read Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed and it brings up a number of questions. I sent him an email with these questions and am still waiting for a reply. But I thought I’d put them out there in this group as well. There are five series of questions and this is the first batch. Is a covenant community binding for all time? Or can a member of a covenant society secede from it just as he ought to be able to secede from the state? Can the terms of the covenant be changed in the future and if so how? Can the covenant specify that all rules and restrictions covered in the covenant can be changed through democratic means – in other words through voting? And if so, can they do specify that this be done by simple majority rule or other ways as specified in the covenant? Further to this – am I correct in assuming that the terms of the covenant inhere to the property and not the person?  For example, I own property in a strata development which is covered by such a covenant. It binds me to the bylaws of the Strata Corporation and these rules can be changed by the members democratically at a meeting. The strata council enforces the rules, manages the budget, etc. I also pay strata fees which are analagous to taxes if this were a municipality. (The strata fees are actually more than the municipal taxes I pay, though the city provides a lot more services.)  And these rules inhere in the property, so if I sell it, the buyer is bound by the covenant. But I cannot secede from the covenant. In effect, a covenant community is really a mini-government, but organized as a contract rather than as a political entity. But in practice, is there really any difference? I have written on my blog about this a few times. Most notably here: and here: and here:  The latter contradicts the first two as I have had some change in thought on this. Feedback appreciated.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Does voting and participating in the mass ritual of electing officials violate the NAP? Are plebiscites or referendums in violation of the NAP ?   Does popular will of a collective trump the individual rights and wishes of a minority?   And for those Liberty minded people that vote for a lesser of two or three evils, how does voting for any evil eradicate evil?   I am certain that these are age old questions and if they are over asked then please forgive me and ignore this thread.   I have heard Walter Blocks and others analogy of voting for a slave that beats you fewer times, etc but for me this does not satisfy my wishes and desires to end slavery.  The assumption and illusion that slavery was kind, pleasant and even benevolent has and did perpetuate the very institution that many sought to end.   All human coercive ownership should be the ultimate goal and not fifty shades of it. All the best Kym

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 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
  • Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies