Description

Bernie Sanders supporters flooded The Libertarian Republic news magazine’s website and social media sites over the weekend. A strong pushback from editor Austin Petersen against the socialist spawn of the Bernie Sanders presidential campaign uncovered a slough of economically illiterate American activists, ready to do battle for evil.

And make no mistake, socialism is evil.

The classical liberal (libertarian) economists of the 20th century penned their screeds against the statist democratic socialists movements of their day, now TLR’s Freedom Report podcast takes similar aim.

Democratic socialists believe that their Trotskyite leader will prevail, and a peaceful utopia will emerge of citizens cooperating with one another voluntarily, and eventually the state will wither away… but before the state can wither away, all power must go to the state. The government supreme. All power to the so-viet!

Democratic socialists believe that a top marginal tax rate of 90% on the wealthiest citizens will “soak the rich,” and stabilize the economy. They point to the 1950’s as an example, when Dwight Eisenhower presided over a 91% top marginal tax rate. But why don’t they ever look at effective tax rates? These show that few people actually paid those taxes, and those earning more than $100,000 paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S. That’s a lot fewer than today.

Sanders supporters getting what they asked for.

Sanders supporters getting what they asked for.

Democratic socialist believe that their cause is just, that their progressive policies of economic centralization, and bigger government will bring utopia. Their version of socialism is just, because it is not Leninism. It’s not Stalinism. This isn’t War Communism, they say… no they don’t. They don’t know what War Communism is. They don’t know what Communism is. They don’t know what socialism is. They think AND SAY that North Korea is a worker’s paradise. 

“The average man is both better informed and less corruptible in the decisions he makes as a consumer than as a voter at political elections.”
― Ludwig von Mises

Bernie Sanders has stirred up all that is wrong with America, and today’s Freedom Report podcast is a complete takedown of the would-be tyrant Bernie Sanders.

See More See Less

Subscribe

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.

discussions

  • Statism in whatever form – communism, socialism, fascism, interventionism – is the creator and upholder of a two-class system of corruption: the politically-connected and those who are not politically-connected. It is tolerated because people have been indoctrinated by State-controlled ‘education’ and State-controlled media.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Dominance, Sharing, and Privacy gives us a simplified (maybe oversimplified), and intuitive way to categorize human sociality. Instead of thinking of social structures as being diverse and too complicated to be categorized, these three categories allow us to classify behaviors that address conflict as one of three types or a combination of the three.  For example, might makes right is not really a property norm but it is a dominance strategy. The ethic that the world belongs to everyone is not an alternative property norm, it is the nullification of property in favor of a sharing norm.  The violent defense of a territory is not a might makes right or dominance behavior but is the defense of privacy. The reluctance to intrude on others prior establish territory is not just a fear of retaliation but a respect for privacy.   For moe read: Dominance, Sharing, and Privacy (DSP), The Three Principles of Sociality  

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • What if Parents Loved Strangers’ Children As Much As Their Own? Last December, the author and philosopher Sam Harris invited Paul Bloom, a professor of psychology at Yale, to appear on his podcast, “Waking Up.” It was Bloom’s third stint as a guest, and, as before, the two men devoted a significant portion of their conversation to the subject of empathy. Bloom had just published a book, “Against Empathy: The Case for Rational Compassion,” in which he drew a distinction between empathy (the ability to feel other people’s pain) and compassion (desiring others’ well-being); according to Bloom, society needs less of the former and more of the latter. On the podcast, he and Harris talked about how empathy favors people you know over people you don’t, and how this favoritism leads to harmful behaviors such as tribalism and nationalism. They advocated a cooler, more rational approach to moral decision-making. Then they asked how far such an approach could be taken. Some forms of preferential treatment, Harris and Bloom noted, are considered appropriate, as when parents love their children more than they do strangers. But they wondered whether this, too, might be a behavior that requires correcting. They cited the utilitarian philosopher Peter Singer, who famously pointed out that spending money on non-essentials means valuing your comfort over the lives of people starving elsewhere in the world. Bloom admitted that he buys toys and vacations for his children, identifying this as a moral dilemma that we all face. He and Harris engaged in a thought experiment: Would the world be improved if parents cared for other people just as much as they cared for their own children…While we’ve seen some reversals of this in the past year or two—including Brexit, the election of Donald Trump, and the resurgence of the xenophobic right—it’s not unreasonable to believe that these are temporary setbacks, blips in a broader trend that obtains over centuries or millennia. If this trend continues in the future, it could end in a kind of species-wide eusociality, at which point the perfectly impartial affection that Harris and Bloom posit might no longer seem so outlandish.? At first glance, I rolled my eyes thinking this was a call for collective child-rearing and how individualism is evil (Although he does take swipes at Trump and Brexit).  However on the whole, Chiang’s piece for the New Yorker is surprisingly balanced, with the exception talking about Brexit and Trump, as he cites several examples like the Kibbutzim in Israel where collectively raising children was not a good thing.  How if we all adopted a guru mindset of impartial affection the world would not be a utopia. What are your thoughts? Reactions?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • I mean a real socialist, not a guy that voted for Obama. A guy that is every bit socialist as I am libertarian. Background: I met a guy on online. I found out that he is an engineer in SF and a socialist. He loves seeing socialist philosophers speak, Black Lives Matter demonstrations, and Tumblr. I’m also a SF resident and more knowledgable and more sympathetic toward the far left than most libertarians. I also have a job that is stereotypically liberal (elementary school teacher) so we’re kind of the opposite. We’ve hung out twice so far and I think we are pretty cute together. I always say teasing things to him like, “Do you follow fuckyeahelizabethwarren on Tumblr?” He doesn’t know much about libertarianism but when I met him I was going to see Jeffrey Tucker speak on the same day and he was interested to hear about it. Has anyone ever gone down this dark path before? Any predictions on what will happen?

    Jump to Discussion Post 48 replies
  • People tend to think that despots are a surprise. Suddenly a society encounters a Hugo Chavez, a Hitler, a Fidel Castro, Mussolini. After that society suffers as a victim the rigors of despotism. In this book I put myself away of the the myth of the innocent society. On the contrary, the despot is the product of misconceptions that have been injected or prevail in a society. They are very specific ideas, completely incompatible with the notion of limited government, representation and rule of law. The book is now available in the Liberty.me library to download. Those misconceptions, which are not exhausted in this list are: identification of dictatorship with physical violence, absolute democracy, social democracy, egalitarianism, the class struggle, identifying legislative will of state law and the pursuit of government wise, the income tax even the notion that the press is going to keep us free. And there is an answer that we can search together: Can this happen in the USA? Just ask yourself if these misconceptions are already settled.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies