Description

Dan Cohen comes on the show for an update on the protests in Hong Kong. Though positioned as a popular pro-democracy movement, some of the protest leaders have alarming ties to American think tanks like the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, which may be trying to influence the movement in a direction that will benefit U.S. interests in the end. Cohen says the protesters certainly have good grounds for their outrage, but that we should be careful fully supporting a cause whose motives and aims aren’t exactly clear.

Discussed on the show:

  • “Behind a made-for-TV Hong Kong protest narrative, Washington is backing nativism and mob violence” (The Grayzone)
  • “Joshua: Teenager vs. Superpower (2017)” (IMDb)
  • Colour revolution
  • “Watch the film the Israel lobby didn’t want you to see” (Electronic Intifada)

Dan Cohen is a journalist and co-producer of the award-winning documentary, Killing Gaza. His website is dancohenmedia.com. Follow him on Twitter @dancohen3000.

This episode of the Scott Horton Show is sponsored by: NoDev NoOps NoIT, by Hussein Badakhchani; The War State, by Mike Swanson; WallStreetWindow.com; Tom Woods’ Liberty ClassroomExpandDesigns.com/ScottWashinton BabylonLiberty Under Attack PublicationsListen and Think AudioTheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com.

Donate to the show through PatreonPayPal, or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh.

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
  • 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: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/private-government.html and here: http://jollylibertarian.blogspot.ca/2015/10/consent-of-governed.html and here: https://jollylibertarian.liberty.me/is-consent-a-sufficient-condition-for-a-society-to-be-considered-libertarian/  The latter contradicts the first two as I have had some change in thought on this. Feedback appreciated.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Just a quick poll! Please explain your reasoning- if you care to

    Jump to Discussion Post 108 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
  • http://www.socialmatter.net/2016/06/24/mass-shootings-make-sense/ Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies