Description

Daniel McAdams talks to Scott about the failed attempt to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in favor of opposition leader Juan Guiado. The U.S. government has made many claims about the illegitimacy of the latest elections, and has blamed the country’s current crisis on Maduro’s failures. Really, says McAdams, this is just another example of America’s State Department making false claims and conveniently exploiting existing problems to push their chosen political narrative. Fortunately the attempt seems to have failed completely, with Guaido’s support virtually gone. Sadly, says Scott, many libertarians fell for this narrative as soon as it was positioned as “socialism vs. capitalism”.
Discussed on the show:
“The Failure of the Juan Guaido Coup in Venezuela” (Antiwar.com Original)
“Juan Guaidó tells EU that Venezuelan refugee crisis ‘compares with Syria’” (Financial Times)
“Army Veteran Claims Prosthetic Legs Repossessed After Va Refused To Pay For Them: ‘Medicare Did Not Send Me To Vietnam’” (Newsweek)
Daniel McAdams is the executive director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and the co-host of the Ron Paul Liberty Report. Follow him on Twitter @DanielLMcAdams and read all of his work over at Antiwar.com.
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 Classroom; ExpandDesigns.com/Scott; Listen and Think Audio; TheBumperSticker.com; and LibertyStickers.com.
Donate to the show through Patreon, PayPal, or Bitcoin: 1Ct2FmcGrAGX56RnDtN9HncYghXfvF2GAh.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • 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
  • Suppose a group of Ancaps are on the verge of overthrowing a government somewhere and imposing a libertarian social order. Suppose there was a debate in the US about whether to use the military to help them, stop them, or do nothing. Which do you choose and why?

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 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
  • It can be a challenge to keep up with all the taxes one needs to pay throughout the year, and than to deal with all the paperwork that needs to be filed can be frustrating. What would be a good way to simplify the Tax Code? Below is a list of some of the taxes that we the people need to pay, or at least we experience their effects at one time or another. -Medicare, Medicare, Social Security, Federal Inocme Tax, State tax, Local Tax, Corporate tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, estate tax, alcohol tax, tobacco tax, gift tax, tariffs on imports and exports, etc. Would a simple flat or consumption tax do the trick?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Venezuela has the highest violent crime rate in the world. Though it is not moral or justified, people choose violence over starvation when there are no alternatives. Of course, “we” libertarians all know that this situation was created by government/s coercion’s consequences, but so few among the greater population seem to recognize that. It seems like a similar fate faces the whole world.

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies