Description

Chris Spangle, Harry Price, and Rhinehold discuss the benefits and harm of social media, the Breonna Taylor verdict, the selection of Amy Coney Barrett to replace RBG on the SCOTUS, and the preview a future episode on political legitimacy.

Time Stamps:

  • A Campaign to Watch – 00:02:30
  • Should we quit social media? – 00:17:21
  • The selection of Amy Coney Barrett – 00:42:57
  • The Death of Breonna Taylor – 00:57:25
  • Mainstream Media and Political Legitimacy – 01:45:58
See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • I caught this sketch the other day from an old episode of A Bit of Fry & Laurie about the privatization of the British police. It’s pretty funny as it contains every fear that statists have about privatizing the police, it even manages to fit in something about private roads.  Watch and laugh or cringe. “Peter, everybody had an chance to buy shares at the time of issue. It was all supervised by a reputable merchant bank… well by a merchant bank anyway. ”    

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies
  • For the past few years, police departments have been on something of a power trip in the United States. Only citing the lesser-known instances that come to my mind, cops have assaulted autistic teenagers and murdered unarmed civilians, and were subsequently cleared of all charges and let back on the force. A zealous, dogmatic conservative “fanbase,” alongside a legal system that actively defends police from facing charges of murder, manslaughter, or assault, assures that these men and women never see justice for their actions. It’s awful what police are doing in society, but it’s even worse that they can get off scot-free for it. Of course, most of you already know this. So here’s my question: has any United States representative or senator proposed a bill designed to fight against unjust acquittals or introduce charges that are harder to to be overturned? As an agorist, I’m partially convinced that this has never happened and that anyone who gets elected for public office in this day and age is a vapid authoritarian, but a sliver of hope remains for me somewhere. Have any of you heard of such legislation on a federal level? If not, then what about on a state level?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Its seems they always skip over the issue. There is always this refusal to acknowledge or “give-in” in to the reality of what its happening on their part Does anyone know why this mentality exists? Is there anyway to stop it? Or try to get through to these people that’s its tyranny that is the enemy?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • When people are foolish into thinking that the “law” (police, written laws) protect them, does that afford them to not protecting themselves, because they think that the police, and or “law” is always going to be there for them? I feel this will only influence these ‘types’ of people to provoke others whom they dont like, because they know the “law will be on their side.” So as an example: When the person reacts, naturally, the instigator can turn around and say, “Help, help, police!” I feel that this is an abuse and exploitation of law and policing. When police and or law protects people, do people foolishly think that the law is on their side and they can bend it to their will, against their enemies AKA: people they dont like in society, and do they? My conclusion is that people use the police and law, to get THEM what they want against their enemies, because they KNOW the law will “protect” them in the process. So in many cases you find for example, bad co-workers, bosses, friends and family, who deliberately instigate a provocation KNOWING FULLY the other persons reaction, so that person they targeted, can be sent to jail or fined.  The police or laws are exploited as a mafia type agency for these types of people. One could say the strong arm of these types of people. All the while these people, DONT PROTECT THEMSELVES! Your thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • After the death of Antonin Scalia here has been a lot of talk about appointments to the supreme court and whether it ought to be put off.  These miss the point because regardless of who ends up taking his place, SCOTUS has a built in conflict of interest.  It is an agency of the United States government and yet is supposed to act on the constitutionality of laws of the US.  I call for a constitutional amendment that would make supreme court justices nominated, appointed, and paid by the state governments in rotation (the mechanics to be worked out).  Thus the various states, who contracted with each other to found the US, would have final say over whether the US was overstepping its bounds.

    Jump to Discussion Post 3 replies