Source link: http://archive.mises.org/13135/interview-with-a-zombie/
Interview with a Zombie
Previous post: Blockbuster vs. the FTC (Keeping Future Competition Safe?)
Next post: Hard to feel too bad about Monsanto
The Ludwig von Mises Institute
Tu Ne Cede Malis
Advancing the Scholarship of Liberty in the Tradition of the Austrian School
{ 43 comments }
Genius! I loved it. Is that Bob “Zombie” Murphy?
Not to be a stickler, but I would have like some effort in the make up department, give us some blood!
If the States are duty-bound to resist, aren’t we as individuals also duty-bound to resist?
Because, if I am duty-bound to resist every “federal” action and law that exceeds Constitutional authority, I would do nothing all day but resist and resist and resist, starting with wondering what to do with every “dollar” I am handed on the pretense that it’s Constitutional money.
Not to mention the problem with all the people who would point at me all day long and call me a pro-slavery neo-confederate.
Magnus: Perhaps youre just a zombie.
Or,
are you one of those sad, lonely, online contrarians pretending not to ‘get it’ just so you can make absurd comments anonymously about folks more accomplished than yourself? I think if you re-read your first sentence (supposition) carefully, youll see a problem.
Me thinks Tucker is assuming anyone listening to his voice is intelligent enough to feed himself (not on the brains of the living), tie his shoes, AND determine on his own how best to apply these concepts. I very much doubt he recommends doing anything that would be counter-productive or to ignore cost/benefit considerations.
Cheers!
This. Is. Brilliant!
We need A LOT more of these interviews. These are hilarious.
The zombie gave all the basic objections the MSM will give, so they don’t have to.
And I think the zombie was a little more polite then they are.
MORE ZOMBIE INTERVIEWS!!!
YES YES YES!!!! MORE ZOMBIES!!!
Dr. Woods, that was one of the funniest applications of libertarian debate that I have ever seen. Great work!
This came at a perfect time. I’ve been following the blog and daily articles for a couple of months, but I’ve been a bit hung up recently on issues like nullification – which goes right along with secession and slavery in my mind thanks to my public school education. Thanks for the facts on the issue!
Well, of no insult to Bob, but it could be him; the zombie is bald enough. But, yes, some better make-up would be nice. The voice is spot on though.Personally, I’m one of those types who is not all that supportive of state’s rights as a concept. First, states don’t have “rights”; individuals do. If it is not okay for the federal government to abuse my rights, then it is equally wrong for the state’s and localities to do that to me. I’m not a libertarian centralist by any means, but I’m more apt to fear my governor than my president. The governor is closer to me, and can more easily exercise his/her authority than a president can. It seems that it would do little more than localize tyranny, thus making it stronger. And don’t give me that Milton Friedman “You can vote with your feet” bullshit argument. I want my natural rights respected no matter where I go.I’m all for decentralization, but not under the current system (whether it obeys the Constitution or not). Whether centralized or decentralized, it provides too many incentives for wrong-doing.
That being said, I like how he pointed out that the North used it more. The South had a little thing called “The Slave Power”.
Historically Americans feared tyranny from afar (like King George from England) rather than tyranny from near. It is not that tyranny from near was impossible, it probably had more to do with the fact that tyranny from near was likely to be either the kind of tyranny they could handle more easily or the kind of tyranny they approved off. It was James Madison who argued for the necessity of some kind of authority decoupled from the local government to check on the latter kind of tyranny.You are right states do not have ‘rights’. Individuals do. But I do not expect Tom Woods to be writing a sequel to his new book anytime soon.A sequel entitled: Nullification: How to Resist State Tyranny in the 21st CenturyWhat could a book like that include? California’s Prop 8. Chicago’s ban on firearms. To name a few.Tom Woods is probably an anti-Federalist, rather than an anarcho-capitalist.
I’m an anarcho-capitalist. I would like to see the end of all governments. But in the meantime, this is an acceptable pragmatic step. The concept of States’ rights is Dual Sovereignty. The State checks government tyranny that is unconstitutional AND the federal government is supposed to strike down State laws that are unconstitutional. Chicago’s ban on firearms, for example, SHOULD be struck down as unconstitutional. That’s the Dual Sovereignty part from the Fed’s perspective.
Obviously, this is not the current American system and I share your belief that Individual Sovereignty is the only path to freedom. However, the principle of Dual Sovereignty did have some successes in checking the tyranny of the Federal government. I think it’s a good thing that people are considering it again.
Rothbard, whose anarcho-capitalist credentials are fairly solid
, advocated any and all means of checking government tyranny. Running LP candidates, educating the people, using the law to defeat unconstitutional power, etc. Any and all methods was his motto.
If he could embrace it, he must have known something…
I’m just sayin.
Dual sovereignty can’t last long, logically speaking. It is like a competition among thieves. Which thief would win? The thief that allows you to be more productive of course. Because he will have more to rob from you and he will eventually use what he robbed to put down the other thief so that he can rob you even more.
So you are just beginning to feel relief that the most potent blood sucker is done away with. But then things turn for the worse, there is only one thief left, so no competition. You are now forced to do anything he says. Poor you. Poor me. Poor us.
Meanwhile Tom Woods is nostalgic about the days when the thieves where competing. I understand him, but I wish he was a bit more critical about this ‘states rights’ concept. It is clearly bogus.
Nullification is simply a legal process. Nothing more. Calling it States’ Rights and even Dual Sovereignty, I admit, is assigning values that do not exist. But the process itself, if applied, would roll back the State (i.e. the Feds).
What did Rothbard say? Embrace any means by which you can roll back the State. This is one small method of what has to be many, many methods to roll back the State. It is not a panacea.
I hope you reconsider your objection.
Not all means are created equal.
Objection? What exactly was I objecting to?
There can be one and only one valid objection against rolling back the State. That in doing so it could open up the space for a more oppressive and more tyrannical State to take its place. So has not experience shown that ‘states rights’ can be counter-productive? That is what the zombie was referring to when he said slaaaavery, neo-confederacy, etc. Don’t brush off the zombie too lightly; he is not as dumb as he looks.
Abhilash, Tom Woods IS an Anarchist… he just plays the constitution card because it’s a good deal more palpable. Shh… don’t tell the MSM.
Is Limited Government an Oxymoron? | Thomas E. Woods, Jr.
“For years I was one of these people… “we’ve got to get back to the 10th amendment”…you’ve got to think maybe I am chasing a unicorn here.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpmqy9tC4uI
You have “underthought” the implications of the “vote with your feet” argument. Like Woods says in the video, government is the most dangerous monopoly in the history of the world. So, while localize tyrany would not be acceptable, the division of power between the state and feds allows the states to differ from one another in the event that some (states) are overbearing or oppressive. If the federal government chooses for all states, then ALL states suffer and their citizens have zero recourse. Whereas if the issue at hand is in state control, and some state(s) get it wrong, then at least it “contains” the damage by not forcing that mistake on all states.
You’re right that we should want our rights respected wherever we go, but we should also be wary of throwing all our eggs in one basket such that we eliminate our own escape route in the event that doesn’t happen. We don’t live in a perfect world, so making the perfect the enemy of the good will not do.
As far as who’s “closer” and more readily able to exercise power – that issue matters more as it pertains to knowledge and cocern with the particular situation and needs of the citizens. A governor may be closer in some sense, but that doesn’t make him any more able to exercise his power than the president. Each is fully able with the realm of power he’s given. However, the pertinent info on policy implications is more likely to get to a state governor and assembly from it’s roots in a smaller group of citizens than the concerns of 300 million Americans are to filter up to 435 members of Congress and the prez. Presidents and Congress pander to and deal with the lowest common denominator of problems and thus hoist hoards of unforseen consequences on mammoth “one size fits all” policies and legislation that almost NEVER take any significant amount of local and regional concerns into consideration. States aren’t going to be perfect, but there’s no doubt that they have a far better shot of understanding the implications of their policies on their citizens.
Among a few other typos, I typed “435 members of Congress.” Obviously that’s 535!
Forgive me if I have read what you said, but still feel pessimistic.
Often the zombies are more animate. And in perspective – desperate.
Boy, William F. Buckley is not looking too good lately.
*ba-dum-ching*
Hahaha I like how he said Boise.
Something I have always wondered to myself and I’m sure others (around here) have as well. Hypothetically, suppose the States wake up and start nullifying this and that federal law. The Feds get angry and push back in some way (legally, financially, militarily – fill in the blank). One or more States cut off formal ties with the Federal government or just straight up secede:
What happens to America at that point? Our national debt is in the trillions – who is technically liable for that? The States have surely benefited from the outlandish spending coming out of Washington.
Would the US collapse into another Civil War? What would that look like in the 21st century?
Would the rest of the world stand by and let us deal with our problems? Maybe they would feel entitled to invade and impose their own view of what should be done – the same thing our country has done in dozens of other countries.
There are unseen and unintended consequences for every action. Freedom from tyranny is all well and good and personally I think it would be worth it but would the average American think so? Would you?
That zombie could get a job with the CBC.
LOL.. Is that Bob the Zombie?
Gotta chime on with the approval. This is great!
MSM Zombie:
“You quote Hitler in book. You are Nazi!”
When things turn for the worse, there is only one thief left, so no competition.
Monopoly is NOT the way to go. Leaves us humans with no choice.
How did Tom land an interview with Chris Mattthews?
Tom Woods is humorous and humble. A FINE human being.
First, too funny! Loved it.
“States rights” is not strictly correct language, for sure. More properly, a “state” has no rights, only powers “granted by the people,” or so it is claimed. Ostensibly, “states rights” is a shorthand construction and refers to the rights of individual citizens as expressed through grants of power to the state government. (Whether or not it is actually achieved (or is realistic politics) is one thing, but it is the actual theory.) “States rights” is simply calling attention to an american conception of federalism.
Foundational to the principle of federalism is that human beings are imperfect. And rather than allow a monopoly of power (centralization of power) by these inevitably imperfect people, it is a less bad situation to structure the legal institutions such that no one gets too much power and also that they are pitted against each other. That is the “ambition counteracts ambition” as Madison put it. For example, before the 17th amendment, senators were appointed by the states. This is not necessarily a statement that a state government is “better” in the cause of liberty than the federal government, indeed they can trade roles back and forth with that regard, it is better to view it as a pitting of powers somewhat commensurate with each other, rather than an individual against the mighty state. (It seems clear now that the 17th swung too far to the favor of the general (federal) government, but it may be that previously it was to much in the favor of the States. Perhaps one senator appointed each way is a better balance for this arrangement that can never be perfect.)
The principle of federalism (and republicanism), as I understand it, is to pit local, state, and federal governments against each other, and also to pit them internally against each other via the separate branches (legislative, executing, judicial, and jury). In this way, the governmental powers have both vertical and horizontal separation respectively. It is a “mechanical” way of guarding against accumulating power in “one place” where human imperfections at governmental levels can have broad implications regarding the quality of life of those living under the jurisdiction’s rule. Under federalism, the scope of effect that a “bad government actor” can have is inherently limited.
In the US, there is a tendency to associate “states rights” doctrine (i.e., actual federalism) with slavery, due to certain facts regarding US history. However, the political theory of federalism does not require the historical fact of slavery in the US. To necessarily associate (conflate) slavery and federalism is a common attack on those promoting federalism as a superior form of institutional structure than the hierarchical form of highly centralized power (national or world governance). Frankly, the attack is ignorant (zombie) or disingenuous, at best.
As a sidenote, it isn’t just a “vote with your feet” argument for not casting power to far-away places. It is also that the local tyrant has a little more difficult accumulating the level of power of a national tyrant. It is possible the local tyrant can be more easily resisted.
This post is not a defense of government. It does allow that some institutional forms of government are better than others.
You said is very useful.
good…thank you for sharing
The article is in reality the great on this worthy subject. I fit in with your conclusions and looking forward to your coming updates. Just saying thanks will not just be enough, for the fantastic clarity in your writing. I’ve grabbed your rss feed to stay informed of any updates. Gratifying work and much success in your business dealings!
If we went exactly according to the U.S. Constitution we wouldn’t even be using paper dollars, apparently the only money that is allowed according to the Constitution is gold and silver. Likewise, we’re not supposed to have a U.S. Central Bank…but look—The Fed exists.
Great video nonetheless. Totally agree that the government needs to be quite a bit more decentralized. And that could quite possibly solve some of the problems with our economy being that is ridiculously expensive to maintain such a powerful federal government that in essence squanders taxpayer money and mismanages it as well.
This is really a funny one
Excellent video and interesting comments. The Founders used separation of powers to counter one thief with another (necessary evil). They also had faith that each generation would renew their principles, knowing full well that there are those among us who don’t like obstacles in their way to power. Each generation must rediscover and protect these principles and we (as humans are wont to) learn this the hard way.
One thing obvious from the discussions is the references to the several entities – citizenry, State and Government. Why? Aren’t we the State and the Government? If we don’t like what we are doing, we stop complaining and get involved, i.e. we protest, vote, support good candidates, or be good candidates. I think the Founders were as frustrated as anybody about participatory Government. Oh sorry. Games on TV. Gotta go.
That is hilarious. Very Interesting. Thank you for sharing.
not the best way to inspire people.
Aw, it’s a pity he took his mic off before he went to eat the ‘braaaiiiin’. I wanted to hear the muching!
Fantastic! Please more, more. (But maybe work on better makeup for the zombie.) Professor Woods is very entertaining. I enjoyed it.
to enjoy a higher level music enjoyment, choose monster beats studio headphones is so wise.
Comments on this entry are closed.