They love to bring on the lunatics to debate. I was listening to the Diane Rehm Show on NPR the other day…she had nothing but gun control advocate “experts” on her show, and she took the liberty of reading some e-mail that she had supposedly gotten (it could have been some 12-year-old troll, but you know she’ll decieve all of those types anyway) where it was some redneck who said “there’s a nger in the White House, praise the lord and pass the ammunition. Second Amendment Rulez.”
It was a blatant shout-out to everyone saying “this is what everyone who wants their right to own a gun is like.” Alex Jones is not helping.
I just watched Piers Morgan’s “interview” of Larry Pratt. I really have to hand it to Larry, not just in what he represents but for keeping his cool so well, especially when that inbred snotwad Morgan had nothing to throw at him but abrasive reviles. Honestly, it just made me rage.
^But when someone else does it they’re a lunatic. You know, if something is supposed to piss you off, you’d better get pissed off. Didn’t you ever deal with bullies?
And if you don’t want Alex Jones speaking for you, don’t. He doesn’t speak for me. Only I do. If someone wants to lump you in with him, for any reason, they aren’t worth talking to anyway. Collectivists. “Oh you’re one of those?” They’ve made up their mind. Leave them be. There wasn’t any convincing going to happen on Piers Morgan anyway. Just publicity, and he’ll get it.
It’s just that the majority of people think in categories, and therefore if we are to truly deal with these types, than we have to be careful about how we represent the libertarian case. That’s just what I think.
“We”? Homie don’t play that game. When you get the interview, you can handle it how you want. Alex got the interview. Alex handled it how he wanted. Personally, I think the time for convincing is over. They’ll either wake up through their own circumstance like with this tax hike, or not and they aren’t relevant. Even still, most Americans like when people get excited? Just not the internet people. Hipsters, nerds, ‘readers’. But everyone else loves them some drama.
It’s been stated many times (including here) that Milton Friedman advocated the abolishment of the Fed toward the end of his life. However, he died in late 2006. I had no idea he was this adament this early on (plus he says “long been in favor”, implying he’s held his opinion for quite some time even before the interview)…
Note: Murray Rothbard was still alive when this interview took place…so it’s quite feasible he was aware of Friedman’s stark anti-Fed position before he died. I’m wondering if he ever mentioned it. Anyone have any literature?
P.S.
For anyone interested, as usual, the interview is excellent. I highly recommend it:
I particularly enjoy the 2 minutes starting at 20:40 in part 2. Among other things, Friedman verbalizes the concept illustrated in this video Clayton is quite fond of referencing, namely the reality of benefits of government intervention being concentrated, while the costs tend to be dispersed.
