Watching a large part (I had to reboot in order to see the stream) of the performance from the other side of the Atlantic, I found the form of the talk/lecture excellent, apart from kissing and hugging members of the audience – and addressing strangers by first name. The content I have more reservations about.
The Judge put on a show, and he interacted well with the audience. More talks/lectures need to be like that. All too often, the lecturer gives a monolog, and he thinks he is excellent at interaction if he opens for a few questions at the end.
What’s wrong with public displays of affection and addressing people by first name? I’d be the first in that room to say I don’t give a damn about the Constitution but it was thought provoking none the less.
^I also feel the same way… but Tom Woods pointed out that its still useful to talk about the constitution as proof that the federal government can’t even follow its own rules.
Hah, that was you? Your (or the guy next to you) response sparked a little debate in the live-feed chat between me and some others on how using the “creator argument” when talking about rights tends to not work.
It doesn’t exactly appeal to my traditionalist sentiment.
Is anyone denying it was thought-provoking? My main disagreement with Judge Napolitano, sir, would be the Americanist myth, including – but not limited to – his superficial use of the word “King.”
‘It doesn’t exactly appeal to my traditionalist sentiment.’
Ok then I can understand the hugging but addressing people by their first name is a traditional mannerism. Perhaps you may think that people should use surnames but it is common among friends to be entitled to address people on a first name basis. Friendship could develop at the moment of interaction so I think it is possible to meet a person and have them become your friend especially in an environment in which there are shared ideas or outlooks.
‘Is anyone denying it was thought-provoking? My main disagreement with Judge Napolitano, sir, would be the Americanist myth, including – but not limited to – his superficial use of the word “King.”’
No, no one is saying it was a horrible lecture. I just figured that even though he spoke on a topic that may seem irrelevant to anarchists, it was still interesting to listen to it. Would you explain this ‘Americanist myth’ further so I can understand what you mean by it? What are your qualms about how he used the word ‘king’? Was it improperly applied?
I wouldn’t say that minarchist speakers aren’t allowed. I would just say in a room full of mostly anarchists and everyone at least a minarchist, arguing for minarchy as opposed to whatever we have now doesn’t really do much. Maybe if instead he wanted to challenge anarchist and say why he was a minarchist, that would have been more thought provoking. Another unique thing the Judge can offer is the perspective of being a a freaking tv show host, and of being one of the biggest names currently out there spreading the message of liberty.
It wasn’t a terrible speech, but I think there were many ways it which it could have been better. I certainly appreciated the energy he brought, and I wasn’t even there
I’ll leave the American mannerism of excessive use of first names – at least for now.
The Americanist myth is – briefly explained – the myth that the world was “burried” in tyranny, essentially an age of darkness, and then the American Revolution made the light shine.
Judge Napolitano did not say this explicitly of course, but I got the feeling that this was part of his message.
See, e.g., Gary North on the tax level at the time of the American Revolution.
His use of the word King seemed to be a reference to someone who can do asever he pleases. This was not the case with King George III, who operated with a Parliament. And kings in classical European monarchy had far less powers than the omnipotent government we have now. Therefore I believe his use of the word to be inappropriate.
I was was watching live on Ustream and I knew that had to be THE Jeremiah when the Judge called you out. It was very strange watching it online. First of all the people in the chat were predominantly minarchist, which I found odd. I know that there are minarchist Austrians but to me it seemed like the ratio was heavily in favor of anarchy. Then the judge was asked a question about anarchy and he went on for 20 minutes about something else. I am not really sure what the point of his talk was. I don’t think many Austrians really give a shit about the Constitution. Even minarchist ones probably have lots of problems with it.
I think what he could have had the most to say would be about how to get into the mainstream and spread the message to more and more people. How and when did the judge become famous anyway? I’m not really sure.
I was was watching live on Ustream and I knew that had to be THE Jeremiah when the Judge called you out. It was very strange watching it online. First of all the people in the chat were predominantly minarchist, which I found odd. I know that there are minarchist Austrians but to me it seemed like the ratio was heavily in favor of anarchy. Then the judge was asked a question about anarchy and he went on for 20 minutes about something else. I am not really sure what the point of his talk was. I don’t think many Austrians really give a shit about the Constitution. Even minarchist ones probably have lots of problems with it.
I think what he could have had the most to say would be about how to get into the mainstream and spread the message to more and more people. How and when did the judge become famous anyway? I’m not really sure.
Someone in the crowd asked him if he was an anarchist. The Judge said, "am I denying anything? " He tore up the constitution pretty bad. Labelling him is premature.
@Mr. Baltzersen: I had similar experiences on my 2008 trip to New York. Every tourist spot had body scans, ironically you had to pass two of them to see the statue of liberty.
@Re Napolitano: He’s an ancap in disguise. He answered that liberty should come before the constitution, it doesn’t get more obvious than that.
I think we need people like that. Ron Paul the fake minarchist, Judge Napolitano and Michael Badnarik the fake constitutionalists, maybe even Rand Paul the fake neocon? (One can dream, right!)
Let’s not get carried away by intellectual purity - people like Paul and Napolitano have converted and will continue to convert many people to ancap.
Ron Paul has said before he would be fine with ancap, Napolitano basically admits the same now at Mises U and according to comments on the Badnarik-Molyneux video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKZKkfhEfQM&feature=related) Badnarik sees the constitution as a tool for anarchy.
Regarding Rand Paul I have no such indication, but how can you be a neocon with Ron Paul as a father? Possible sure, somehow I think it’s more a presidential strategy.
What makes you think such statements are so far fetched?
Regarding Keuhnelt-Leddihn I have no opinion as I know nothing about him except for the wikipedia info.
Perhaps they’re not so far fetched. I just thought it seemed like you, sir, were taking the slightest hint as definitive proof of full belief. After all, regarding Judge Napolitano, the discussion in this thread shows that it might not be so clear as you might want it.
BTW, what is it exactly that would mark Rand Paul as a neocon? Is it outright neoconservative statements or remarks? Or is it merely (weak) neocon tendencies?
I might indeed be taking my hopes for reality, but I think with the rise of the semantic web even going back to constitutional gov’t will end up in ancapism as startups will start offering law arbitrage. If Ron Paul & Co could take away the habeus corpus violations and keep the internet free, the market will take are of the rest (I speculate). Edit: And end the FED of course, how could I forget it.
