Tom,

You don’t know how right you are. Media Matters has posted a clip of you on this show with the heading reading “Intermittent hate group member Tom Woods…” The zombies are nothing if not predictable. I got a good chuckle out of it. They can’t be bothered with challenging nullification on its merits. They resort to ad hominem attacks on those who advocate it. This is why we’ll win.

“Neo-Confederate… Neo-Confederate.” – The Zombie

We’re with you Tom! You must really be over the target to be taking so much enemy fire.

Dr. Woods, what do you think about the new Healthcare Compact that some of the states our looking at?

Thank you

I hardly think the following refutation of nullification comes from a ‘zombie’:

“”"The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other”"”– James Madison

Moreover, it appears that my view that statism is best engaged on the national level at its source in Washington rather than the false security and temporary refuge afforded by nullification is consistent with Madison view on the nature of oppressive governance.

btw, Tom you never did address my challenge on which system of governance you believe would best ‘establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our children’:

A Constitutional Federal Republic or,

an Anarcho-capitalist society ?

So many strawman arguments and misrepresentations, this will take a lengthy post:

“That is hardly a refutation of nullification, especially since it has proven so spectacularly false”.—Tom

Absurd,

Madison clearly states that the smaller the society the more easily and likely oppressive policies can be executed.

“”Moreover, where have I said that all opponents of nullification are zombies? As usual, you missed the point completely””.—Tom

Wrong,

you clearly revel in this juvenile and diversionary tactic of labeling opposition to your anarchist schemes as zombies. hence , I found it necessary to cite the prose of von Mises, Hayek, Madison, et al which are consistent with my view that statist threats cannot be permanently addressed by simply metastasizing them from the Federal behemoth.

“”And I was pretty sure I did answer that question in quite a lengthy refutation of your jumbled views. I’d want to pretend that refutation hadn’t been written, too””,– Tom

No you didn’t Tom other than the semantic side-step that you favored a private-property system over our present political system (which by your definition is not the Constitution).

My question is not whether you favor anarchism over what you imagine the present system to be if not the Constitution — My question is whether you support anarcho-capitalism over a Constitutional Federal Republic or indeed any liberal democracy of your preference

Do you understand ? Anarcho-capitalism or liberal democracy (you choose which variant)

“”You still haven’t answered my question (actually, my dozen questions, but I’ll be a sport), namely how you can think it is my subjective interpretation of Madison and Jefferson that holds that they referred us to the ratifiers for the meaning of the Constitution.””—Tom

Nobody has a monopoly on interpreting the Constitution or the intent of the founding fathers, particularily someone who rejects the utility of the original document i protecting liberties.

“”Pray tell, how do YOU interpret those words?””—Woods

I interpret the intent of the founding fathers to mean that a just and prosperous society requires a small measure of government to provide mechanisms that would forestall the emergence of absolutism by decentralizing, balancing, and transparency of the elements of coercion in society without weakening national defense to the point where were too vulnerable to external statist threats.

I believe that the founders very nearly got it right. Indeed, our political and civil freedoms have remained largely intact or expanded since 1776. However, I don’t believe that our founders would have envisioned or approved of the extreme level of economic coercion engage by government today. Nor do I believe that they would so readily abandon the most effective and exceptional system and society known to man in favor of a utopian joke that is anarcho-capitalism that none of them favored in the least.

“””So here you are making such a big deal out of a Constitution whose correct interpretation you reject out of hand”” Tom “ I never knew how right I was” Woods.

Wrong Tom,

I just reject your subjective, selective, and anarchic interpretation of the Constitution.

“””And you have never explained why people should reject the interpretive principles of Madison and Jefferson in favor of those of “Ridin’ Dirty.””” – Tom

Wrong again Tom

I support Jefferson and Madison’s view that government that governs least, governs best.

However, I disapprove of Jefferson’s embargo on trade in 1807 as a violation of the spirit of the document if not the actual Constitution (perhaps you can enlighten me on this indiscretion from Jefferson). Moreover, I disagree with Jefferson’s advocacy of public education.

I believe that in all human interactions, except defense and law, private entities are far more effective than any government scheme.

Importantly though, I guarantee that Jefferson, Madison, von Mises, Hayek, et al did not take this view to the extreme as you, Rothbard, Rockwell, et al have done and advocate the elimination of all government.

“”As I keep saying to you, good luck with that one. So far, luck alone doesn’t seem to have done much.””—Tom

I will try to stay above the fray and reserve comment on your last dig.

Good Luck Tom.

.I do not like the term “anarcho-capitalism.” I have explained that I believe the Constitution is preferable to the system we have now, but that a private-property society is even more to be preferred, because it does not involve the initiation of violence against peaceful people. You consider that an evasion? — Tom

Semantics aside, does your ‘private property’ system have any government entities ?

and if not, what mechanisms are in place to prevent the emergence of absolutism, save the fallacy of market forces are always pacific and voluntary in an anarchist society ?

As opposed to liberal democracy in which the elements of coercion are decentralized, balanced and readily transparent. Hence, the unprecedented maintenance of political and civil freedoms since 1776.

Here is one issue you cannot wiggle out of. You are saying that the interpretive principle of Madison is to be rejected in favor of yours. You are saying that the Constitution is the one legal document in history whose meaning is to be divorced from the intentions of those who adopted it.–Tom

the strawman cup runneth over indeed !!!!

I have stated that intent is valid, as is the actual written law. Moreover, you seem focused like a laser on the intent of only one of the signers to the neglect of all others. Moreover, if we are going to cite intent. Please provide evidence that any of the founding fathers, von Mises, Hayek, et al (whose views I respect and admire greatly) believed in the elimination of government in favor of a “private-property” society or any other anarchist scheme ?

We the people need to stop the segregation of the elite from the workers of our country.

That was awesome!

“…it is dangerous to support the absurd policy that grievous restrictions on free trade are required for national security reasons.”

Good of you to say,and the Massachusetts legislature of 1809 agreed by nullifying the act and stating that it is …”unjust, oppressive, unconstitutional. While this State maintains its sovereignty and independence, all the citizens can find protection against outrage and injustice in the strong arm of State government”

This is the point of Mr.Woods,the states have a say in whats constitutional.The federal supreme court does not have the final word.

Nullification and secession,the former being a rightful remedy to unconstitutional acts,the latter being a last resort.The people of the states retain the right of how they will be governed.To deny this is to reject the principles of the founding.

“Lets be honest Tom, you know I am correct.”

If you say so HAL 9000… What a joke this guy is. Someone looking to be taken seriously wouldn’t spew fallacious statements and subsequently employ such intellectually dishonest tactics when blown out of the water by, clearly, a far superior intellect.

“Hence, the unprecedented maintenance of political and civil freedoms since 1776″

Have you not seen our abhorrent incarceration rate, beating out regimes like Russia, China and South Africa?

Are you ignorant of the continual (97% so far) debasement of our legal tender for almost 100 years by a private banking cartel formed in collusion with a compliant Congress?

Both of these present-day atrocities against human freedom and liberty were enabled by a federal government that willfully ignores key parts of the document which established it.

The Founders (excluding monarchist Hamilton of course) would be ashamed to witness how tolerant most modern Americans are of naked tyranny.

Another strawman devoid of fact, logic, and empiricism Tom?

Let me repeat my post since the original was apparently not readable, hence the extreme distortion in your analysis:

‘Contrary, I embrace the intent of the founding fathers since I affirm their wisdom that some measure of government is needed to forestall the emergence of absolutism. In contrast, your disengenious advocacy of the founding fathers is limited to whatever intent you can use to destroy the system they founded in order to improve the outlook for your utopian fantasy of ‘private-property’ (aka anarcho-capitalism, maximal-capitalism, et al) to emerge within a former state.” –Ridin’ Dirty

In sum, there is absolutely zero evidence that any of the founding fathers, including Jefferson or Madison, adhered to your untenable utopian anarcho-capitalist fantasy.

If you thought intent had any role in constitutional interpretation, you would have conceded on the war powers issue. Instead, you invent arguments used by no one (and I mean that literally — no one) in order to justify modern presidential war powers. In fact, most of your arguments on that have nothing at all to do with the Constitution, which you consider to be stupid and backward on war. (Yes, I know you have your own private interpretation of “commander-in-chief,” but since your view was shared by exactly no one — and I mean no one at all, not even one person — I think we may safely discount it. The entire generation of Federalists vs. “Ridin’ Dirty.” Hmm. What side to choose?)

Again I remind you: the only way libertarians have distinguished themselves in connection with you is in their patience. Any progressive or neocon site would have dismissed you as an unreachable tar baby within milliseconds.

Tom,

I have repeatedly challenged your end goal that is to be obtained via nullification and predictably you have repeatedly engaged in disengenious and diversionary strawman positions.

Indeed, the less defensible the ideology, the more nuanced and less clear the language.

Again, nullification is a course of action, like terrorism. It is a means to obtain an end.

More importantly, what is your end goal for advocating nullification ?

Is it to simply seek temporary refuge from statism in Washington to statism in Lansing, Columbus, Madison, et al ?

Or is it a return to Constitutional framework present in the early 1800′s when embargo’s, Libyan invasions, censorship, et al ran amok ?

Of course, we both know, that you seek to promote your untenable utopian anarchic society.

What is amusing is that you have to hide your advocacy for a failed ideology behind the farce of nullification.

Come clean Tom, set yourself free. If you embrace anarchism, then admit it, revel in it, don’t hide from it. Moreover, state the obvious — nullification is your favored means to obtain the end that is anarchism.

Phil,

Are you seriously advocating the regimes in Russia, China, and former S. Africa as possessing more political and civil freedoms the the USA or is this another strawman argument ?

Moreover, cite any system that has provided more civil, political and economic freedoms than classical liberalism.

Indeed, we need to address the significant economic coercion that government now practices against the American people, And I have outlined on this blog a few of the steps that I support to reduce this threat — (balanced budget amendment, restrict government spending to a very low percentage of GDP, elimination of entitlements, et al).

I also believe that we could significantly reduce the prison population that you lament by decriminalizing adult manufacture, sale, and use of controlled substances.

Nonetheless, if you had taken the time to read my posts thoughtfully and objectively, you would have learned that I support life, liberty, and private property as much as any anarchist — however we differ in the manner that we believe these essentials are best maintained.

Tom believes in the efficacy of the utopian anarchist system that has never successfully surmounted the challenges offered by statism — In contrast, I follow the wisdom of Jefferson, Madison, and the rest of our founding fathers in the view that some measure of government is needed to forestall the emergence of absolutism.

Indeed, von Mises and Hayek also disagreed with Tom on this fundamental point — (irrespective of Mises personal and professional affection for his anarchist student Rothbard — which Tom seems to think is one of the lynchpins of his argument defending anarchism.)

In sum, if you dont recognize that this nullification scam is a smoke-screen to promote anarchism — no amount of re-education will sway you or the rest of the adherents to Tom’s schemes.

Good day.

Dissent from Madison ??!!

Even my limited knowledge on Constutional minutia and anecdotal evidence is informed enough to know that at several points in Madison’s career he unequivocally rejected nullification.

Moreover I provided the preceding quote that clearly illustrates Madison’s view that nullification or balkanization of the Union merely strengthens the hand of statist.

Indeed, I intuitively believed this prior to finding this quote a mere 30 seconds after a general search on google.

“”"The smaller the society…… the more easily will they (statists) concert and execute their plans of oppression. — Madison

Madison knew that cutting the head off the hydra merely allows it to reemerge with two heads without addressing the heart of the problem.

Nullification will do nothing to address statist abuses, it will simply metastasize them. it is far better to address statist abuses at the source in Washington using the same framework that statists have used to usurp economic freedoms, namely an intact Constitution from Maine to California.

Your entire posts consist of anarchism anarchism anarchism pacifism utopia pacifism anarchism, and you pretend to be shocked when people respond by noting your curious inability to stay focused and sustain an argument.—- Tom

Nullification is simply a means to obtain an end, the substance of any discussion is on the ends.

And your ends are absolutely inconsistent and counter to anything the founding fathers envisioned.

Indeed, throughout US history statists have been equally vocal proponents of nullification – hence it is simply a means that while important does not address or speak to the ends to be achieve via this means.

In sum, you seem to hang your hat on a means in the absence of a clearly defined end save the vague motivation to remove statists

My challenge is what of the aftermath ?

a classical liberal society envisioned by von Mises, Hayek, Jefferson, Madison, et al or the untenable, utopian pipe dream of anarchism favored by yourself ?