Categories





The Phaserl








TheLibertyMill


An Open Letter to Russell Brand – Let’s Start a Revolution!

from Stefan Molyneux:

Russell Brand recently spoke with Newsnight’s Jeremy Paxman about economic inequality, how voting doesn’t change anything, political apathy and revolution. Stefan Molyneux doesn’t think he went far enough. Let’s continue that conversation.

Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.

Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.

4 comments to An Open Letter to Russell Brand – Let’s Start a Revolution!

  • Good Ole Boy

    I would disagree. It is very dangerous to suggest that all your ideas are right and any that differ are wrong. Stefan is very articulate and good at expressing his ideas but that doesnt always mean he is right. To win a debate you dont have to prove you are right but that the other person is wrong. I think the non violence principle is great and we could use a lot more of it our society but it without a informed population it will always lead to special interests taking control of the direction of society.

    If the idea that more taxes and social welfare always led to a greater income gap and the degrading of the middle class then Norway would be one of the worst countries in the world with its 50% tax and huge social welfare programs. The reality is the opposite. I do recognize that it is one out of many but proves that their system works.

    We as a country allowed ourselves to be distracted while a few people took over this nation and took it in a direction that is against the interests of the people. Our anger at what they have done to our government is moving us to destroy one of the few vehicles we have to rein in the large corporations that run this planet. The only thing that has ever really scared them into action has been leaders with the support of the people using the power granted to them to put a stop to their plundering. Think of JFK or DeGaul or acts like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or Glass Steagall. We put a man on the moon, built huge interstates and canal systems, and invented the internet. Imagine if we removed the debt money system and took half of the defense funding and brain power and used that to address economic and ecological issues what we could accomplish in just 10 years or less. Just as an example, spending the money for the interstate system was a huge expense and added to the debt but the increased economic benefit and tax income from that extra commerce is more than paid for itself.

    My point being that it is not all bad. One day we will get to a point where Stefans ideas are the norm but we have to get from here to there. For now we have to use the tools we have to deal with the problems that exist in the here and now. The non violence principle on works when all parties agree.

  • “…but it without a informed population it will always lead to special interests taking control of the direction of society.” The anarchist argument against that is that without a State, there will be no means for “special interests” to take hold of society as it simply would not be economically feasible.

    And regarding the purported successes of Scandinavian welfare, you may be interested in checking out a number of libertarian arguments against those claims — http://www.libertyclassroom.com/sweden/

    • Good Ole Boy

      The reports you site back up my claims. While the Scandinavian countries have high taxes and welfare, it is balanced out with less strict regulation. The government of those nations, Norway in particular, use funds from natural resources to actually benefit the population. These reports, in whole, say we are equal in freedoms to the Scandinavian countries just in different areas. If that is true, then why are they so much better off than us? I propose it is due to the small size of the countries enabling them to have more control over their governments. If they had joined the EU we would see a very different standard of living in these countries.

      I get the idea that if there is no centralized government that there is no system through which special interests could seize power. My point is without barriers, what is to prevent wealth individuals from monopolizing resources or necessities? Some would say people would choose to do their business elsewhere but that is assuming that they are aware of the monopolization and care or that there is somewhere else to find that resource. Then you have the idea that some of the countries in Africa the government has almost no control what so ever and people are free to do what they want. But then you have warlords stepping in to fill that gap who then terrorize the people and take what they want. It is a valid point even though it may have been overplayed by some.

      A system free a force would be ideal but as long as you have people who are willing to use force to take what is not theirs and those that who will do what ever they can to ensure their or their kids survival, then you will not have a world free of violence. We can get there but do not think that if government up and disappeared tomorrow that the stage would be set for a perfect world. Right now we need to come together to force the changes necessary to bring back opportunities for the regular man.

      Without the Fed, this nation would be the most advanced nation on the planet. Right now, Rand Paul is going to hold up the nomination of Janet Yellen to Fed chair to get his audit the Fed bill on the floor. I normally dont believe that the normal political process can do much but this is an issue that people from all belief systems and ideologies can come together. That is something we need right now.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>