Description

Remso and the host of the Joey Clark Radio Hour and the Bunbury Report, Joey Clark, discuss how even good men are corrupted by absolute power.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • What role (if any) should the gov’t play in the continued funding of cutting-edge scientific research? According to the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and  Development), approximately 10% of all R&D conducted globally is directly funded by governments, with approximately 60% done by private industry and 20% by educational institutions. Granted, this number probably doesn’t take into account indirect gov’t funding through tax subsidies and incentives. That 10% goes towards projects on the cutting edge of science, such as NASAs various space ventures and the Large Hadron Collider at CERN (funded through the governments of the member states). Proponents of big gov’t science, such as Neil Degrasse Tyson, have stated in the past that projects like these are unlikely to be privately funded due to their high risk, high cost, and lack of return on investment. Gov’t, claims Tyson, is required to make the initial step and take all the risk so that private firms can follow in its wake with a clear picture of the requirements of such endeavours. TAM 2011: Our Future in Space Would such high risk, high cost projects be possible without gov’t backing?

    Jump to Discussion Post 10 replies
  • Venezuela has the highest violent crime rate in the world. Though it is not moral or justified, people choose violence over starvation when there are no alternatives. Of course, “we” libertarians all know that this situation was created by government/s coercion’s consequences, but so few among the greater population seem to recognize that. It seems like a similar fate faces the whole world.

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • This is a question that libertarians and constitutional conservatives have different views and answers on. Some libertarians are anarchist and want no state to exist per Murray Rothbard. Others prefer a LIMITED govt that only provides certain services like police, courts & military per Ludwig Von Mises; or even don’t a very limited welfare state per F.A. Hayek or the Chicago School of Economics. This forum is to sort out how limited govt should be according to what libertarians and anarchists think.

    Jump to Discussion Post 47 replies
  • What chunks of the government can we eliminate instantly, and what parts need to stay in place for a month or three?

    Jump to Discussion Post 7 replies
  • It has often been said that truth is stranger than fiction. It also often precedes fiction. In the hit TV series, L A Law, there was a story arc involving Abby Perkins, played by Michelle Greene, where she demonstrates a skill in criminal defense work and in a series of trials, juries bring in not guilty verdicts in cases against drug dealers. She has a conversation with Jimmy Smits’ character, Victor Sifuentas, where she worries about what she is doing; getting guilty people off. Sifuentes, who has also done some defense work, assures Abby that her work is necessary because it stands between us and a police state. (With that, I agree completely.) He cautions her though, to make sure that she protects herself by dotting her is and crossing her ts because if she continues with her success, they, meaning the government, will be coming after her. Sure enough, the government tries to take her down in a sting and setup operation. Such actions by our government should seem repulsive to us as Americans. It runs against our grain because we believe that it is the defense’s job to force a full examination of all the evidence against an accused. All Americans accept this as the price of our assumption of innocence. It also runs against our grain because we believe that in justice, as in life & sports, you have to accept defeat. To act otherwise is known as being a sore head. We tend to root for the Davids against the Goliaths. Americans are committed to playing as hard as we can by pre-set rules but we are also committed to accepting the outcome. Our government operates without such constraints. Our American government is not committed to acting in an American way! In the annals of American organized crime, few figures loom larger than Silvestri Patrone. There have been more famous figures, Al Capone, Charles ‘Lucky’ Luciano, Carlo Gambino, Joey Gallo & John Gotti but in all inner circles, Silvestri Patrone was known and respected. During the 1970s & into the 1980s, Patrone faced a series of highly publicized indictments. He turned to a newly minted attorney, Gerald Calvecchio, for his defense. In the equally high profile subsequent trials, the juries found Patrone not guilty. So, what did the government do? Did they just accept that they had not prepared their case well enough? Did they accept that Calvecchio had done his job well, as is the mandate he operates under? Of course not! Why they set him up with a plant, an ostensible client who was wired and coached him in what to say to coax an answer out of him that they could bring to a grand jury for an indictment, which they did. The grand jury system has become a sick joke; the joke about indicting a ham sandwich. Originally created to prevent malicious prosecutions by crazed & vengeful government, they have become tools of harassment. All that is necessary for an indictment is for a majority of the jurors, often 12 out of 23, to agree that a criminal charge is justified and it has become a one man show with the prosecutor being able to get an indictment of anyone for something. And if by some chance the grand jurors decline to indict, why all the prosecutor has to do is claim he has new evidence and convene another and then another and then another… Anyone care to give odds on the chances that eventually, a grand jury will indict? Well, indict Calvecchio they did. It went to trial and there was a hung jury. The government retried him but the next jury brought back a not guilty verdict. But why did he have to through it in the first place? The moral of the story is that you must never do anything to upset the government. It has the resources to destroy anyone and it will at the right provocation and the right provocation has included political actions. This is not may seem like a small matter but don’t forget this is just the tip of the iceberg of what government can do to anyone. That includes you. It is not paranoid to think that. It is reality.

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies