Description

Tonight on the Resistance Podcast, Bryce and I take a look at presidential hopefuls Jill Stein (Green Party) and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party), and their differing philosophies. At the Resistance we fully believe that non-participation is acquiescence to the status-quo, and that if you want to be free, the status-quo is precisely what must be challenged.

We find ourselves, this election cycle, at a momentous crossroads; as Americans will set the precedent for the future political landscape. With two candidates who showcase record low popularity the stage is set for third party viability. Do we have the courage to break the two party duopoly? Do we truly wish to choose our candidates or to have them chosen for us?

That’s up to you…

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
  • I find it odd that the Libertarian candidates never touch base on this issue in their campaigns. I want all anarchists, Libertarians, Anarcho-Capitalists, ect too answer.   The photo below shows the “Great Society” leader, and the other who was accused of being a Communist insurgent shaking hands over the Voting Rights Act of 1965. I guess this photograph sums-up on what version of history one will refuse to accept, and the other which will be accepted as the “norm.”  

    Jump to Discussion Post 8 replies
  • Does voting and participating in the mass ritual of electing officials violate the NAP? Are plebiscites or referendums in violation of the NAP ?   Does popular will of a collective trump the individual rights and wishes of a minority?   And for those Liberty minded people that vote for a lesser of two or three evils, how does voting for any evil eradicate evil?   I am certain that these are age old questions and if they are over asked then please forgive me and ignore this thread.   I have heard Walter Blocks and others analogy of voting for a slave that beats you fewer times, etc but for me this does not satisfy my wishes and desires to end slavery.  The assumption and illusion that slavery was kind, pleasant and even benevolent has and did perpetuate the very institution that many sought to end.   All human coercive ownership should be the ultimate goal and not fifty shades of it. All the best Kym

    Jump to Discussion Post 9 replies
  • Hi everyone, We could all use a good laugh these days, so just thought I’d pass along one of our new animated videos. For Liberty, The Wry Guys

    Jump to Discussion Post 0 replies
  • Mass Shootings Make Sense In A Democracy Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 5 replies