April 23, 2016

Taleed Brown: “Vote on principle, not just for the sake of winning”

Lauren SouthernArchive

Anarcho-libertarian YouTuber That Guy T, aka Taleed Brown, talked to me about the presidential race, and the issue of purity vs. pragmatism in politics.

He's pretty uncompromising in his views, arguing that while Donald Trump has a lot to recommend him, too many of Trump's policies are authoritarian. However, Brown said he'd cast a ballot for Trump as a “protest vote” against “the huge uprise of the regressive Left.”

I argue that Brown's kind of philosophical purity will turn the libertarian movement into “a book club” that won’t have any real world impact.

WATCH my entire show when you become a Premium Member of TheRebel.media. It's fast and easy to join -- just CLICK HERE and get instant exclusive access to news, analysis and interviews the mainstream media won't show you!

You must be logged in to comment. Click here to log in.
commented 2016-04-25 04:04:26 -0400
There is some truth that western society has come far enough, that there is little more that needs to be done. This is why you see elections that focus around very little issues. The only thing left for the politicians to do these days, is just bicker over money and some new rights for special interest groups.
commented 2016-04-24 15:44:51 -0400
As life becomes more comfortable, people get soft in their bodies and their heads, and an ever-increasing percentage of voters treat politics as a spectator sport, where voting for a winner is all that matters. It stands to reason then, that this will result in ever more narcissistic sociopaths running for office, and an accelerating downward spiral of the nation’s wealth and services as the competence and ethics of parliamentarians declines in lockstep with those of the voters.

With every passing year I become more convinced that the only solution – and it ain’t gonna happen – would be to choose our politicians by something like a jury system, where term limits are imposed and appointment dates are staggered so that there is always corporate knowledge in the system.
commented 2016-04-24 02:40:16 -0400
As for the debate regarding first past the post versus proportional, it would lead to more parties in the end and a much better and wider debate with the Canadian people winning out in the end.

Do not forget that accountability, transparency and openness are what most Canadian voters want, yet we are lacking from administrations dating back to Trudeau Sr. Back in 1971, parties were more MP independent, and now they are large corporate entities that do not want a fair and open and equal democracy.

I think Canadians deserve a choice in the area that matters most. Which is why I want I want state funded elections and no money in politics and positive ads to demonstrate what all the parties are.

Canadians should be educated in a non-partisan way.

Nationalism has its own scale just like neoliberalism and just like libertarianism and just like other ideologies as well.

How do you figure regulations were the problem when the system ran rampant and people selling the mortgages were not allowed to be vetted or checked and the system policed itself? It sounds like laissez faire if you ask me, or a system of no checks and balances, which is exactly what libertarian conservatives, laissez faire supporters and minarchist libertarians (anarcho-capitalists) want.

The best way to fix the system is to have one type of justice where if you do something wrong you pay.
commented 2016-04-24 02:35:18 -0400
Oh ya like I am going to take the word of a partisan and diehard conservative to define what communism means when communism has so many variants and it means the full banning of private property. Clearly from the videos I posted the Canadian Action party does not advocate for socialism. The party advocates for nationalism and using the Bank of Canada for money creation.

Also, it wants a balanced foreign policy and the party is 9/11 truth.

The party also wants an infrastructure bank, mixed economics, resigning of the free trade agreements or complete throwing away of them, and full employment using capitalism.

Therefore, the party supports a mixture of public and private which is basically the system we have now.

I would say we are too capitalistic which is fascism.
commented 2016-04-24 02:29:10 -0400
Strategic voting works in a first past the post system. Not so well in actual proportional representation. There was a reason why the progressive conservatives merged with the reform party. Canada’s system encourages a two party system because of the first past the post rule.
commented 2016-04-24 02:12:35 -0400
John Sciliano what makes the party you are pushing so truthful? Sorry i do not trust them and you seem to speak of communism.
commented 2016-04-24 02:11:16 -0400
John Sciliano regulations were the problem with the mortgages.
commented 2016-04-24 01:23:00 -0400
I mentioned the Liberals and Tories.

Debt cannot and will not be paid down. They are suggesting we are not working hard enough.

Nationalism in the form of the Canadian Action party can do it.

I can post a few videos also showing Canadian Action proof of these things.

National Debt talk by the Canadian Action party https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lW6MDkrnWc



These videos talk about debt, democracy and other issues as well. At least I talked about the terrible and shabby mainstream parties, but you go and defend the Conservative party even though they are part of them. The real question is you ignore all of what they have done yet you will not even be open-minded to purchase memberships from minor parties as an option? It sounds to me that no matter what anyone says you will always be a Tory shill. I can at least admit the mainstream are all part of the problem.

That is the difference and you have made your intention clear by picking the mainstream which will continue selling out Canada, indebting Canada, and they will continue selling out Canada and the Canadian Action party suggests the next generation will not have anymore jobs in the next gen.

That is the truth.

Shall I post some more?!
commented 2016-04-24 00:52:08 -0400
Nope anti-globalism can be protectionist, populist, communist, socialist, nationalist, national-socialist, national-bolshevik or anarchist-localist. It shows me you have never read about ideologies and you cannot differentiate what distinguishes one from the other. You need to stop watching Rebel it only allows you to engage in right wing groupthink.

Canada needs to be an independent nation.

This path Canada has been on since 1988 as stated by the Canadian Action party which I am a member and they are centre to centre-left nationalists that are anti-free trade agree that free trade brought us here and TPP will remove all manufacturing jobs from Canada.

It is that race to the bottom those economists warned us about in 1988.

It is why partisan politics only allows people to believe the economists that they agree with.

Many ideologies disagree with neoliberalism, globalism and free trade. Sad you cannot understand that. The party I am part of agrees in a generation double digit employment will be the new norm.

As people say, fascism is capitalism in decline.

Lastly, this whole notion that free markets are separate from cronyism is a complete lie because cronyism is free trade style economics which the NDP/Liberals/Conservatives all agree with. It also shows that trying the same thing or going slightly further or sounding a bit more extreme may be sufficient to ease your conscience but the system is an absolute failure and one that definitely does not help future generations.

Being anti-free is not communist. It is state capitalist and the mixed economy.

Communism means banning private property. Such a model is not part of civic nationalism. You seriously know nothing about ideologies other than what you are told!
commented 2016-04-24 00:49:14 -0400
Mr. T needs to vote for Trump if he wants the least amount of thrashings of the whip.

Or being a CP, he can go for the free hot sauce from Hitlery Killington, the race-card raising racist. :-O

commented 2016-04-24 00:36:02 -0400
Hey John, at least you finally admit you are a communist. Now fuck off and crawl back into your cave you moron.
commented 2016-04-24 00:02:39 -0400
jesus people! stop debating trump . the globalists are about to make their move. they are going to start a race war, blame trump , shut off the power , shut off the water, seize your money in the banks, and cause total chaos in their bid for total control. I could give you a hundred experts that will say the same thing but for now, this will do.
stock up on non-perishable food items now. if you need meds, get what you can now. keep the gas tank topped up. the white house is using the election as a smoke screen. there isn’t going to be a god damn election people! some suggest that the banks will close for a weekend to ‘clear a virus’ from their system. when they do this…it’s over. you know we cannot sustain the interest on the debt. the economy is about to collapse. martial law is about to be imposed. the globalists are in exactly the positions they want to be in. they control all the major players. Germany , France, United States, Canada and so on. the pentagon has it’s orders. the fed reserve has had a week of emergency meetings. between now and November, we are fucked. be ready .
commented 2016-04-23 22:08:27 -0400
Lauren is asking an interesting question but I think she is asking it as if there is a right answer and a wrong answer and as if that right answer is “pragmatism”.

Personally, I don’t think it is that simple. When I think of pragmatism, I think of pretty much every Western politician that has ever lived: people that promised one thing and then delivered something very different. So we get people like Pierre Trudeau running his 1972 re-election campaign on the solemn promise NOT to adopt wage and price controls and then we got him IMPLEMENTING wage and price controls the very next year. Was he ever really against them or was his opposition to them simply pandering to an electorate that did not share his views with the intention of doing what he wanted once he was re-elected? I really don’t know. I just know that this kind of thing disgusts me.

Is purism any better though? Whenever I contemplate that question, I think about all the Marxists who murdered millions and even tens of millions – in the cases of Mao and Stalin – of their own people for the sake of implementing an ideology that they swore was going to make their countries better places. Stalin, for instance, collectivized agriculture and precipitated a huge famine that killed several million Ukrainians (and some Russians). Mao launched The Great Leap Forward which killed as many as 38 million Chinese. They thought they were being true to their beloved Marxism so they ignored rationality itself to accomplish it and millions died as a result. Is that “better” somehow than being pragmatic and adopting policies that might actually work, however impure? I really don’t think so.

I still long for a better world but I’m a heck of a lot more cautious about it than I was in my youth. It’s not easy to change things and it’s not usually desirable to try unless you first really know what you’re doing. The fact of the matter is that most proposed changes have not been thought out or tested before they get implemented. Some theorist says “Hey, here’s a (half-baked) idea; let’s try this!”. Some politician, looking for votes and/or the approval of interest groups says “Sure, that’s a great idea!”. Then, if he/she gets elected, he/she orders the idea implemented. More (far more) often than not, the idea works very badly and has more (often many more) negatives than positives so the theorist and the bureaucrats work in tandem to gradually make the idea more or less tolerable – or maybe just get it to the point where we are so used to it that we don’t scream about how awful it is any more. That’s why I think the best way forward is to try new ideas on a small scale first and for a limited time. If they work – or at least improve things – they can, perhaps, be made better and, only when they are working consistently well, they should be rolled out nationally.

Therefore, if we want to legalize marijuana, it makes more sense to me to do it in a particularly province or county first and then see what the pros and cons are. If the cons turn out to be exceed the pros, we either improve the program or scrap it. If the pros exceed the cons, we implement it on a larger scale and see if it still works the way it did on the original small scale. If it still works at that scale, we should roll it out nationally. The advantage of this approach is that we spend a lot less money – and do a lot less harm – if it’s a bad idea. Also, if we do implement it, we’ve got real world experience and know how to do it right.

To me, the acid test for any ideology is not whether the intentions of the proposer are pure but whether the ideology actually makes things better. Voting for the wholesale national implementation of an idea that hasn’t been tried seems to me foolish in the extreme. (It’s even more foolish when you vote for ideas that HAVE been tried but that were massive disasters when they were tried. Marxism is a particularly obvious example of this. I’ve yet to see a single VILLAGE that worked under Marxist principles with guns pointed at people’s heads yet the Marxists have lobbied for over a century to apply it to the ENTIRE WORLD despite its obvious failure every single time it’s been tried.)
commented 2016-04-23 22:06:26 -0400
Isn’t anarcho-capitalism more corruption by the big banks, no regulations and basically for no taxes to build a system for the average person? Society can only survive with a minimum level of taxes. This guy is promoting the same policies that gave the world the financial crisis and the same AAA rated mortgaged backed securities which were labeled junk and shit in the end. Both parties in the US are not even talking about the big banks or criminally bad behavior by the wealthy and white collar criminals. So much for destructive economics. No wonder so many are losing faith in capitalism, and no wonder people feel there is two-tiered justice and that the system is one where the rich get away with everything. We live in a fascist economic system where the rich never go to jail and where everyone else has to abide by the rules, the very definition of fascism. The best way to fix this is to have sufficient regulations and to realize libertarianism is giving the keys to the henhouses to the wolves aka the same bankers that caused the crisis in 2008. Which is why the West needs to bail out the people and to let the banks fail. It was a shame that on Sun News that the hosts Lilley and Levant called what happened in 2008 not real capitalism when capitalism is about assuming as much wealth as possible with no caring about the consequences. Sounds like it to me. The fact is people supported Bush till the crisis and then suggested he was liberal afterwards. Talk about politics at its worst and it shows the corruption about life after Reaganomics. The West needs to return to a model which can be properly policed and one that provides full employment, checks and balances and a model where the government owns the monetary supply. A nationalist model would do just fine like Russia. It is no wonder Russia right now is being consistently and constantly threatened by the Western nations for WW3. Major wars usually occur after big financial crises. This is something the right wing echo chamber will never utter. They are quite silent to their supporters. That says everything you need to know about Rebel!
commented 2016-04-23 21:26:25 -0400
Insurrection is what he is beating around the bush about… That’s his ‘Harriet Tubman’ option, and he delivered it as a ‘be the change’ message. It is a good message and part of what is needed to correct matters. There are too many people in government who perpetuate the problems because of apathy and complacency, and they need a good kick in the ass. A lot of government problems will be solved by focusing on its bureaucracies. No one really seems to appreciate who is really running the country, and by our own collective ignorance, not even those running it themselves.