ABOUT TOM WOODS

Thomas E. Woods, Jr., is the New York Times bestselling author of 11 books, including The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History and Meltdown (on the financial crisis). A senior fellow of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Woods has appeared on MSNBC, CNBC, FOX News, FOX Business, C-SPAN, Bloomberg Television, and hundreds of radio programs... (Read More)



The Tom Woods App


I Talk to Walter Williams About Nullification, Secession, and More

24th January 2014      by: Tom Woods     

From today’s Tom Woods Show. Visit Williams at his website.

Unlearn the Propaganda!

  • sibkiss

    Windy as heck in KS tuning in from twitter

  • Mike

    Mandela was not a bad person? Sorry to hear him say that:

    http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/africa/item/17128-south-african-communist-party-admits-mandela-s-leadership-role

    And before some dumbo with a 40IQ comments I am against apartheid and all other forms of statism. So please keep the race card to yourself. PERIOD.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    Then, can we talk about the British statism?

  • DissidentRight

    If you’re suggesting that Mandela embraced communism as the lesser of two evils because the communists were sympathetic to the overthrow of any Western society by any means, but that his real goal was the liberation of blacks and not the institution of communism, fine.

    But why does no one ask the infinitely more interesting question: why do blacks always seem to need liberation? You ask what motivated Mandela. What motivated the Boers to create the apartheid system in the first place? What motivated the colonial powers to view black subjugation as morally tolerable? What motivated the systematic social regulation that spontaneously emerged almost everyplace large numbers of blacks and whites lived in the same region? What motivates the institutional racism (or more lately “white privilege”) that permeates every level of American society?

    And why is it that it has taken multiple generations of systematic gradeschool propaganda and an intense regimen of state intervention to reverse popular viewpoints on race? Why has it taken such astonishing levels of state intervention to correct demographic imbalances in the realms of employment, child education, and domestic real estate? Why do businessmen, parents seeking to educate their children, and persons looking for a place to live seek to circumvent these state interventions at every opportunity?

    On what grounds do anti-racist libertarians expect the world to look less racist, say, 50 years after the total abolition of the state?

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    No, I’m implying that Mandela believed in Communism because he was wrong. Why I said one and the same – centralized system. There is no lesser evil.

    “What motivated the Boers to create the apartheid system in the first place?” I don’t know why they did it. Perhaps you ought to apply that question to the Nazis.

    As for the rest of your questions: For the same reason white people keep calling the cops for domestic disputes – to only have their mentally ill son be killed or some abusive travesty performed by the cops – because they don’t have the people of color experience with cops, and they still believe that cops are their friends. Because in the minds of white people, the Lincoln’s address “government of the people, by the people, for the people” only white people attended that speech (and that might be true). To these people, it’s only “intervening” when government diverts their “paid into” money from their ideals to somebody else’s; they like their trough the way it is.

    For the same reason white people (not all), for the longest time (and some still do), ignored the numbers of incarcerations relating to marijuana.

    Racism exists because government creates troughs, and in our case, the better trough (Social Security/Medicare/nice schools) was built for non-elite white people while the bad trough (Medicaid/welfare/bad schools) was built for the lowlies. Because government doesn’t fluctuate with the free markets but set by legislation and arbitrary decisions, people must fight within government in order to make things “fair”. And so, politics, and so, division among people, and so racism/tribalism. People may naturally have immoral prejudices, but government only heightens them. Whereas, the free market will lower and regulate them. Another cause of it is when the better trough is running out of money and can’t hold itself up any more when new people come along and do better without the trough. And so, people demand regulations; some even crazy enough to put up a fence.

    If government stayed out of the way, people wouldn’t have animosity because somebody else is trying to feed from their trough that they “paid into” with their tax dollars. There wouldn’t be a trough. There would only be person to person contracts. Sure, there will always be those jerks and people are naturally prejudice for wrong reasons, but people like that would not survive in the free markets, especially, now days. Mind you, these troughs are going away anyways. So, to answer your last question, I expect it to be less racist or prejudice when the state goes away.

  • DissidentRight

    No, I’m implying that Mandela believed in Communism because he was wrong.

    I’m surprised you object to what I said. Are you then saying we ought to consider to what degree Mandela’s actions were justified as a reaction to the apartheid system, before simply dismissing him as a communist? If not, what are you saying about Mandela.

    As for the rest of your questions:

    All of my questions, including the one concerning the Boers, have one answer, the same (fundamental) answer the Nazis gave. Of course the Nazis were a bit unusual in their bloodthirstiness. It comes in two parts: first, the distribution of cognitive ability for blacks is significantly lower than that of other racial groups (e.g., east asians and europeans). Second, people tend to prefer the company of people similar to themselves (with race being a dominant factor).

    The end result is a double whammy on cognitive ability for the black population (because of course cognitive ability has a large environmental component in addition to the hereditary component): people who are less smart tend to create environments that are less effective at stimulating cognitive growth. For a contrary example, white people who are on the left half of the bell curve benefit from the fact that they associate primarily with other white people and thus adopt white cultural norms which improve cognitive ability. (This is “white privilege”.) Whereas if those same white people adopted black cultural norms, which are much less concerned with cognitive growth, their cognitive growth would suffer. That’s the double whammy.

    The end result is that areas with large black populations suffer from dramatically higher levels of social dysfunction, which in turn is why other racial groups seek to protect themselves by regulating the black population.

    they still believe that cops are their friends

    There was a time in America, at least in many regions, when cops where your friends; actual public servants. What white people haven’t come to understand is that the tremendous racial hypocrisy that cops deal with constantly (a hugely disproportionate number of offenders are black, a hugely disproportionate number of blacks are actively hostile towards the police) has taken its toll: now cops just treat everyone like blacks. Harder to be accused of racism that way. Unfortunately, too many libertarians want to act like the militarization of the police isn’t 99% the fault of black culture. Would the police have militarized anyway? Probably. But certainly not as quickly and harshly.

    Racism exists because government creates troughs

    Uh, no. Racism was here long before the Boers established apartheid, or Western governments codified slavery, or before the South created Jim Crow, or (more lately) before anti-discrimination laws and “affirmative action”. All of these things came about because of racism.

    So, to answer your last question, I expect it to be less racist or prejudice when the state goes away.

    My question was on what grounds? You didn’t answer that. The reality is that the world (America, at least) will be far more racist after the abolition of the state than it is now. The collapse of the Federal Government is going to bring about a vastly disproportionate decline in blacks’ standard of living. That is indisputable. When combined with the victimhood propaganda that blacks have been fed for several generations, we are going to get racial violence that makes the riots of the Civil Rights era look like a joke. People who are not black are inevitably going to adopt discriminatory measures to protect themselves and their communities. And without the Feds to intervene, they will succeed.

    But even after people have forgotten about this racial upheaval (say a hundred years after the abolition of the state), America will still be dominated by businesses, communities, and social conventions that actively discriminate against blacks. This is because the cognitive divide (and corresponding social dysfunction) is still going to be with us in a 100 years, and there’s nothing anyone can do about it.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    I’m not justifying anybody’s violent actions. What I am saying is anti-Mandela people yell communism! communist! he’s a communist! to only ignore the violent actions of the white government, which can be argued to justify the apartheid by the government. Don’t think liberals won’t point this out because they will, and they would be right.

    As for your next few paragraphs, all I can say is that people such as the NYT and other established figures and organizations and the milquetoast libertarians ought to take note. That you seem to be suggesting that you’re not inline with libertarian beliefs but that you state here: All of my questions, including the one concerning the Boers, have one answer, the same (fundamental) answer the Nazis gave. Of course the Nazis were a bit unusual in their bloodthirstiness. It comes in two parts: first, the distribution of cognitive ability for blacks is significantly lower than that of other racial groups (e.g., east asians and europeans). Second, people tend to prefer the company of people similar to themselves (with race being a dominant factor).” This statement does not come from libertarian values; furthermore, can be taken a part by libertarian and even free market arguments. Yes, at first, it may be that a person want the company of a certain person, but when it comes to practicing person to person contracts and interacting with certain people, a person’s barriers, whatever they may be, will come down.

    You, also, seem to have a caveat against libertarians. (And, take note NYT) “Unfortunately, too many libertarians want to act like the militarization of the police isn’t 99% the fault of black culture.” If you want to bring black culture into this, it was the government that destroyed that independent culture. In fact, before LBJ’s programs, the black culture was doing just fine. See Walter Williams on this…or is he…you know…not smart enough? As for the police and militarization, that’s some twisting to blame black people, considering a lot of police brutalities are occurring where it’s mainly white people such as Idaho.

    Did not say racism wasn’t within people from beforehand. I’m suggesting it is. What I am, also, saying is that government intrusion in economics and law spurs on racism and brings out the worse of men to its fullest extent. In fact, it’s the evil immorality that government espouses. Racism is just a part of it. I did say that the free markets will regulate and stifle this immorality.

    (Take note statist progressives) “People who are not black are inevitably going to adopt discriminatory measures to protect themselves and their communities.” This sentence comes from not understanding how the free market economics work. Instead seems to take on a statist solution from a local level. Just because you kick out the federal government, doesn’t mean you’re any less statist proposing solutions that overrides the free market.

    Which, I did answer your last question. You just seem to want some apocalyptic scenario as an answer; never mind if it ever will happen. The answer you’re looking for and the scenario that you gave is perpetuated by state intervention. What I’m saying is that once it the state is out of the way, the havoc that the state implements onto people will be lessened, the paranoia will go away, and the practice of producing and selling stuff will lessen the racism/tribalism. What I’m saying is that there will be no apocalyptic scenario; there will be no need for certain measures. Yes, the actions of government may cause havoc for a time for the same reason inflation hurts, but, eventually, things will get better.

    However, I do agree that white liberals do agree with you when they propose progressive welfare and laws that supposed to “help” minorities.

  • DissidentRight

    1. I personally am very much inline with libertarian beliefs.

    2. Nothing I wrote has anything to do with libertarian values whatsoever. What I wrote are facts that are completely independent of libertarianism.

    3. Claiming that LBJ’s programs destroyed black culture is ludicrous; claiming that black culture was “just fine” before is ludicrous. For example, black illegitimacy rates were higher before LBJ than white rates are now, half a century later. LBJ did not target blacks, so why didn’t his programs have the same effect on white culture? These are the difficult questions that libertarians dare not ask.

    4. You claim that free markets will stifle racism. But this is ridiculous. Here are some obvious examples of why not. First, black communities tend to have much higher rates of crime and property damage. Therefore, if blacks want to buy insurance on their property, they will have to pay a higher rate. For the same reason, white communities will enter into contracts to regulate who can move into the community. Too many blacks = crime spike. Blacks are responsible for most “background noise” school disruption/violence (that almost never makes it into the media), so schools (all schools will be private, obviously) will adopt screening measures that disproportionately screen out blacks. Did you ever wonder why schools started turning into literal prisons, for example? Businesses will screen for hires in the same way. Second, as every merchant knows but none are willing to admit, blacks are responsible for a disproportionate amount of shoplifting. Businesses that refuse to sell to blacks will have less loss and be able to spend less on security, and thus will be able to offer lower prices. The free market will encourage racism.

    5. It’s only going to be apocalyptic for black people. You can deny and ignore all you want, but the facts are there. The state may be an overall burden on whites, but it is an overall boon to blacks. And no, I’m not just talking about direct welfare payments. Food stamps, public housing, public schooling, medicaid, et cetera all disproportionately benefit blacks. Blacks pay disproportionately less taxes–a lot less. And then there’s the indirect welfare: state/federal jobs, which go to blacks in a wildly disproportionate way, affirmative action policies, which force businesses and schools to accept blacks they would not have accepted otherwise, and disparate impact policies, which punish institutions that discriminate against blacks even accidentally.

    Without the state, all that goes away. If you think conditions are bad for blacks now, just wait until there’s no state there to prop them up. Of course you will ignore all this because of your prejudice.

    6. Once again you claim that racism is the surface issue. Racism is as much a “surface” issue as the state is a “surface” issue. They are both problems deeply rooted in the fundamentals of human reality.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    LOL: “I personally am very much inline with libertarian beliefs.”

    Then,

    “The free market will encourage racism.” Unless, of course, you don’t think racism is deeply rooted in the “fundamentals of human reality”. And, is “human reality” your way of saying immorality or sin or do you not see it as wrong and it’s just an is?

    Which, my stating that racism is a surface issue meant that racism is espoused by immorality. Most people now days seem to take it as a separated or the utmost evil in humanity, which I believe is incorrect. It’s perpetuated by the root just as murder and other crimes and evil acts are. Furthermore, just as you did in your paragraph 6, people tend to separate items such as racism and government. Often times, because it’s easier perhaps, people accuse racism of majority of society’s problems. I say easier because blaming racism as the foremost problem is blaming the people not the government as if the government is not a mass collective that heightens human immorality. From the populist perspective the foremost immorality that people do make is to subject themselves to this collective immorality called the state. It’s just interesting that somebody that claims to be libertarian would take this route and blame people foremost and keep government separated in order to justify the state. This is very much inline with a conservative Fundamental pastor that pontificates that homosexuality is the foremost corrupting force in the world America, then turns around and advocates for traditional marriage to be protected by the state legislator and federal decree.

    Yes, black culture just like any other culture was and is not perfect. You can bring up stats all day long to prove that this or that culture is not doing well. Whatever the stats are, it’s no excuse to bring in the government. If you truly believe you’re inline with libertarianism, then it would be hard to ignore the fact that the state destroyed the black culture.

    Human reality? You say this as to justify what is and leave it as that. To justify “once again” your “prejudice” (nice try on that one); does prejudice only exist if you don’t accept “the fundamentals of human reality”? Yes, reality is that people are a danger unto themselves. I am a danger unto myself. Reality is that if I get a monopoly over people, I’ll become a tyrant, a law unto myself, a god to be adorned. Reality is that people are made to be free from government and human overlords.

    Everybody and anybody can agree with libertarian values or be against apartheid or believe in something good, but what good are those beliefs if it is not lived by that person or to ignore the state’s immoral actions but instead blame individuals. Libertarianism or individuality is useless if it’s only to be subjected to “fundamentals of human reality”.

  • DissidentRight

    Your reading comprehension is questionable, so I’ll try again, from the top.

    1. The reason racism is deeply rooted in the fundamentals of human reality (much as the need for food and shelter is deeply rooted in the fundamentals of human reality) is because blacks are, as a group, not as intelligent as other groups (like east asians). I said this in my first post, but you seem not to have grasped it.

    2. Blacks’ lower average intelligence is reflected in their poorer academic performance, higher crime rates, higher illegitimacy rates, lower wages, etc. It may surprise you to know that none of this is actually in dispute (that is, by sociologists). So you do not need to dispute it, either.

    3. Directly because of 2., other groups (who have higher average intelligence) always seek to regulate their contact with blacks, to avoid suffering the consequences of black social dysfunction.

    4. Because of the historical preeminence of the state, these regulations have usually included state intervention.

    5. However, what many disingenuous libertarians fail to recognize is that these state regulations reflected very closely the attitude of the dominant population. It is not as if the businesses and other market institutions of the South were straining against the confines of Jim Crow. If there had been no Jim Crow, the vast majority of these market institutions would have discriminated against blacks anyway. This is because Southern racism was neither arbitrary or prejudiced, but rather a reaction to black social dysfunction. Blacks were being judged by their behavior, and whites reacted accordingly.

    6. This is why, in the absence of the state, race-based discrimination will reassert itself. I already gave several obvious examples of how it will happen: blacks are higher risk factors, so they will pay higher insurance premiums. Black customers disproportionately increase store costs, so many stores will ban blacks and thus offer lower prices. Whereas stores that cater to blacks will have some combination of higher prices or poorer service. Black neighborhoods have higher crime, so many neighborhoods will enter into contacts to limit the number of blacks who move in. Etc.

    7. It is also obvious (but perhaps still necessary to point out) that blacks who distinguish themselves as high achievers will of course not be treated like other blacks. Market institutions will find ways to recognize such blacks and exempt them from the usual discrimination.

    8. In other words, the market will judge blacks based on their abilities and their behavior, the same as it judges everyone.

    9. Lately, however, leftist progressives have achieved control of the state, and used it to discriminate in favor of blacks rather than against them, and to punish market institutions that would otherwise discriminate against blacks. So blacks have benefited tremendously from state intervention in the last several decades. Most black perceived black progress is due directly to state intervention. Take away the state, take away the progress.

    10. You seem to be laboring under the delusion that I am suggesting we keep the state to combat racial discrimination. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is essential to the future of mankind that the state be abolished. However, libertarians are going to have to live with the consequences: namely, a dramatic resurgence of racial discrimination in the marketplace.

    11. Somewhere in your post you claim, “Discriminating is not racism”. Don’t be tedious. Everyone everywhere knows that racial discrimination is, by definition, racism.

    12. In conclusion, exactly which of these 11 points is not absolutely clear in its meaning? Where am I losing you?

  • Mike

    “Then, can we talk about the British/Western statism…”
    Uh, I think we’ve been doing that for YEARS pal.

    “Why decry the state throughout history but when it comes to a black man, stop decrying the opposing government but lambast the black man’s system only?”

    Please tell me you’re not going to pull the race card silliness. I hope that isn’t what I just read.

  • Mike

    “3. Claiming that LBJ’s programs destroyed black culture is ludicrous”

    Ok I’m sort of with At Odds on this one dude. We they having problems before? Sure. But it was made MUCH MUCH worse thanks to LBJ’s Great Society garbage.

    “The state may be an overall burden on whites, but it is an overall boon to blacks.”

    A boon to blacks? Hold on there. The government is not doing blacks any favors by keeping them on the government plantation (that should be obvious).

  • DissidentRight

    “But it was made MUCH MUCH worse thanks to LBJ’s Great Society garbage.”

    Yes, of course.

    My point is that the Great Society merely exacerbated the problems that already existed. A lot of people want to cop out of the race problem by blaming everything on state intervention, but this is wrong. What the Great Society confirms is that people on the low end of cognitive scale are disproportionately susceptible to moral hazards and disproportionately willing to trade large long-term gains for minor gains in the short-term–or even assume long-term costs (!) for minor gains in the short-term. Contrast this to the moral hazards that intelligent people fall for (consider the bankers in the 2008 financial crisis), usually these are schemes that place the risk/cost on a third party rather than merely moving it into the future.

    For example, the traditional family is the building block of any successful society, and is hugely beneficial to everyone involved. Giving third party payments to mothers (or fathers) in a broken relationship (which could be done without the state) will not cause many highly intelligent people to divorce, because they better understand the benefits of staying married. Also, highly intelligent people tend to have higher incomes, so are less likely to be swayed by the payment.

    On the other hand, people of lower intelligence are less likely to recognize the benefits of staying married (since these are long term benefits) and the costs of divorce. Worse, they are more likely to have a low income which means the payments will have more relative value to them.

    “The government is not doing blacks any favors by keeping them on the government plantation (that should be obvious).”

    That’s more a metaphysical statement than a reality. Obviously, blacks living in a free market society (or their descendents, at least) will be better off than blacks living a statist society, because the rising tide of capitalism lifts all boats eventually. (Even with Jim Crow and generally negative social attitudes, American blacks were materially much better off than blacks in Africa.)

    However, in a more real sense, if you are the recipient of statist wealth transfers (and other related interventions), the state is doing you a favor: you have more, in the present, than you would have had otherwise. (That of course is the allure of the state.)

    Blacks benefit disproportionately from government jobs (a chief avenue for affirmative action), which offer unreasonably high compensation. They benefit from affirmative action in the private sector, to a lesser degree. They benefit from the culture of fear that the government has created: fear of discriminating against blacks (or even saying anything negative about them). And they benefit from all the direct welfare payments/subsides. Also blacks pay disproportionately less taxes.

    I don’t know what you would call that, if not a favor.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    Uh, because we haven’t. But, just as The New American article there’s a lot of commi accusations, which is true but only attacking one side.

    No, not race card, but something that most people don’t want to look at, considering the lack of Boer concentration camp attention.

  • http://1atodds.blogspot.com/ At Odds

    All I have for you in my final comment to you is LOL. And, you don’t espouse libertarianism or individuality. A person may start out as tribalistic or racist or whatever poor quality, but a person over time practicing in the worldview of libertarianism or individualism will, eventually, become more socially open to others not to be confused with a libertine.

  • DissidentRight

    Typical unthinking leftist.

  • Jim

    “Uh, because we haven’t.”

    Oh I see. My bad. You’re talking about old British imperialism. Yeah well I agree more needs to be talked about there. I also find it hypocritical that Britain and
    France condemned old imperial Germany for being imperialist when they did the same damned thing.

    “No, not race card, but something that most people don’t want to look at, considering the lack of Boer concentration camp attention.”

    Ah, ok gotcha. My bad again. :P You’re right though. We should be talking about it more. It was a product of big government. To me they’re all the same. A bunch of heartless jerks who like torturing and killing people.

  • Mike

    Whoops. Sorry about putting “Jim” in there. I’m not the only guy on this computer. :P I’m Mike.

  • chris

    Walter Williams is excellent ! Please take him up on his offer to come back on the show. I’d skip race questions all together, there’s so much more to him than that

  • David Ursiny

    I see the south Africa as unacceptable in the 20 th century, now the 19 th century civil war I measure as a war between to classes of rich people trying to keep their controlof the u s government as their power servant was the south who for 60 plus years was the economic power of America as the first class of wealth on agriculture , they had the power the money and the bribery and corruption thru money to make Washington dance to their every desire, then in 1840 industrialist came about and manufacturing wealth emerged in America completion to the powers that were ingrained in America’s founding, industrialist had money and power as great as the south to use their money for bribery and corruption of their ways and desires too, the fire was set against Washington for all the marbles of the subjugation of Washington D C as even today wall street and the globalist corporations now subjugate Washington and all state houses too



Find me on Google