Search Tags:

Categories:

The Heartland Libertarian Conference: Opening Remarks



Uploaded by: gravel2008
Video Description:
Senator Mike Gravel gives his opening remarks at the Heartland Libertarian Conference debate.
The Senator is the only declared candidate in the race for the Libertarian nomination with both domestic and foreign policy experience, and a history of public service. He's the only candidate who can stand toe to toe with Senators Clinton, Obama, and McCain.
Debate highlights coming soon.
http://www.gravel2008.us
http://www.ni4d.us
http://www.youtube.com/Gravel2008


Tags for this video: City Conference Debate Ferguson Gravel Heartland Kansas Libertarian Mike Paul Ron Root Senator Wayne

Find more videos in the "News" category
See more videos uploaded by gravel2008

Related Videos
Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 1Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 2Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 3
heartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.htmlheartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.htmlheartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.html
Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 6Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 4Heartland Libertarian Presidential Debate Part 5
heartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.htmlheartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.htmlheartland-libertarian-presidential-debate-part-1.html


Share This Video:       StumbleUpon       del.icio.us       Reddit       digg       Furl       Spurl       Simpy       YahooMyWeb


Comments for this video: Show || Hide
Comments for this video on YouTube
The market may ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
The market may suggest a price, but it doesn't decide. This is why you have different salary rates for people working in the same trade. Furthermore, when the company the workers work for makes enormous profits, the workers have no say on how those profits should be distributed.
It is not like ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
It is not like greed and discontent will go away because people share. With capitalism everyone is limited by what the can get by the same factors, how much money that can gain. Communism the limit is set by the community. This is more arbitrary but more forgiving which is why charity is a important component of capitalism. Every capitalist is free to share his or her wealth.
That is part of the ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
That is part of the contract. One agrees they have no say over profit because they understand their labor yield wages not a product. The profit is the wage that the owner is payed not the worker. Different salary rates are part of finding the market price. People do not know the price so some pay more and others pay less and where the salaries finally fall are the market price, often a range not an exact number.
And what if you're ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
And what if you're being short changed by your employer and feel like you need more money to buy food than what you are alloted. You have no recourse but to TRY and get hired by another company. You can always help out the farmers if food production is low in an anarchist society since everything would be worker-run and property is legitimate as long as you're labouring on it. Key difference, you have a choice, in capitalism.. the capitalists choose.
But it's an unfair ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
But it's an unfair contract because the worker does not have the same bargaining power as the owner. Do you think workers making $2 a day, 6 days a week doing extremely hard labour went into that contract under fair circumstances? See, anarchism = no rulers and no hierarchy. In capitalism, hierarchy exists and those at the top have more bargaining power, therefore the contract is made under unfair circumstances
What do you think ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
What do you think unions are for? Labor has to organize to negotiate. It is stupid to let yourself get ripped off. Everyone has the right to assemble and negotiate like business people. If the labor pool dries up the owners are as screwed as the workers. Owners are as dependent on workers as workers are on owners.
Who decides what is ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
Who decides what is short changed? Who decides who is to suffer from re-distribution? These questions answered no doubt by councils or some democratic body. Fine, but how long do you help? With capitalism the rise in food prices would create incentive to move into the farming sector due to rising wages. As more farming creates more supply then prices fall. Then jobs move out of farming and the cycle repeats without artificial stimulation. It does require a educated or skilled population, though.
Unions? You mean ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
Unions? You mean what Mises calls "destructionism"? It's very rare to see a classical liberal consider unions to be a good thing.
To quote Mises: "The labor unions are deadly foes of every new machine"
In fact, classical liberals argue continuously how unions are bad for workers and now you're going to tell me that they're a good thing for the workers? Which side are you arguing for again?
And in an anarchist ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
And in an anarchist society, the low production of food would create an incentive to move into the farming sector due to -- low production of food. As more farming creates mor supply, then people move out of farming and the cycle repeats. Here's the difference.. the capitalist is making huge profits at the expense of the food crisis.
I'm arguing ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
I'm arguing classical liberalism is related to libertarianism. The Libertarian Party nor all right-libertarians denounce unions. Classical liberals might not necessarily be Libertarians and Libertarians might not be classic liberals. You made that assumption not me.
The worker is payed ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
The worker is payed higher wages. Workers and owners in related industries make more money. Capitalism is communal because everyone does better when some do better. The profits one gets is not against anarchy. It does not enforce submission or dominance. The worker and owners still cannot exist without each other. Money is not the measure of worth in a capitalistic society but individual ability. One with more money is not better but greedier. One with more work ethic is better...
..The concentration ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
..The concentration of wealth seen is a result of Mercantilism not the Laissz-faire philosophy that are needed for free markets. Instead of hording money as if there is little left they should re-invest the money into business charity, and the community assured that the market will bring more money and corporate power would be dismantled by private interest. The concentrated wealth would not be as much of a problem.
Right ... ( 5 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
Right libertarianism is an amalgam of different philosophies extending into ideas related to classic libertarianism, or left libertarianism, classic liberalism and other assorted system of philosophy like agorism or even gregorism to some extent. That is what I am arguing.
non economic ... ( 5 months ago by donhoody)
non economic libertarianism + economic libertarianism = true libertarianism
non economic faschism + economic libertarianism = conservatism
non economic libertarianism + economic faschism = socialism
non economic faschism + economic faschism = stalinism (aka psykoism)
MIKE GRAVEL is NOT a true libertarian - he is a socialist. If the LP elect him as candidate they might as well also have elected George W Bush.
Stay true to libertarianism - reject the impostor Mike Gravel.
True libertarianism ... ( 5 months ago by TehBANN3D)
True libertarianism is anarchism, everything else is a varying degree of statism, but Gravel is especially statist. Rothbard's probably rolling over in his grave with such an imposter even considering the candidacy of LP nominee, but the LP is/was a failure anyways.
Agora. Anarchy. Action.
The very definition ... ( 5 months ago by TehBANN3D)
The very definition of a state is that it is non-voluntary. In a free market it would be called a private defense agency.
If one is allowed ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
If one is allowed to own many acres of land, do whatever he wants with that land (ie: build apartments, a transportation system, etc), and set laws on that land.. then this so called free-market system in the capitalist sense is not anarchism but private state capitalism. You can leave the land-owner's land just like you can leave the US.. only in that sense is it voluntary. But it's a private state nonetheless.
And Proudhon's ... ( 5 months ago by SuperJesus316)
And Proudhon's rolling his grave at Rothbard's idea of property rights and stealing the word "libertarianism".
Go Mike GO!!! ( 4 months ago by NatureLegalized)
Go Mike GO!!!
Hearing gravel ... ( 4 months ago by libertarianjury)
Hearing gravel blather on in favor of socialized medicine and an empowered EPA environmentalist gestapo like some kind of aging marxist douchebag, I have come to conclude that gravel isn't his last name, it's what's between his ears. I'm voting for Root in Denver, and contributing $20 bucks to him online right now, to make sure he beats this loser, and the Republican infiltrator (Barr) as well. We need a real libertarian on the ballot on Nov 4, 2008! ROOT FOR AMERICA!!!!
aha Root didn't get ... ( 4 months ago by mrpenguindude)
aha Root didn't get it asshole
Dejacque coined the ... ( 4 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
Dejacque coined the term not Proudhon. In fact Dejacque used it to criticize Proudhon for his support for ownership of the product of labor and an economy based on the market.
A person only owns ... ( 4 months ago by SSSLLLAAYYEEERRRR)
A person only owns that which he transforms and in doing so injects himself into that thing. One man cannot own many acres of land unless he works it. He cannot simply make a mercantile claim to all the land and have it. By the way freedom is not defined by what one can do, that is power, but by what one can think and do within his power. A state is an arbitrary barrier to freedom while property is a natural right that inhibits power.
Here come the LP ... ( 2 months ago by MoBushin04)
Here come the LP lies again - implying that polls say I am winning.
A desparate party that failed to land a much more qualified Ron Paul.
Libertarians - Republicans without morals, so desparate to keep their name alive, they brought in marxism. Just rename your party the Marxist party. Our Constitution's preamble must disgust a libertarian.
Conclusion: the only true libertarians are Republicans. Proactive in taking out Saddam, mid-east's Hitler, before he became a powerful Hitler.



Tell a friend:


URL 
Embed Code