I remember watching the James Weeks concession speech on live TV and thinking, "He isn't going to... oh my god, he is..."Kurgan said:Perry was quite fun to watch at the Libertarian debate. He's very passionate about drugs to the point of slamming a pen on the desk about how hard it is to use drugs. His concession speech made him sound like a manchild just because he didn't win the nomination.
Yeah, the debate was interesting to say the least. I watched it last summer. McAfee looked like he was baked the whole time, Gary Johnson is wondering to himself "Why did I become a Libertarian again?" and whining, Austin Petersen reminds me of Jim DeMint for some reason, Perry actually reminded me of Eric Harris (one of the Columbine shooters) if he took a different path instead of shooting up his school and Dr. Feldman, how did they find him? Apparently, Dr. Feldman died afterwards in a motel room.
Why was there some fat guy stripping in the middle of the convention? It makes the other two parties look sane.
Jean, I've watched that video numerous times. If Sam maybe would stop being a little arrogant, Perry might have had something rational to say instead of interrupting him the whole time.
With regard to the Perry video, I think even a minarchist could argue that sending someone to prison for tax evasion is dumb. The taxpayers have been victimized by their fellow citizen's tax evasion, so now they must be victimized further by having to pay for incarceration? In many cases, the tax evader is a businessperson with property that could be seized.
Or the tax evader could simply be exiled. If you don't pay your rent, the punishment is that your landlord evicts you. Taxes are similar to rent.
Running on any kind of platform that calls for change is hard, because people can hit you with all sorts of "what-ifs". It's much easier to be in Sam's position, in which all you have to do is argue for the status quo.
Perry could've responded, "What happens if the state arbitrarily decides to revoke your property deed, for example, because they want to demolish your home and build something else there? What recourse do you have? Oh, you can sue in the government courts? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Oh, you can appeal to the electorate? What if the electorate are the ones who want to seize your property for their own use?" Etc., etc.
Almost everything that Sam was pointing out could be a problem under anarcho-capitalism, could also be a problem under government. The only advantage of having a superpower run everything is that as long as there's political stability within that superpower, the markets can operate without too much uncertainty.