04/09/15 – Jeffrey Tucker – The Scott Horton Show

You hate government?
One of them libertarian types?
Or maybe you just can't stand the president, gun grabbers, or warmongers.
Me too.
That's why I invented libertystickers.com.
Well, Rick owns it now, and I didn't make up all of them, but still.
If you're driving around and want to tell everyone else how wrong their politics are, there's only one place to go.
Libertystickers.com has got your bumper covered.
Left, right, libertarian, empire, police, state, founders, quote, central banking.
Yes, bumper stickers about central banking.
Lots of them.
And, well, everything that matters.
Libertystickers.com.
Everyone else's stickers suck.
All right, you guys, welcome back.
I'm Scott Horton.
It's my show, The Scott Horton Show.
On to our next guest.
It's the great Jeff Tucker from liberty.me.
And he's got a brand new article out about, you might guess, murder.
What is murder?
What is police work?
It's at tucker.liberty.me.
Welcome back to the show, Jeff.
How are you?
Hey, it's good to be here.
You know, I couldn't help but write about that subject.
Did you just watch the video, Scott?
I'm afraid I have seen the video.
Yes, sir.
How many times did you watch it?
I mean, I can't stop watching it.
It's one of the most chilling videos I've ever seen.
I've seen a lot of videos of cops murdering people before.
But, no, actually, I've only seen the very beginning of it, where he actually murders them.
And then I've seen the clips where he plants it.
But I never actually sat and watched the whole thing all the way through.
So go ahead and tell us what you learned.
Well, I think one of the things that I...
We're talking about the murder of Walter Scott at the hands of the North Charleston police officer.
I'm sorry, I forget his name.
I don't have it in front of me.
The murder of a cop.
I'll find it while you're talking.
Yeah, OK, good.
So one of the reasons I keep watching it is that it is sort of sterile.
You know, it's not bloody.
You know, you don't see a real scuffle going on.
There's not a lot of punching like you see in a lot of police videos.
It's just a guy who just tries to run away.
And then a cop pulls out his gun and calmly shoots him like he's an animal or something.
And shoots him eight times in the back.
Michael Slager is the offender's name here.
Yeah, ex-military, by the way.
So he shoots the guy eight times in the back.
And then walks over to him calmly and tells him to put his hands behind his back.
Put your hands behind your back.
Well, the guy's dead, right?
So he pulls a dead man's arms behind him and handcuffs him.
You know, I mean, like, what is that about?
The whole thing is just so chilling and so awful and terrifying.
And yet so inevitable.
And the other reason we know about it is there happened to be a bystander, you know, who took out his iPhone or whatever and shot a picture of what was going on.
Otherwise, the officer had submitted a report that just seems like sure fantasy.
That somehow the victim had been trying to grab the Taser gun and had been wrestling with the police.
And so the policeman thought he was under threat or something like that.
And so then he pulled his gun and shot him, you know, just to spare his life.
Which is the report that initially came out.
And then the video came out.
Actually, it was handed to the victim's parents.
You know, and so suddenly the whole story begins to unravel.
And it's only because that video that this is even a controversy at all.
But I actually I think this is extremely significant in many ways.
And it could prompt a real rethinking.
You know, purpose of my article is really to kind of confront the fact about the state.
I think what we're seeing in operation here is not so much unusual.
It's not so much abuse, although it is abuse.
But I think it's a system wide violence or, you know, what you see in the video is sort of the violence inherent in the system in a way.
I'm essentially, you know, any of us who resist the state are in putting us putting ourselves in a position of being killed instantly.
And I know that there are certain rules and regulations for when the cops can shoot and when they can't.
But what this case illustrates is that if the cop is in the position of telling the story, you know, they can almost always win.
What's unusual about this case is that the city itself, you know, accused the guy of murder, which was very interesting and highly unusual.
Whether that conviction will stand, you know, I just don't know.
Yeah, I was surprised.
I think it's unprecedented, really, that he would get a murder charge, maybe, you know, some kind of involuntary manslaughter or some kind of thing for them to charge him with murder is is really something else.
And I guess, well, and I think I'm so jaded.
I think there has to be some there's an agenda behind it, like the Rand Corporation must have done a study where they said we are losing the last shreds of our legitimacy here.
And some goat has to be scaped, you know.
Right.
And well, and to any viewer on YouTube who saw that thing for the first time, what you know, your first thought is, oh, my God, they murdered the guy, you know, so so this this claim that he's, you know, his arraignment on a murder charge just follows from the common sense, you know, you know, the police murdered him.
But I guess, you know, the argument I made in my my piece was that there's really not that much difference between all sort of acts of the state and just everyday murder, that they're really essentially the same thing that the state exercises, the kind of illegitimate power over society that once you see it in the raw, like you like you see it in this video, it just impresses you with with just how incredibly and obviously immoral it is.
So, as you know, my own my own perspective on the world is that we don't need a state.
Right.
I think that society can can manage itself just fine.
And I don't ever like to think of that position, although it sounds rarefied and weird and and highly ideological and utopian.
I to my own mind, I like to think of it as just an extension of common moral sense that we all have, namely that there should not be certain privileged people in a society who have the legal right to aggress against others and kill them just for their refusal to comply.
You know, they and the police are really in a position of killing anytime, anywhere.
I said in my article that I'm almost certain that I could get myself killed very quickly.
I'm talking to you from Atlanta.
I could go out on the street right now and behave oddly or do whatever to attract the attention of the police.
Then when they tell me to stop and ask for my identification, if I if I if I tried to flee, they tried to capture me and I got away and I fled again.
I have no doubt in my mind that I would be, you know, get eight bullets in the back and be shot instantly.
Right.
And the libertarians, it's funny, this particular example is the one the libertarians always use that like they'll kill you over a taillight, man, because if you resist, then they'll you will be sentenced to death on the spot if you sufficiently defend yourself from the most minor thing.
You know, if you don't, if you get a fine for cutting someone's hair without a license and you don't show up in court on your ticket, then ultimately they'll bring the SWAT team.
And what's funny is the defenders concede this in a sense, the defenders of the cops.
Well, he shouldn't have been running.
He shouldn't have been resisting at all.
He should have been at one million percent compliant from the very beginning.
And then he never would have gotten executed.
So it's his own damn fault, because everybody knows that those are the rules going in.
No, a state only needs to use violence when people are not complying with disorders.
If everybody is obeying completely, then then even a totalitarian society can seem to be perfectly peaceful.
The violence is only used when people dare to disagree with their masters, essentially.
Do you know that there's a certain we have very interesting to the background?
It wasn't just a taillight.
That's why he was stopped.
But the reason why Walter Scott tried to get away is that they thought they were arresting him for failure to pay child support.
And he had been arrested several times in the past for not paying child support, which is by itself a very strange institution.
I mean, this is a basically a bill that you owe like a credit card bill or any other bill.
But because it's ordered by the courts, it becomes a crime not to pay it.
So I tried to look up the figures, like how many people are in jail in this country for failure to pay child support.
And the best figure I could come up with was 50,000.
And there's there's really bad data on this.
We don't really know.
But 50,000, which seems to me low, because when I when I was in jail at one time, I bumped into a lot of people who hadn't paid child support and sitting in jail.
Very strange thing.
Like, how are you going to pay child support from jail?
You know, I mean, this is not a very good.
I remember back in the 90s, they were creating a jobs database of where everyone in America worked on the federal level so that we can enforce child support, garnish your wages anytime you get hired anywhere.
And isn't it strange that I find it so odd that that that we would have a system that would put people in jail for failure to pay as if that's going to somehow I don't know what you think you're accomplishing to that, because certainly they're not going to earn any money, not going to be able to support the family from jail.
So I don't really get that.
So, I mean, to me, I don't know why there's not a national scandal about this.
I mean, it just seems so outrageous.
And so this guy, Walter Scott, was he was kind of doing what any reasonable person would do.
I mean, this, you know, he felt like he was going to be captured and didn't he didn't want to be captured.
You know, and I think that's sort of biologically normal for anybody.
Any animal doesn't want to be captured.
And certainly human beings don't want to be captured.
But there's another factor, too, that he didn't want to be dragged off to jail again for the child support thing.
And maybe he wanted to actually continue to pay to support his family as best he could by staying out of jail and knew that this was a fundamental threat.
Whatever it was, he decided that he wanted out of there.
All right.
Hang on one second.
Hang on one second here, Jeff.
I'll be right back with you, dude.
Don't you get sick of the Israel lobby trying to get us into more war in the Middle East or always abusing Palestinians with your tax dollars?
It once seemed like the lobby would always have full spectrum dominance on the foreign policy discussion in D.C.
But those days are over.
The Council for the National Interest is the America lobby standing up and pushing back against the Israel lobby's undue influence on Capitol Hill.
Go show some support at Council for the National Interest dot org.
That's Council for the National Interest dot org.
All right, so welcome back.
Sorry about that.
We're online with Jeff Tucker talking about the murder of Walter Scott.
And his article by Michael Slager, a cop from North Charleston, South Carolina.
Jeffrey's article is at Tucker dot Liberty dot me.
And that's at Liberty dot me.
Tucker dot Liberty dot me.
What is murder?
What is police work?
And we're talking about how, yeah, the government, they kill people all the time and they use the credible threat of murder all the time.
That's how they get their way.
That's what the state is.
Those in society have the right to threaten to murder the rest of us all the time.
And pardon me, Jeff, I forget right where we were when we left off.
Do you remember?
I don't know.
But, you know, I don't know exactly.
But, you know, here's the thing.
Most people, if you ask them, does a policeman have the right to shoot you if you run away when he tries to arrest you?
What do you think most people would answer that?
I think most people would say, yeah, probably.
I think probably so.
Don't you think most people would sort of believe that?
Yeah, I do.
I think, yeah, it's comply or die.
That's the law.
Yeah, I think so.
So I was a little confused about this, too, because I watched this video and I said, but, you know, it was very obvious to me a case of murder.
But it was not obvious to me whether or not the policeman was complying with the regulations or not, which can sometimes be very vague and arcane.
And as we talked about earlier, it's very strange that actually he was arrested on a murder charge.
So the New York Times this morning runs a very interesting piece.
And the question they're asking is whether or not a policeman can actually shoot people when they're fleeing.
And what they say in the very opening section here, you know, can a police officer legally shoot a fleeing subject in the back?
And they say this is that simple question and has a not so simple answer.
It depends.
So what does it depend on?
Well, it depends on whether or not the fleeing person was somehow, you know, a threat to the officer that he tried to grab his gun or whatever.
Of course, police can always make that stuff up.
Another condition is whether or not the officer believes that the fleeing suspect is a threat, could be a threat to other people, right?
So that's basically a subjective judgment.
Anybody running away from the police, if he believes that the guy is going to run off and do something bad, then it's somehow in the public interest to stop him by shooting him in the back.
So and this article concludes that based on the video, it doesn't look like any of those conditions were true.
On the other hand, it seems to me that if that's the regulations, then you pretty much have given all power to policemen to do whatever they want.
Right.
It's only the video that has him in trouble at all.
Mm hmm.
That's right.
Because otherwise, they everybody would have to believe the police report, which claimed that the guy was, you know, just a terrible threat.
He was doing terrible things and had grabbed his taser and that there was a scuffle.
There was a passive voice.
You know, nobody causes a scuffle.
A scuffle just somehow happens.
And so the police and self-defense, you know, pull out his gun and just very regrettably had to murder the man, you know.
Well, just wait till his lawyer comes out and says, well, he was reaching for his waist band.
So I concluded he must have another gun there.
What do you say?
Waistband.
Yeah, I hope that we and we're learning something very interesting from this.
You know, we've kind of ever since YouTube came along and people have had video cameras in their pockets.
We've seen ever more of these sort of police abuse videos, and it's never clear to people really.
Are we seeing things for the first time?
Has it always been this way?
Yes, absolutely.
So I think you're right.
Yeah, I think it's always been this way.
It's just we're seeing it now for the first time.
And what's interesting to me is the prospect that the sort of sheer ubiquity of these videos and the universal reach of them is going to cause a kind of fundamental rethinking of political philosophy.
You know, do we really want a special class of citizens that have the right to kill you if you don't comply with their every evict, no matter how just or unjust?
Do we want that kind of society?
Yes.
I mean, it seems to me that's really antithetical to every notion of freedom and equality that we have.
And yet that is, to my way of thinking, the very essence of what a state is and does.
It seems to me that a video like this really has to give rise to a really fundamental debate about the role of the state and whether we need it, what it is, whether it's moral, a moral institution.
And that's why I concluded my article.
I said, you know, what you see in this movie is exactly what you think it is.
It's fundamentally evil, but so is the state itself.
I really do believe that.
I don't see this as being somehow a weird, you know, anomaly, but rather it is the kind of system that we've created where the state lords it over person and property and every aspect of life.
And it's just we don't like to look at it.
We'd rather the violence of the state be sort of sterilized, you know, out of view, you know, just, you know, not like this.
And yet this video just, you know, forces the questions that we all need to be asking at the very core.
Right.
Well, you know, it's funny, too, in a not very funny way, how all of these are basically they start as some innocuous thing.
You know, this guy, Mike Brown, is walking down the middle of the street on a Sunday morning on this tiny little out of the way dead end street.
Right.
So he might as well be on the sidewalk already.
He's not doing anything.
Same thing for this guy.
He's driving.
He's got his tail light out.
As you said, maybe he's a deadbeat.
Maybe, you know, the courts have determined he's a deadbeat on paying for his child support.
But still, and we see, you know, there is one.
Well, you read all day, every day at the Free Thought Project or Cop Block or whatever about atrocity after atrocity.
And it's always, you know, the one I read the other day was the guy was accused of maybe possessing a personal amount of pot.
And it was one of those where the cops knew this guy.
They all went to school together.
It was like, you know, an episode of Roseanne or whatever, where everybody knows the local cop.
And he was the one who led the SWAT raid and killed this guy in his own home over.
And then he didn't even have any weed.
It's always this ridiculous kind of crap where, you know, like this guy, they said he wasn't a criminal.
Maybe he was a deadbeat.
There was nothing else bad about him.
He was trying to work.
He wasn't a didn't have a record of armed robbery or whatever kind of thing.
He's just a regular guy who ends up at the dead end of a cop's bullet.
So all the the fantasies about, well, yeah, some people get shot by cops like liquor store robbers or whatever.
No, it's really you would like to think that it's limited to them.
But no, it's really not.
It's everyday people going about their everyday lives.
You follow foreign affairs very closely.
Something that occurs to me as a sort of an afterthought every time I watch a video like this is that, you know, this isn't just watched by Americans.
This is watched by people all over the world.
What do you think this does to people's perception of what America is as a society?
Do you think that it it mortifies people, you know, in the same way it affects us?
What do you think this does to to us internationally?
I mean, how does it affect?
I think probably they think now you know how it feels.
You know, this is what it's like.
You know, the CIA is the boogeyman of the world that everybody is terrified of.
The Americans and their military and their assassination lists and this kind of thing that's been going on for decades.
And so I think probably they go, well, you know, this is what it feels like.
And then I think probably they watch our TV news and they go, oh, well, no wonder they're all such idiots and have no idea what's really going on around here.
When, you know, you show Fox News on a satellite to someone anywhere else in the world, they're just going to be facepalm shaking their head, you know, one of the Americans want to kill me if this is what they're being told all day.
This is what they're being told, right?
Well, there's also the fact that the State Department, you know, is always hectoring everybody in the world and every government the world over, you know, about the human rights abuses.
Well, you've got to fix your human rights abuses.
You know, they're always throwing stones, you know, at other governments around the world.
And yet these videos are coming out, you know, half a dozen per day.
Yeah, I saw a Twitter yesterday that said, if any other country, if this was going on, the proportion of police killings, our State Department would tell us not to go there.
You give us an advisory against this place.
That's a very funny line.
Well, it's not really funny.
It's actually pretty tragic.
But, you know, you talk about undermining the U.S.'s moral credibility, whatever it has left around the world.
I mean, this kind of stuff is just absolutely chilling.
And, you know, the debate so far, and I've become very curious about this particular case, and I'm not sure why.
There's something about the video that just riveted me.
I couldn't help it, but write about it.
The debate so far is centering on issues that are important, but probably not central.
You know, like people always want to talk about the racial element to these things.
And I have no doubt that that plays a role here.
You know, there was a sense of which, you know, you got from watching the video that this white cop just figured this black man's life was completely expendable.
And that's true.
And there is a good debate to have about, you know, the kinds of regulations that restrain police and all the rest of it.
But the more fundamental issue that I try to raise is essentially one of, you know, a class difference between the state and the rest of us.
You know, a privileged class that has this violence, this right to use violence.
And then the rest of us who are just, you know, required to comply with every rule and edict without exercising our brains or our volition at all.
To me, that is just not the kind of society that really anybody wants.
And yet that's exactly what we've created.
Yeah, I think, well, and the racial issue plays into the class issue, because, of course, black people are disproportionately poorer and have less political power.
And so they're the low hanging fruit.
If a cop wants to go out for target practice, you know, hunting men, he knows he's got a better chance.
Or let's say he's got it's it's much less likely that his prey is going to turn out to be the son of a congressman or the nephew of a judge or somebody that's going to actually get him in trouble.
Right.
This is the people that are easy, easier to pick on because there's much less accountability for picking.
Well, I felt a little bit squeamish about the whole thing, because when the news was first released, you know, within the day, you know, Walter Scott's complete criminal record dating back to 1987 was suddenly made public in sort of the creepiest possible way, I thought, anyway.
I mean, it was just kind of and it's interesting that you almost get this message from the sort of newsmaking that if anybody has a blemish anywhere in their whole lives, then they're fair game.
You know, so and I probably it's the case that the police understand that they they know who is likely to, you know, who makes better fodder than than anybody else.
And Walter Scott fit the demographic type very closely.
Yep.
Yeah.
And, you know, you can hear, you know, cops.
I interviewed a cop yesterday.
You may be familiar with this guy, Rayford Davis.
He's a former cop and now he's a libertarian and an activist with law enforcement against prohibition.
And yeah, I heard him speak before.
These people are amazing, actually.
I love these guys.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He was on the show yesterday and he was talking about, well, I forgot what my point was going to be, but I'll know.
I know another one I'll make, which was he started to say this is all because of the war on drug.
Oh, well, this is this reminds me.
It's drug laws and licensing and inspection stickers and brake lights and it's infractions offenses against the state, not crimes against people, but just little things that they're sent out to enforce.
And so he was talking about how it just makes society meaner and how it makes the cops meaner because you have some of these cops figure, OK, you know, I should be the county's security guard.
I'm up for that job, whatever.
And then they spend their their day all day taking people to jail for nothing and they end up rationalizing it.
They're looking into the abyss and it stares back into them and they become as mean as the state ever was carrying out its edicts.
And of course, and this goes again back to Ferguson and back to race because they don't treat everybody in St. Louis like this.
But the blacks in North St. Louis, they basically have the job of paying through fees and fines for the cost of the government for everybody else.
And they're just basically they're just tax slaves up there in their ghetto.
And they're the the the federal report said that 80 something percent, it was definitely better than 75 percent of them have active warrants out and they all have warrants out for failure to appear for a fine that they can't pay for an infraction that they didn't do to anybody.
And it's the super duper majority of the entire population, you know, way more than enough to override a veto or amend the Constitution.
You know what I mean?
Those levels of proportion and they all got warrants out all day long.
Their prey for these guys all day long.
Isn't it amazing?
And yet our public debate.
I mean, I find it incredible.
The Obama administration a couple of weeks ago made this big whoop to do thing and Obama speaking or whatever.
And they want to propose regulations against the payday lending industry because they say that it's exploitative of the poor.
You know that it charges, you know, high interest rates, you know, twenty five dollars for a two hundred dollar loan over the course of two weeks or something like that.
And so they want, you know, federal regulations on this stuff.
And, you know, you're reading these things and, you know, I mean, that's exactly what strikes me.
It's like if you really want to eliminate exploitation of the poor in this country, you know, don't start with the thing that's actually helping them get fast cash in the needs of emergency.
You need to go straight to the to the local local governments and governments at all levels, really, that are exploiting the poor in the most egregious possible ways.
So the court costs and the fines that the that the poor, you know, are forced to pay money they don't have and the way they enter into this sort of cycle of of being in and out of the system.
It's just grim and it's sheer robbery.
And yet, you know, I don't hear Obama even talking about this.
No, of course not.
They never talk about what they're doing to keep people poor.
And and, yeah, of course, if you have a court date in municipal court, that means you've got to take off work in the middle of the work week.
They're not.
There is this in night court, the sitcom where you get to figure out some kind of time off to work this out.
You have to figure out how to not get fired, but still get a day off in the middle of the week to go and take care of this nonsense, too.
This is not easy for people.
Do you think that it's actually significant?
I mean, it strikes me as significant that all of this kind of stuff is happening, even though, you know, this nation elected this African-American president, you know, with the perception that somehow, you know, his demographic and background would would lead to a greater degree of racial justice and freedom than we we'd had before.
And yet look what's happening.
I mean, you know, all this stuff is pouring out of the news.
We have a greater perception of a racially exploited class of people in this country than ever before.
And I don't see any efforts on the part of the federal government to do anything about it, you know, which I think should be a lesson to us that, you know, if you want freedom for your people, the least good way to go about that is to seek political power and reform from the top down.
Right.
Yeah.
In fact, Jesse Walker was just pointing out an interview with Barack Obama the other day where he was talking about the consequences of the drug war on innocent people and black communities.
And he was talking about it like he hadn't been the president this whole time since 2009.
Like, who are you?
Yeah, I've been sitting here in the peanut gallery watching the way things work.
And you have a good point there about the the ridiculous drug war and the way that we enforce it.
And yet it's all in his hands.
So much of it is in his hands.
Like, for example, if he wanted to reschedule cocaine and pot and the most those most basic drugs, the psychedelics, and just say these are now schedule two or schedule three drugs with some limited medical usage and no longer felonies where he could do that.
Right now, in this instant, he wouldn't even have to write it down.
He could just say it to someone.
I don't know.
Sometimes I really do wonder if the longer these people stay in office, the more they sort of internalize the reality that they really are just sort of PR people, salesman of their own careers, guardians of their own legacy.
They're not really exercising any actual power.
I wonder if they internalize that sense.
I don't really know.
It's not really clear, at least it's never been clear to me just what how much a president really has discretion over the kind of policies that occur under his watch.
I really don't know.
Yeah, I mean, it's certainly it's only a percentage of what's going on.
Not a lot of it.
But some of those things seem like they're pretty easy within his reach.
But then again, I don't know.
I mean, what would the DEA do to a president who tried to legalize drugs like that?
You know, just by rescheduling.
You're right that on paper he can do that.
But what about what about the reality?
You know, it's it's always it's always unclear to me.
Just once in the whole history of this country, I'd like for one ex president to write an honest account of what the hell the president does, how much power he has, you know, to tell the truth about what really went on.
I don't think we've ever seen an honest account.
Yeah, no, you just see glimpses of it.
Like when Bush complained that the CIA told the truth, that the Iranians weren't making nukes.
And so he was then.
Well, now, how was I supposed to bomb them when the official position of the government was that they weren't even making nukes?
Well, you know, he's all upset telling the truth about me and messing me up.
You know, there's that great moment in that movie, Nixon.
I don't know if you've seen it, but it's just I love it.
Yeah, great movie.
Isn't it good?
Yeah.
But you remember when he confronts all the kids, you know, at the Lincoln Memorial or whatever, and he tells them that he doesn't really have the power to do what he would probably like to do.
Right.
And there's like stunned silence.
And I thought that was a very compelling thing, because it seems to me very believable, actually, that at some level presidents would sort of internalize the sense that they're really observers and spokespeople more than they are real actors and exercisers of power.
Yeah, I know.
But I even want to say that I I think, Jeffrey, that I know I'm pretty sure that that's based on a real exchange that I mean, we all know that he did go there to the Lincoln Memorial and all that and talk to those kids.
But I'm under the impression I forget my source, though, now that that really happened and that that was the exchange between him and that girl.
You can't stop it, can you?
And he's like, oh, well, I guess no, no, don't suppose I can, young lady.
Yeah, I think you're right.
I think that probably is a real exchange.
I know Nikita Khrushchev said something very similar when he when he was premier or whatever they call them at the Soviet Union, that he felt like that he had essentially no power or ability to control the system at all, even though he was, you know, the autocratic dictator.
Right.
And he compared the government and the whole system that ran the Soviet Union to a to a tub of lard and no to a tub of dough.
He said, you know, you punch it, you manipulate it, you try to shape it.
But in the end, it's just a big tub of dough.
Yeah, sounds all right.
A tub of dough that will kill you like the blood.
All right.
Hey, listen, I got to go.
But thanks so much.
Good talk to you again, everybody.
Tomorrow night, me and Jeff Tucker host an eye on the empire for the third time over at Liberty dot me.
Thanks again.
Looking forward to it.
Bye bye.
So you're a libertarian and you don't believe the propaganda about government awesomeness you were subjected to in fourth grade.
You want real history and economics.
Well, learn in your car from professors you can trust with Tom Woods's Liberty Classroom.
And if you join through the Liberty Classroom link at Scott Horton dot org, we'll make a donation to support the Scott Horton show.
Liberty Classroom, the history and economics they didn't teach you.
Hey, I'll Scott Horton here for Liberty dot me, the social network and community based publishing platform for the liberty minded.
Liberty dot me combines the best of social media technology all in one place and features classes, discussions, guides, events, publishing, podcasts and so much more.
And Jeffrey Tucker and I are starting a new monthly show at Liberty dot me.
I on the empire.
It's just four bucks a month if you use promo code Scott when you sign up.
And hey, once you do, add me as a friend on there at Scott Horton Liberty dot me.
Be free.
Liberty dot me.
Hey, I'll Scott here.
If you've got a band, a business, a cause or campaign and you need stickers to help promote, check out the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.
They digitally print with solvent ink.
So you get the photo quality results of digital with the strength and durability of old style screen printing.
I'm sure glad I sold the bumper sticker dot com to Rick back when he's made a hell of a great company out of it.
There are thousands of satisfied customers who agree with me to let the bumper sticker dot com help you get the word out.
That's the bumper sticker dot com at the bumper sticker dot com.