Radical Agenda EP138 – Trials

Jesse Benton, John Tate, and Dimitri Kesari were found guilty today of public corruption charges stemming from an indictment alleging bribery during the Ron Paul 2012 presidential campaign. The trio were accused of paying $73,000 to Iowa state senator Kent Sorenson for switching his endorsement to Paul, having previously been a vocal supporter of Michele Bachmann. Both Benton and Tate were convicted of conspiracy, causing false records, causing false campaign expenditure reporting and false statements scheme. Kesari was found guilty of each charge he faced: conspiracy, causing false campaign expenditure reports and false statements scheme. Sorenson pleaded guilty in 2014 to two charges of his own, including obstruction of justice. He has been awaiting a sentencing hearing while the case against Kesari, Benton and Tate was prosecuted.

Radical Agenda EP138 - Trials

Radical Agenda EP138 – Trials

Paul Abbate, an assistant director in charge of the FBI field office in Washington, D.C. said “When political operatives secretly buy an elected official’s political support, it undermines public confidence in our entire political system.”

I’ve got my issues with Benton, Tate, and “Ron Paul Inc.” but undermining confidence in the political system isn’t one of them. Confidence the American political system ought to be undermined because it is, always has been, and always will be a cesspool of corruption. But what corrupts our political system is not bribery, secrecy, Super PACs, or party nomination rules. It is the overvaluing of public opinion in choosing rulers.

If you have an IQ higher than the average retard, the problems with a democratically elected government should have been obvious to you a long time ago. Most people can barely run their own lives, which is why they turn to governments in the first place. The idea that this would make them fit to choose rulers for others is too ridiculous to take seriously. Selling political power to the highest bidder might make people uncomfortable, but it would surely have better outcomes than trusting in the collective wisdom of hundreds of millions of idiots.

Speaking of trials, the first sexual assault trial for the New Year’s Eve migrant attacks in Cologne, Germany begins tomorrow. More than 1,000 criminal complaints were filed, hundreds of them alleging sexual assault, after women reported being surrounded by groups of men in and around Cologne’s main station. Nine men have already been convicted of theft and similar charges in relation to the events of New Year’s Eve, state prosecutors say, but this is the first sexual assault case. A 26 year old Algerian is charged with attempted sexual assault and theft along with his 23 year old brother.

Too bad they weren’t a couple of white college students. In that case they probably would have been publicly hanged by now.

There’s a lot more to get to. Like Donald Trump’s taco tweet, arson on a transgender surgery clinic in Canada, pickup up chicks in Target rest rooms, Ellen Pao becomes a full time SJW, and much much more, plus your calls at 747-234-2254 or Radical Agenda on Skype.

Join us, this and every Friday from 5-7pm Eastern for another exciting episode of the Radical Agenda. It’s a show about common sense extremism where we talk about radical, crazy, off the wall things like dropping money out of helicopters.

Listen live on the TuneIn app! Join the chat on YouTube! Got Roku? We’re on there too! Or add the raw stream to your favorite streaming app! Get the podcast on iTunes, Stitcher, Google PlayRoku, RSS, or RadicalAgenda.com

 


 

 

This production is made possible by donors like you, you can also help by shopping through my affiliate links. Without that support, this site will cease to exist.

Subscribe via email and never miss another post!

  • Richard Chiu

    I think it should be uncontroversial in this setting to state that the essential nature of politics is addressing the question of who we need to kill. The concept of established standards of self-defense against immediate threats is crucial to there being any point in having a discussion of politics at all.

    Where things get sticky is when you talk about organized, communal, or proactive defense against threats that are less immediate. And I certainly must agree that there is a point at which you’re killing people just because they’re on “the other side” according to some fairly tenuous logic, and that’s wrong…as in a recipe for endless conflict and insecurity. But if my family members or friends come under attack, I must defend them even if that means using lethal force against someone who is not an immediate threat to me, or organizing a watch to deter further aggression, or going to the aggressor and having a frank discussion about what is going to happen if they don’t cut it out.

    Now, voting is a perfectly reasonable way for people who participate together in a coordinated effort to decide how the effort is to be coordinated, with two essential provisions. First, only those whose cooperation actually contributes to the coordinated effort should have a vote. Second, anyone should be allowed to pull out of the cooperative endeavor if they feel it isn’t coordinated in a way that benefits them sufficiently for their contribution. In essence, the free-market is a complex voting mechanism where people get votes on what is to be produced for their consumption by producing things for other people to consume. We call these economic votes “money”, and whether it is fiat or commodity money (or even direct barter goods), it still works as a vote. Many, many problems of social cooperation can be solved efficiently by the free-market.

    But not all. One problem the free-market does not address particularly well is defending the free-market against organized aggression (whether in the form of violence, coercion, theft, or fraud). The free-market works fine to handle policing of individual violators and violations as long as there are enough vested participants in the free-market for the minority of the market efforts dedicated to security to overwhelm such infractions on a case by case basis. But a relatively small group of organized criminals can throughly dominate a market composed of many more economic actors, rendering it un-free.

    This is why I am a proponent of having a militia to defend the community (regardless of whether it is a free-market society). This militia fundamentally exists to allow us to kill people we need to kill, and secondarily to reduce the number of people we need to kill by deterrence, i.e. making it clear that we can kill who we need to kill, thus disincentivizing actions which would require us to kill those engaged in them. In order to act effectively both in killing who we need to kill and making it clear who we will and won’t kill and why, it needs to be organized. And I prefer it be organized by votes of the people making a material contribution to the effectiveness of the militia. There are of course other options, militias can be run according to the dictatorial powers vested in a single person, they can be run by orders originating from external authorities, they can be run according to the votes of the people under the protection of the militia, just to name a few fairly common systems by which the organization (including ROE and objectives) of militias or other military/paramilitary groups have been run historically. I just have more objections to all of them than to having the organization decided by votes of those who actually enable the militia to function, both by direct service in the militia and provision of logistical support.

    Now, I hope it is clear that we are discussing a political organization which determines its rules by a vote. Whether you want to call this a government or not, it really is one, and if it is successful in imposing a given social order (preferably a free-market but militias can impose other social orders), that would become the status rei publicae. You can call it something other than a state if you like, but it is etymologically and historically the origin of the state. You can call it a “free militia” if you like, that doesn’t really change what it is and what it ultimately can do, but I have no objection to such terminology.

    But it is certainly not “democratic” in the ordinary sense. Democracy requires rule by the people generally, not any subset of them, when the vote is restricted to people who actually contribute to the success of a cooperative endeavor, that is necessarily undemocratic because it excludes non-contributers.

    The thing is, organized crime is going to exist whether or not you have militias. The formation of gangs of individuals which do not follow the cooperative behaviors of the main sustainable population groups is a basic primate behavior, it is instinctive. These gangs may not necessarily operate by outright violence and coercion (though both behaviors are instinctive), they can operate exclusively by theft and fraud instead…but will still be fatal to the free-market if not rigorously opposed.

    Some other mechanisms may exist to eliminate organized crime. I’m fond of super-heroes, selfless individuals (preferably attractive young women) with super-human abilities (preferably magical) who devote themselves to eradicating criminal syndicates without being tempted to take the much easier path of super-villainy. I’m especially fond of cybernetic justice, dispensed by robotic allies of justice who turn human scum into clean piles of ash for orderly disposal by the less heroic but no less vital services of the advanced technology Roombas. I don’t entirely dismiss the plausibility of either alternative to reliance on militias…but that may be more because of my aesthetic tendencies than anything else. Still, one can pursue alternatives, but some are less realistic and others less reliable than militias, as far as I can determine.

  • paendragon

    Re: “Selling political power to the highest bidder might make people
    uncomfortable, but it would surely have better outcomes than trusting in
    the collective wisdom of hundreds of millions of idiots.”

    How would allowing some guy whose only claim to a high income was inheriting say a shoe manufacturing company from daddy be better than the usual alternatives?!

  • Matthew Reece

    1:06:40 to 1:28:31 (the segment about Jack Hunter) needs to be isolated for a video.