Thursday, October 24, 2013

Russell Brand: Why I Have Never Voted

Russell Brand is a pretty confused lefty, who clearly doesn't understand economics, but it is still fun to see him take on the establishment and proclaim he has never voted. But, please, will someone get a copy of Economics In One Lesson over to him.


  1. So, Russell's "new system" is communism?

    The interviewer may be an establishment shill, but I'm glad he got Russell to provide some specifics, so we can see that Russell supports the idea of men (and, no doubt, women and people of indeterminate gender) with guns and badges robbing, beating and killing innocent people to implement Russell's ignorance-fueled economic program that has never worked to produce anything except misery and death on a grand scale.

    BTW: Fuck the planet!

  2. I've always thought any smart liberal was just one reading of "Economics in One Lesson" away from being a non-interventionist. It changed the way I think. I Learned more in one day with Hazlett, than I did in 8 months with Paul Samuelson.

    Why are you angry at the planet, Anon? You need it. It does not need you. Love the planet! Just use Walter Block's method to protect it, not the watermelon's non-solutions.

    1. I'm not angry at the planet per se. I'm just tired of people claiming that "we" are "destroying" "the planet." Sloppy language that follows from sloppy thinking all around. And, no offense, but you're falling into the same trap by ascribing "needs" to the planet.

      I desire clean air, water and soil for growing real food. Communist non-economies, which Russell promotes as a "new system," were absolutely filthy. So were most cities in the past, before the increases in wealth brought about by hated capitalism made possible the sanitary conditions we take for granted.

      So Russell is flat out wrong. "We" (as in he and you and I) are not "destroying" (as in destroying) "the planet" (as in the planet Earth). Some people are polluting some of the air, water and soil. Most of them are joined at the hip with governments, or are governments themselves.

      Governments are wasting enormous resources (such as the tons of water needed to cool the computers at the NSA's illegal spying facility). This waste matters to humans, not "the planet." It makes humans worse off. Communism, and all forms of socialism, involve tremendous waste, due to the absence of price signals to allocate resources. So Russell's "new system" would be hugely wasteful.

      I do agree with you about Hazlitt's book. It is the best-ever introduction to economics. Peter Schiff's "How An Economy Grows And Why It Crashes" is also very good.

  3. Highly intelligent, but unschooled. Given time he will figure it out...

  4. I recently sent a link to this interview to two will known libertarian figures, with the following comments

    Having enjoyed many of your respective interviews and debates over the years, I couldn't help but think of you both when I watched this video of comedian Russell Brand sitting down with establishment puke Jeremy Paxman.

    If you have 15 minutes, it's riveting.

    It's also extremely frustrating to watch because at once Brand is fearless, passionate, articulate, outraged, and cynical...then there's his wildly undisciplined mind, apparently unencumbered by the logic of free market principles (despite his admitted success) and still chained to notions of central planning and blind trust in some benevolent overlord. Hearing him speak of socialism, corporate taxation and massive redistribution, then minutes later truly and authentically speak as only a sovereign man can ("I've taken the right. I don't need the right from you, I don't need to the right from anybody. I'm taking it!") is tough on the cranium, but...

    I see a real spark of possibility in this enormously entertaining man.  He's obviously possessed of great fervor.  He is an individual.  Interested in shining light on hidden, illegitimate power strictures. Outspoken. 

    Too early to write him off for his misguided remedies?   Have you ever considered inviting him to debate? 

    I can imagine this noble savage being forced to face his own contradictions--as you both are deft at doing with grace and reason-- and being turning toward the cause of liberty.

  5. I regard his rant at the establishment entertaining in the same way the rants of commies against their own rulers must have been.
    Sorry, but what is the point here, when his "solution" so obviously is just nothing but tired old Bolshevik bullshit? They already tried what he sees as the 'solution' in the Soviet Union. The result: over 100 million people dead; totalitarian rule; persecutions and pogroms, slave camps.
    Why am i supposed to sympathize in any way with a man whom is either totally ignorant of these facts, or is knowledgeable of them but doesn't care which makes him downright evil?
    The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
    And i also don't buy for a second that he is "close" to seeing the truth. The world is full of commies that don't care about logical contradictions or fallacies. Their whole way of thinking is emotion based and reality always has to make way for what "ought to be".